Psychology of Workplace

Psychology of Workplace

Please write a final report outlining your responses to the case questions, see attachments. The class is industrial / organizational psychology, so the responses should be from the standpoint of an I/O psychologist.

The goals of this assignment
•Practice developing creative, yet practical solutions to organizational problems

Please use scientific knowledge and research findings to support your answers.

The final report should be structured so it has separate sections for each case study. Answers to the questions should be numbered but presented in paragraph format. (Do not simply list your answers in incomplete sentences. Develop your ideas in paragraphs like a normal paper). A complete reference list of any cited material (in APA format) must also be included. Total report must be at least 3000 words (approximately evenly divided between the different case studies)

You must respond to all three cases, which are attached.
•Case Study 1
•Case Study 2
•Case Study 3

Rewriting the questions does not count toward the 3000 word limit.

Thoroughness and thoughtfulness of your responses are a priority

Additionally I have attached the grading criteria for your review.

Case Study # 1 – Selection and Legal Issues
Selection of Firefighters in Cleveland
(from Dipboye, Smith & Howell, 1994)
In 1983 a group of women applied for firefighter positions in the City of Cleveland but
were rejected. They filed a lawsuit against the city claiming that in rejecting them for
employment, the city had violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. At the time they were
rejected, the city had never hired a woman as a firefighter.
The selection process consisted of two tests, with applicants required to first pass a
written test before taking a physical abilities test. These exams had been developed by a
psychologist who had conducted job analyses to determine the tasks required of entry-level
firefighters. From an examination of the frequency and importance of the tasks, a determination
was made of the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for entry-level firefighters. Based on
the research, a written test was developed to assess reading comprehension, the ability to follow
directions, mathematical skills, and other forms of cognitive reasoning. The physical test
consisted of three parts:
1. Event 1: Overhead Lift. Using a 33-pound barbell, candidates must lift the barbell
overhead repeatedly for one minute or up to a maximum of 35 lifts.
2. Event 2: Fire Scene Set-up and Tower Climb. While wearing a custom-tailored
self-contained breathing apparatus, candidates must drag two lengths of standard
2 ½-inch hose 180 feet (90 feet one way, drop coupling, run to the other end of
the hose, pick up and return 90 feet, drop coupling in designated area), run 75 feet
to pumper, remove a one-person ladder (approximately 35 pounds) from the side
of the pumper, carry the ladder into the fire tower, place it against the back rail of
the first landing, and continue up the inside stairwell to the fifth floor where a
monitor observes the candidates’ arrival. Then, candidates return to the first
landing, retrieve the ladder, and place it on the pumper.
3. Event 3: Dummy Drag. Still wearing their self-contained breathing apparatus,
candidates must drag a 100-pound bag 70 feet (40 of which includes low
headroom), turn and, still dragging the bag, return to the starting point.
The written test was worth a maximum of 100 points. An adjustment was made by
awarding five extra points if the applicant was a qualified veteran, ten extra points if the
applicant was a city resident, and six points if the applicant was a minority. The minority
adjustment was made as the result of a previous court case involving racial discrimination. Those
applicants who received an adjusted score of 35 points or higher were allowed to take the
physical abilities test.
Of 285 women who took the written test, 122 passed and took the physical exam. Only
29 women scored high enough on both tests to be placed on an eligibility list. A total of 1,927
men took the written exam, with 1,206 passing. Of these, 1,069 scored high enough on both tests
to be placed on the eligibility list. Those on the eligibility list were rank ordered on their test
totals. The woman with the highest score ranked 334 on the eligibility list.
Previous Supreme Court decisions in cases involving the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424, 429–431; Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405)
had established that those filing a suit must first show that one group was hired at a significantly
lower rate than other groups as the result of the hiring procedures. In this case, the large
differences in the rate at which men and women had been hired enabled the plaintiffs (the
women) to make what is known as a prima facie case of discrimination. Once shown to have an
