Hyteck.biz is a rapidly growing firm that is known for their
quality work. The company, headed by Don
Macrae, is known for taking on all projects which has allowed it to grow
quickly. This quick growth has caused
employees to be stretched thin. We see
in this case how the rapid growth has cause major inefficiencies in the way the
organization if run.
On a Friday morning, a virus is detected in the QA system
causing some issues with a high priority project. This project requires an immediate response
since there is a pending lawsuit if the product is not delivered on time. John Holt, head of Design and Development,
sees that Edwina Smith, the project manager, is not in her office and hands the
problem to Lee Curtis, a seasoned employee to handle. Holt then leaves to run his weekly errands,
as he does every week.
In comes Macrae, questioning why Curtis is working on the
virus and not a special project he had assigned him to. With Smith and Holt not to be found, he gets
upset and tells Curtis to stop what he is working on and get back to the
special project. When Holt returns he
speaks with Smith about the problem only to find that Curtis is not working on
it and fires him immediately. Smith
explains what had occurred with Macrea and Holt gets upset and goes after
Macrae. They argue about
responsibilities and over stepping boundaries, to which Holt is let go.
This is a classic case of non-communication. As a company, Hytech.biz should have policies
and procedures in place to handle a situation like this. There should be clear lines of communications
open to all parties involved in a situation like this. When the issued was first discovered, there
should have been a set plan of action to notify people involved in the process
and set a plan in motion. Communication
to all parties should have been immediate and Macrae would have been in the
loop at all times of ongoing issues.
The lax attitude that Holt has is also concerning. In a time of crisis, which this seems to be,
the head of the Department should be stepping up and getting involved in issues
at hand. The Friday routine should have
been held off to make sure that all people involved were notified of the issue
and discussed a serious matter, pending lawsuit, with the head of the
firm.
These issues bring to light a series of issues and questions
that need to be addressed within the firm.
What are the policies and procedures to follow when there is a
problem? What are the lines of
communication from the bottom to the top?
Is there a chain of command in place?
What should have been done differently and what should be implemented to
prevent a similar situation?
(Searcher)
ReplyDeleteThere are several issues at Hyteck.biz. The key issues I want to discuss is the lack of effective communication. (Eric also mentioned this) I am posting a link to an article on effective communication methods in an organization. There are 3 points in the article about communicating effectively. They are listening, speaking, and preparation.
Don Macrae is guilty of not listening. Lee Curtis tried to explain the situation at hand to Macrae, but he was too upset to listen. This is the one event that had a direct impact on the project being jeopardized.
John Holt was guilty of not speaking. He did speak to Curtis to have him work on the project, however he failed to speak to both Smith and Macrae to inform them Curtis was now working on the game issue.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effective-communication-methods-organization-2.html
Holt, M. (2013). Effective Communication Methods in an Organization. Retrieved August 29, 2013, from Houston Chronicle: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effective-communication-methods-organization-2.html
(Searcher)
ReplyDeleteI would echo the conclusion that the situation in the case developed because of a lack of communication. Upon learning of the problem that plagued the gameware project, Holt should have communicated the matter to McCrae and Smith, by email or phone, AND THEN looked for them to confirm receipt of his message. Assigning Curtis may have been permissible had Smith and Mcrae been aware of the gravity of the situation. By leaving, Holt, a key gear in the machine, deprives the organization of a chance to run smoothly. Curtis clearly felt that he was following clearly established guidelines by following the most current orders from the highest ranking official. And McCrae should have said something to Holt sooner if he knew about, and did not like, the morning routine.
I am posting a link to a communication policy from the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services mandating monthly meetings between supervisors and employees and striving to maintain open communication in the workplace. The whole situation in the case could have been avoided if all parties simply maintained an open line of communication about the projects they were working on, and the priorities and exigencies that may arise. The procedures give concrete direction on implementation (like developing a framework for meeting agendas and having supervisors accountable for making employees aware of policy or circumstance changes) and would have served to maximize efficiency and profit in this case.
