Case Study Essay Example
Description of the Case Study
This is a case study of Artic Mining Consultants, which is managed by Tom Parker, a geological field technician, and field coordinator. It is clear that Parker is full of experience and has a passion for what he does. Acting as a project manager, he selects John Talbot, Greg Boyce, and Brian Millar to assist him in doing a job that involved tracking 15 claims adjacent to Eagle Lake, Alaska. Daily equal targets every tracker is to aim are assigned. Talbot and Parker are very fast and consistent in their daily output as they most of the time managed to surpass the agreed targets. Meanwhile, Millar and Boyce have an inconsistent daily output and most of the time fail to reach the daily targets. Though both Millar and Boyce fail to reach daily Targets, Parker seems to be selectively hard on Millar most of the time while sparing Boyce in such times. Some days Miller and Boyce would reach the daily targets, but Parker would never comment. Finally, on the last day, Millar feels demotivated and intentionally underworks realizing that his efforts would not be recognized no matter how hard he tried. After the project, Miller quit and has never returned despite offers from Parker.
Key Issues In the Case Study
There are several organizational behavior related issues within the case study. The key issues identified include employee motivation, group dynamics, individual differences, and discrimination. It would have been important for Parker to appreciate individual differences theory. According to Griffin and Moorhead (2012), the theory postulates that it is obvious that people differ from each other but what is less clear is how and why. In line with this Parker should have investigated what factors were involved in the underperformance in some group members. Parker even rejects the idea from Talbot that members change their workspaces to see what happens, whether the underperforming group members would perform well or not. Maybe the disparity in the daily output could be attributed environmental variances i.e. a better working conditions enjoyed by Parker and Talbot and not Miller and Boyce. The disparity in performance could also be attributed to the experience levels of each employee. According to the case study, Parker seems to be full of experience and maybe it is why he has commendable daily output. Subsequently understanding group dynamics theory can help shed much light on the case study events. Group dynamics refers to psychological processes and system of behaviors taking place in a group just like in the case study. Cohesion within a group can be affected by leadership factors, personal factors, environmental factors and even team factors (French 2011). As a leader, Parker is expected to be a uniting factor but to a greater extent, it is easy to infer that he fails to live up to such expectations. Miller feels that Parker, who should be a symbol of unity in the group, discriminates him. Consistent to motivation theory, the manager has a role of motivating employees at work place so as to get things done through them (Nelson and Quick 2012). This may imply that job performance is a result of an employee’s ability and the motivation received from the employer (Schermerhorn 2012). In the case study, it is easy to deduce that Miller doesn’t obtain the right motivation needed to complete his job thus his limit is never attained, and he finally gives up on Artic Mining consultants.
French, R. 2011. Organizational behaviour. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.
Griffin, R. W., andMoorhead, G. 2012. Organizational behavior: managing people and
organizations. Mason, OH, South-Western/Cengage Learning.
Nelson, D. L., andQuick, J. C. 2012. Organizational behavior: science, the real world, and you.
Mason, Ohio, South-Western.
Phillips, J., and GULLY, S. M. 2012. Organizational behavior: tools for success. Mason, OH,
South-Western Cengage Learning.
Schermerhorn, J. R. 2012. Organizational behavior. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.
More Important Things