adverse impact, the employer must then produce evidence that the procedures have “a manifest
relationship to the employment in question.” EEOC guidelines dictate that showing a manifest
relationship involves providing evidence of the criterion, construct, and content validity of the
hiring procedures.
The plaintiffs claimed that the tests lacked in all three respects. The physical tests lacked
content validity because the three events only superficially replicated the actual sequence of
tasks in the firefighter job. They also argued that the city had failed to show a substantial
relationship between the test scores and criteria of success in the jobs. The physical tests lacked
construct validity because they tested only anaerobic performance. In other words, the physical
tests reflected traits such as strength and speed, and ignored stamina.
The lawyer representing the City of Cleveland submitted research findings that they
claimed supported the validity of the selection procedures. The city claimed that the fact that the
tests were constructed on the basis of a thorough job analysis was evidence of their content
validity. Criterion-related validity was supported in a technical study showing a positive
correlation between test scores and supervisor ratings of performance in the firefighter job.
Although the aerobic capacity of applicants was not tested, the city argued that “speed and
strength were most critical at the initial stages of a fire where matters of life and death are most
acute.”
The plaintiffs also argued that women were placed at a disadvantage by the scoring
system that gave minority and veterans extra points. Although the elimination of these bonus
points would raise the rank of women applicants, the city argued that the elimination of these
adjustments would do little to improve the chances of the women applicants, given that the
highest ranked woman was still only 334 on the eligibility list.
Questions:
1. If you were the judge in this case, would you find the City of Cleveland guilty or
innocent of discrimination against women? Why?
2. If you were a consultant for the city in this case, how would you go about evaluating the
content, construct, and criterion validity of the selection tests? Explain in detail your
answer for each “type” of validity.
3. What would you do to provide more opportunity for women wishing to become
firefighters? Would these procedures be fair to male applicants?
4. One argument has been that requiring an employer to prove the validity of selection
procedures when adverse impact has been shown is equivalent to requiring a person
accused of murder to prove that he or she is innocent. Do you believe that the burden of
proof should be on the employer to show that what they are using in selection is valid?
Why?
Dipboye, R. L., Smith, C. S., & Howell, W. C. (1994). Understanding industrial and
organizational psychology: An integrated approach. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Case Study # 2 – Training/Leadership/Teamwork
Developing Leaders and Teamwork Through Outdoor Adventure Training
(from Dipboye, Smith & Howell, 1994)
In today’s business world, many of the largest American corporations are attempting to
change their organization cultures and the leadership styles of their managers and executives.
These organizations are replacing bureaucratic methods with teamwork, collaboration, and risk
taking. An increasingly popular but controversial type of program used in implementing these
changes is outdoor adventure training.
There are many varieties of outdoor adventure training, but all typically involve
presenting a group with physical barriers that they must overcome either as a group or
individually. After attempting to overcome these challenges, trainees discuss what they learned
about themselves, others, and working together, and how they can apply what they have learned
back at work.
In wilderness training, the group undergoes training in a secluded and rugged setting.
Challenges can include climbing vertical mountain walls, rappelling down cliffs, rafting in
whitewater rapids, hiking over rugged terrain, and crossing deep ravines on ropes. In an example
of such a program, the University of Michigan business school brought together 21 senior
executives from Japanese, American, and Indian companies for five weeks (Main, 1989). Part of
their time together was spent on an island off the coast of Maine where the participants were
presented with “physical tests that sane middle-aged men normally avoid” (Main, p. 74). For
instance, participants were faced with squeezing blindfolded at night through the Crack, “a
passage narrower than a normal human body, between two enormous boulders.” In the raft race,
teams had to construct a raft from a collection of barrels, rope, and other materials, navigate to a
buoy offshore, and dismantle the buoy. In working together to overcome these barriers, the
various executives supposedly broke through language and cultural barriers to understand
