Marathon Runners at Different Levels

1) Based on the principles of the SLII model, how would you describe the runners in Group 1? What kind of leadership do they want from David, and what kind of leadership does David seem prepared to give them?

2) How would you describe the fit between the runners in Group 2 and Davids coaching style? Discuss.

3)The experienced runners in Group 3 appear to be a challenge to David. Using SLII, explain why David appears ineffective with this group.

4) If you were helping David with his coaching, how would you describe his strengths and weaknesses? What suggestions would you make to him about how to improve?

Marathon Runners at Different Levels

David Abruzzo is the newly elected president of the Metrocity Striders Track Club (MSTC). One of his duties is to serve as the coach for runners who hope to complete the New York City Marathon. Because David has run many marathons and ultramarathons successfully, he feels quite comfortable assuming the role and responsibilities of coach for the marathon runners. The training period for runners intending to run New York is 16 weeks. During the first couple of weeks of training, David was pleased with the progress of the runners and had little difficulty in his role as coach. However, when the runners reached Week 8, the halfway mark, some things began to occur that raised questions in Davids mind regarding how best to help his runners. The issues of concern seemed quite different from those that David had expected to hear from runners in a marathon-training program. All in all, the runners and their concerns could be divided into three different groups. One group of runners, most of whom had never run a marathon, peppered the coach with all kinds of questions. They were very concerned about how to do the marathon and whether they had the ability to complete such a challenging event successfully. They asked questions about how far to run in training, what to eat, how much to drink, and what kind of shoes to wear. One runner wanted to know what to eat the night before the marathon, and another wanted to know whether it was likely that he would pass out when he crossed the finish line. For David the questions were never-ending and rather basic. He wanted to treat the runners like informed adults, but they seemed to be acting immature, and rather childish. The second group of runners, all of whom had finished the New York City Marathon in the previous year, seemed most concerned about the effects of training on their running. For example, they wanted to know precisely how their per-week running mileage related to their possible marathon finishing time. Would running long practice runs help them through the wall at the 20-mile mark? Would taking a rest day during training actually help their overall conditioning? Basically, the runners in this group seemed to want assurances from David that they were training in the right way for New York. For David, talking to this group was easy because he enjoyed giving them encouragement and motivational pep talks. A third group was made up of seasoned runners, most of whom had run several marathons and many of whom had finished in the top 10 of their respective age divisions. Sometimes they complained of feeling flat and acted a bit moody and down about training. Even though they had confidence in their ability to compete and finish well, they lacked an element of excitement about running in the New York event. The occasional questions they raised usually concerned such things as whether their overall training strategy was appropriate or whether their training would help them in other races besides the New York City Marathon. Because of his running experience, David liked to offer running tips to this group. However, when he did, he felt like the runners ignored and discounted his suggestions. He was concerned that they may not appreciate him or his coaching.

Alvis Corporation

5) Were the two decisions appropriate for a group decision procedure according to the Vroom-Yetton model?

6) What mistakes were made in using participation, and what could have been done to avoid the difficulties the manager encountered?

Alvis Corporation

Kathy McCarthy was the manager of a production department in Alvis Corporation, a firm that manufactures office equipment. The workers are not union- ized. After reading an article that stressed the benefits of participative management, Kathy believed that these benefits could be realized in her department if the workers were allowed to participate in making some decisions that affect them. Kathy selected two decisions for an experiment in participative management. The first decision involved vacation schedules. Each summer the workers are given two weeks vacation, but no more than two workers can go on vacation at the same time. In prior years, Kathy made this decision herself. She would first ask the workers to indi- cate their preferred dates, then she considered how the work would be affected if differ- ent people were out at the same time. It was important to plan a vacation schedule that would ensure adequate staffing for all of the essential operations performed by the de- partment. When more than two workers wanted the same time period, and they had sim- ilar skills, she usually gave preference to the workers with the highest productivity. The second decision involved production standards. Sales had been increasing steadily over the past few years, and the company recently installed some new equip- ment to increase productivity. The new equipment would make it possible to produce more with the same number of workers. The company had a pay incentive system in which workers received a piece rate for each unit produced above a standard amount. Separate standards existed for each type of product, based on an industrial engineering study conducted a few years earlier. Top management wanted to readjust the produc- tion standards to reflect that fact that the new equipment made it possible for the work- ers to earn more without working any harder. The savings from higher productivity were needed to help pay for the new equipment. Kathy called a meeting of her 15 workers an hour before the end of the work day and explained that she wanted them to discuss the two issues and make recommenda- tions. Kathy figured that the workers might be inhibited about participating in the discus- sion if she were present, so she left them alone to discuss the issues. Besides, Kathy had an appointment to meet with the quality control manager. Quality problems had increased after the new equipment was installed, and the industrial engineers were studying the problem in an attempt to determine why quality had gotten worse rather than better. When Kathy returned to her department just at quitting time, she was surprised to learn that the workers recommended keeping the standards the same. She had assumed they knew the pay incentives were no longer fair and would set a higher standard. The worker speaking for the group explained that their base pay had not kept up with infla- tion and the higher incentive pay restored their real income to its prior level. Chapter 4 Participative Leadership, Delegation, and Empowerment 119 120 Chapter 4 Participative Leadership, Delegation, and Empowerment On the vacation issue, the group was deadlocked. Several of the workers wanted to take their vacations during the same two week period and could not agree on who should go. Some workers argued that they should have priority because they had more seniority, while others argued that priority should be based on productivity, as in the past. Because it was quitting time, the group concluded that Kathy would have to resolve the dispute herself. After all, wasnt that what she was being paid for?