Introduction to conflict management - First Milestone

User Generated

urycpfzr

Business Finance

Description

Please note, I've attached the rubric for the final assignment, the rubric for this milestone (the current project/question to be addressed), and the two options for the final project case study (you may choose either case study, I have no preference).

Overview: For this first milestone, due in Module Three, you will take what you have learned about Define and begin your work on your selected final project case study, establishing the Define phase of the DMAIC process for your organization.

Prompt: First, select your case study from one of the two options provided: Final Project Case Study One or Final Project Case Study Two. Next, summarize the desired resolution to the conflict in the case study based on your knowledge of the organization’s business goals, customer needs, and the process that needs to improve. Then, provide a rationale and reflection on your work thus far. Address the following critical elements in your milestone submission:

I. Defining Goals

• Construct a problem statement that clearly articulates the personnel conflict that has arisen. Be sure to consider the project scope and future-state goal in contextualizing the conflict.

• Complete a stakeholder analysis, identifying the key stakeholders that are involved in or affected by the current situation and future-state goal as articulated in the problem statement. Instructor feedback on this milestone should be used to inform your final project submission, the executive summary presentation with speaker notes.

Note: In Module Four, you will develop a high-level suppliers, inputs, process, outputs, and customers (SIPOC) process map, identifying the quantitative and qualitative variables that are likely to contribute to the organizational conflict you are analyzing. For Milestone Two, due in Module Five, you will build on your understanding of the Define and Measure phases of DMAIC by more fully exploring measurability and analyzing your organization’s conflict further.

Guidelines for Submission: Milestone One should be 1 to 2 pages in length (excluding title and reference pages) with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and citations in APA style. Cite your sources within the text of your paper and on the reference page.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