something about themselves and others.
In another version of adventure training, the trainees stay at a permanent site. A common
type of challenge involves climbing a ladder and leaping to another location. In the “leap of
faith,” trainees are attached to a harness, climb to the top of a tall pole, stand on a small wobbly
plate at the top of the pole, and then leap to catch a trapeze. In the “trust fall,” trainees fall
backward from a ledge and other trainees catch them. In the “spiderweb,” all trainees except for
one are blindfolded and must pass other members through without touching a web of ropes hung
between two posts. The group is instructed by the one trainee who can see. Other exercises are
foot races, rope climbing, and wall climbing.
According to one observer, “Most individuals going through the program move through
predictable mental opening-up stages. They start off looking around and are nervous about how
they’re going to do. Then after they’ve completed a task, their energy starts to shift—and by the
end of the day, they’re often in a more spontaneous, hugging, high-fiveing, cheering mode—and
are excited, hoarse and thrilled about the future….Often, participants begin to question: Where
else in my life have I been performing less than is really possible? Where have I been settling for
less?….By examining what happens to oneself under duress in a controlled situation, employees
can learn and build on that self-knowledge so they’re much more grounded in the relationship
between what they think and what they do, when they return to work” (Laabs, 1991, pp. 59–60).
Anecdotal evidence provides mixed support for the effectiveness of outdoor adventure
training. A director of marketing who participated in a wilderness program stated that “Every
time I climbed over a rock, I needed someone’s help….There’s a valuable lesson to be learned in
being able to ask for help and graciously accept it, but the reality is I don’t have a 40-pound pack
on my back in the office….Do I think that everything we did translates to the office environment
as well as other activities would? Probably not” (Laabs, 1991, p. 56). In another example, a 16-
member staff participated in a one-day team building program in the attempt to increase the
harmony with which they worked together. A member of this team felt that the lack of harmony
reflected deeper problems that the training would not correct. “I’ve seen no improvement
whatsoever. In fact, things are worse….The people who went were outdoorsy-types anyway. So
to them, it was just an activity….Many of my co-workers are somewhat intimidated by our boss.
They feel that in order to keep their jobs, they had to do this” (Laabs, 1991, pp. 56–57). Others
are more positive. One participant described her experience in the leap of faith challenge as
restoring her self-esteem and as leaving her with a concrete reminder that at some point in any
project she must take risks and act on faith (Conlin, 1988, pp. 31–32).
The typical evaluation is anecdotal. A representative of a company that sent 400 of its
12,000 employees on wilderness training claimed that “The response has been quite favorable.
People comeback enthused and say they’ve got increased confidence” (Laabs, 1991, p. 62).
Occasionally questionnaires or interviews are used to determine how trainees reacted to their
experience. One human resources manager of a company that sent employees to an outdoor
adventure says that he “is planning to send a questionnaire to all the participants and then
assemble a one- to two-day follow-up session this month to get feedback about the seminar’s
overall results” (Laabs, 1991, p. 63).
Questions:
1. If you were in charge of deciding what type of training to use to improve employee
leadership skills and to improve teamwork, would you seriously consider outdoor
adventure training? Why?
2. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of an outdoor adventure training program in
improving leadership skills and teamwork? Specifically, what type of design would you
use and what measures would you collect? Explain your answer in detail.
3. What do you think might be some of the legal considerations in this type of training?
4. Outdoor adventure training and other types of experiential training are often aimed at
changing trainee values. For instance, organizations may attempt to instill in trainees the
need to be risk takers and to be team oriented in their working relationships. Do you
believe that an organization has the right to require employees to participate in training
that is directed at changing their values? Should training be restricted to changing
knowledge, skills, and abilities directly related to the job? Justify your answer.
5. What other training approach might you consider using to develop these skills? Identify
one other approach you could use and describe in detail how you would develop the
program, how you would implement it, and how you would evaluate it.
