Section 2: Case Study: A Fallen Star

After finishing his university entrance exams at the age of 16, Mike went on to top nearly every Engineering unit at university. With an IQ of 151 and a mean score of 91.5% across all university units, Mike was deemed to be destined for greatness. Several of his university mentors counselled him to pursue a career in academia with one professor noting, Mike seems to have it all. Hes a talented, tough minded and hard-working student who will do well in any setting.

Many firms saw his obvious ability as an engineer and Mike was promptly hired by local engineering firm Endeavour Pty Ltd. Endeavour was a well-established family business with its founder Ron Richardson and sons Jason and Steve occupying three of the top five management positions. Engineers themselves, they had recently set Endeavour on a new course in the hope of promoting high growth. While Endeavour had a long history of successful local civil construction projects, it was now branching into new engineering markets locally and overseas. This was all part of an aggressive strategy put in place to address the growing competitive pressures from foreign firms operating in partnership with traditional local rivals.

To accomplish this, the firm launched a worldwide search for engineering talent which saw their full-time workforce more than double in just a few years. It was during this period of unprecedented growth that Mike came to the firm along with several other star university graduates. Regarded as the firms future, these stars were quickly thrown into some of the most challenging projects ever tackled by Endeavour; projects that were often firsts for the firm. While there were mistakes and successes, during this early period Mike distinguished himself as a very talented engineer and he quickly became the go to man for many technical problems.

Deemed the consummate subject matter expert by colleagues, Mike attained the distinction of being the youngest senior engineer in the firms history. One fellow senior engineer with twelve years at the firm summed up Mike with these words: Hes incredibly bright and a gifted problem solver in the technical sense. However, it remains to be seen if he can cut it in a senior role as hes quick to lose his temper and few seem to enjoy working with him. Around two years after Mike joined the firm it became very clear that some of the old guard within management ranks were struggling with the sheer number, magnitude, and uniqueness of projects.

As senior engineers are often assigned large projects, Ron felt it was finally time for Mike to lead his own project team. Ron said at the time Mikes time has come. While Ive not worked with him, it is clear hes made a remarkable contribution and Im sure that by heading his own project team many will learn a lot from him. I like the lad as he reminds me of me. Some reckon hes a bit too abrupt with people but, this is a tough and hectic business and I see the value in being direct.

It was therefore unpleasant for Ron to be looking at a damning report from one of his analysts about Mike some eighteen months later. Mikes first project was now in danger thanks to cost overruns to the tune of $150 million. Several dismissals had occurred recently as a result of Mikes insistence that problems were the result of incompetent staff that the firm had inherited during the years of aggressive expansion. One of his notable statements to Ron in the midst of this chaos was, I cant believe how weak some of these people are. If I cant address problems about work with them then whats the point of me being here? I find it annoying that some find it necessary to blame their shortcomings on me. In exit interviews all the staff that were dismissed consistently attributed blame for project problems to Mike.

The analysts report noted a number of key things which included:

Most of the losses are caused by disputes and delays with two key Chinese contractors.

Discussions with staff and these contractors indicate Mike is hard to deal with, lacks patience and has a poor relationship with most peers and subordinates.

The culture of the project team was described as toxic with Mike frequently greeting any bad news with a temper tantrum. It appears those reporting the early warning signs of problems with Chinese contractors attributed problems to Mike offending senior personnel among the contractors. Mike was defensive when tackled over this by team personnel.

Mikes strong technical skills were not rubbing off on project team members. Instead, they were often used as a means of belittling them. Most complain of being made to feel inadequate when asking for help or an opinion on work output.

Conflict between team members had not been addressed.

END OF CASE (Questions on next page)

Section 2: Exam Case Questions

Answer ALL 3 questions (Total 18 marks).

In your answer booklet you must address these three requirements:

1. Define and apply two motivation theories (5 marks each) in order to discuss two causes of poor motivation in Mikes project team (Total 10 marks).

(600 word maximum for both parts combined)

2. Identify, define and apply two types of perception or decision-making errors (2 marks each) to discuss how they may be playing a role in any of the problems evident in the case (4 marks total).

(200 word maximum 100 words each )

3. By applying any clearly defined situational/contingency leadership model (theory), discuss the leadership issues in the case (3 marks) and provide two suitable recommendations to address them (2 x 0.5 marks) (Total 4 marks)

(200 word maximum)