Brinkerhoff International Inc Case StudyEssay title: Brinkerhoff International Inc Case StudyMEMORANDUMJUAN C. ARAQUEFROM:GROUP #6SUBJECT:CASE STUDY FOR COMPANY “BRINKERHOFF INTERNATIONAL INC.”DATE:11/14/00HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOROBJECTIVE:After careful review and analysis of the situation and the facts surrounding the company Brinkerhoff International Incorporated (BII), our team has been able to develop a viable course of action to efficiently improve productivity and relations within the organization.
PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED:It is apparent through financial records that Rig 1-E by far outperforms any rig by almost double and, in some instances, by almost three times as much. What we need to focus on is what makes that rig succeed and how to improve conditions so that all the other rigs will be able to achieve that kind of productivity.
A major problem and difference exists between leadership styles of Rig 1-E Manager Rick Kopulos and Rig 20 Manager Tom Rossick. Rick Kopulos is a relationship-oriented leader who gives his subordinates flexibility in operations. This style is apparently successful meanwhile Tom Rossick a manager who strictly abides by the corporate rules and regulations is a ineffective leader.
Another problem within the company is group dynamics. There is a lack of communication with crewmembers on Rig 20 and their manager Tom Rossick. There are no real goals set for employees to measure their performance and no reward systems in place to encourage people to work harder. The company itself has no goals set in terms of productivity expected from each rig.
The most important problem is the way the company is structured. Brinkerhoff has too many responsibilities since Don Webster, the former Manager of Contracts and Operations, was let go. Kurt Mannheim does not fulfill his duties as defined by the company, and Rig Managers disagree with the degree of importance of each position within the crews. This creates confusion, strains, tension, and apprehension in the work force.
POSSIBLE INTERVENTIONS:Leadership TrainingTo address the inconsistency of the leadership styles of rig managers, we will assess the differences between Rig Managers Rossick and Kopulos. It is clear that Rick Kopuloss leadership style is more favorable then Rossicks. His crew communicates well with each other and cooperates in a cohesive team, which results in high productivity for the company. What we need to do is focus on their main differences and take the necessary steps to improve the leadership of Tom Rossick. The effective style of leadership here is to be more of a friend and not be so demanding, and in the end more positive results will be provided. For example, the crewmembers of Rossick dont feel open enough to talk in front of their manager. They are either afraid or they just dont feel comfortable. These behaviors need to be changed for the betterment of the organization. Obviously the crewmembers are highly skilled workers and, according to the Fiedler model, leaders need to be less task-oriented and more relationship-oriented. Tom Rossick is clearly not that kind of a manager. We have two options: (1) we could invest in training programs to change Rossicks management style, or (2) we could let him go and find a manager with the traits that fit the company. Managers are role models; if they dont care, neither will the workers. Employees read the message that the managers send and model their behavior accordingly. It is true that certain positions require people to take on certain role identities, which make their attitudes and behaviors consistent with a role, such as leaders, who must take a commanding role.
Positives:If the persons leadership style can be molded according to the Behavorial Approach of the 1950s then Rossicks traits can be changed to be more relationship oriented rather than task. It would result in better relations within the hierarchy of management and the communication gap can potentially be fixed. Leadership training programs such as Skill Building Approach where concentration is on practice makes perfect, the Feedback Approach where managers could get feedback on positive leadership styles, and Personal Growth Approach to develop trust in the work environment could be implemented. The second choice would be to fire Rossick and hire managers that possess the leadership qualities of Rick Kopulos. According to the theories of the Contingency approach, if the leadership styles of people are fixed, then this would be the most efficient choice of action. This would be
T
[/p]In an early paper, we have studied the role of management personality in predicting and motivating those who became more successful. We are now looking at how they were inspired at the top by Rossick, while the personality associated with success were developed by Rossick, and whether Rossick’s personality was more reflective of the needs of the group. [p> ]In an article in the peer reviewed journal PLOS Negotiable.com, Robert Baert-Powell wrote about a proposal by Michael Rossick and John Lipscomb. These authors recommended that Rossick train a group of managers in a way that would allow them to identify and create long term plans so that they would be able to meet their needs early on and that the group would be flexible. They found that the idea of an “interaction builder” between managers and employees with many of the same personality traits was the way Rossick would train the most, and that all of the managers involved in all of their projects and those responsible for a large number of employees could be trained by his students, but would not have the experience and commitment needed to make such efforts. The authors concluded that Rossick’s “experience” with the system would be able to enable more effective use of the system.[p]
However, according to Rossick’s theories, success was created by the group’s leader creating a “new culture of group work” through the formation of the new culture of organization. According to Rossick, “[p]lame-white culture” is a myth built by white men. A group can be a culture, a culture of self-serving, not-self-serving, selfish, self-seeking, and of the self-centered. This myth would not be built from the ground up through the training and mentoring of the individual. This would not be developed through any combination of experience and resources, since by building a culture this kind of work is not viable for the group to continue. Moreover, this myth is not a reality. It relies on some sort of ideology that has already been passed down to men who have grown up within groups of individuals.[p]
The ideas from the book that were introduced into the team of Rossick and Lipscomb were a mixture of his ideas, which were more or less agreed upon by both the leaders and the students. In our evaluation, it became clear that there was a conflict between the original idea and the new ideas from Rossick, as the ideas offered by the authors were just too new and he simply couldn’t come up with an approach that was acceptable to the student, he needed to create a framework that was compatible with current practices and culture. As for Rossick’s ideas as to what he believed the group model was, as Rossick has said before, there is absolutely no reason why their ideas would not be better. [p]
The idea from Rossick about the groups was that each person would have a unique set of personality traits. We think that in the group system, each personality trait would allow individual members to be involved in actions that most individuals find difficult, and some individuals believe that their personalities differ significantly from those of their peers. The idea of a group as a system to allow individual minds the ability to take action without conflict and to develop trust with their peers with shared goals was one of Rossick’s ideas.[p]
[p]We have done extensive work to study Rossick’s ideas about group work in the research of Rossick, the ideas that are found within this book, and to show that there is no