Case Analysis: The Luggers Versus the Butchers

February 22, 2011

Case Analysis: The Luggers Versus the Butchers

The Food Merchandising Corporation warehouse has an efficient productive structure

that is working for them based on bottom line productivity. However, from the employees’

perspective, it is a dysfunctional structure. This dysfunctional structure has ineffective

management with inequity distribution, which is causing conflict among management and

employees.

Structure

The Food Merchandising Corporation warehouse in northern New Jersey stocks certain

goods and then ships them out on order to various stores. Their biggest and most expensive

commodity is beef that is received in the form of two hindquarters and two forequarters with

each weighing approximately two hundred pounds. The warehouse has two distinct groups to

process the beef, one being the warehousemen (luggers) that transport the beef within the

warehouse to freezers to await the butchering process handled by butchers. It is imperative that

the process be expedited in order to move the product out as quickly as possible to meet demand.

The company goals are easily identified as maintaining efficient interdependent groups

that work together to achieve success. The luggers transport and stock the beef for the butchers,

who then butcher the meat into smaller wholesale cuts. The meat is then restocked and ready for

shipping out based on order requests. If all groups fulfill their job tasks and work jointly to

expedite process it is a win-win situation for all. However, that is not the case as the

organization’s structure is faltering due to everyone having their own agenda while management

is sitting on the sidelines as observers rather than active participants.

The luggers have taken control of their environment and restructured it to their

advantage. They turned the tables on the butchers, which as skilled employees once held the

higher-esteemed position with higher wages and less physical labor. Thru innovative transport

rails and team effort, the luggers now have more earning potential than the butchers and exert

less physical effort then previously required to completer their tasks. Management, once a strong

presence, has now been placed on the sidelines due to a change in political power that was

diluted by the presence of the union and managers and employees that have formed alliances.

From an organizational perspective, the warehouse is producing and meeting production

goals, but from a structural standpoint the warehouse foundation is faltering and in danger of

collapsing if the butchers walk out due to their job dissatisfaction. The organization’s hierarchy

should be from top to bottom, warehouse manager, foreman, and then warehousemen. They also

should have union support and representation from the union representative and the shop

steward. However, the luggers have changed the standard operating procedures and routines and

when the butchers complain, their concerns are not heard as management has lost control of the

luggers in addition to being in alliance with them.

Design (structure) drives the way strategies are formulated or formed, and determines

whether and how they can be implemented. Firms recognize the need for adaptation, determine

its course, and put change into effect by this vehicle. The framework enables and allows

collective behavior to occur. It is not the only challenge confronting organizations, but it is a

challenge that is fundamental and universal that is a focal interest of organization theory that

must be the understanding of how to organize people and resources in order to collectively

accomplished desired ends (Greenwood & Miller, 2010). Structure or lack thereof does not

2

necessary mean an unsuccessful organization; however, it can be a contributing variable that

negatively affects how problems are solved.

Major Issues

Leadership

Path-goal theory maintains that “one of the strategic functions of the leader is to enhance

the psychological states of subordinates that result in motivation to perform” (House & Dressler,

1974; Ilies, Judge, & Wagner, 2006). There are three types of leadership styles: transactional,

transformational, and servant. The transactional style is the exchange between the leader and

follower. They influence each other in a way that both parties receive something of value

(Humphreys, 2002). Transactional leadership is usually characterized by the factors of

contingent reward and management-by-exception (Bass, 1985). A more active transactional

leader typically employs a style of contingent reward (reward is contingent upon the follower

meeting an agreed upon, and mutually understood goal) whereas a more passive transactional

leader tends to practice avoidance of corrective actions (managing-by-exception) as long as goals

are achieved (Humphreys, 2002)

Transformation leaders operate out of deeply held personal value systems. By expressing

these personal standards, transformational leaders are able to unite their followers and more

importantly, actually change their followers’ goals and beliefs (Bass, 1990a; Burns, 1978;

Deluga, 1988). Transformational leaders gain acceptance of the organizational mission by

developing the ability within followers to look beyond their own self-interests. Bass (1985)

asserts that this is accomplished by employing one or more of the factors associated with

transformational leadership: charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and

individual consideration (Humphreys, 2002). Like transformational leadership, the concept of

3

servant leadership also emerged from the heritage of charismatic leadership theory (Graham,

1991). Compared to transformational leadership, servant leader research is practically

nonexistent (Bass, 2000). Many have defined servant leader behavior as actions that honor the

individual self-esteem and self-worth of followers, and increase the desire to become servant

leaders as well (Spears, 1998; Humphreys, 2005).

The common concept in every journal article used for this analysis was that the primary

function of a leader was to motivate his or her followers and it is done through leader behavior.

The premise being that leaders do not use influence triggers to motivate follower behavior but

instead used behaviors and communication that are “interpreted by followers and lead to

influence triggers” (Barbuto, 2000).

Steers et al. (1996) asserts that behavioral issues in the workplace simply cannot be

analyzed without considering the dual factors of motivation and leadership. Further, Jacobson

(2001) declares it “self-evident” that leaders and followers are part of one interrelated system

(Humphreys & Einstein 2004). There is evidence transformational leaders enhance follower

effort, satisfaction, commitment, and performance (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996;

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993). More

recently, Ehrhart and Klein (2001) offered findings that indicate follower values and personality

could be useful predictors of motivating leader behaviors. In essence, they assert leader

behaviors deemed motivating by individual followers are very much driven by a follower’s

characteristics and values.

Wofford et al. (2001) state that leaders “must be aware of the motive patterns of

followers and adapt their behaviors to match those patterns.” Further, Shamir et al. (1993)

suggested there must be a “congruency” between a leader’s communication and a follower’s

4

values (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001). Humphreys and Einstein (2004) believe this concept of

congruency is both crucial and missing from previous models. They are referring to the concept

that effective leaders offer communication and other forms of behavior that are consistent with

an individual follower’s identity and values (Humphreys & Einstein, 2004). Lord and Brown

(2001) declare “leadership works best when there is a match between the identity level of

followers and the focus of leaders” (Humphreys & Einstein, 2004).

In Humphreys & Einstein’s (2004) extended work motivation model they use

temperament as one construct that is applied to the dyadic leader/follower relationship. They

believe that within the work motivation process, enhancing follower motivation is a leadership

responsibility that entails leader communication, feedback, and behaviors that are congruent to

an individual follower’s information and engagement preference based upon temperament. The

model’s four temperaments are based on individual preferences for receiving/perceiving

information, evaluating that information, dealing with the outside world, and becoming

energized. Plato’s (c340 B.C.) verbiage of Artisan, Guardian, Idealist, and Rational were used

for these four fundamental patterns of human personality (Keirsey, 1998; Humphreys & Einstein,

2004). All four temperaments will be encountered in the organizational setting and all can make

excellent followers. What is crucial, though, is that leaders realize, consider, and utilize the

individual temperaments of followers to enhance communication and the dyadic relationship to

augment follower motivation. Leaders also exhibit the core personality characteristics of these

temperaments.

The purpose of identifying the temperament of the leader as well as the follower is have

the ability for leaders to comprehend a follower’s temperament, particularly when that

temperament is different from their own, and respond with behaviors, feedback, and

5

communication that are congruent with the follower’s preference and perspective will enhance

follower motivation to a greater degree than those leaders who either lack the capacity or will to

do so (Humphreys & Einstein, 2004).

Bass (1990a) defines Transformational Leadership as: (a) idealized influence (attributed

and behavior): provides vision and sense of mission, instills pride, gains respect and trust, (b)

inspirational motivation: communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts,

expresses important purposes in simple ways, (c) intellectual stimulation: promotes intelligence,

rationality, and careful problem solving, (d) individualized consideration: gives personal

attention, treats each employee individually, coaches, advises.

Bass (1990a) defines Transactional Leadership as: (a) contingent reward: contracts

exchange of rewards for effort, promises rewards for good performance, recognizes

accomplishments, (b) management-by-exception (active): watches and searches for deviations

from rules and standards, takes corrective action (c) management-by-exception (passive):

intervenes only if standards are not met (Eppard, 2004).

