Alex Lennox-Miller HRMG 6200 Case Study Analysis 3/7/2014

Question 1:

At the standard Simmons plant, management was dictatorial, mainly “motivation through intimidation (Casciaro

& Edmondson. Leading Change at Simmons (A) [Case Study], p. 4)” with managers openly walking the floors to enforce

discipline and good behavior. The result of this was a combination of both the extinction of good behavior as desired

actions went unpraised, and a discouraging example of positive reinforcement as employees were taught that effort

would only be rewarded if the plant manager was watching (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 3). In addition, the positive

reinforcement from the ESOP formally adopted in 1988, as a group reward divorced from individual praise and

performance, was clearly insufficient to motivate employees.

The Jamesville plant, by contrast, utilized a variety of both postive and negative reinforcement mechanisms to

encourage and drive employees to their best efforts. “Rewards and recognition (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 3)” for a

variety of desired behaviors were frequent, and employees were expected to be responsible for their own stations and

machines (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 3). Similarly, an oblique form of negative reinforcement is evident when Saliture

and Hellyer protected their employees from intrusive corporate practices. Employees were clearly taught that trusting

their management would reduce unpleasant interference and dubious new programs.

Question 2:

Fenway Partners came into their Simmons investment with an established methodology and a record of success.

Essentially, they represented a formal command group, one with highly structured prescriptive norms based on their

pre-planned strategies (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 4). Great Game of Life, as a new style both for Simmons and for

Fenway, represented not only a disruption to their plan but also a new style of corporate management rooted outside of

the usual top-down management style. By empowering employees and reducing the influence of plant managers and

higher ranking employees, Great Game of Life introduced many new people to the decision-making process, reducing

the exclusivity and privilege of the executive group while easing the difficulties and morale problems in groups that

previously hadn’t been relevant.

Group theory tells us that Fenway probably also had a tightly cohesive structure, due to their recent successes,

and their commitment to conservative traditional methods resulted in strong influence from formal status positions. In

general, the managers who would have the most influential opinions were against the Great Game of Life plan, reacting

with “resistance and even hostility (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 7).”

Alex Lennox-Miller HRMG 6200 Case Study Analysis 3/7/2014
Question 3:

The strongest single trait causing plant managers to resist the Great Game of Life was fear of change and a

general rejection of new experiences. At the Charlotte plant and others, “being dictatorial was the main way plant

managers felt they were able to make themselves clear (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 8).” While they had been open to

earlier corporate measures that didn’t attempt to make necessary changes in the status quo (Casciaro & Edmondson, p.

4), when Great Game of Life was introduced, the reaction was aggressively negative (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 7). It’s

clear that the real opposition was to the change the Great Game program represented.

This manifested in other ways as well. The majority of the plant managers fell within certain well-defined types.

They had a Theory X style as outlined by McGregor, one of strong direct control, little trust for worker self-motivation

and little interest in opinions outside of their own (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 4). Their disinterest in best practices,

“more likely to treat one another as competitors than collaborators (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 3),” and the way the

obvious evidence of good results from the Janesville plant was ignored show that they maintained far more interest in

their own power than in actual good achievement in their work. In fact, when that power was threatened by the Great

Game of Life program, they began to resign.

Question 4:

In his opening speech to the Simmons leadership team, Charlie Eitel makes his leadership vision clear. The

essential elements to understanding it lie in a distinction he draws when describing his vision for goals. He specifically

focuses on his own ideas through “I want” statements. His vision for achieving those goals, however, focuses on what

“we’re going to” be doing (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 5). Eitel clearly wants to play a more participatory role in

supporting his team. He shows concern for both their professional and emotional well-being when he says they’ll “all

develop as people (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 5),” while his own managerial vision is at the focal point of their actions.

He clearly doesn’t fall entirely on the delegation end of the leadership continuum.

Examining how much Eitel trusts the ability and skill of his team to execute his vision without more direct

supervision reveals more. He has specific assignments for himself, needs to learn firsthand what their customers

require, and notes that after his brief speech, “nobody could even talk (Casciaro & Edmondson, p. 5).” A desire for

broad input coupled with recognition that his team needs more direct, hands-on management is clearly the Sell/Coach

style.