Rl Wolfe Case Analysis
While Amasi’s Corpus Christi experiment is experiencing success (having higher productivity than his other plants), the SDTs at the new plant have not been able to achieve the stated goal of 95% design capacity. In the inception of his experiment, Amasi envisions a “committed work force with a high level of satisfaction in their work”. In reading the case, it is clear to me that they have not been able to achieve this level of satisfaction. In my assessment of the employee complaints and the feedback provided by Winslow, I noticed that the areas of concern can be categorized using Beckhard’s GRPI Model. My diagnosis asserts that the problem areas that Amasi should focus are Goals and Roles.
While the team’s goals have been clearly identified, it seems there has been little attention paid to individual goals. Winslow admits that individual recognition is a struggle, particularly because he wants to “incent teams, not individuals”. However, workers have expressed concern that their individual efforts are overlooked. A clear example of this oversight is the lack of performance evaluations. Without a clear understanding of how success is measured and rewarded, workers’ motivation and commitment isn’t properly nurtured. Another area of concern is the definition of roles, particularly the growing divide between the technicians, and line operators and material handlers. While their duties and responsibilities are defined, leadership for the team has been unintentionally assigned to the technicians on the team, causing the line operators and material handlers to feel that they are undervalued. According to the latter, this division comes from the tendency of the coordinators to defer to the technicians, and ignore the opinions of the line operators and material handlers. Because the potential advantages of the SDT model hinge on the “sense of ownership [that inspires the] workers to continuously improve processes”, it is clear that Amasi needs to address the areas
While the team’s goals have been clearly identified, it seems there has been little attention paid to individual goals. Winslow admits that individual recognition is a struggle, particularly because he wants to “incent teams, not individuals”. However, workers have expressed concern that their individual efforts are overlooked. A clear example of this oversight is the lack of performance evaluations. Without a clear understanding of how success is measured and rewarded, workers’ motivation and commitment isn’t properly nurtured. Another area of concern is the definition of roles, particularly the growing divide between the technicians, and line operators and material handlers. While their duties and responsibilities are defined, leadership for the team has been unintentionally assigned to the technicians on the team, causing the line operators and material handlers to feel that they are undervalued. According to the latter, this division comes from the tendency of the coordinators to defer to the technicians, and ignore the opinions of the line operators and material handlers. Because the potential advantages of the SDT model hinge on the “sense of ownership [that inspires the] workers to continuously improve processes”, it is clear that Amasi needs to address the areas