WCM 610 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric Overview For the final project in this course, you will develop an executive summary presentation with speaker notes. Imagine that you are a human resource professional in an organization that is struggling with a conflict regarding a critical strategic project. Leaders in the organization are looking to you to assess the conflict, determine what the key issues are, and recommend an action plan to resolve it. Organizational managers, and especially human resource professionals, need to develop a mindset that sees organizational conflict as a naturally occurring, expected event in any organization. Conflict brings attention to “pinch points” in organizations and needs to be perceived as an opportunity for improvement, not as a distraction to the job at hand. This course introduces key concepts of organizational conflict in this context, and provides you with some common industry tools and templates you will use as you seek to understand the root causes of a conflict and develop action plans to address them. In this project, you will use organizational tools associated with the define, measure, analyze, improve, and control (DMAIC) process, a Six Sigma problem-solving methodology that many organizations use to solve a variety of issues. By following the rudimentary elements of the DMAIC process, you will define the problem, measure its impact on the organization, analyze the issue in order to assess how best to resolve it, develop recommendations to improve the situation (propose a solution), and suggest an ongoing process to ensure the proposed solution controls the issue, preventing a flare-up or reoccurrence of the original issue. The project is divided into three milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Three, Five, and Seven. The final product will be submitted in Module Nine. In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes:      Analyze conflicts involving organizational culture for determining the root causes of dissonance between organizational values and the individual values of its members Propose data-driven processes that determine critical variables present in conflicts between employees for addressing organizational conflict situations Develop evidence-based strategies for addressing future conflicts involving organizational culture Assess the effectiveness of organizational leadership for informing organizational leaders on how to increase employee engagement, foster collaboration, and build effective teams Develop appropriate gap-analysis strategies for assessing the congruence of ethical, moral, and legal variables present in conflict situations between employees and organizational values Prompt For your project, you will choose one of the case studies provided—Final Project Case Study One or Final Project Case Study Two—and develop an executive summary presentation with speaker notes and citations based on the case study. In your presentation, you will analyze the case study, determine the cause of the conflict, recommend corrective actions to resolve the conflict, and make recommendations to avoid similar conflicts in the future. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed: I. Defining Goals: In this section, you will summarize the desired resolution to the conflict in the case study based on your knowledge of the organization’s business goals, customer needs, and the process that needs to improve. A. Construct a problem statement that clearly articulates the personnel conflict that has arisen. Be sure to consider the project scope and futurestate goal in contextualizing the conflict. B. Complete a stakeholder analysis, identifying the key stakeholders that are involved in or affected by the current situation and future-state goal as articulated in the problem statement. C. Develop a high-level suppliers, inputs, process, outputs, and customers (SIPOC) process map, identifying the quantitative and qualitative variables that are likely to contribute to the conflict. II. Measuring Performance: In this section, you will create a process to gather data on the current situation. A. Propose a process to effectively collect data on the identified variables (from the SIPOC analysis) and appropriately evaluate it. B. Construct an Ishikawa diagram (fishbone diagram) of the variables that contribute to the conflict, selecting the critical variables that require further analysis. C. Describe the role of these critical variables in developing corrective changes to address the conflict in the problem statement. III. Analysis: In this section, you will begin to create a picture of what the future state will look like, focusing on the proposed solution. A. Determine the root causes of the conflict by assessing the variables you identified and the information provided in the case study. B. Construct questions you would ask of the stakeholders (voice of customer) if this were a live situation to pressure test your initial assessment of the probable root causes. C. Using the “Five Whys” process, construct additional questions you anticipate needing to ask as stakeholders answer your initial question. IV. Improve: The goal of this section is to demonstrate that the solutions you propose should resolve the organizational conflict in the case study, leading to an improved future state. A. Recommend appropriate corrective actions to address the previously determined root causes of the conflict. B. Propose quantifiable metrics that could measure progress in implementing the recommended corrective actions. C. Identify potential areas of resistance to the recommended corrective actions, providing recommendations to reduce such resistance. D. Assess the effectiveness of various leadership styles on employee engagement and employee empowerment in the case study. E. Determine how an effective team-building process could have prevented some of the issues with the dysfunctional team in the case study. You might consider