Communication: Meetings, Information Sharing, Policy Development and Review. (1997, April 1). State of Tennessee . Retrieved August 29, 2013, from http://www.state.tn.us/youth/dcsguide/policies/chap1/1.3.pdf
In a time of mass communication and everyone being wired, or wired less, it seems like there were no methods in place for communication. I work for a small municipality and I have a smart phone and a tablet that allows me to be in contact with my employees and supervisors at any time. I tech firm, like Hyteck.biz, would most likely have a vast array of communication tools. I know that I have policies and procedures in place that require me to contact certain supervisory staff of any issues that arise. My organization feels that they would rather be over-informed rather than under-informed. It makes dealing with issues tha arise alot easier if you know some of the facts before the dreaded phone call. The firm needs to reevaluate its communications methods before moving forward with any more major projects and any pending lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteExactly, it seems so fundamental to success of any organization to keep an open line of communication between all levels and people involved. Without that, there's no grease for the gears and the machine stops functioning.
ReplyDeleteThe second thing lacking in this case is good leadership. During the lecture we were asked to fill in the blank on "A good leader always ( blank)." I filled it in with leads by example. Dr. Bland always came up with this to fill in the blank. As the guy in charge of the department, Holt should have been a good leader and put his personal business aside for the emergency project.
ReplyDeleteI just spent a couple of days at the APWA conference in Chicago. I attended several sessions on leadership. If anyone is interested in the topic, look up Cy Wakeman. She is a very good speaker on reality based leadership and management. A couple of the things stressed were don't get emotional, communicate, lead by example and find out the facts. Both Holt and Macrae could have benefitted from these simple ideas.
As i read through the text above it sounded all too familiar but for a failing company. "What are the policies and procedures to follow when there is a problem?" It seems John Holt & Don Macrae did not communicate well with each other from the beginning. I dont know the facts here. Maybe the QA system problem which was priority could have been repaired in an hour so the law suite issue would not esasterbate. Maybe the QA systme promble could have impacted the "special project" Curtis was working on for Macrae but the bottom line is there was most certainly lack of communication. It almost appear these guys were competitors rather than compadres; never-the-less, there should have been an employee handbook that addressed polices and procedures (which may need to be reviewed and signed annually but also adjusted if the company has expanded greatly).
ReplyDelete"What are the lines of communication from the bottom to the top?" Often an organizational chart is missing from companies which is a simple tool that could be displayed. This would demonstrate the chain of command.
And Yes, leadership style is important to understand. With Don Macrae being known for taking on many projects he may be the micro manager type who is concerned about himself and his own image - we don't know. Due to the rapid growth of the company, the importance of the product, and the need for a team to work together a conference call or meeting should have taken place to make sure people knew their roles and the significance of the situation. We do not know why Smith was not available. Was she often away from her office? Was she working on another project or was she working of key things that would help expedient the project more effectively and efficiently? Did she run to the rest room? If she did the later then some one was impatient. We don't really know all the facts.
For prevention, professional development training many have been a good choice for the company to look at -how to do as many things with less time and tools. In addition, something to boost staff morale and motivation could have been implemented such as a memo sent via email or break room post which could have stated how upper administrators value the dedication and commitment of the team and appreciate the success of the company thus far and they would like to see them continue to exhibit quality hard work ethics especially with these new special projects.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI concur with the previous posts in the fact that the Hyteck case highly demonstrates a lack of proper and coherent communication. The inability of Holt to effectively communicate the threat with his team members including his boss Macrae suggests a gross incoherent attitude towards problem solving within a firm or organization. Smith is merely an unfortunate follower because he has to take orders from both the overall boss Macrae as well as his Department head Holt. This is not uncommon in organization as the protection of territory continues between management and leadership.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is also gross incompetence in Holt leaving the office when their necks were on the line.There is a million dollar project in jeopardy and even a threatening law suit and he still goes on with his usual weekend errands. This is not a quality of a good team leader. Macrae is right when he argues that if the project was that important then Holt should have stayed back and supervise the team to restore sanity.