Dipboye, R. L., Smith, C. S., & Howell, W. C. (1994). Understanding industrial and
organizational psychology: An integrated approach. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Study # 3 – Motivation Problems at Electro Logic
Electro Logic (EL)
(from Whetton & Cameron, 1998)
Electro Logic (EL) is a small R&D firm located in a midwestern college town adjacent to a
major university. Its primary mission is to perform basic research on, and development of, a new
technology called Very Fast Very Accurate (VFVA). Founded four years ago by Steve Morgan,
an electrical engineering professor and inventor of the technology, EL is primarily funded by
government contracts, although it plans to market VFVA technology and devices to nongovernmental
organizations within the year.
The government is very interested in VFVA, as it will enhance radar technology,
robotics, and a number of other important defense applications. EL recently received the largest
small business contract ever awarded by the government to research and develop this or any
other technology. Phase I of the contract has just been completed, and the government has agreed
to Phase II contracting as well.
The organizational chart of EL is shown in Figure 6. Current membership is 75
individuals, with roughly 88 percent in engineering. The hierarchy of engineering titles and
requirements for each are listed in the Engineering Titles and Requirements Table. Heads of staff
are supposedly appointed based on their knowledge of VFVA technology and their ability to
manage people. In practice, the president of EL hand-picks these people based on what some
might call arbitrary guidelines: Most of the staff leaders were or are the president’s graduate
students. There is no predetermined time frame for advancement in the hierarchy. Raises are,
however, directly related to performance appraisal evaluations.
Working directly with the engineers are the technicians. These people generally have a
high-school degree, although some also have college degrees. They are trained on the job,
although some have gone through a local community college’s program on microtechnology
fabrication. The technicians perform the mundane tasks of the engineering department: running
tests, building circuit boards, manufacturing VFVA chips, and so on. Most are full-time hourly
employees.
The administrative staff is composed of the staff head (with an MBA from a major
university), accountants, personnel director, graphic artists, purchasing agent, project controller,
technical writers/editors, and secretaries. Most of the people in the administrative staff are
women. All are hourly employees except the staff head, personnel director, and project
controller. The graphic artist and technical writer/editor are part-time employees.
The facilities staff is composed of the staff head and maintenance personnel. EL is
housed in three different buildings, and the primary responsibility of the facilities staff is to
ensure that the facilities of each building are in good working order. Additionally, the facilities
staff is often called upon to remodel parts of the buildings as the staff continues to grow.
EL anticipates a major recruiting campaign to enhance the overall staff. In particular, it is
looking for more technicians and engineers. Prior to this recruiting campaign, however, the
president of EL hired an outside consultant to assess employee needs as well as the morale and
overall effectiveness of the firm. The consultant has been observing EL for about three weeks
and has written up some notes regarding impressions and observations of the company.
Consultant’s Notes from Observations of Electro Logic (EL)
Facilities: EL is housed in three different buildings. Two are converted houses, and one is an old
school building. Senior managers and engineers are in the school, and others are scattered
between the houses.
Meeting: Weekly staff meetings in the main building are held to discuss objectives and to
formulate and review milestone charts.
Social interaction: A core group of employees interact frequently on a social basis, for example,
sports teams, parties. The administrative staff celebrates birthdays at work. The president
occasionally attends.
Work allocation: Engineers request various tasks from the support staff, which consists of
technicians and administrative unit personnel. There is obviously some discretion used by the
staff in assigning priorities to the work requests, based on rapport and desirability of the work.
Turnover: The highest turnover is among administration personnel and technicians. Exit
interviews with engineers indicate they leave because of the company’s crisis-management style,
better opportunities for career advancement and security in larger organizations, and overall
frustration with EL’s “pecking order.” Engineers with the most responsibility and authority tend
to leave.
Salary and benefits: In general, wages at EL are marginal by national and local standards. A
