You are on page 1of 20


Case Study Analysis:

Engstrom Auto Mirror Plant: Motivating in Good Times and Bad

Mariama Ignacio

Southern New Hampshire University


Case Study Analysis

Engstrom Auto Mirror Plant: Motivating in Good Times and Bad

I. Introduction

Explanation of the Organization Issues

Engstrom Auto Mirror [henceforth refereed as “Engstrom”] is a plant that employs over 200

employees. Due to recent employee terminations, managerial attitude, and the halting of a

monthly bonus plan called the “Scanlon Bonus Plan” (Beer, 2008), employee morale and overall

motivation has severely decreased. With such, Engstrom faces low employee productivity, low

profit margins, and a risk to a company shutdown.

There are several organizational issues within Engstrom that needs to be immediately

addressed so as to salvage the company. The top three organizational issues that need to be

addressed first and foremost are as follows: employers need to once again take employee

suggestions seriously, assuring employees feel integral to the system, and fix the Scanlon Bonus

Plan; the last task is the most important.

In regards to employee suggestions, the Engstrom employee suggestion rate dropped to

dismal 50 per year, an all-time low number for the company; the true meaning for this is that

employees no longer feel as though providing feedback to their company is important, especially

if it is just going to be ignored by management. If employees feel as though they are not being

received, then they will not contribute to the success of the company; which is very harmful in

the long run. Engstrom ignoring employee suggestions is an example of “psychological distance”

(Newsome, 2015) put up between management; regardless of how unintentional, this

unproductive barrier between employee and employers contributes greatly to the issue on hand.

Clearly, employees do not feel equal. In regards to this, employees do not feel equal in

both the overall company and with the Scanlon Bonus plan. The “equity theory” (Newsome,

2015) explains the two concepts of over-reward and under-reward; employees subconsciously

aim to be in the middle of the two. If an employee feels as though they are being over-rewarded,

they will work harder to restore the balance of equity. If an employee is under-rewarded, they

will do the opposite and not work. Employees in Engstrom are being under-rewarded and hence

there is no equity; it explains why productivity is severely down.

Lastly, the Scanlon Bonus Plan is demonstrating to be a very complicated compensation

program; after many years in effect, the current Engstrom employees have grown to dislike and

distrust the system in question. The “expectancy theory” (Newsome, 2015) showcases that

employees need to responds positively to three specific elements for them to exert extra effort on

a task; these are as follows: valence, expectancy, and instrumentality. If an employee feels as

though a task is far too difficult or unachievable, they have failed the expectancy theory and will

not participate. This is the case with the Scanlon Bonus Plan; it is far too complex to fully

understand, hence the employees see it as unattainable.

Analysis and Direction of Engstrom’s Organizational Issues

Clearly, the current system and inner-working at Engstrom does not work. Engstrom has created

a sort of “psychological distance” (Newsome, 2015) between its management and employees

which was initiated with the deterioration of the Scanlon Bonus Plan; because of such, other

aspects of the company began to deteriorate as well, such as employee morale, productivity, and

profits. To fix the system in place at Engstrom, it is very important to fix the Scanlon Bonus


Firstly, it is important to analyze exactly how to fix the compensation plan; should it be

refurbished, should something similar be created, or should a completely whole new incentive

program, completely different from the original, be generated? It is important to do one of the

three listed above because it is evident that the current Scanlon Bonus Plan does not work, it is

also to blame for the many issues that arose in Engstrom.

Theories such as the “equity theory” and “expectancy theory” (Newsome, 2015) are

relevant to this case study analysis since both theories directly relate to employee motivation,

which is needed at Engstrom. It is essential to not only create motivation in the workplace, but

to also sustain it for the sake of company survival. Clearly, there is no equity feeling from

employees at Engstrom nor is there a sentiment to go beyond the standard; Engstrom and the

Scanlon Bonus Plan has failed them [the employees] and there is no incentive or motivation to

do more than the bare minimum, even if that.

