Magna Exteriors and Interiors Corporation manufactures vehicle components that give car or truck models their distinctive looks. Some of Magna’s exterior products are trim, roof systems, body panels, and front and rear end fascia;

interior products include trim, cockpit systems, and cargo management systems. Nowadays auto companies don’t make all these components but, instead, create the designs and handle the final assembly of components from suppliers such as Magna, delivered to the auto company as needed to meet production plans.

Magna Exteriors and Interiors is a unit of Magna International, which describes itself as “the most diversified automotive supplier in the world.” Magna has 263 manufacturing operations plus sales and engineering centers in 26 countries of North America, South America, Africa, Europe, and Asia. These meet the needs of more than two dozen customers, including General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Mack, Harley-Davidson, and Volkswagen. The customers sell different kinds of vehicles, and it is expensive to build and transport large components, so Magna’s factories need to be close to customers both geographically and in their working relationships.

Meeting these requirements suddenly became a problem for Magna’s factory in Howell, Michigan, on a recent Wednesday evening in March. A fire started on an assembly line at the facility, which makes interior trim such as rear window trays, door panels, and skins for instrument panels.

Fortunately, the hundred workers who were finishing up the afternoon shift all escaped safely.

The Howell facility employs about 450 workers. Its customers include GM, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, and Mazda assembly plants. Forecasting a shortage of parts, some of its customers slowed production and canceled shifts in the days immediately after the fire. Magna’s managers knew they needed to scramble, or employees would be out of work and important customers would be lost. Robert Brownlee, president of Magna Exteriors and Interiors North America, decided the Howell facility should be running again within just two days. Meeting that goal would require an allout effort.

While the firefighters were still battling the blaze, Brownlee conferred by phone with his top managers, figuring out what they should do first. Because they couldn’t yet assess the extent of the damages, they had to work with a worstcase scenario: destruction of the entire building. They identified four Magna facilities making similar products, where they could ship the Howell plant’s tooling on flatbed trucks if need be. That night, Brownlee directed all four of the plants to increase production and build up their inventories in case they would be needed for the Howell plant’s customers.

Next the managers set up a reconstruction team, including electricians, pipe fitters, millwrights, mechanics, toolmakers, and information technology specialists. The team assembled in Howell with a structural engineer, awaiting permission to enter the damaged building. On Thursday night, about 24 hours after the fire, the fire department let the team enter the plant. The structural engineer determined that the fire had been contained in one part of the plant. About 30 percent of the plant, representing one out of four production sectors, was destroyed beyond repair. One of the four remaining production sectors had largely escaped damage.

Now the clock was ticking on Brownlee’s two-day recovery goal. On Friday morning, workers pulled damaged tooling out of the rubble and had it moved to Brighton, a city 12 miles away, where they cleaned it and set up a temporary assembly line in a Magna warehouse. Back in Howell, the reconstruction team was building a temporary wall to seal off the undamaged part of the facility and repairing the roof.

The heating and electrical systems were destroyed, so they brought in a dozen diesel generators to power heaters and lighting. Until the roof was repaired, they coped with Michigan’s wintry March weather by wearing snowmobile suits while clearing out debris and damaged products, working around the clock.

The next morning, spirits rose when power was restored to the least-damaged sector, and the lights came back on.

Workers continued to repair, clean, and rewire the tooling.

By Saturday night, workers were able to restart some of the machinery and do test runs. Unfortunately, they ran into problems with each attempt. Managers were scrambling to keep on top of the plant reconstruction and the attempts to restart machinery. Brownlee saw that this was too much responsibility. He called together the managers, put each one in charge of relaunching one product line, and directed them to put a subordinate in charge of every other duty, including reconstruction.

The efforts to restart continued as representatives from every customer monitored the progress. Magna gave customers daily updates, and as each assembly line resumed, the relevant customer’s representative signed off as part of the quality-control practices. By Sunday, limited production had begun at the Howell plant. Six days after the fire department determined that the fire was extinguished, the Howell plant was running at 80 percent of capacity, and its temporary line in Brighton handled the remaining production.

In a statement to the media, the company publicly thanked “the Magna Howell employees who continue to do whatever it takes to meet customer requirements; the Magna group office employees and Magna employees from numerous other divisions who have come to support the effort,” the company’s contractors and customers, the community’s firefighters, and others who helped after the fire.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. As a leader, what vision did Robert Brownlee offer?

What combination of task performance and group maintenance behaviors did he use? Was this the appropriate combination after the fire? Why or why not?

2. What do you think the Magna managers and employees were motivated by most after the fire? Why?

3. Management set up a cross-functional reconstruction team, but there is no evidence that this was a selfmanaged team. Would a self-managed team have been more effective? Why or why not?