Common themes found in Transformational Leadership research include the leader’s

ability to: (a) motivate subordinates by focusing on the higher-order needs of purpose, values,

and morality (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Yukl, 1998); (b) create and articulate a vision-related

goal (Bennis & Nanus, 1985); and (c) empower others to move toward the shared goal and attend

to the concerns and developmental needs of followers (Robbins, 1996). Other promising

elements of Transformational Leadership that have received less attention by researchers are: (a)

the subordinate’s ability to deal with complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty (Robbins, 1996); (b)

the transformational leader’s bias toward action (Bennis & Nanus, 1985); and (c) the

transformational leader’s ability to back decisions made by subordinates (O'Connell, 1995).

6

Food Merchandising Corporation warehouse’s management team consists of Mr. Abram

as manager and Hank as foreman. Mr. Abram usurps Hank’s responsibilities and leads from a

base of legitimate power. He uses his power to coerce the butchers to follow his directives under

his close supervision and only because they are all in one central location. He does not interfere

with the activities of the luggers as they are harder to manage as closely as he would like as they

are in a larger area and harder to observe. He sees the task that the butchers perform as the

essential variable to successful efficiency for his warehouse, therefore must monitor that time is

not wasted in order to assure that orders are expedited. Hank on the other hand has lost his power

as an effective leader. The change brought about by the union has rendered him useless as he is

afraid to take measures that might produce union repercussions and then he is also powerless

among the luggers that have lost respect for him. He has lost his ability to manage his followers,

therefore is just a figurehead.

The luggers and butchers are meeting production standards and do not need constant

supervision to do their work. It should be noted that the luggers are highly motivated and take

initiative to improve their work processes in order to be more efficient. Their creative change of

using rails within their warehouse came about from the need to use so much physical energy to

transport the beef within their warehouse, but they took it further when the opportunity came for

them to create an enterprise on the side for their benefit. While this may not be ethical, they did

not make a secret of it and it can even go back to supervision allowing them to do this for their

own advantage, which is to unload loads faster and then produce more outputs once the butchers

completed their process. However, the luggers and for that matter supervision failed to see that

while this met their needs it did not take into consideration the impact on the butchers. The

7

butchers now have more work, for which they do not receive equal compensation, therefore,

creating dissatisfaction and conflict.

The most appropriate leadership method that should be considered for this organization is

transactional leadership where there is contingent rewards and management-by-exception. If the

luggers and butchers are provided with work standards, assignments, and task-oriented goals

they will not have the need for constant supervision, which has been demonstrated by their past

work history in efficiently meeting organization’s goals. The major hurdle will be finding an

equitable reward that is fair to both groups. The key reward desired by each group is primarily

money; however, it is evident that status and power are also viewed favorably. Because the

groups are interdependent, a system must be found to meet the needs of all parties. It does not

necessarily have to be where extra monies are divided equally, but other rewards can be offered,

such as fair equity distribution.

Leadership Behaviors

The Hersey and Blanchard situational leadership model suggests that successful leaders

do adjust their styles. The key issue in making these adjustments is follower maturity, as

indicated by their readiness to perform in a given situation (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson,

1996). Readiness, in this sense is largely based on two major factors: follower ability and

follower confidence.

The situational leadership model views leaders as varying their emphasis on task and

relationship behaviors to best deal with different levels of follower maturity (Bass, 1990b). Task

behavior is the extent to which the leader spells out the duties and responsibilities of the

follower. It includes giving directions and setting goals. Relationship behavior is the extent to

which the leader engages in two-way or multi-way communication. The situational model places

8

combinations of task and relationship behaviors into four quadrants. Each quadrant calls for a

different leadership style.

The four leadership styles are:

1. Delegating Style – allowing the follower to take responsibility for task decisions;

this is a low-task, low-relationship style.

2. Participating Style – emphasizing shared ideas and participative decisions on task

directions; this is a low-task, high-relationship style.

3. Selling Style – explaining task directions in a supportive and persuasive way; this

is a high-task, high relationship style.

4. Telling Style – giving specific task directions and closely supervising work; this is

a high-task, low relationship style.

Managers using the situational leadership model must be able to implement the

alternative leadership styles as needed. To do this, they have to understand the maturity followers

in terms of readiness for task performance and then use the style that best fits.

While management at the Food Management Corporation warehouse cannot have a

specific management style across the board that applies to every employee or group, it can apply

one that is fair and consistent with corporate policies and procedures. Delegating Style –

allowing the follower to take responsibility for task decisions; which is a low-task, low-

relationship style is one that can apply to both warehouse groups, however, based on past history

it will need to increase the relationship factor for the luggers. The luggers have demonstrated that

they have the initiative to streamline their tasks not only to improve the physical aspects of their

job, but through their motivation for a higher monetary reward, regardless of whether they broke

company rules or not. Their behavior in regards to breaking company rules is not the cause of the

9

organizations conflict, but the effect of lack of leadership, therefore, if management would

oversee their actions more closely, this situation can be remedied. Management must reevaluate

their current system to evaluate how to have an equitable level of supervision as it pertains to

each group. Also, it cannot totally take away the monetary reward that the luggers get for their

efforts, but it can incorporate it into the system to be fair for all groups and participants as each

group is dependent on each other for efficiency purposes.

Burns (1978) proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways, either

transactional or transformational. Transactional Leadership is based on bureaucratic authority

and legitimacy within the organization. Transactional leaders emphasize work standards,

assignments, and task-oriented goals. They also tend to focus on task completion and employee

compliance and rely quite heavily on organizational rewards and punishments to influence

employee performance.

In contrast, Burns characterized Transformational Leadership as a process that motivates

followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. Transformational leaders must be able

to define and articulate a vision for their organizations, and the followers must accept the

credibility of the leader. More recently, Bass and Avolio (1994) have developed a theory of

Transformational Leadership that is a culmination and extension of earlier work by Bennis

(1985), Burns (1978), Tichy and Cohen (1997), and others.

Bass and Avolio (1994) proposed that Transformational Leadership comprises four

dimensions:

Idealized Influence. Described as a behavior that results in follower admiration,

respect, and trust. Idealized influence involves risk sharing on the part of leaders, a

consideration of follower needs over personal needs, and ethical and moral

10

conduct.

Inspirational Motivation. This dimension is reflected in behavior that provides

meaning and challenge to followers’ work. It includes behaviors that articulate

clear expectations demonstrating commitment to overall organizational goals. In

addition, team spirit is aroused through enthusiasm and optimism.

Intellectual Stimulation. Leaders who demonstrate this type of Transformational

Leadership solicit new ideas and creative problem solutions from their followers,

and encourage new approaches to job performance.

Individualized Consideration. This is reflected by leaders who listen attentively

and pay special attention to their follower’s achievements and growth needs.

Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), Bass and Avolio (1994) have

found significant relationships across a number of settings between a subordinate’s ratings of

leader effectiveness and satisfaction with their leaders who are using transformational methods.

In addition, there is some evidence that Transformational Leadership is significantly related to

other relevant outcomes variables, such as follower’s perceptions of role clarity, mission clarity,

and openness of communication (Hinkin & Tracey, 1994).

It is still recommended that transactional leadership would best fit this organizations

structure and culture; however, some features of the transformational leader should be

implemented to motivate the warehousemen to focus on the higher-order needs of the

organization and each of them as a group not as individuals or subgroups. However, this can only

be accomplished if current supervision drastically reevaluates their own purpose, values and

morality.

Power

11

Power is the ability of one person influencing the behavior and/or attitudes of others.

Power is not exclusive to leaders, yet authority power is in reference to position, therefore

exclusive to that position. French and Raven (1960) give the most common description of power

and divide it into five forms. They are coercive, reward, legitimate, referent, and expert power

described as follows.

Coercive Power

This is the power to force someone to do something against their will. It is often

physical although other threats may be used. Coercion can result in physical harm,

although its principal goal is compliance. Demonstrations of harm are often used to

illustrate what will happen if compliance is not gained.

Coercion is also the ultimate power of all governments. Although it is often seen

as negative, it is also used to keep the peace. Other forms of power can also be used in

coercive ways, such as when a reward or expertise is withheld or referent power is used

to threaten social exclusion.