II. Root Cause Analysis

Identifying and Analyzing the Root Causes of Engstrom’s Organizational Issues

Engstrom has several major organizational issues that have contributed to low employee

productivity and a company-wide lack of motivation. It is important to not only identify what

these organizational issues are, but to also identify what exactly caused them from a human

behavior aspect. Delving into the root causes of these specific issues assures that there is a

proactive approach in preventing situations, such as the current one on hand, from arising again

in the future.

As stated above, the event that commenced Engstrom’s major organizational issues stems

from the fall of the Scanlon Bonus Plan. This incentive system was initially created so that

employees were motivated to exceed the standard; and for some time, it worked flawlessly.

Unfortunately, the system would later fail; with its deterioration grew a strong distrust between

employees and employers. Further, many aspects that contributed to a healthy work environment

also diminished due to the failure of the Scanlon Bonus Plan; such of which were employee

motivation, trust between individuals, camaraderie, and the overall work culture.

Employees at Engstrom were no longer motivated to complete their everyday tasks; they did

not have the have the incentive, nor motivation, to even meet the standard demanded from them.

In turn, the plant’s production became greatly comprised. The Scanlon Bonus Plan was initially

created as an incentive for employees to exceed the workplace, it was meant to be a reward

system for extra work. Unfortunately, with due time, employees expected to be rewarded for

meeting just the bare minimum of work, the reward system became the workplace norm and it

was expected in everyone’s paychecks. Per “Behavior Modification” (Newsome, 2015) if an

employee were rewarded for their efforts, their expected level of performance would be higher

than normal; but if no reward were given, employee behavior would not change. However, if the

reward in question were taken away, such as a percentage of one’s paycheck, then an employee’s

expected level of performance would be “low” and “undesirable” (Newsome, 2015). Per the

“law of effects” (Newsome, 2015), employees repeat behavior so long as it is accompanied by

favorable consequences, these are called reinforcements. With the removal of a monetary

incentive system, Engstrom employees displayed negative behavior; they no longer felt that their

individual work actions resulted in a positive result due to the lack of a bonus. Overall,

Engstrom employee motivation was gone due to the removal of the incentive system.

Furthermore, it is important to note that there is no longer a sense of camaraderie in the

Engstrom workplace. The trust that was once present within the employee-employer relationship

became non-existent. One specific act that jeopardized this was when the plant managers

actively decided not to take employee suggestions seriously; this jeopardized the employers’

“integrity” (Newsome, 2015) in the eyes of their employees. Since the incentive system became

the workplace norm, the reward was expected every time an employee was paid; and not

necessarily when an employee proved to have exceeded the standard demanded from them. With

the incentive system’s disappearance, employees placed blame on those whom they believe

caused it, which were their employers. Arguably, both the managers and employees have created

a “psychological distance” (Newsome, 2015) between themselves because of the blame in

question. Employees blamed their employers for the lack of bonuses and employers blamed

their employees for the lack of workplace production. With this, there was no longer a sense of

trust or camaraderie between Engstrom employers and employees.

Finally, Engstrom’s incentive plan caused a “dysfunctional effect” (Newsome, 2015) on

employee production. “Organizational culture” (Newsome, 2015) is the foundation of a

productive and successful company; these are the assumptions, beliefs, values, and norms of an

organization. If these items are jeopardized or lost, then so is the overall organizational culture

of the company. Engstrom no longer had a work culture present due to the failure of the

incentive system and the management’s reaction to such.

Overall, the failure of Engstrom’s Scanlon Bonus Plan is to blame for many of the plant’s

downfalls and organizational issues. Unmotivated employees make for unreliable ones; and with

that, the company livelihood, it’s employees, and its products are all put into jeopardy.

