Total No. of Questions 08] [Total No. of Pages 03
EXECUTIVE M.B.A. DEGREE EXAMINATION, MAY 2018
First Second Years
C-HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Organisation Dynamics Change Management
Time 3 Hours Maximum Marks :70
SECTION A
Answer any three questions. x 5 15)
Q1) Group cohesion.
Role analysis.
Stress.
Decentralisation.
Coalition formation.
Organisational culture.
SECTION B
Answer any three questions. x 15 45)
Q2) Explain in detail the phases of group development.
Q3) Explain with example the organisational stress and burnout.
Q4) Describe the process of empowerment.
Q5) Describe the social responsibilities of organisations.
Q6) Explain the process of learning organizations.
Q7) What do you understand by cross cultural dynamics?
(DEMBC2)
SECTION C
(Compulsory)
Q8) Case Study:
Emily who has the reputation of being an excellent worker, is a machine operator
in a furniture manufacturing plant that has been growing at a rate of between 15
percent and 20 percent each year for the past decade. New additions have been
built onto the plant, new plants opened in the region, workers hired, new product
lines developed, lots of expansion, but no significant changes have occurred in
overall approach to operations, plant layout, ways of managing workers, or the
design processes. Plant operations as well as organizational culture are rooted in
traditional Western management practices and logic, based largely on the notion
of mass production and economies of scale. Over the past four years, the
company has been growing in number and variety of products produced and in
market penetration; however, profitability has been flattening and showing signs
of decline. Therefore, in developing their strategic plans, management is
beginning to focus on production operations (internal focus) rather than mainly
focusing on new market strategies, new products, and new market segments
(external focus). They hope to get manufacturing costs down and improve
consistency of quality and ability to meet delivery times while decreasing
inventory and increasing flexibility.
One of several new programs initiated by management in this effort to improve
flexibility and lower costs was to cross-train workers. However, when a
representative from Human Resources explained this program to Emily's
supervisor, Jim, he reluctantly agreed to cross-train most of his workers, but not
Emily.
Jim explained to the Human Resources person that Emily works on a machine
that is very complex and not easy to effectively operate. She has to "babysit" it
much of the time. He has tried many workers on it, tried to train them, but Emily
is the only one who can consistently get product through the machine within
specification and still meet production schedules. When anyone else tries to
operate the machine, which performs a key function in the manufacturing
process, it ends up either being a big bottleneck or producing excessive waste,
which creates a lot of trouble for Jim.
Jim goes on to explain that Emily knows this sophisticated and complicated
machine inside and out after running it for five years. She likes the challenge, she
says it makes the day go by faster, too. She is meticulous in her work, a very
skilled employee who really cares about the quality of her work. Jim told the HR
person that he wished all of his workers were like Emily. Inspite of the difficulty
of running this machine, Emily can run it so well that product piles up at the next
workstation downstream in the production process no one can keep up with
her!
(DEMBC2)
Jim was adamant about keeping Emily on this machine and not cross-training
her. The HR person was frustrated. He could see Jim's point but he had to follow
executive orders. "Get these people cross-trained".
Around the same period, a university student was doing a field study in the
section of the plant where Emily worked. In her interview, Emily told the student
that, inspite of the fact that the plant had some problems with employee morale
and excessive employee turnover, she really liked working there. She liked the
piece rate pay system very much and hoped that she did not have to participate in
the recent "Program of the Month", which was having operators learn each
other's jobs. She told the student that it would just create more waste if they tried
to have other employees run her machine. She told him that other employees had
tried to learn how to operate her machine but couldn't do it as well as she could.
Emily seemed to take a special liking for the student and began to open up to
him. She told him that her machine really didn't need to be so difficult and
touchy to operate with a couple of rather minor design changes in the machine
and better maintenance, virtually anyone could run it. She had tried to explain
this to her supervisor a couple of years ago, but he just told her to "do her work
and leave operations to the manufacturing engineers." She also said that if
workers upstream in the process would spend a little more time and care to keep
the raw material in slightly tighter specifications, it would go through her
machine much more easily and trouble-free, but they were too focused on going
fast and making more piece rate pay. Emily expressed a lack of respect for the
managers, who couldn't see this, and even joked about how "managers didn't
know anything".
Questions:
Identify the sources of resistance to change in this case.
Discuss whether this resistance is justified or could be overcome.
Recommend ways to minimize resistance to change in this incident or in
future incidents.