Reward Power

One of the main reasons we work is for the money we need to conduct our lives.

There are many more forms of reward, such as extrinsic or intrinsic rewards. Reward

power is the ability to give other people what they want, contingent on receiving

something in exchange. Rewards can also be used to punish, such as when they are

withheld. The promise is essentially the same: do this and you will get that.

Legitimate Power

12

Legitimate power is that which is invested in a role. Kings, policemen and

managers all have legitimate power. The legitimacy may come from a higher power,

often one with coercive power. Legitimate power is also position power; power that is

exclusive to a certain position. A common mistake that people in such roles can make is

to forget that people are obeying the position, not them.

Referent Power

This is the power from another person liking you or wanting to be like you. It is

the power of charisma and a foundation of the effectiveness of transformational leaders.

Those with referent power can also use it for coercion. One of the things we fear most is

social exclusion, and all it takes is a word from a social leader for us to be shunned by

others in the group.

Expert Power

Expert power is having knowledge and skill that someone else requires. This is a

very common form of power and is the basis for a very large proportion of human

collaboration, including most companies where the principle of specialization allows

large and complex enterprises to be undertaken. Expert power is that which is used by

Trades Unions when they encourage their members to strike for better pay or working

conditions.

This conceptualization of relational empowerment has been criticized for neglecting the

individuals' experiences in the empowerment process (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse,

1990). Recent research has shifted focus to an individual level construct called psychological

empowerment, fueled by Spreitzer's (1995) seminal groundwork which operationalized and

validated the construct. Psychological empowerment is conceptualized as the result of

13

employees' positive cognitive assessment of their work context for meaning, self-determination,

competency, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995). Employees perceive meaning in an activity when the

objectives of the organization are assessed to be compatible with their own value systems (Brief

& Nord, 1990). The perception of competence refers to the employees' conviction that they are

able to produce a favorable outcome (Bandura, 1989; Spreitzer, 1995). Self-determination is

defined as the discretion given to take necessary actions that are instrumental to the organization

achieving its objectives (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer,

1995). Employees perceive impact when they are aware of their ability to affect or influence

organizational outcomes. According to Spreitzer (1995), these four factors act additively to

determine the extent of psychological empowerment experienced by the employees and, thus,

enable them to exercise their empowered role.

Currently, Mr. Abrams is using legitimate and coercive power against the butchers. He

closely monitors their actions and attempts to withhold breaks and even money from them if they

do not do as he says. The butchers are not exactly always doing as he says with their activities;

however, they do efficiently complete their tasks yet under a coercive environment that they are

beginning to resent. This can only go so far, as they also have expert power and should they

withhold their services, production will come to a standstill, which would have repercussions for

the entire organization. The luggers are also using coercive power that they have manipulated

illegally in the sense that they have obtained it by forming a strong team and thou not physically

but nonetheless forceful using against those that do not form an alliance with them. They have

gained favor from the organization for their work improvements and used it to control

management and the grievance process would side with them if management or others threaten

their territory. Management prefers to let them do as they please instead of dealing with them

14

and to some extreme fear them. The corporation would do better if they just replaced the current

management staff. They have demonstrated that they are not capable of being efficient or

successful leaders.

Goals

Earley and Kanfer's definition (1985), participative goal setting usually consists of the

following steps: task presentation and discussion; goal setting; strategy development and

evaluation by each individual; and strategy determination.

The studies that have examined relationships between participation and its outcomes have

provided mixed conclusions. Although many studies have reported strong positive associations

(Greller, 1978; Schuler, 1976), others have shown near-zero relationships (Latham & Yukl,

1976; Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, 1971). Research conducted in this area has concluded that

individuals with participatively set goals have higher levels of performance than do those with

assigned goals (Latham, Mitchell, & Dossett, 1978). However, it also suggests that people who

participate in setting their work goals simply set higher goals than do those who have goals

assigned. In contrast, the research has shown that goals assigned by the "boss" produce

significantly higher levels of performance when compared to those of self-set goals (Locke &

Latham, 1990). This research suggests that employee involvement in goal setting may be

counterproductive. More recently, however, Latham, Winters, and Locke (1994) found evidence

that when the task is complex, participation in decision making leads to higher performance. A

series of experiments has since been conducted that showed when goal difficulty is held

constant, performance is usually the same, regardless of whether the goal is assigned or set

participative (Latham, 2004).

The tasks that the warehousemen are doing are not exactly complex, what is complex is

15

the power struggle among the participants of this organization. It is important that goals be set

and implemented, but it is more important that a strong management force be the one to do so as

this employees would only set goals as they applied to self and in their best interest above that of

the organization.

Equity Distribution

Management’s inequitable distribution of justice between the luggers and butchers is

creating conflict between the luggers and butchers and among the luggers two subgroups. The

luggers have no repercussions for their bad behaviors, even when they are in violation of their

union and company guidelines when they unload trucks during company work hours. The

butchers are closely watched and supervised and do not receive the same privileges as the

luggers. In addition, the luggers have more earning potential than the butchers which provide

skilled labor.

Theoretical research programs suggest that beliefs concerning group members’ task-

related abilities emerge over time in task-oriented groups and determine the power and prestige

order which develops (Berger & Fisek, 1974). Parcel and Cook’s (1977). Theory suggests that

the conditions Berger et al. (1974) specify as sufficient for the emergence of a power and

prestige ordering are also sufficient to create differential reward allocation, and that group

member’s concern for equity promotes this alignment. Status consistency and equity theories

posit that a group’s status and reward allocation hierarchies should be congruent. Status

consistency theory suggests that over time reward ranks tend to equilibrate with the status ranks)

or the power and prestige ordering) of group members (Kimberly, 1966, 1972). Kimberly (1972)

hypothesizes that this will occur because economic rewards tend to be viewed as rewards for

performance in a position. Equity theory, as formulated in terms of exchange notions by Homans

16

(1961, 1974) and Adams (1965), also suggests that rewards will be allocated on the basis of

status when status is perceived as an “input” in the situation. According to the exchange

formation, equity or distributive justice requires that rewards be allocated proportionally the

inputs or investments of group members.

The inequitable distribution of justice perceived by the butchers is the cause for conflict

between them and management. While the luggers may not get along among themselves and

then between them and the butchers, that is just an effect that has come about due to the

inequitable distribution of justice perpetuated by management. Status consistency theory

(Kimberly 1972) suggests that equilibration between status and reward ranks occurs because

economic rewards tend to be defined as owed for task performance, thus also emphasizing the

significance of task-related criteria. Adams’ (1965) distinction between the recognition of and

input and its perceived relevance to an exchange implies that for an input to be weighted in the

justice evaluation, it must be perceived as relevant to the exchange, presumably indicative of

success on a task. The butchers’ provide skilled labor that is imperative to the success of the

operation and while they could not do their task without the luggers providing them with their

product, they perceive that their function holds more status, which has been the norm in the past.

The luggers currently have more earning potential than the butchers and this earning

potential has elevated their status, however, they have manipulated this through illegal power

(working during normal work periods and creating an enterprise within the current organization).

Management has neglected to enforce their legitimate power with the luggers as it benefits them

to have product moved in faster to have more output, an output that impacts the task of butchers

yet all they get is tighter management control and less pay for more hours while the luggers do as

the please and benefit financially.

17

While the company benefits from the efficiency of the luggers, their inconsistent

distribution of justice is creating conflict that is building up and can eventually collapse the

whole organization if the butchers walk out or their perception of inequitable treatment leads to

de-motivation. It is recommended that management assume their rightful place and distribute

justice according to organization policies and procedures. It is also important to not de-motivate

the luggers and acknowledge their enterprising methods; however, they must align their strategic

methods with company standard operating procedures and avoid breaking company and union

rules. It is also unacceptable to work for the trucking companies while on duty. Management

must apply equitable distribute justice thru procedural justice and creating a reward system that

that is fair and takes into consideration each groups task contribution.