The Impact of Poorly Aligned and Administrated Theories and Concepts

There are countless guides and self-help books out in the world that dictate exactly how one can

resolve workplace issues and conflict. Unfortunately, and in actuality, there is no one cookie-

cutter act that can resolve every issue that arises in the workplace. The Human Resources (HR)

department in a workplace is a great example of this; an individual is needed to analyze a

situation and with discrete analysis, a conclusion can be attempted on the issue on hand. A self-

help book of workplace resolutions does not yield the same result as an actual, physical being;

otherwise if so, all HR positions would all be nonexistent. With that, any theories attempted to

resolve the Engstrom issues must be altered to meet the specific entity that Engstrom is. Per the

organizational issues present regarding Engstrom, two theories are relevant; there are the “equity

theory” (Newsome, 2015) and the “expectancy theory” (Newsome, 2015)

In regards to the equity theory, this concept explains the three concepts of the reward

system: over-reward, no-reward, and under-reward; as an important note, “no reward” serves as

the base medium for the theory. Employers present their employees with one of the three. If an

employee is over-rewarded for an act, they will attempt to restore the workplace balance and

work harder; the employee is attempting to restore the “balance of equity”. If an employee

receives no reward, they will work the same as they always have. And if an employee receives

an under-reward, they will take offense and react with working less than they normally did.

With respect to Engstrom and the equity theory, the Engstrom employers initially over-

rewarded it’s employees within the beginning of the Scanlon Bonus Plan. After some time,

employees felt as though they have reached the balance of equity; hence, the over-reward they

were receiving became the standard and was viewed as a “no-reward” over time. With Engstrom

halting the bonuses, employees were suddenly under-rewarded for their workplace efforts; in

turn, employees reacted just as the theory stated they would, which was negatively.

In regards to the expectancy theory, three specific elements must be met from an

employee to attempt to exert extra effort on a task. These elements are as follows: valence,

expectancy, and instrumentality. “Valence” is how much does the employee truly want the

reward at stake, “expectancy” is the self-estimate of probability of obtaining such, and

“instrumentality” is the estimation that one’s act will actually result in the reward; if all three

elements meet a positive result, then an employee will be motivated to give a greater effort with

the task on hand. In regards to Engstrom, if the three elements of the expectancy theory yield a

positive result, then an employee will exert extra effort in their everyday job; unfortunately, only

valence is met and not the other two, which results in the employee not working thoroughly to

even meet the bare company standard of the Engstrom plant.

As a result of these two theories being poorly aligned and practiced within the Engstrom

plant by management, the following saw a negative deterioration: employee production,

company profit margins, and employee motivation. Theoretically, if the theories were practiced

with accuracy, positive results would have been the conclusion.

III. Solutions Development

Amending and Improving the Scanlon Bonus Plan

First and foremost, the failure of the Scanlon Bonus Plan must be addressed; in short, this

compensation plan was clearly not working. In response to this, Engstrom must either make the

decision of keeping the exact plan in place, amending it, or to create a new compensation plan.

Clearly, keeping the current bonus plan would be a terrible choice for a variety of reasons that

were explored in the previous milestones; hence, the obvious choices would be to either amend

the current plan or to create an entirely new one. For the sake of this proposal, I recommend that

a new compensation plan should be generated; I state this because the alternate would be to

simply change the current bonus plan, which employees currently do not trust.

With this, it is recommended that a new compensation plan, titled SCANLON 2.0, be

generated. The previous Scanlon Bonus Plan was confusing and could easily be manipulated;

and in due time, it became inefficient. SCANLON 2.0 will yield an across the board

compensation percentage for all employees, regardless of standing; this percentage will be based

off the monthly profit margin of the Engstrom plant. In a study pertaining to employees in an

executive level, this has shown very positive results (Overton, 2005); I grandly believe this

process to be more promising than the former compensation plan. The biggest issue with the

previous Scanlon plan was that it was far too complex to fully understand; regardless, it

motivated employees to exceed the standard mandated of them. It is important to upkeep some

resemblance of these monthly bonuses; SCANLON 2.0 will do just that. The inner-workings

and procedure of the SCANLON 2.0 plan will be publicly displayed for all employees to view; a

meeting will also be held in regards to the explanation of this new compensation plan.