team-building models like Drexler/Sibbet or Tuckman. F. Recommend effective leadership styles and team-building processes that organizational leadership could use to promote increased employee engagement and foster collaboration moving forward. V. Controls: This section will recommend methods that should help ensure the proposed solution resolves the defined problem now and in the future. A. Describe how you would address ethical, cultural, and legal variables that present challenges when working with team members from different backgrounds and different geographic regions. Support your response with relevant examples. B. Explain how organizational values can be identified, validated, and codified to reduce the potential for organizational dissonance. C. Develop an appropriate gap-analysis strategy to periodically assess the congruence, or lack thereof, between an organization’s espoused values and its enacted values. Be sure to consider the ethical, cultural, and legal variables in the development of your gap-analysis strategy. Milestones Milestone One: Defining Goals In Module Three, you will take what you have learned about Define and begin your work on your selected case study, establishing the Define phase of the DMAIC process. This milestone is graded with the Milestone One Rubric. Milestone Two: Measuring and Analyzing Conflict In Module Five, you will provide the Measure and Analyze phases of the DMAIC process and apply them to your selected case study. You will first measure performance by creating a process to gather data on the current situation and then begin to create a picture of what the future state will look like, focusing on the proposed solution. This milestone is graded with the Milestone Two Rubric. Milestone Three: The Improve Phase—The Path to Solving Conflict In Module Seven, you will submit a draft of the Improve phase for your selected case study. It should focus on your Improve recommendations, while also probing those recommendations for unwanted consequences. This milestone is graded with the Milestone Three Rubric. Final Submission: Executive Summary Presentation With Speaker Notes In Module Nine, you will submit your final presentation. It should contain your compilation of your learning, incorporating all instructor feedback on your three previous milestones and showcasing the DMAIC process for your selected case study. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical elements of the final product. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded using the Final Project Rubric. Deliverables Milestone Deliverable Module Due Grading Three Graded separately; Milestone One Rubric Five Graded separately; Milestone Two Rubric 1 Defining Goals 2 Measuring and Analyzing Conflict 3 The Improve Phase—The Path to Solving Conflict Seven Graded separately; Milestone Three Rubric Final Submission: Executive Summary Presentation With Speaker Notes Nine Graded separately; Final Project Rubric Final Project Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your executive summary presentation should be 10 to 12 slides in length, accompanied by speaker notes. It should be of professional quality. Use APA formatting and citations. Critical Elements Defining Goals: Problem Statement [WCM-610-01] Exemplary (100%) Meets “Proficient” criteria and problem statement demonstrates a complex grasp of the personnel conflict and how it relates to the project scope and future-state goal Proficient (90%) Constructs a problem statement that clearly articulates the personnel conflict that has arisen, considering the project scope and future-state goal in contextualizing the conflict Defining Goals: Stakeholder Analysis [WCM-610-01] Meets “Proficient” criteria and response demonstrates a sophisticated awareness of who is involved in and affected by the current situation and future goal as articulated in the problem statement Completes a stakeholder analysis, identifying the key stakeholders who are involved in or affected by the current situation and future-state goal as articulated in the problem statement Defining Goals: Process Map [WCM-610-01] Meets “Proficient” criteria and process map demonstrates keen insight into the quantitative and qualitative variables that are likely to contribute to the conflict Develops a high-level SIPOC process map, identifying the quantitative and qualitative variables that are likely to contribute to the conflict Measuring Performance: Identified Variables [WCM-610-02] Meets “Proficient” criteria and proposed process demonstrates keen insight into how to collect and appropriately evaluate data on identified variables Proposes a process to effectively collect data on the identified variables and appropriately evaluate it Needs Improvement (70%) Constructs a problem statement that articulates the personnel conflict that has arisen, considering the project scope and future-state goal in contextualizing the conflict, but problem statement is cursory, lacks clarity, or contains inaccuracies Completes a stakeholder analysis, identifying stakeholders who are involved or affected by the current situation and future-state goal, but analysis is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or stakeholders identified are not relevant given the problem statement Develops a SIPOC process map, identifying the quantitative and qualitative variables that are likely to contribute to the conflict, but process map is cursory or contains inaccuracies Proposes a process to collect and evaluate data on identified variables but proposition is cursory or illogical, collection method is not effective, or evaluation process is not appropriate Not Evident (0%) Does not construct a problem statement that articulates the personnel conflict that has arisen Value 6.4 Does not complete a stakeholder analysis, identifying the stakeholders who are involved or affected by the current situation and future-state goal 6.4 Does not develop a SIPOC process map 6.4 Does not propose a process to