small group of scientists and engineers do make substantial salaries and have a very attractive
benefits package, including stock options. Salaries and benefits for new engineers tend to be
linked to the perceived level of their expertise.
Offices and facilities: Only EL’s president, vice-president, and chief financial officer have their
own offices. Engineers are grouped together in “pods” by project assignment. There is very little
privacy in these work areas, and the noise from the shared printer is distracting. The head of
administration shares a pod with the personnel director, facilities head, and the project controller.
One to three secretaries per building are located in or near the reception areas. The large building
has an employee lounge with three vending machines. There is also a coffee and tea station. The
smaller buildings have only a pop machine in the reception area.
Consultant’s Interviews with Employees
After making these observations, the consultant requested interviews with a cross-section of the
staff for the purpose of developing a survey to be taken of all employees. Presented below are
excerpts from those interviews.
Pat Klausen, Senior Member of the Technical Staff
CONSULTANT: What is it about EL that gives you the most satisfaction?
PAT: I really enjoy the work. I mean, I’ve always liked to do research, and working on VFVA is
an incredible opportunity. Just getting to work with Steve (EL’s president and VFVA’s inventor)
again is exciting. I was his graduate student about six years ago, you know. He really likes to
work closely with his people – perhaps sometimes too closely. There have been times when I
could have done with a little less supervision.
CONSULTANT: What’s the least satisfying aspect of your work?
PAT: Probably the fact that I’m never quite sure that we’ll be funded next month, given the
defense budget problems and the tentativeness of our research. I’ve got a family to consider, and
this place isn’t the most stable in terms of its financial situation. Maybe it’ll change once we get
more into commercial production. Who knows?
CONSULTANT: You’ve offered some general positives and negatives about EL. Can you be
more specific about day-to-day dealings? What’s good and bad about working here on a daily
basis?
PAT: You’re sure this isn’t going to get back to anyone? OK. Well, in general I’m not satisfied
with the fact that too often we end up changing horses in the middle of the stream, if you know
what I mean. In the past seven months, three of my engineers and four of my techs have been
pulled off my project onto projects whose deadlines were nearer than mine. Now I’m faced with
a deadline, and I’m supposed to be getting more staff. But I’ll have to spend so much time
briefing them that it might make more sense for me to just finish the project myself. On the other
hand, Steve keeps telling me that we have to be concerned with EL’s overall goals, not just our
individual concerns – you know, we have to be “team players,” “good members of the family.”
It’s kind of hard to deal with that, though, when deadlines are bearing down and you know your
butt’s on the line, team player or not. But if you go along with this kind of stuff and don’t
complain, the higher-ups treat you well. Still, it seems to me there’s got to be a better way to
manage these projects.
CONSULTANT: What are the positive aspects of your daily work?
PAT: Well, the people here are great to work with. They know their stuff or can learn quickly. I
tend to be a social person and I really like socializing with these people. We play softball and
basketball together and do happy hours and stuff. I like that. I’ve got some good friends here,
which helps get my work orders filled quickly, if you know what I mean.
Bob Christensen, Member of the Technical Staff
CONSULTANT: You said that Steve was your advisor for your MS. So you’ve known him a
long time.
BOB: Yes, that’s right. I’ve known Professor Morgan – Steve – for about eight years. I had him
for a few undergraduate classes; then, of course, he was my advisor for my two-year Master’s
program, and now I’ve worked at EL for two years.
CONSULTANT: It seems as if you enjoy working with Steve.
BOB: Oh, yeah. But I really don’t get to work directly with him anymore. I’ll see him at
meetings and such, but that’s about it.
CONSULTANT: So he’s not your immediate supervisor?
BOB: No, but for the amount of time I spend with my supervisor, Steve might as well be. My
boss and I meet maybe once every three weeks for about an hour to see if all is well. And that’s
it. The rest of the time, I’m on my own. I used to talk to Steve when I had questions, but he’s
gotten so busy now it’s hard to see him – you need to make an appointment a few days in
advance.
CONSULTANT: Do you think your supervisor treats all his staff this way?
BOB: To be honest, I have heard some complaints. In fact, about six months ago, the situation
was so bad, some other people and I had a meeting with him. He promised that he would be