Strategic Actions in Repairing the Scanlon Bonus Plan

Aside from amending the current compensation plan, management must also address the issues

that arose from the failure of such. One of the biggest downfalls caused by the compensation

plan failure was employee motivation, or the lack thereof. The overall lack of motivation in the

company stems from the failure of the compensation system. With the amending of the bonus

plan, the lack of employee motivation will slowly arise with due time; it will be a slow process

due to the time it takes to build the trust back between management and employees, but it will

occur eventually.

With that, the trust and comradery between employers and employees were severely

severed due to acts committed by management; regardless of how necessary certain actions were

for the company as a whole, management lost the trust of its employees. Two of the main

reasons that led to this was the following: employee layoffs and management blatantly ignoring

employee suggestions. In regards to employee layoffs, it is unfortunately a necessary practice of

any successful business, so long as it is done in a respectable matter, most employees are

typically understanding of it (Wood, 2009).

To repair the issue of trust, it is recommended that a 3-hour monthly meeting, in which all

employees of the Engstrom plant are present, occur. The goal of this meeting is to discover new,

strategic ways to increase productivity; additionally, it will also assist in “empowering”

(Newsome, 2015) employees through their suggestions. Management will offer rewards, both in

the form of financial compensation and tangible items, to those who participate. Those who

suggest new approaches to completing common tasks will be commended; the reward system

will be based on the discretion of management. This compensation program, in disguise of

meetings, will be different from the above proposed SCANLON 2.0 plan. These bi-monthly

meetings are important in that they will assist in repairing the relationship between employees

and employers; it will be a forum in which employers and management alike will discuss how to

make the company better. A company cannot run successfully if management does not listen to

its people; “people leave managers not companies” (Fernandez, 2015). It is with this

recommendation that the Engstrom employee-employer trust and comradery is repaired.

Finally, the Engstrom “organizational culture”, also known as workplace culture,

(Newsome, 2015) must be repaired. Due to the sudden halting of bonuses, the termination of

employees, ignoring employees, lack of trust, and management’s response to this, the overall

work culture at Engstrom has perished. It is important to upkeep some sort of workplace culture

because it is a direct correlation to job satisfaction, innovation, and employee pride; these are

determinants of whether employees leave or stay. As a company, it is to one’s best interest and

benefit to keep good employees on board; incentives must be placed to assure such. This is

where workplace culture comes about. Arguably, out of all the issues present in Engstrom, this is

perhaps the most difficult to repair; it is also the most important one to address. To successfully

repair this, especially in the case of Engstrom, employers must assure the following: employees

are happy with their task, employees must enjoy working together, employees must understand

and believe in the company values, employers must reward the good work, both management

and employees know the mission statement, and that all management leaders are all in sync

(Saltzman, 2015). Debatably, if these tasks are completed, the workplace culture in Engstrom

will slowly rise to a positive direction.

IV. Workplace Analysis

Personal Workplace: Organizational Issues

As a personal anecdote of my current workplace, I have experienced several organizational

issues that are somewhat comparable to Engstrom. I am currently the Senior Vice President of

Operations for a Southern California-based print media company; we currently yield fifty full-

time employees and another fifty part-time employees. The leadership in my workplace are

generally in sync with one another and knowledgeable of all issues and projects occurring in

departments other than their own. In general, the current staff have all contributed to the

company seeing it’s largest profit margin since the company’s initial conception. I grandly

believe that my workplace is a positive one for the sole reason that we understand and believe in

our company mission statement; which is to keep print media alive. Unfortunately, I greatly

believe that no workplace, regardless of how seemingly perfect, is in fact truly perfect. Two

major organizational issues present in my workplace are as follows: the difference in employee

dynamics, also known as the employee culture clash, and the over-communication with each

other, also known as “communication overload” (Newsome, 2015).