It would have saved Don Macrae the pain of having to search for another "seasoned computer engineer" to replace Holt if he had been more rational during the crisis. He would have taken the hint of the threat if only he gave Curtis the Chance of explain why he was actually working on the game ware project and not the call center project that he was assigned to.
The scenario in this case is largely related to inefficient managerial and leadership skills and crises management. Good leadership involves joint accountability and this involves each member of the firm taking responsibility for the success and failure of the firm and not a blame game. The team or workers in the firm do not adequately represent the attributes of team work, in which communication through dialogue is always the first point of call.
I concur with the above comments in that communication and clarity in procedure were sorely lacking in this case. Although collaborative leadership and a team approach can bring a great deal to the table, in times of crisis, it is essential that proper chains of command and lines of communication are established. If one person (Curtis) is going to be supervised and given directives by multiple superiors, it is essential that the superiors be able to communicate with each other to make sure that the instructions and directives are clear, consistent, and in line with the overall priorities of the company. On a larger scale, management on all levels need to establish organizational priorities to direct day-to-day assignments, and these priorities need to be consistently reflected in the work assignments of subordinates. Having consistent, clear, and communicated organizational priorities can do a great deal to reduce conflict and inconsistency among management and can reduce the potential for conflict and misunderstanding if someone other than an employee's immediate supervisor needs to provide directives or make decisions regarding the employee's priorities and work assignments.
ReplyDeleteProcedures such as team meetings can be helpful in establishing this on a day-to-day routine business basis; however, it seems that in times of crisis, these sorts of protocols cave under chaos and panic. All too often, it seems like ineffective and inefficient management and poor communication patterns become glaringly obvious in times of crisis, when effective management and clear communication are most needed.
Team meetings are a huge part of any organization. I have worked a for a few leaders who did not have team meeting but were notorious for asking 3-4 people to work on a project because they either forgot who they had asked or did not trust the people in the organization. This led to mass communication issues and multiple people working on one problem and not working on many problems. Team meetings might not have prevented this issue, but may the communication style that would have been learned in these meetings and knowing the organization wants open communication might have prevented this from occurring.
ReplyDeleteHello all,
ReplyDeleteI want to challenge you to think about your favored way of viewing this problem. For the most part, you all have interpreted the problem as one of poor communication shaped by the assumption that Hyteck.biz is a poorly structured organization as evidenced by various problems (violation of chain of command, poor information exchange, overlapping job responsibilities, sloppy adherence to prescribed roles). Do you recognize your favored way of viewing the problem and how that shapes how you would frame and solve the problem? In your framing and solving of the problem you all tend to suggest that the organization could and should function rationally/mechanistically and you have prescribed rational solutions.
Consider the following question. What if you solved all of the rational problems(job design, lines of communication, etc.), would this organization work in a smooth rational manner?
Other potential readings of the situation: poor planning, dysfunctions of authoritarian management, awkward-clashing personalities, a search for villains, organizational politics, a fragmented corporate culture, and etc.)
This case was assigned knowing that the usual reading of the case is mechanistic/rational. But, given the multiple readings, the task of organizational analysis is to unravel this complexity. Unfortunately, we tend to read and understand situations in partial ways. A comprehensive understanding requires that we ask many different questions and be aware of the framing and reframing process to develop a knack of reading situations. Be sure that you all do not fall into the trap of favored ways of reading situations. Hopefully, this class will open you up to multiple interpretations of any given situation, multiple models of understanding, alternative patterns of explanation, and set the basis for alternative modes of action, problem formulation, and problem solution.
Grade: 17 Points (Satisfactory ... See Rubric on "Course Blogging Ho To" Document)
Please offer more back and forth discussion and reference to course materials/readings. Respondents you should review the searchers material and incorporate that in your posts.