collect and evaluate data on identified variables 6.4 Measuring Performance: Ishikawa Diagram [WCM-610-02] Meets “Proficient” criteria and critical variables identified demonstrate a sophisticated awareness of the complexities of problem being addressed Constructs an Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram of the variables that contribute to the conflict, selecting critical variables that require further analysis Measuring Performance: Critical Variables [WCM-610-02] Meets “Proficient” criteria and description makes particularly cogent connections between the critical variables and the conflict articulated in the problem statement Describes the role of critical variables in developing corrective changes to address the conflict in the problem statement Analysis: Root Causes of Conflict [WCM-610-03] Meets “Proficient” criteria and determined root causes demonstrate keen insight into the complexity of the conflict Determines the root causes of the conflict by assessing the variables identified and the information provided in the case study Analysis: Questions of the Stakeholders [WCM-610-03] Meets “Proficient” criteria and questions demonstrate keen insight into the complexity of determining the root causes of conflict from stakeholder interviews Meets “Proficient” criteria and questions expertly integrate information provided and the “Five Whys” process Constructs questions to ask the stakeholders to pressure test the initial assessment of probable root causes Meets “Proficient” criteria and recommended actions demonstrate a sophisticated approach to addressing the causes of the conflict Recommends appropriate corrective actions to address the previously determined root causes of the conflict Analysis: Additional Questions [WCM-610-03] Improve: Corrective Actions [WCM-610-03] Uses the “Five Whys” process to construct additional questions that may need to be asked as stakeholders answer initial questions Constructs an Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram of variables that contribute to the conflict, selecting the variables that require further analysis, but variables selected are not logical or are not critical for further analysis Describes the role of different variables in developing corrective changes to address the conflict in the problem statement but description is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or variables discussed are not critical to resolving the conflict Determines the root causes of the conflict by assessing the variables identified and the information provided in the case study but determination is cursory or illogical Constructs questions for stakeholders to pressure test the initial assessment of probable root causes but questions are cursory or illogical Constructs additional questions that may need to be asked as stakeholders answer initial questions but questions are illogical or do not use the “Five Whys” process Recommends corrective actions to address the previously determined root causes of the conflict but recommendation is cursory or corrective actions are not appropriate Does not construct an Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram of the variables that contribute to the conflict 6.4 Does not describe the role of different variables in developing corrective changes to address the conflict in the problem statement 6.4 Does not determine the root causes of the conflict by assessing the variables identified and the information provided in the case study 3.2 Does not construct questions for stakeholders to pressure test the initial assessment of probable root causes 3.2 Does not construct additional questions that may need to be asked as stakeholders answer initial questions 3.2 Does not recommend corrective actions to address the previously determined root causes of the conflict 3.2 Meets “Proficient” criteria and proposed metrics demonstrate a nuanced approach to measuring the progress in implementing the recommended corrective actions Meets “Proficient” criteria and recommendations demonstrate keen insight into how corrective actions might be resisted Proposes quantifiable metrics that could measure progress in implementing the recommended corrective actions Proposes metrics that could measure progress in implementing the recommended corrective actions but proposal is cursory or illogical Does not propose metrics that could measure progress in implementing the recommended corrective actions 3.2 Identifies potential areas of resistance to the recommended corrective actions, providing recommendations to reduce such resistance Does not identify potential areas of resistance to the recommended corrective actions 3.2 Improve: Leadership Styles [WCM-610-04] Meets “Proficient” criteria and assessment demonstrates a complex grasp of the impacts of leadership styles on employees Assesses the effectiveness of various leadership styles on employee engagement and employee empowerment in the case study Does not assess the effectiveness of various leadership styles on employee engagement and employee empowerment in the case study 6.4 Improve: Team-Building Process [WCM-610-04] Meets “Proficient” criteria and determination demonstrates a complex grasp of what makes team-building processes effective Determines how an effective team-building process could have prevented some of the issues with the dysfunctional team in the case study Does not determine how a teambuilding process could have prevented some of the issues with the dysfunctional team in the case study 6.4 Improve: Effective Leadership and Team Building [WCM-610-04] Meets “Proficient” criteria and recommendations demonstrate keen insight into what makes leadership styles and team-building processes effective Recommends effective leadership styles and teambuilding processes that organizational leadership could use to promote increased employee engagement and foster collaboration moving forward Identifies potential areas of resistance to the recommended corrective actions, providing