In regards to “organizational culture” (Newsome, 2015), there are certain ideologies in my

workplace that often clash with one another. There are employees of the company, whom have

worked in the media industry for decades and believe, that they comprehend the business more

than anyone else, these employees believe they know the exact equation leading to success in

media and will not entertain any other ideologies that are not their own; I personally deem these

individuals as those in “old culture” category. With this, there are individuals who understand

that media is an ever-changing industry; and in recent years, technology has a played a large part

in media success. These individuals, who yield plans to move our media company from print to

digital, have very extreme plans for the future of the magazine; I personally deem these

individuals as being in the “new culture” category. The ideology that those in the new culture

directly conflicts with those in the old culture; I believe that this issue is a “culture clash” (Fogg,

2009). Unfortunately, this issue directly affects team dynamics because certain ideologies are

often promoted as a separate agenda to certain projects on hand.

In regards to my workplace “communication overload” issue (Newsome, 2015), the majority

of our employees feel incredibly overwhelmed with the mandate that all employees must all be

in constant communication with one another. Per company policy, updates on everyone’s daily

tasks must be notified to immediate supervisors, co-workers, and subordinates several times a

day. Furthermore, any information that can be deemed important must include a slew of

individuals who must be carbon-copied (CC); this very subjective practice accounts for

thousands of emails arriving in my workplace inbox. The overload of information arriving


dilutes the importance of other emails; for example, emails that should yield lengthy, well

thought-out replies will often receive one word responses due to timing constraints. This has

created frustrations from all employees whom are required to partake in this policy; aside from

the company President and the HR department, everyone must yield to this business practice.

Root Causes of these Issues

With respect to the “culture clash” issue in my workplace, I believe the root cause of this is due

to the category of individuals in my workplace. Currently, we employ individuals of the

following categories: Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millenniums; each category of

individuals lived at different times and yields different philosophies that have shaped their

mentalities, with this, they are all essentially different people (Oudhuis, 2015). With the

difference of opinions from these individuals, certain arguments ensue.

With respect to the current issue of communication overload, the exact root cause can be

easily determined. In short, employees are exhausted by the mandate, via company policy, that

all employees must be constantly keep their counterparts, supervisors, and co-workers

knowledgeable of their current work status. This practice is known as “lateral communication”

(Newsome, 2015) and has been adopted by the executives of the company long before I arrived.

The belief is that if everyone is aware of what is occurring in all aspect of the company, then

miscommunication and mistakes are unlikely to occur (Skovholt, 2006); it is an admirable

ideology that is considerable easier stated than executed. Ironically, this particular business

practice was initially meant to ease employee dealings and relations with one another, but in

actuality, it has just overwhelmed everyone involved. I truly believe that the only means in

correcting this is to amend the current policy in place and to begin only releasing information on

a need-to-know basis; unfortunately, this proposed practice also yields several downfalls. It is

arguable which of the two concepts yield the worst downsides.

Impact of these Issues

Management in my workplace practices a very hands-off approach in dealing with workplace

conflicts. We yield a very responsive HR department who do handle conflicts and complaints as

they arise; but as a general rule, management does not directly interfere with arguments or issues

between employees. This is due to legality reasons; management shares in the mentality that the

workplace HR are the group of individuals in the workplace that yield the education, training,

and expertise to handle issues pertaining to workplace conflict.

As an individual who is part of the management team, I do not concur with the above

mentioned mentality. I greatly believe that this is arguably a very poorly aligned belief and

practice. I believe that a lack of managerial present in regards to workplace conflicts that

pertains to workplace issues should be handled by an employee’s direct supervisor as opposed to

a HR individual with limited knowledge. With this, I believe that there is a lack of hierarchy that

is comparable to poor management; in such, employees have a higher probability of bullying one

another (Bryant, 2009).

Because of this poorly aligned and administered concept, I greatly believe that my workplace

will soon experience a downfall in employee motivation and morale that is comparable to that of

the Engstrom Auto Mirror Plant.


Improvement Outcomes & Strategic Actions

In order to prevent a situation from occurring that is comparable to what occurred at Engstrom, I

grandly believe that my workplace management and HR must act swiftly and professionally in

addressing the current issues it faces.