more available to us and was, for about a month. Then we got involved in a new proposal, so he
made himself scarce again. So nothing’s really changed. We’re coming up on finalizing the
proposal now, and it’s important that I see him, ask him questions. The last few drafts I’ve
submitted to him, he’s returned, rewritten in his own way, and with no explanation of the
changes. Sometimes I think he treats me like somebody who doesn’t know anything, as if I had
no training whatsoever. I realize his neck is on the line with this project, but sometimes it seems
that he uses being busy to avoid talking to me.
Chris Chen, Research Scientist
CONSULTANT: What kind of characteristics should a person have if he/she wants to work as a
research scientists at EL?
CHRIS: Well, certainly knowledge is important. When I’ve interviewed recent college grads for
entry-level positions, I am always concerned with their GPA. I like to see straight-A averages, if
possible. But for experienced research scientists, technical knowledge shows up in their
publication records, mostly. So I’ll read their papers. I also think a research scientist has to be
highly self-motivated, not look to others for praise and such. Particularly here. If you want
someone to tell you you’ve done a good job, you’ll be waiting a long time. It’s not clear to me
that research scientists really get the support we need from the rest of the staff here. Work orders
are often lost or put off for one reason or another. Senior members seem to get more techs than
scientists do, and they certainly get more attention from Steve. The rumor is that these guys also
get higher raises than the scientists; allegedly, this is to keep pay at an equitable rate – you know,
they’re supposedly more valuable to the company. Of course, everybody knows that most of the
senior members are Steve’s old graduate students, and so he takes care of them really well. One
of the things that really galls me is that I need to keep up my publication record to maintain my
career options. But publishing is frowned on because it takes time away from your work. I’ve
even been told that my work can’t be published because of proprietary rights or that the defense
department considers the information classified. However, if somebody important is working
with me and needs the publication, then it’s full steam ahead.
CONSULTANT: You sound pretty disgruntled with your work.
CHRIS: It’s not my work so much. I’m really very happy doing this work – it’s cutting edge,
after all. The problem is that I’m never quite sure where the work is going. I do my part of a
project, and unless I go out of my way to talk to other people, I never find out the final results of
the total project. That’s just something you learn to live with around here – being part of a
system that’s not particularly open.
Meg Conroy, Assistant to the Head of Administration
CONSULTANT: You’ve only been here a short time, is that correct?
MEG: That’s right – just a little over a year.
CONSULTANT: Why did you take the job?
MEG: Well, I was in my last semester of college and was looking for a job, like most college
seniors. My fiancé at the time – now he’s my husband – was already working for EL and found
out that there was an opening. So I applied.
CONSULTANT: So you were a business major in school?
MEG: Oh, no. I was a history major.
CONSULTANT: Do you like your job?
MEG: It has a lot to offer. I get paid pretty well for what I’m doing. And I’m learning a lot. I just
wish the company would let me take some classes in administration, like accounting. The
auditors ask some pretty tough questions. Steve says we should hire that expertise, but I’d still be
responsible for supervising the people.
CONSULTANT: Is there any particular aspect of your job that you really find satisfying?
MEG: Well, let me think. I guess I like the fact that I get to do a lot of different tasks so that
things don’t get so boring. I would hate to have to do the same thing, day in and day out. A lot of
times, I go to the library to do research on different things, and that’s nice because it gets me out
of the office.
CONSULTANT: What don’t you like about your job?
MEG: Well, I often get the feeling that administration isn’t taken seriously. You know, the
engineers could get along without us quite nicely, or so they seem to think. The whole structure
of the department shows that we’re the catch-all department: If you don’t fit anywhere else, they
put you in here. Perhaps some of that is because our department is primarily women – in fact,
I’ve been told that 95 percent of all the female employees are in administration. Sometimes it’s
hard to work with the engineers because they treat you like you don’t know anything, and they
always want things to be done their way. Clearly, the engineers get the money and consideration
and yet, well, we do contribute quite a lot to the whole team, as Steve would say. But words of