Procedural Justice

Procedural justice has a “process” focus and is defined as the application of fair rules in

decisions regarding one’s outcomes (Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Leventhal & Fry, 1980; Thibaut

& Walker, 1975). Accordingly, the procedural justice principle adds the element that fairness is

also experienced through the “way” in which outcomes are determined and distributed. To the

extent that methods used in assigning the outcome or otherwise arriving at a decision are seen as

fair leads to the increased sense of justice and favorable work-related attitudes (Folger &

Cronpanzno, 1998). Procedures may make less equitable distributions more palatable or even be

themselves more satisfactory by the way they are communicated thoughtfully towards the

recipient. In relation to the development of organizational commitment, the process utilized by

the decision maker also is a sign of organizational supportiveness, perhaps even more than the

distributive elements. As Meyer et al. (1997) explain, “employees’ affective commitment is more

18

strongly influenced by how fairly decisions are made than by whether they always get what they

want.” Harvey & Haines, 2005).

A fair process should be:

Consistent in applying standards across people and over time

Unbiased by self-interest

Accurate, with decisions based on reliable information

Correctable, in terms of allowing challenge or appeal against decisions

Representative of the concerns of all involved

Ethical (Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980; Mikula, 1980)

Procedural justice matters because it has been shown to be a consistent predictor of

employees’ reactions to their organization and to their bosses – both in a positive and a negative

sense. Breaches of procedural justice can result not just in withdrawal of citizenship behaviors,

but in negative behaviors specifically designed to punish the organization and its representatives

(Youngblood, Trevino, & Favia, 1992). Also, studies have shown a link between fairness

perceptions a host of desirable outcomes like job satisfaction (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987),

enhanced commitment to the organization and intentions to remain with the organization (Martin

& Bennett, 1996; Olson-Buchanan, 1996), greater trust, and willingness to go beyond the call of

duty (Kim & Mauborgne, 1991).

Motivation

David McClelland (1968) states that money is very important and an employee may think

that they are working only for the money and management may think they are using it to

persuade the employee to work, but that is not the complete picture. He adds that a reward or

incentive is an attention-getting mechanism. Several other variables contribute to motivating a

19

person to desire to perform beyond performance expectations. Money is viewed as a motivator

by managers as this is what they control, however, an employee’s desire to work cannot be easily

controlled with money, at least not on a long-term basis. McClelland (1968) states that work

situations involve four sets of variables that must be correctly identified before improvement

efforts are launched:

1. The motives and needs of the workers handling the task.

2. The motivational requirements of the task they are performing.

3. The motives (or strengths and limitations) of the manager.

4. The organizational climate.

“Whether workers or managers are high or low in achievement, motivation makes a real

difference in the effectiveness of financial incentives.” Workers that are high achievers want to

be rewarded financially, but, money is not always the motivation factor. However, workers with

low achievement motivation can be influenced by monetary rewards. Money can be used as a

motivator if that is what an employee wants, but money does not have the same impact on all

employees, therefore, it does not always motivate them.

Herzberg (2003) states that people are motivated by interesting work, challenge, and

increasing responsibility. These intrinsic factors answer people’s deep-seated need for growth

and achievement. His studies suggested that the factors involved in producing job satisfaction

and motivation are separate and distinct from the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction. These

two feelings are not opposites of each other. The opposite of job satisfaction is not job

dissatisfaction, but rather, no job satisfaction; and similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is

not job satisfaction but no job dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 2003). Herzberg’s theory states that

these factors are independent of each other, but both must be taken into consideration in order to

20

satisfy workers and also motivate them.

The growth or motivator factors that are intrinsic to the job are: achievement, recognition

for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and growth or advancement. The dissatisfaction-

avoidance or hygiene factors that are extrinsic to the job include: company policy and

administration, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, salary, status, and

security.

The motivation-hygiene theory suggests that work be enriched to bring about effective

utilization of personnel (Herzberg, 2003)

David McClelland’s (1961) learned needs theory (Theory of Needs) argues that there are

three basic needs in the workplace. These needs are acquired over time and are shaped by one’s

early life experiences. These needs can be classified as achievement, affiliation, and power. He

found that a person’s motivation and effectiveness in certain job functions are influenced by

these three needs. Therefore, the importance of a particular need depends on the position.

Achievement (n-ach) is the extent to which an individual desires to perform difficult

and challenging tasks successfully. People with a high need for achievement:

Desire success and positive feedback that is related to their performance on tasks

Seek to excel and thus tend to avoid both low-risk and high-risk situations

Like to work alone or with other high achievers.

Predominantly achievement-motivated individuals avoid low-risk situations because they

find easily attained success is not genuine achievement; rather they attribute it to the ease

of the task not their own effort. Similarly, they avoid high-risk projects, regarding success

as the result of chance not their competence. Thus, individuals with high need for

achievement are not gamblers, nor are they afraid to take risks. Rather, they calculate the

21

degree of risk and select moderate risk options. McClelland (1961) suggested that people

with high achievement need make good leaders, although they tend to expect those that

they work with also to be result driven and may expect too much from them. Their

aggressive realism makes them successful entrepreneurs.

The need for affiliation (N-Affil) is the desire for harmonious relationships with

other people. People with high need for affiliation:

Want to be liked and feel accepted by other people

Tend to conform to the norms of their work group

Prefer cooperation over competition

Enjoy being part of a group.

High affiliation need individuals prefer work that provides significant personal

interaction, and depends on successful relationships with others, such as customer

service. They are concerned with whether people like them more than whether they are

doing a good job. McClelland (1961) regarded a strong need for affiliation as

undermining the objectivity and decision-making ability needed in management.

The need for power (n-pow) is a desire for authority, to be in charge. It takes two

forms—personal and institutional.

Those who desire personal power want to direct others; this need often is perceived as

undesirable

Those who desire institutional power (also known as social power) want to organize

the efforts of others to further larger goals, such as those of an organization

22

In management, while the job requires directing others, those with a high need for

personal power may become dysfunctional as their focus is on the directing of others

rather than on the achievement of the company's goals. Managers with a high need for

institutional power tend to be more effective than those with a high need for personal

power, since they channel their need into accomplishing goals set by the organization.

Those whom they direct are more likely to respond positively when they are being

directed toward the larger goal.

McClelland (1961) noted that people generally have all three needs; one need, however,

tends to be dominant. This depends both on their internal make-up, their personality, and is

learned through experience. In his later work, McClelland (1998) added a fourth need,

avoidance which functions to motivate people to avoid situations and people with which they

have, or expect to have, unpleasant experiences. These avoidance motives include fear of

rejection, fear of failure, fear of success, and generalized anxiety. In this work he also stressed

that there are both conscious and unconscious intents that affect a person's motivation.

Porter and Lawler’s expectancy model theory is that the motivation to perform an act is a

function of the expectancy that performing that act will lead to some desired outcome, and the

value of that outcome to the individual. More specifically, work motivation is viewed as a

multiplicative relationship among three variables:

1. Value of job outcomes (valence) - the attractiveness, need utility, or importance

which and individual places on potential outcomes (second-level outcomes or

rewards) which could occur on the job;

2. Instrumentality – the degree of belief one has that performing at a particular level

will lead to the attainment of each job outcome; and

23

3. Expectancy – the perceived probability that exerting a given amount of effort will

lead to performance (Kesselman, Hagen, & Wherry, 1974).

Porter and Lawler (1968) attempted to define the relationships among effort,

performance, and satisfaction. The inclusion of role perception (in addition to ability) as a

mediator of the effort-performance relationship represents an extension of the Value,

Instrumentality, and Expectancy (VIE) expectancy core. They also distinguish between two

kinds of second-level outcomes; those that are self-administered (intrinsic) and those that are

administered by the organization (extrinsic). They also hypothesize feedback loops in their

model, which indicate that satisfaction directly influences the value of rewards and that the

contingency between performance and rewards affects the individual’s perceived effort-reward

probability (Kesselman, Hagen, Wherry, 1974).

Kesselman, Hagen, & Wherry’s (1974) test attempted to measure key variables

associated with the Porter-Lawler expectancy model and described them as a series of links in a

closed chain as follows:

a. The expectancy that certain behaviors (expenditure of effort, quantity, and quality of

production, etc.) will lead to certain rewards (pay, promotion, self-realization, etc.)

will increase the probability that such behaviors will occur. The actual probabilities

and choice of behaviors will be monitored or modified by role perception (based upon

setting, climate, etc.). This link might be called the input portion of the model.

b. The behaviors engaged in will in turn lead to rewards which in turn will result in

satisfactions (with pay, promotion, fellow workers, supervision, etc.). This link might

be called the throughput portion of the model.

c. The satisfaction derived from the rewards for past behavior will in turn modify the

24

expectancies with respect to future outcomes. This link might be referred to as the

feedback portion of the model.