Firstly, I believe that management in my workplace must break the clique-culture that is

currently in place; the actions of certain employees are comparable to bullying. This act is not

only detrimental to employee productivity and health, but is also a gateway act that can possibly

lead to a severe lawsuit that can conclude my workplace’s livelihood (Simons, 2010). This

clique-culture was brought upon by the differencing views regarding the direction the company;

factors such as belief, age, and professional background have contributed greatly to this. My

strategic recommendation in rectifying this issue is employee education; such as the explanation

of the negative aspects of the clique culture, from job dissatisfaction and health concerns

(Simons, 2010). From such, if certain employees engage in certain behaviors deemed

inappropriate, certain legal actions can be taken; stemming from suspension, write-ups, and

possible termination.

Secondly, the isolation practice of management when it comes to workplace conflicts

must be rectified. Personally, I have never been a fan of the hands-off approach of the

management within my workplace; because there are situations that call for management to step

up at times. Indeed, it is arguable that it is HR’s job requirement to assure both a civil work

environment for all employees and to diffuse chancy situations; but at certain times it must fall in

the hands of immediate management. In regards to Engstrom, there was no comradery in the

workplace which demonstrated a poor social system. To yield a strong comradery system with

respect amongst employees, a strong social system must be in place (Kalliath, 2014). I believe

that my workplace must practice this belief of a strong social system in the workplace.

Lastly, the overall culture of the company needs to be changed. Due to staff members

being composed of new and older employees that yield different mentalities, the once unified

workplace culture has been destroyed. Rather than having one unified belief that all employees

can concur with, there are two directional beliefs; this has been of great conflict amongst

employees. With this issue, I believe an internal discussion amongst management must occur so

as to yield a definite plan and direction of the company as a whole. From there, management can

notify the entire company staff of the direction that the company will be leading in. The clash of

cultures and beliefs in workplaces are common; the only true response that an individual can

have is understanding and open-mindedness (Fogg, 2009). Unfortunately, this is not occurring

within my personal workplace; hence, it must be rectified.

In conclusion, the “improvement outcomes” listed above are actions and factors that need

to be adopted by my workplace so as to allow the company, as a whole, to move to a more

positive direction. As stated in regards to the Engstrom issues, one must not only fix the

problems that arise in a workplace, but also assure that it does not occur again. This could be

done with monthly meetings, training exercises, and management intervention. With Engstrom

fresh in my mind, I believe that this recommended strategic actions need to occur sooner rather

than later.

V. Conclusion

Key Points: Engstrom Case Study Analysis and My Personal Workplace

With special regards to the Engstrom case study analysis, there are certain key points that I

greatly believe needed to be analyzed to truly understand the issues set forth. The most

important of all key points was the breakdown of the incentive system, the Scanlon Bonus Plan.

Much of Engstrom downfall can be directly correlated with the failure of this system; the issues

arising at Engstrom arose after signs of the incentive plan were deteriorating. As such, analyzing

the root causes of why the system failed and how to rectify such was crucial in understanding

how to prevent similar instances from happening in both at Engstrom and my own personal


With regards to my own personal workplace analysis, I genuinely believe that I benefitted

significantly from learning about Engstrom. I am a firm believer in learning from mistakes,

regardless if they are your own personal mistakes or others. The failure of the incentive plan

showcased the importance of a reward system and the need to maintain an employer-employee

relationship; truly, without the cooperation of the staff, regardless of how low in the totem pole

they are, they are all integral in the success of the company.