recommendations to reduce such resistance, but recommendations are cursory or illogical Assesses the effectiveness of various leadership styles on employee engagement and employee empowerment in the case study but assessment is cursory, illogical, or contains inaccuracies Determines how a team-building process could have prevented some of the issues with the dysfunctional team in the case study but determination is cursory, contains inaccuracies, or does not describe effective team-building strategies Recommends leadership styles and team-building processes that organizational leadership could use to promote increased employee engagement and foster collaboration moving forward but recommendations are illogical or are not based on effective leadership styles and team-building processes Does not recommend leadership styles and team-building processes that organizational leadership could use to promote increased employee engagement and foster collaboration moving forward 6.4 Improve: Quantifiable Metrics [WCM-610-03] Improve: Areas of Resistance [WCM-610-03] Controls: Ethical, Cultural, and Legal Variables [WCM-610-05] Meets “Proficient” criteria and response demonstrates a complex grasp of the potential challenges presented by ethical, cultural, and legal variables when working with team members from different backgrounds and geographic regions Describes method of addressing ethical, cultural, and legal variables that present challenges when working with team members from different backgrounds and geographic regions and supports response with relevant examples Controls: Organizational Values [WCM-610-05] Meets “Proficient” criteria and explanation demonstrates a keen insight into the potential for organizational values to reduce organizational dissonance Explains how organizational values can be identified, validated, and codified to reduce the potential for organizational dissonance Controls: Gap-Analysis Strategy [WCM-610-05] Meets “Proficient” criteria and gap-analysis strategy makes especially cogent connections between an organization’s espoused values and its enacted values Develops an appropriate gapanalysis strategy to periodically assess the congruence, or lack thereof, between an organization’s espoused values and its enacted values, considering ethical, cultural, and legal variables in the development of the strategy Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-toread format Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Describes method of addressing ethical, cultural, and legal variables that present challenges when working with team members from different backgrounds and geographic regions and supports response with examples, but description is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or supporting examples are not relevant Explains how organizational values can be identified, validated, and codified to reduce the potential for organizational dissonance but explanation is cursory, illogical, or contains inaccuracies Develops a gap-analysis strategy to periodically assess the congruence, or lack thereof, between an organization’s espoused values and its enacted values, considering ethical, cultural, and legal variables in the development of the strategy, but strategy is cursory, illogical, or not appropriate Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Does not describe method of addressing ethical, cultural, and legal variables that present challenges when working with team members from different backgrounds and geographic regions 6.4 Does not explain how organizational values can be identified, validated, and codified to reduce the potential for organizational dissonance 6.4 Does not develop a gap-analysis strategy to periodically assess the congruence, or lack thereof, between an organization’s espoused values and its enacted values 6.4 Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas Total 4 100% WCM 610 Final Project Case Study One Phone Systems Inc., an international company that manufactures telephone accessories, has four locations in the United States: Syracuse, New York; Minneapolis, Minnesota; San Antonio, Texas; and Tampa, Florida. It also has facilities in Great Britain, Germany, and Mexico. Phone Systems Inc. values diversity in its workforce, innovation in its processes, and profitability in its products. The president of the board has been overheard saying, “You can’t please all of the people all of the time. Sometimes profits come before personnel.” Phone Systems Inc. is contemplating opening a new facility in India and has initiated the formation of a virtual team to evaluate this decision. An outcome of this project, as directed by the company’s board of directors, is one of the facilities in the United States would be closed to fund the creation of the new facility in India. Below is a summary of the four sites. Location Syracuse, NY Minneapolis, MN San Antonio, TX Tampa, FL Year Established 1955 1968 1995 2001 Number of Employees 450 250 650 500 Syracuse, NY: This site is also the company’s global headquarters—the site where the company started. It recently celebrated 60 years of service in the United States, and received a presidential citation from President Obama for its dedication to keeping jobs in the United States. This site has an average years of service of 25 years, and the average employee age is 50.5 years old. While this site has the longest history and tradition, it also scores lowest in internal employee satisfaction surveys. Minneapolis, MN: This site has undergone three downsizings in the past decade, reducing from 775 employees in 2005 to 600 employees in 2008 and 500 employees in 2010. It most recently underwent a considerable restructuring in 2013 to its current head count of 250 employees. The jobs were transferred to the San Antonio, Texas, site and Tampa, Florida, site due to lower labor costs and higher levels of efficiency at both of these sites. The site pursued a grant through the State of Minnesota for