Applying Porter and Lawler’s expectancy model in order to motivate the luggers and

butchers, we must first determine valence, instrumentality, and expectancy for each one. The

expectancy model’s theory is that if a reward that is valued by the follower is available and that

he believes that performing at a certain level will get him that reward, he will be motivated to

exert the extra effort to attain that reward and thereby attain satisfaction.

Kesselman, Hagen, and Wherry (1974) found in their test that organization climate or

setting and the nature of the position (job duties and opportunities) do have a marked influence

upon the relative importance (size of loadings) of certain variables in the theory. This indicated

that a supervisor must consider such factors as those mentioned above if he hopes to successfully

apply the theory or to predict, how it will work for a given set of workers. This was in line with

House’s (1971) contention that the theory has implications for leadership practices on the

motivation of subordinates only to the extent that the leader can identify clarify, and facilitate the

climate, expectancies, outcomes (and their valence), and satisfactions (or dissatisfactions) of

those subordinates (Kesselman, Hagen, & Wherry, 1974).

It is clear that money is a key motivator for the luggers and butchers, but there is also a

desire for power by all parties to provide status. Management on the other hand has more of need

for personal power, which is why they are not looking at the impact of their actions in a long-

term range, only for moment and how it impacts their personal goals.

Incentives

After reviewing employee needs it is easy to follow thru and review the reward system to

see that it is congruent with employee needs or what they value. If employees are no longer

25

motivated by the current reward system, then it is time to modify or change. Herzberg states that

there must be some direct connection between performance and reward, whether extrinsic, as in

recognition (money) or intrinsic as in naturally enjoyable work, to motivate employees to work

harder and to improve their job satisfaction. Whatever reward is offered must be directly

dependent on the output you want to achieve (McCrimmon, 2008).

Expectancy motivational theory model, whereas, the motivation to perform an act is a

function of the expectancy that performing that act will lead to some desired outcome, and the

value of that outcome to the individual. Work motivation being viewed as a multiplicative

relationship among three variables: value of job outcomes, instrumentality, and expectancy

(Kesselman, Hagen, & Wherry, 1974).

The concepts of House’s path-goal theory (1971) contends that the theory has

implications for leadership practices on the motivation of subordinates only to the extent that the

leader can identify, clarify and facilitate the climate, expectancies, outcomes (and their valence),

and satisfactions (or dissatisfactions) of those subordinates (Kesselman, Hagen, & Wherry,

1974). Applying these two theories to motivate employees, however, it must acknowledge that it

must modify the reward system to be one that is valued by each different group.

Performance Evaluation

A performance appraisal is a controversial management tool searching for answers to

ubiquitous problems in system design and administration (Thayer, 1987; Fox, 1991; Bowman,

1994). Genuine performance appraisal participation is a process that can mitigate many of the

dysfunctions of traditional performance appraisal systems as well as engender a more humane

and ethical human resource management decision-making process (Roberts, 1992). Critics of

performance appraisal present a number of compelling arguments against its use. Anecdotal,

26

empirical, personal experience demonstrates a multitude of problems with appraisal system

practices. The main critiques are that individual performance appraisal assumes a false degree of

measurement accuracy, engenders dysfunctional employee conflict and competition, assigns and

inordinate amount of responsibility for poor performance to individual employees while

undervaluing the overall work process, underemphasizes the importance of the work group, and

often is used as a managerial “Theory X” control device (Deming, 1986). Critics of performance

appraisal argue that there is a dearth of valid research to substantiate the claims of supporters

(Roberts, 2002).

The overall utility of performance appraisal participation was clearly demonstrated in a

recent meta-analysis of 27 studies (Cawley, Keeping and Levy, 1998). Performance appraisal

participation was strongly associated with desirable appraisal-related outcomes, such as higher

levels of appraisal satisfaction and acceptance (Cawley, Keeping and Levy, 1998). The

conceptual base supporting the efficacy of the participatory performance appraisal framework

centers upon its cognitive and affective benefits (Latham & Wexley, 1981; Carroll & Schneier,

1982); Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Daley, 1992). From a motivational standpoint, employee

participation is a key element of intrinsic motivational strategies that facilitate worker growth

and development. Intrinsically motivating employment entails jobs that possess task significance,

skill variety, task identity (a clear work product), performance feedback, and worker autonomy

(Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Employee participation is an effective tool for enhancing job-

related autonomy, a necessary precondition for employee growth. Intrinsic motivational

approaches clearly communicate trust and confidence in employee abilities. A major moderating

factor in the success of participation is the employee’s need for growth. Employees that are

comfortable with traditional authoritarian management approaches are not directly motivated by

27

increased input but may value another important attribute of participatory appraisal-employee

voice.

Appraisal participation provides employees with a voice into the appraisal process.

Employee participation empowers them to rebut ratings, documentation, or verbal feedback with

which they disagree (Folger, 1987; Greenberg, 1987). If employees are confident in the fairness

of the appraisal process, they are more likely to accept performance ratings, even adverse ones.

The third conceptual foundation derives from the assumption that employees possess valid,

unique, and relevant performance information and insight that is unavailable or unobservable by

the rater. Thus, when employees participate in the appraisal process, the quality and quantity of

the performance appraisal information increases, leading to a more accurate and valid rating

((Roberts, 1992; Cotton, 1993). The fourth factor is that in a participatory appraisal system, the

employee attains “ownership” over the process enhancing employee acceptance and manifests

ego involvement as the rate manifests a stake in the success of the system (Dachler, & Wilport,

1978; Cotton, 1993). Employees frequently set higher performance goals than management when

they possess the requisite level of autonomy, authority, and resource support (Latham & Wexley,

1981). The fifth element is that greater employee participation generates an atmosphere of

cooperation and employee support, which encourages the development of a coaching or

counseling relationship, thereby reducing appraisal-related tension, defensive behavior, and

rater-ratee conflict (Jordan, 1990; Daley, 1992; Tjosvold, & Halco, 1992).

An effective performance appraisal system must include the participation of both parties

involved, the person reviewing, and the one being reviewed; warehousemen an management.

There is currently no type of appraisal system in place or if there is, it is one that follower would

not trust based on current management’s inability to apply equity distribution or procedural

28

justice. Clear and specific standards of performance are major elements of a valid and reliable

performance appraisal system (Bernardin and Beatty, 1984). The key is to develop standards that

measure the essential job duties and responsibilities utilizing a balance of process, outcome,

individual, and group-based performance standards. The development of reliable, valid, fair, and

useful performance standards is enhanced by employee participation because workers possess

requisite unique information essential for developing realistic standards (Roberts, 2002).

The performance appraisal process culminates with the appraisal rating. Performance

appraisal ratings are the product of an ongoing series of rater-ratee interactions valued by both

intrinsically and extrinsically by employees. Intrinsic value derives from the validation of the

employee’s performance efficacy. Extrinsic worth stems from the linkage with external

recognition and personnel decision making (Bernardin and Beatty, 1984). The performance

appraisal interview seriously tests the skills of the rater, and if this function is handled poorly, the

benefits of an accurate appraisal can be lost, and employee motivation reduced. A quality

performance appraisal interview includes sensitivity to employees need for privacy and

confidentiality, giving employees undivided attention during the appraisal interviews, reserving

adequate time for a full discussion of the issues, and preparation for the appraisal interview on

the part of both the supervisor and the rater (Bernardin and Beatty, 1984).

A participatory appraisal interview style also entails a strong emphasis on employee

performance counseling. Participatory systems facilitate discussion of employee strengths and

weaknesses in a positive context where the goal is to help the employee improve his or her

performance. Hence participatory appraisal reinforces communication and analysis related to

employee training needs, promotional opportunities, and skills development (Nathan, Mohrman,

& Milliman, 1991). A counseling approach also facilitates the identification of discrepancies in

29

rater-ratee perceptions, which if left unchallenged, can lead to serious disagreement during the

evaluation cycle.