praise just aren’t as impressive as actions. Sure, we get our birthday parties, but that still seems
to be a little patronizing. We rarely get to see what’s going on in the research area. I’ve asked a
number of engineers specific questions, and they just kind of look at me with a blank stare and
give me some really simplified answer. It seems to me if you want to build a family, like the
president says, you can’t treat administration like a bad relation.
P. J. Ginelli, Technician
CONSULTANT: I gather you’ve just been through your semiannual performance appraisal. How
did it go?
P.J.: Like I expected. No surprises.
CONSULTANT: Do you find these appraisals useful?
P.J.: Sure. I get to find out what he thinks of my work.
CONSULTANT: Is that all?
P.J.: Well, I suppose it’s a nice opportunity to understand what my supervisor wants. Sometimes
he’s not so clear during the rest of the year. I suppose he’s been given specific goals from higherups
before he talks with me, so he’s clear and then I’m clear.
CONSULTANT: Do you like what you’re doing?
P.J.: Oh yeah. The best part is that I’m not at the main building and so I don’t have to put up with
the “important” people, you know? I’ve heard from other techs that those guys can be a real pain
– trying to be nice and all, but really just being a bother. I mean, how can you get your stuff done
with the president looking over your shoulder all the time? On the other hand, if the president
knows your name, I suppose that’s a good thing. When it comes to raises and promotions. But
my boss sticks up for his techs; we get a fair deal from him.
CONSULTANT: Do you think you’ll be able to get ahead at EL?
P.J.: Get ahead? You mean become an engineer or something? No, and I really don’t want to do
that. Everyone around here keeps pushing me to move up. I’m afraid to tell people how I really
feel for fear they’ll decide I don’t fit into this high-tech environment. I don’t want to be the
“black sheep of the family.” I like where I am, and if the raises keep coming, I’ll keep liking it.
One of my kids is starting college next year, and I need the money to help her out. I get a lot of
overtime, particularly when contract deadlines are near. I suppose the rush toward the end of the
contracts gives some people big headaches, but for me, I don’t mind. The work is pretty slow
otherwise, and so at least I’m working all the time and then some. But my family wishes my
schedule was more predictable.
CONSULTANT: Do you think you’ll continue working for EL?
P.J.: I’m not sure I want to answer that. Let’s just say that my ratings on the performance
appraisal were good, and I expect to see an improvement in my pay. I’ll stay for that.
Chalida Montgomery, Technician
CONSULTANT: In general, what are your feelings about the work you do for EL?
CHALIDA: Well, I feel my work is quite good, but I also feel that I perform rather boring,
tedious tasks. From what my supervisor says, the kinds of things I do are what electrical
engineering students do in their last year of classes. I gather their final project is to make a circuit
board, and that’s what I do, day in and day out.
CONSULTANT: What is it that you would like to do?
CHALIDA: Well, it would be nice to be able to offer some input into some of the designs of
these boards. I know I don’t have a PhD or anything, but I do have lots of experience. But
because I’m a tech, the engineers don’t really feel I’ve got much to offer – even though I build
the boards and can tell from the design which one will do what the designer wants it to do. I also
would like to maybe supervise other technicians in my department. You know, some kind of
advancement would be nice. As it is, lots of techs ask me how to do things, and of course I help,
but then they get the credit. Around here, you have to have a piece of paper that says you’re
educated before they let you officially help other people.
Engineering Titles and Requirements
TITLE REQUIREMENT
Member of Technical Staff BSEE; MSEE
Senior Member of Technical Staff PhD
MSEE with 2 years of industrial experience
BSEE with 5 years of industrial experience
Research Engineer PhD with 2 years of industrial experience
BSEE or MSEE with 7 years of industrial
experience
Research Scientist PhD with appropriate experience in research
Senior Research Scientist PhD with appropriate industrial and research
experience
Questions:
1. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Electro Logic (EL) from a motivational
perspective.
2. What suggestions would you make in a consulting report to Steve Morgan, president of
EL? Focus on specific actions that he could take that would better use the abilities of the
staff and foster a more motivating work environment.
Whetton, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1998). Developing management skills. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

 
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET ADISCOUNT !!!

 

 

 

 

 

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.

 

[order_calculator]