skills retraining, and was awarded a state grant of $300,000 to fund retraining its incumbent workforce from 2015 through 2020. The company would be required to repay the State if any employees were laid off from this site prior to 2020. San Antonio, TX: This site is the “cash cow” of the company, as it has the highest level of efficiency, is the company’s lowest-cost facility, and has the best overall record of performance. Its cost of operations is the lowest of all sites in the United States. However, the site is currently the target of a union-organizing drive by the Communication Workers of America. Employees pushed for an increase in wages, which was denied by management as the result of an analysis of wages in the area for employees in similar industries. This prompted some employees to pursue joining a union. Any attempt to curtail operations at the site, such as a union-busting move by the company, could create a potential legal challenge with the international union. Tampa, FL: This is the company’s newest site, and is second to the San Antonio site in cost and efficiency. It has a very low level of attrition, and has the highest scores in the employee satisfaction survey. The site has received awards for its solid performance in minority hiring, and has also been positively recognized as a leader in the local area for its excellent diversity hiring practices. A cross-function team comprised of three senior managers—plant manager, plant controller, and plant human resources manager—from each of the four sites in the United States has formed to develop the strategy for the creation of the new facility in India. One outcome that is non-negotiable by the company’s board of directors is one of the four sites in the United States would have to close to fund the asset-reconfiguration project. The group has met twice but cannot reach consensus on their objective. However, they have discussed a shift in the project objective, and requested that the board of directors instead close the facility in Mexico. The site leaders agree a site needs to be closed, but all are adamant that their respective sites should not be closed due to economic, political, technical, and loyalty issues. Conflict among the team members involves the following issues:    Representatives from the Syracuse, New York, site are adamant that the site cannot close, as it is the world headquarters site and each member of the board of directors lives in the Syracuse area. Several members of the committee appear to be ethnocentric, vocally disagreeing with the company’s decision to open a site in India predicated on closing a site in the United States. A fair degree of finger-pointing has occurred on the committee, with members focused on finding weaknesses at each site other than their own, rather than focusing on the objectives the committee was challenged to resolve. The facility in Mexico was established in 2008 and has a very low labor cost; its employees are very energetic and excited to be part of Phone Systems Inc. Its leadership team is comprised of 90% Mexican nationals, and its plant manager describes the environment at the site as “Change Disneyland.” Employees welcome change, and are highly passionate about their company. The board of directors was not pleased by the proposal from the project team to close the site in Mexico, and has brought you in to take over leadership of the team. The board has requested you develop a strategy to bring this project to a successful conclusion, with the following objectives:    Lead the team to the desired conclusion with the majority of the team reaching consensus on which of the four existing sites in the United States would close. Summarize the key challenges in moving forward with the recommendation. Present the process by which you will lead the team to a successful outcome. WCM 610 Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric Overview: For this first milestone, due in Module Three, you will take what you have learned about Define and begin your work on your selected final project case study, establishing the Define phase of the DMAIC process for your organization. Prompt: First, select your case study from one of the two options provided: Final Project Case Study One or Final Project Case Study Two. Next, summarize the desired resolution to the conflict in the case study based on your knowledge of the organization’s business goals, customer needs, and the process that needs to improve. Then, provide a rationale and reflection on your work thus far. Address the following critical elements in your milestone submission: I. • • Defining Goals Construct a problem statement that clearly articulates the personnel conflict that has arisen. Be sure to consider the project scope and future-state goal in contextualizing the conflict. Complete a stakeholder analysis, identifying the key stakeholders that are involved in or affected by the current situation and future-state goal as articulated in the problem statement. Instructor feedback on this milestone should be used to inform your final project submission, the executive summary presentation with speaker notes. Note: In Module Four, you will develop a high-level suppliers, inputs, process, outputs, and customers (SIPOC) process map, identifying the quantitative and qualitative variables that are likely to contribute to the organizational conflict you are analyzing. For Milestone Two, due in Module Five, you will build on your understanding of the Define and Measure phases of DMAIC by more fully exploring measurability and analyzing your organization’s conflict further. Guidelines for Submission: Milestone One should be 1 to 2 pages in length (excluding title and reference pages) with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and citations in APA style. Cite your sources within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Rubric Note that the grading rubric for this milestone submission is not identical to that of the