Isaac, Zerbe, and Pitt (2001) state that to enhance the effort-performance link, leaders must:

1. Provide challenging work that is valued

2. Consider the ability of the follower

3. Recognize the variances in follower self-esteem and self-concept

4. Articulate clear goals and performance outcomes

5. Understand the correlation between individual followers and job satisfaction.

They also stressed three follower beliefs that strengthen the performance-outcome link:

1. The follower must have trust and believe that the leader will deliver a salient reward

2. The follower must receive equitable, predictable, treatment

3. The leader must give clear, honest feedback

In reference to valence outcomes, three issues that must be addressed (Isaac et al., 2001):

1. Leaders must understand that the attractiveness of outcomes will vary with individual

difference

2. Leaders must align the goals of followers with those of the organization

3. Leaders must understand that followers’ needs can change as they go throughout life

(Humphreys & Einstein, 2004)

Conflict

Anderson (2009) states that conflict is a ubiquitous feature of groups in organizations that

clearly affects group’s performance. Big five personality traits (or specific facets), a the group

level, affect the emergence of either task conflict, relationship conflict, or both Developing our

understanding of how group personality composition affects both of these types of conflict is

30

necessary to better enable groups to manage conflict, and thereby lessen potentially harmful

outcomes resulting from conflict. Interpersonal conflict among members of workgroups in

organizations arises whenever one person’s actions interfere with another’s goals, wishes, or

expectations (Ohbuchi & Fukushima, 1997). The unique assembly of mental faculties, biological

composition, and previous life experiences that individual members bring to a group makes

disagreement on goals, ideas, values, and wishes inevitable (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer,

& Nauta, 2001; Zander, 1979). Conflict and its resolution is thus a fundamental aspect of group

interaction. Since the acceptance of the Five-Factor Model of Personality (Digman, 1990;

McCrae & John, 1992), researchers have begun to identify how the so-called “Big Five”

personality traits relate o the use of conflict resolution style preferences and judgments of their

effectiveness (Antonioni, 1998; Graziano, Jenzen-Campbell & Hair, 199a6, Moberg 1998, 2001;

Park & Antonioni, 2007), but rarely have researchers examined how the Big Five personality

traits affect the emergence of conflict and its nature in the first place. The distinction between the

emergence of conflict and its resolution is crucial, as successful conflict management involves

both (Rahim, 2002). This gap in understanding how personality affects conflict emergence may

partially be due to the fact that the emergence of conflict is inherently a group-level

phenomenon. Studying the role of personality on the emergence of conflict therefore requires

that one consider the personalities of the multiple people involved or aggregate personality to the

group (or at least dyadic) level of analysis. Personality is know to affect group processes

(Moynihan & Peterson, 2001), but an important gap exists regarding our understanding of the

role of group-level personality in generating intra-group conflict.

Conflict will come from lack of tolerance and failure to accept change, which will

include personal conflicts between them and Larry due to their differences on this issue. It may

31

also come from reaction to company acceptance and possibly even from Larry as his personality

may change due to his physical and psychological changes. The culture may also change based

on the amount of stress this change will incur. Group dynamics will change when one or more

within the group do not agree or perceive as tolerance for something they do not accept.

The organization should follow the normal rational problem solving process that states

the following:

Problem awareness

Problem definition

Decision making

Action plan implementation

Then follow through on action plan.

The key factor will be to manage conflict properly to avoid hostility, lack of cooperation, in

some cases violence, destroyed relationships, and interference with company production.

Two of the main sources of conflict they will encounter will arise from communication

problems and personal differences. Therefore, it is imperative that communication be

effective and efficient. Personal differences are very common in these cases, but all that can

be done is to empathize with the other conflict parties, but the organization must adhere to

doing what is ethical, legal, and in the best interest of the organization.

Violation of the psychological contract

The psychological contract is described by researchers as an individual's beliefs regarding

the terms and conditions of the reciprocal exchange agreement between that employee and the

employing organization (Rousseau, 1989). One key issue in the psychological contract is the

employee's expectation that the organization will live up to its promises. When an employee

32

believes that the organization has not kept its promises, then the employee perceives

psychological contract breach (Suazo, Turnley, & Mai-Dalton, 2008; Robinson & Morrison,

1997; Rousseau, 1995).

Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) report states that this perception, regardless of whether

or not it is accurate, has been found to reduce employees’ trust, job satisfaction, intention to

remain with the organization, sense of obligation, and in-role and extra-role performance

(Robinson, 1996; Robinson et al., 1994; Robinson and Morrison, 1995). They further state that

“because of the potential for these negative effects, it is vital to understand the conditions under

which perceptions of psychological contract breach arise.” The perception that one’s

psychological contract has been breached is an inherently subjective phenomenon. In some cases

a “true” breach occurs when an employee is promised something and then the organization fails

to meet that obligation. However, there is also the perceived psychological contract where the

employee may have read too much into what the organization stated or the organization was

vague in their communication, yet the employee interpreted it as a promise and when the

supposed promise is not kept, they perceive a breach in the psychological contract. “In most

cases, it is impossible to ascertain which of these scenarios has occurred. That is, one cannot tell

whether a promise was actually broken, or even whether an obligation was established. After the

fact, the employee typically forms an attribution for the alleged breach (i.e., the employee may

believe that he or she was purposefully deceived), but this may not reflect what actually

occurred.”

Robinson and Morrison (2000) state that there are two root causes of perceived

psychological contract breach: reneging and incongruence and a third important construct that

contributes to perceived contract breach, vigilance.

33

Reneging – when agent(s) of the organization recognize that an obligation exists but

knowingly fail to meet that obligation.

Incongruence – when the employee and organizational agent(s) have different

understanding about whether a given obligation exists or about the nature of a given

obligation.

Vigilance – the extent to which the employee actively monitors how well the

organization is meeting the terms of his or her psychological contract (Morrison and

Robinson, 1997).

In cases where there is an actual discrepancy between what the employee has experienced

and what the employee had previously expected based on his or her psychological contract,

vigilance will increase the likelihood of employee detecting this discrepancy. An employee who

is highly vigilant may also be more likely to perceive that the organization has breached the

psychological contract merely as a function of the employee looking for instances of contract

transgression. Employees who look for evidence that their organization has breached the

psychological contract may be more likely to perceive that a breach has occurred, even when

objective evidence is unclear or lacking (Robinson & Morrison, 2000).

According to Morrison and Robinson (1997), vigilance is related to three factors:

uncertainty; the amount of trust underlying the employee-organization relationship; and the

potential costs of discovering an unmet promise.

Morrison and Robinson (1997) made a conceptual distinction between perceived contract

breach, which is a perception, and the experience of “contract violation” which is an affective or

emotional state that may or may not accompany that perception. The employee will attempt to

try to understand why the violations occurred and one of the components of the interpretation

34

process is the employee’s assessment of how fairly he or she was treated immediately preceding

and following the perception of the contract breach. In particular, Morrison and Robinson (1997)

argued that the interpretation of psychological contract breach will be heavily influenced by

perceived interactional fairness (Bies & Moag, 1986), or employee’s beliefs about the

interpersonal treatment that they experienced (e.g., honesty, respect, consideration, adequate

explanation). Unfair interpersonal treatment signals to an employee that he or she is not valued

or respected in the relationship (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996).

Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) study states that employees that go through organization

changes may be especially likely to perceive a breach of their current psychological contract

regardless of the action of the organization. With such employees it may be particularly

important to monitor and guide their perceptions of organizational obligations and their

perceptions of how well the organization is fulfilling those obligations. Sometimes psychological

contract breach is unavoidable, yet the destructive reactions that often follow are not. This study

recommends managing the employee’s attributions for a perceived contract breach in order to

reduce feelings of anger and betrayal. If the organization has to renege for unavoidable reasons,

offer the employee honest and adequate explanations about the situation. The results of the study

indicate that even if an employee blames the organization for a perceived psychological contract

breach, feelings of violation will be less intense if the employee feels that he or she was treated

with fairness, honesty, and respect. A reduction in the intensity of felt violation may offset the

lowered trust, reduced citizenship behavior, and turnover that have been shown to follow from

feelings of violation (Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995).

The breach in psychological trust that is occurring with this organization is that

management is perceived as not treating all warehousemen equally. The butchers feel they are

35

being monitored at a higher level and held accountable to strict organizational standards not

applied to the luggers. This perception is creating conflict for them as management will not

validate their grievances or make any attempts to explain their actions.

Conclusion

When people work together in teams their social interaction is concerned with task-

related issues as well as with relationship issues (Forsyth, 1983). As to the later, team members

may like or dislike one another for personal reasons, and share or dispute one another’s political

view, values and beliefs. One reason why teams can work together effectively is because they

establish a positive, trusting group climate, based on interpersonal liking and shared norms and

values (Zander, 1993). Likewise, one reason why teams fail to be productive is because they fail

to develop a positive team climate and instead develop relationship conflicts – conflicts related to

interpersonal issues, political norms and values, and personal taste (Amason, 1996; De Dreu &

Van de Vliert, 1997; Jehn, 1995, 1997). Bottom line, conflict is always present to some extent,

but what is relevant is how the parties involve handle it that will determine the outcome. It was

even found that conflict is sometimes good as it can improve production based on competition.

Overall, this organization appears to have many problems but most if not all issues can

actually be considered the effect of the problem and not the cause. It is very important that

managers determine cause and effect before they make decisions that may only serve to

camouflage the real issue. In my opinion there is one major issue that if resolved could

significantly improve the situation if not altogether fix the problems at this warehouse –

management and thereby leadership behaviors. Management encompasses planning, organizing,

leading and motivation, and controlling (Humphreys, 2010). Current management is currently

doing none of these functions. In fact if I had to pick one group that was managing it would be

36

the six luggers that took matters into their own hand and began directing this functions. They did

do it for their own interest, but they did show more leadership ability than current management. I

reiterate that my recommendation would be to remove current management and replace it with

people that not only can manage others, but are not afraid to risk failure in order to succeed.

Current management is doing as little as possible to contribute to the success of the organization.

They take a stand on weak issues such as heavy-handed measures with the butchers where they

know they have less resistance than other areas, but are gradually pushing them beyond their

limits and that will soon backfire on them too. They are afraid of the luggers, therefore prefer to

side with them and avoid confrontations. This is not management; this is avoidance and lack of

leadership abilities.

A strong management team can plan the processes necessary for each group to know

what their tasks and boundaries are; they can organize the functions of each department; they

lead and motivate their followers, and thereby control the environment through strong leadership

abilities and skills. What we can agree on is that effective management is necessary. We can

agree that the practice of management is an art that is based upon scientific principles and that

mangers live in world of ambiguity and are called upon to make difficult decisions with

imperfect information, often during dynamic periods of organizational and/or environmental

turbulence. That knowledge and experience are the weapons of choice in the fight for

organizational satisfaction, commitment, performance, and productivity. And that because of

this, real-world managers need all the arrows they can put in their quivers when it comes to

understanding themselves, understanding their followers, and understanding the management

situations they face. Let us make sure we are not wasting those arrows by shooting them at each

other (Humphreys, 2010).

37

References

Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognition Theory. American Psychologist, 44,

1175-1184.

Barbuto, J. E. (2000). Influence triggers: A framework for understanding follower compliance.

Leadership Quarterly, 11, 365-387.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press. New York,

NY.

Bass, B. M. (1990a). From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the

Vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass, B. M. (1990b). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research &

Managerial Applications. (3rd Ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (2000). The Future of Leadership in Learning Organizations. Journal of Leadership

Studies. 7, 18-40.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.) (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through

Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper

& Row.

Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, W. (1984), Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human behavior at

Work. Boston: Kent Publishing Company.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice; Communication of criteria of fairness.

Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43-55.

Bowman, J. S. (1994). At last, an Alternative to Performance Appraisal: Total Quality

Management. Public Administration Review, 54, 129-136.

38

Brief, A., & Nord, W. (1990). Meanings of Occupational Work. Lexington, MA: Lexington

Books.

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to

decisions: The interactive effects of outcome and procedural justice. Psychological

Bulletin, 120, 189-209.

Buller, P. F., & Schuler, R. S. (2003). Managing Organizations and People: Cases in

Management. Thomson Learning Custom Publishing: Mason, OH.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Carroll, S. J., & Schneier, C. E. (1982). Performance and Review Systems: The Identification,

Measurement, Development of Performance in Organizations. Dallas: Scott, Foresman

and Company.

Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the Performance Appraisal

Process and Employee Reactions: A Meta-Analytic Review of Field Investigations,

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615-633.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic Leadership In Organizations. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee Involvement: Methods for improving performance and work

attitudes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dachler, H. P., & Wilport, B. (1978). Conceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in

Organizations: A Critical Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 1-39.

Daley, D. (1992). Performance Appraisal in the Public Sector. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum

Books.

39

Deluga, R. J. (1988). Relationship of Transformational and Transactional Leadership with

Employee Influencing Strategies. Group and Organization Studies, 13(4), 456-467.

Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Center for Advanced

Engineering Study.

Earley, P., & Kanfer, R. (1985). The Influence of Component Participation and Role Models on

Goal Acceptance, Goal Satisfaction, and Performance. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 36, 378-390.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting follower’s preferences for charismatic

leadership: The influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly, 12,

153-179.

Eppard, R. G. (2004). Dissertation: A Quantitative Study of Leadership Styles and

Organizational Culture.

Folger, R. (1987). Distributive and Procedural Justice in the Workplace. Social Justice Research,

1, 143-159.

Fox, C. J. (1991). Employee Performance Appraisal: The Keystone Made of Clay. Ban, I. C., &

Riccucci, N. M. (Eds.), Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns-Future

Challenges. New York: Longman.

French, J. P. R., Jr., & Raven, B. (1960). The Bases of Social Power. In D. Cartwright & A.

Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics; 607-623. New York: Harper & Row.

Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: inspirational and moral. Leadership

Quarterly, 2(2), 105-119.

Greenberg, J. (1987). Using Diaries to Promote Procedural Justice in Performance Appraisals.

Social Justice Research, 1, 219-234.

40

Greller, M. (1978). The Nature of Subordinate Participation in the Appraisal Interview. Academy

of Management Journal, 21, 646-658.

Hackman, R., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work Design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management and Organizational Behavior. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Herzberg, F. (2003). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business

Review; 81(1), 86-96.

Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1994). Transformational Leadership in the Hospitality Industry.

Hospitality Research Journal, 18, 49-63.

House, R. A. (1971). A Path-Goal Contingency Theory of Leadership. Mimeographed.

House, R. J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a

priori tests. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership,

29-55. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Humphreys, J. H. (2002). Transformational leader behavior, proximity and successful services

and marketing. Journal of Services Marketing , 16 (6), 487-502.

Humphreys, J. H. (2005). Contextual Implications for Transformational and Servant Leadership:

A Historical Investigation. Management Decision , 43 (10), 1410-1431.

Humphreys, J. H., & Einstein, W. O. (2004). Leadership and Temperament Congruence:

Extending the Expentancy Model of Work Motivation. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies , 10 (4), 58-79.

Ilies, R., Judge, T., & Wagner, D. (2006). Making Sense of Motivational Leadership: The Trail

from Transformational Leaders to Motivated Followers. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies , 13 (1), 1-22.

41

Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W. J., & Pitt, D. C. (2001). Leadership And Motivation: The Effective

Application of Expectancy Theory. Journal of Managerial Issues , 13 (2), 212-226.

Jacobsen, C. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model,

and tests. Leadership, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership

Quarterly, 7, 385-425.

Jordan, J. L. (1990). Performance Appraisal Satisfaction and Supervisors' Traits. Psychological

Reports, 66, 1337-1338.

Kesselman, G. A., Hagen, E. L., & Wherry, R. J., Sr. (1974). A Factor Analytic Test of the

Porter-Lawler Expectancy Model of Work Motivation. Personnel Psychology, 27, 569-

579.

Latham G. E., & Wexley, K. N. (1981). Increasing Productivity, Through Performance

Appraisal. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Latham, G. P. (2004). The Importance of Understanding and Changing Employee Outcome

Expectancies for Gaining Commitment to an Organizational Goal. Personnel Psychology,

54, 707 -716.

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. (1976). Effects of Assigned and Participative Goal Setting on

Performance and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,166-171.

Latham, G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive and Motivational Effects of

Participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 49-63.

Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood,

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

42

McClelland, D. C. (1968) "Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews"

Mitchell, T. R., & Dossett, D. L. (1978). The Importance of Participative Goal Setting and

Anticipated Rewards on Goal Difficulty and Job Performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 63, 163-171.

Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how

psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 92-120.

Nathan, B. R., Mohrman, A. M., & Milliman, J. F. (1991). Interpersonal Relations as a Context

for the Effects of Appraisal Interviews on Performance and Satisfaction: A Longitudinal

Study. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 352-369.

O'Connell, A. K. (1995). Boost self-esteem. Executive Excellence, 12(1), 8.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational

leader behaviors and their effect on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, IL:

Irwin-Dorsey.

Robbins, S. P, (1996). Organizational Behavior. (7th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall.

Roberts, G. E. (1992). Linkages Between Performance Appraisal System Effectiveness and Rater

and Ratee Acceptance: Evidence from a Survey of Municipal Personnel Administrators.

Review of Public Personnel Administration, 12, 19-41.

Roberts, G. E. (2002). Employee Performance Appraisal System Participation: A Technique

That Works. Public Personnel Management , 31 (3), 333-342.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contact. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 41, 574-599.

43

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Organizational citizenship behavior: A

psychological contract perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289-298.

Robinson, S. L., & Wolfe Morrison, E. (2000). The development of psychological contract

breach and violation: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 21, 525-

546.

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the

psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137-

152.

Rosenbaum, L., & Rosenbaum, W. (1971). Morale and Productivity Consequences of Group

Leadership Style, Stress, and Type of Task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 343-348.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organization. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121-139.

Schuler, R. (1976). Participation with Supervisor and Subordinate Authoritarianism: A Path-

Goal Theory Reconciliation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 320-325.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic

leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.

Spears, L. C. (Ed.) (1998). Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-

leadership. Wiley, New York, NY.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions,

measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.

Steers. R. M., Porter, L. W., & Bigley, G. A. (1996). Motivation and leadership at work. Boston:

The McGraw-Hill Companies.

44

Suazo, M. M., Turnley, W. H., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (2008). Characteristics of the supervisor-

subordinate relationship as predictors of psychological contract breach. Journal of

Managerial Issues, 20(3), 295-312.

Thayer, F. (1987). Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay Systems: The Disasters Multiply.

Review of Public Personnel Administration, 7, 36-53.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An

Interpretive Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15,

666-681.

Tjosvold, D., & Halco, J. A. (1992). Performance Appraisal of Managers: Goal

Interdependence, Ratings and Outcomes. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 629-639.

Wofford, J. C., Whittington, J. L., & Goodwin, V. L. (2001). Follower motive patterns as

situational moderators for transformational leadership effectiveness. Journal of Managerial

Issues, 13, 196-211.

Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Harvey, S., & Haines, III. (2005). Employer Treatment of Employees During A Community

Crisis: The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 20 (1), 53-68.

Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural Justice: An Interpretive Analysis of Personnel

Systems. In Rowland, K., & Ferris, G. (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human

Resources Management, 1, 141-183. 3rd Edition, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Leventhal, G. S., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond Fairness: A Theory of Allocation Preferences. In

45

Mikula, G. (Eds.), Justice and Social Interaction, 3, 167-218. New York: Springer-

Verlag.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and

Application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Youngblood, S. A., Trevino, L. K., & Favia, M. (1992). Reactions to Unjust Dismissal and

Third-Party Dispute Resolution: A Justice Framework. Employee Responsibilities and

Rights Journal, 5, 283-307.

Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural Justice: An Interpretive Analysis of Personnel

Systems. In Rowland, K., & Ferris, G. (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human

Resources Management, 3, 141-183.

Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond Fairness: A Theory of Allocations

Preferences. In Mikula, G. (Eds.), Justice and Social Interaction; 167-218. New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:

Eribaum.

McClelland, D. C. (1968). Money as a Motivator: Some Research Insights. The McKinsey

Quarterly, 23-28.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in

Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational Leadership and

46

Performance: A Longitudinal Investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102.

Latham, G. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Dossett, D. L. (1978). The Importance of Participative Goal

Setting and Anticipated Rewards on Goal Difficulty and Job Performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 63, 163-171.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological Contracts and OCB: The Effect of

Unfulfilled Obligations on Civic Virtue Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

16, 289-298.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (Eds.), Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299, New York: Academic Press.

Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (1974). Expectation States Theory. Cambridge:

Winthrop.

Berger, J., & Fisek, M. H. (1974). A Generalization of the Theory of Status Characteristics and

Expectation States. In Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (Eds.), Expectation States

Theory. Cambridge: Winthrop.

Cook, K. S., & Parcel, T. L. (1977). Equity Theory: Directions for Future Research. Sociological

Inquiry, 47, 75-88.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and

World.

Homans, G. C. (1974). (2nd E.). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt,

Brace and World.

Kimberly, J. (1966). A Theory of Status Equilibration. In Berger, J, & Zelditch, Jr., M., &

Anderson, B. (Eds.), Sociological Theories in Progress, 1, 213-226. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

47

Kimberly, J. (1972). Relations Among Status, Power, and Economic Rewards in Simple and

Complex Social Structures. In Berger, J, & Zelditch, Jr., M., & Anderson, B. (Eds.),

Sociological Theories in Progress, 2, 291-307. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1996) Management of Organization Behavior:

Utilizing Human Resources, 7 Ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Anderson, M. (2009). The Role of Group Personality Composition in the Emergence of Task and

Relationship Conflict Within Groups. Journal of Management and Organizations, 15(1),

82-96.

Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the Big Five Personality Factors and Conflict

Management Styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336-355.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A Theory-based

Measurement of Conflict Management Strategies in the Workplace. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 22, 645-668.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality Structure: The Emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual

Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving Interpersonal

Conflict and Reacting to it: The Case for Agreeableness. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70(4), 820-835.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup

Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and dimensions in Organizational

Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its

48

Applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.

Moberg, P. J. (1998). Predicting Conflict Strategy with Personality Traits: Incremental Validity

and the Five Factor Model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(3), 258-285.

Moberg, P. J. (2001). Linking Conflict Strategy to the Five-Factor Model: Theoretical and

Empirical Foundations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(1), 47-68.

Moynihan, L. M., Peterson, R. S. (2001). A Contingent Configuration Approach to

Understanding the Role of Personality in Organizational Groups. In Straw, B. M. (Eds.),

Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 327-378. Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.

Ohbuchi, K., & Fukushima, O. (1997). Personality and Interpersonal Conflict: Aggressiveness,

Selfmonitoring, and Situational Variables. International Journal of Conflict

Management, 8(2), 99-113.

Park, H., & Antonioni, D. (2007). Personality, Reciprocity, and Strength of Conflict Resolution

Strategy. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 110-125.

Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict. The international

Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 206-235.

Zander, A. (1979). The Study of Group Behavior During Four Decades. The Journal of applied

Behavioral Science, 15(3), 272-282.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, Values, and Subordinate Self-Concepts.

Leadership Quarterly, 12, 133-152.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness Correlates of

Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of the MLQ

Literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Yammarino, F. J., Sprangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational Leadership and

49

Performance: A Longitudinal Investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102.

Humphreys, J., Oyler, J., Pryor, M., & Haden, S. (2010). Lost in Translation: From B-School to

Business. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(2), 13-17.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on

Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Groups. Academy

of Management Journal, 39, 123-148.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van de Vliert, (Eds.) (1997). Using Conflict in Organizations. London:

Sage.

Forsyth, D. (1983). An Introduction to Group Dynamics. Monterrey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Zander, A. (1993). Making Groups Effective, 2nd Ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in

Organizational Behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198.

Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (1996). Voicing Discontent: What Happens to The Grievance Filer?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 52-63.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1991). Implementing Global Strategies: The Role of

Procedural Justice. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 125-143.

50