Engstrom had the Scanlon Bonus Plan, which initially was a great incentive program;

overall, it failed because it was far too complex. I believe the answer to such is to create a

simpler program that all employees can easily comprehend. In 2013, the Journal of Labor

Research (Tomohara, 2013) published an empirical study called “What Are Relevant Work

Incentive Models? Shirking Model, Gift Exchange Model, or Reciprocity Model” that researched

what the best incentive program is in regards to motivating employees. The final answer that

was concluded from this research was that it all varies depending on the situation. As the

Scanlon Bonus Plan initially worked with Engstrom, time assisted in it’s deterioration; perhaps

the logical response from Engstrom to do was to modify it as needed or change programs. In

regards to my own personal workplace, I genuinely believe that one singular system cannot be in

place for a long period of time, I have learned that from Engstrom. With due time, either

modifications need to be had in regards to incentive systems or new programs must be adopted;

this is the only true way to allow for incentive programs to survive. Personally, I believe

incentive programs are a great means in rewarding employees for hard work and to incentive for

future instances. If employees believe that they will be rewarded for extra efforts exerted in the

workplace and it is within reasonable means to act as such, then there is a high possibility that

more energy will be applied to the task on hand; this is evident in such workplace theories as the

“equity theory” (Newsome, 2015).

Human Theories and the Workplace

I used several human theories to analyze the issues within Engstrom and assist in providing

suggestions to fix such. With that, I have gained several insights in practically administering

these theories to an actual workplace setting, such as my own. Two theories that I believe are

relevant to most, if not all, workplaces are the equity theory and the expectancy theory.

Both theories have been analyzed in depth throughout this paper, but as a brief overview,

the equity theory explains the concept of over/under-reward whilst the expectancy theory

explains the concept of how employees become motivated to do certain tasks. In any tasks,

especially in a workplace setting, these theories are relevant. Understanding the drive of

employees is the key to understanding exactly how they will benefit their respective company.

For example, if my employees were motivated to work harder knowing that they will have a half

day, then that reward should be in place moving forward; unfortunately, this reward is not

applicable in all workplaces. The theories presented above, and those that were applied to the

Engstrom case study analysis, are great guidelines in assuring how management should react in

not only employee-motivation but management as a whole.



Beer, M., and Collins, E. (2008). Engstrom Auto Mirror Plant: Motivating in Good Times and

Bad. Harvard Business School Brief Case, 082-175.

Bryant, M. , Buttigieg, D. , & Hanley, G. (2009). Poor bullying prevention and employee health:

Some implications. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 2(1), 48-62.

Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2015). Employee empowerment and job satisfaction in the

U.S. federal bureaucracy: A self-determination theory perspective. American Review of

Public Administration, 45(4), 375.

Fogg, P. (2009). When generations collide: Colleges try to prevent age-old culture clashes as

four distinct groups meet in the workplace. Education Digest, 74(6), 25.

Kalliath, P. , Kalliath, T. , & Chan, C. (2014). Work-family conflict and family-work conflict as

predictors of psychological strain: Does social support matter?. British Journal of Social

Work, 45(8), 2387.

Newsome, J. (2015). Organizational behavior: Human behavior at work (14th ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill. 60, 87, 99, 100, 125, 131-138, 151.

Oudhuis, M. , & Olsson, A. (2015). Cultural clashes and reactions when implementing lean

production in a japanese-owned swedish company. Economic and Industrial Democracy,

36(2), 259-282.

Overton, B. (2005). Trends in executive compensation during 2005 by bruce overton, the benefit

company, atlanta, georgia. Executive Compensation, 31(2), 1.

Saltzaman, B. (2015). Why Your Workplace Culture Sucks and How to Fix It. Fast Company.

Retrieved January 30, 2016, from


Simons, S. , & Mawn, B. (2010). Bullying in the workplace—a qualitative study of newly

licensed registered nurses. Workplace Health & Safety, 58(7), 305-311.

Skovholt, K. , & Svennevig, J. (2006). Email copies in workplace interaction. Journal of

Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12(1), 65, 71, 72.

Tomohara, A. , & Ohno, A. (2013). What are relevant work incentive models? shirking model,

gift exchange model, or reciprocity model. Journal of Labor Research, 34(2), 241-252.

Wood, M. , & Karau, S. (2009). Preserving employee dignity during the termination interview:

An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(4), 519-534.