final project. The Final Project Rubric will include an additional “Exemplary” category that provides guidance as to how you can go above and beyond “Proficient” in your final submission. Critical Elements Problem Statement Proficient (100%) Constructs a problem statement that clearly articulates the personnel conflict that has arisen, considering the project scope and future-state goal in contextualizing the conflict Stakeholder Analysis Completes a stakeholder analysis, identifying the key stakeholders who are involved in or affected by the current situation and futurestate goal as articulated in the problem statement Articulation of Response Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Needs Improvement (75%) Constructs a problem statement that articulates the personnel conflict that has arisen, considering the project scope and future-state goal in contextualizing the conflict, but problem statement is cursory, lacks clarity, or contains inaccuracies Completes a stakeholder analysis, identifying stakeholders who are involved or affected by the current situation and future-state goal, but analysis is cursory or contains inaccuracies, or stakeholders identified are not relevant given the problem statement Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Not Evident (0%) Does not construct a problem statement that articulates the personnel conflict that has arisen Value 40 Does not complete a stakeholder analysis, identifying the stakeholders who are involved or affected by the current situation and future-state goal 40 Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas Total 20 100% WCM 610 Final Project Case Study Two You are a human resources manager for a global organization that produces and distributes soft drinks throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The site has three existing manufacturing sites located in Jersey City, New Jersey; Los Angeles, California; and Toronto, Canada. Throughout the organization’s existence, there has been a history of “homegrown” hiring. Many of those now in leadership positions have been with the company from very early on. Corporate leadership feels strongly that employee morale has a significant impact on productivity and maintaining a culture of positivity is imperative to the organization’s success. Sales have significantly increased and the company plans to open a fourth bottling site in Dallas, Texas. Doing so will enable the firm to better serve its client base in the southwest region of the United States and Mexico. Sales are expected to grow as a result of this expansion, with positive impact on the existing three sites. The corporate leadership team has communicated that it will seek internal candidates for leadership positions in the new site, specifically for the plant manager, plant controller, and plant human resources director. A number of internal candidates have expressed interest in being considered for these positions. The following negative behaviors have begun to emerge:  Some of the high-potential candidates who have been told they are likely to be future leaders in the organization have communicated that they will apply for these positions when they are posted, but if they are not selected, they will seek employment outside of the organization.  Some site leaders may be changing the day-to-day operations of their site to positively impact their site’s performance metrics on a very short-term basis. This involves short-term changes to reduce cost, reduce workin-process levels, and reduce head count to positively impact monthly metric performance. However, these short-term changes could have long-term negative consequences.  Employees in the Canadian facility have also expressed interest in being considered for the leadership positions in Dallas, Texas. The Canadian site has the highest level of efficiency and an excellent customer service record, and it is best in overall financial performance. A challenge in considering candidates from the Canadian facility is ensuring compliance with United States immigration laws, which have greatly tightened under the Obama Administration. You have been tasked with developing the selection process by which the best candidate will be identified for each of the three leadership positions. You will manage the selection process you create, guiding the process to success by filling the three new leadership positions. The selection process needs to consider the following variables:       The candidates’ career paths The candidates’ leadership and management styles The candidates’ performances at their respective sites Employee morale at the respective sites, based on annual employee satisfaction surveys administered at each site Recommendations outlining how Canadian nationals can be considered for the openings Recommendations on managing potential voluntary attrition if high-potential incumbents are not selected for the position The following are process-excellence tools or procedures that could be used in process design:  Voice of the customer (VOC) is used to gather data to better define and understand customer needs. It helps provide critical features, parameters, and requirements for the desired outcome, helping better define the problem. It also provides a baseline of customer satisfaction (if desired), allowing for a way to assess if the proposed solution is viewed as an improvement.  Brainstorming generates a lot of ideas quickly to identify potential causes. Brainstorming encourages creativity, involves everyone, and generates excitement and energy.  The “Five Whys” push for root causes; start with the focused problem statement and then ask “why” five times.  Cause and effect diagrams, typically shown as fishbone diagrams, graphically display potential causes of a problem.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hi buddy, I'v...


Anonymous
Just the thing I needed, saved me a lot of time.

Studypool
4.7
Indeed
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags