First Part Of This Assessment To Review And Analyze ✓ Solved

For The First Part Of This Assessment You Will Review And Analyze The

For the first part of this assessment, you will review and analyze the case study "Engstrom Auto Mirror Plant: Motivating in Good Times and Bad," applying human behavior theories and concepts to develop targeted solutions. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

Introduction of the Case Study Analysis

a) Explain the multiple organizational issues noted within the case study and validate with case study facts.

b) Identify and explain the model of organizational behavior that dominates the manager’s thoughts and actions in the case study and provide supportive examples from the case study.

c) Through conducting scholarly research, provide analysis about a relevant human behavior theory that will be included in the case study root cause analysis.

Submission- APA, 1 ½- 2 pages

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The case study "Engstrom Auto Mirror Plant: Motivating in Good Times and Bad" offers a comprehensive glimpse into the complexities of organizational behavior, employee motivation, and management strategies during different economic climates. The primary goal of this analysis is to examine the organizational challenges faced by the Engstrom plant, understand the managerial model influencing decisions, and employ pertinent human behavior theories to propose effective solutions.

Organizational Issues in the Case Study

Several organizational issues are evident throughout the case study. Foremost among these are low employee morale, high turnover rates, and a conflict between management's leadership style and employee needs. Employee morale was reported to be low, stemming from perceived unfair treatment, lack of recognition, and insufficient communication from management. For example, workers expressed frustration about inconsistent performance evaluations and inadequate feedback, which contributed to job dissatisfaction.

Additionally, the plant experienced high turnover rates, which further destabilized operations. The turnover was linked to employees feeling undervalued and disengaged, leading to decreased productivity and increased training costs. Managerial inefficiencies, such as lack of effective communication channels and inadequate motivation techniques, exacerbated these issues.

Furthermore, the case highlighted issues related to employee safety concerns and inefficient work processes. Management’s focus on output and meeting production deadlines often overshadowed worker safety, leading to hazards and accidents on the shop floor. These intertwined issues collectively compromised the overall organizational effectiveness and sustainability of the plant.

Model of Organizational Behavior Influencing Management

The dominant model of organizational behavior influencing the manager's thoughts and actions is rooted in a classical, authoritarian approach. This model emphasizes strict control, top-down decision-making, and a focus on productivity over employee well-being. Evidence from the case illustrates that management prioritized task completion and efficiency while neglecting employee motivations and satisfaction.

For example, the management’s reliance on close supervision, frequent inspections, and disciplinary measures demonstrates an authoritarian approach. The manager believed that strict oversight would improve output, disregarding the importance of employee engagement and intrinsic motivation. This model suppresses open communication and reduces employees’ sense of ownership and commitment to organizational goals. Such an approach often results in resistance, absenteeism, and decreased morale, as observed in this case.

Further supporting this, the management's decision to implement performance-based incentives without addressing underlying motivational factors exemplifies a limited understanding of human behavior, which can undermine long-term organizational success.

Human Behavior Theory and Root Cause Analysis

Drawing upon scholarly research, the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) provides valuable insights into employee motivation and organizational challenges in this case. SDT posits that individuals are motivated when their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fulfilled (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In the Engstrom case, a lack of these psychological needs—particularly autonomy and relatedness—contributed significantly to employee disengagement and turnover.

Applying SDT to the root cause analysis reveals that the management’s authoritarian style thwarted employees’ sense of autonomy by rigid supervision and micromanagement. Furthermore, limited opportunities for meaningful social interactions reduced relatedness among workers. Consequently, burnout, frustration, and lack of commitment emerged as prominent issues.

Addressing these motivational needs through participative management, recognition programs, and fostering a collaborative work environment could enhance engagement and organizational performance. Empirical studies support the effectiveness of interventions aligned with SDT, indicating that fulfilling psychological needs fosters sustained motivation and commitment (Gagné & Deci, 2005).

Conclusion

In summary, the case study underscores the importance of understanding organizational issues through a human behavior lens. The prevailing authoritarian model hindered employee engagement, leading to organizational inefficiencies. Applying Human Behavior Theory, particularly SDT, offers viable pathways for designing tailored interventions aimed at elevating motivation and improving organizational outcomes. Future strategies should leverage participative leadership, recognize employee contributions, and promote open communication to foster a motivated and resilient workforce.

References

• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
• Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–662.
• Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational Behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. Wiley.
• Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. Wiley.
• Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516.
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
• Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivating Creativity in Organizations: On Doing What You Love and Loving What You Do. California Management Review, 36(2), 39–66.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.