Please answer the questions by reading the case

CASE QUESTIONS

1. Identify three (3)important issues or problems related to the study of organisational behaviour and design in this case. Provide a clear justification for each one, along with relevant evidence for your answer. (15 marks)
2. Outline four (4)relevant theories from the field of organisational behaviour and design which can be applied to each of the issues or problems identified in Q1. Explain how each theory helps us understand the identified problems or issues in this case. (20 marks)
3. Outline your preferred solution to two (2) most critical problems in this case. Provide a brief justification of your choice and an implementation plan to explain how your preferred solution could be executed. (15 marks)

Case

Case Study 1: Surprise under the carpet at Northern Sigma

Northern Sigma, a high-technology firm headquartered in Johannesburg, develops and manufactures advanced electronic equipment. The company has 20 plants around South Africa and 22000 employees, 300 of whom work at a single site in Midrand that is responsible for researching and development. About half of the employees at the facility are scientists and engineers. The other half are support personnel, managers and market research personnel. Senior executives are strongly committed to hiring women and disadvantaged groups throughout the entire organisation but particularly at the Midrand site. The company has adopted this policy for two (2) reasons: women and disadvantaged groups are severely under-represented in the Midrand plant, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find top-notch talent in the dwindling applicant pool of white men.

Peter Barnes is the general manager of the Midrand plant. His work experience has been a pleasant one and he certainly did not perceive that he would encounter any problems. Staff members appeared to work well and were motivated to reach work targets.

However, things changed drastically in his recent performance evaluation, Barnes was severely criticised for not doing enough to retain women and disadvantaged groups. For the past two (2) years, the turnover rate of these groups has been three (3) times higher than the rate for other employees. Senior executives were unsatisfied with issues of high training costs, lost production time, recruitment expense and 20 discrimination charges against the Midrand plant over the past three (3) years alone.

Barnes first reaction to his performance evaluation was very defensive. He felt it was unfair to hold him responsible for things beyond his control. He explained that the number of women and members of disadvantaged groups at his plant was greater and better than the average for other Northern Sigma plants. His bosss response was that getting to the root of the problem and doing something about it were critical to Barnes future with the company.

Under pressure from headquarters, Barnes has targeted the turnover rate and discrimination problem as among his highest priorities for the year. As a first step, he has hired a consulting team to interview a representative sample of staff to find out (1) why the turnover rate among women and disadvantaged groups is so high; and (2) what is prompting so many complaints from people in these groups. The interviews were conducted in separate groups of 15 people each to facilitate candid comments. Each group consisted either of white men or a mix of women and disadvantaged groups. A summary of the report prepared by the consultants is as follows:

Women and Disadvantaged Groups

A large proportion of women and disadvantaged employees expressed strong dissatisfaction with the company. Many felt that they had been misled when they accepted employment at Sigma. Among their most common complaints were:

• They felt they were left out of important task forces.
• Their contributions were not taken seriously by peers in team or group projects.
• There was a lack of respect, career support and acknowledgement of work experience.
• The threatening negative environment discouraged open discussion of alternatives.
• Supervisors were often arrogant, insensitive, domineering and patronising.
• Demeaning ethnic or gender-related jokes were frequently made.

White Male Groups

Most white males, particularly the supervisors, strongly insisted that they were interested solely in performance and that neither gender nor ethnic background had anything to do with how they treated their staff members or fellow employees. They often used such terms as equality, fairness, competence and colour-blindness to describe their criteria for promotion, assignments, selection for team projects and task force members. The consulting team asked these groups specific questions concerning particular problems they may have encountered at work with women and the two (2) largest ethnic groups in the plant (black and Asians). The most common comments regarding the white mens encounters with each of these groups were:

Blacks:

• Frequently overreact.
• Expect special treatment because of their race.
• Are unwilling to blend in with the work group, even when white colleagues are trying to make them feel comfortable.
• Like to do things on their own terms and schedules.
• Do not respond well to supervision.

Asians:

• Difficult to ascertain what they think; very sensitive.
• Very smart with numbers but have problems verbalising ideas.
• Cautious; will not challenge another person even when that person is blatantly wrong.
• Like to be left alone; do not want to be supervisors even when there is an increase in pay.
• Prone to express agreement or commitment to an idea or course of action yet are uncommitted to it in their hearts.

Women:

• Most are not committed to work and are inclined to quit when things do not go their way.
• Are often more focused on interpersonal relationships than work performance.
• Respond too emotionally when frustrated by minor problems, thus unsuited for more responsibility.
• Often misinterpret chivalry as sexual overtures.
• Cannot keep things confidential and enjoy the rumour mill.

Barnes was shocked and appalled by many of these comments. He had always thought of his plant as a friendly, easy-going, open-minded, liberal, intellectual place because of its highly educated workforce. Barnes is now trying to figure out what to do next.

(Source: Adapted from Dr Soma Pillay. (2011). Integrative Case Study: Surprise under the carpet at Northern Sigma. In Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., Millett, B. and Boyle, M. (2011), Organisational Behaviour. 6^th Edition. Pearson. Australia. pp. 237-238.)