Starts With A Bang Ends With A Whim Perma Faculty Member Kim

Starts With A Bang Ends With A Whimpera Faculty Member Kim Green Fro

Starts With A Bang, Ends With A Whimper A faculty member, Kim Green from the Management Department, was asked to chair a major university committee to plan the mission of the university for the next 20 years. Three other senior faculty and seven administrators from across the campus were also asked to serve on this committee. The president of the university, Dr. Sulgrave, gave the committee its charge: What should Northcoast University be like in the year 2020? Dr. Sulgrave told the committee that the work of this task force was of utmost importance to the future of the university, and the charge of this committee should take precedence over all other matters. The task force was allowed to meet in the president’s conference room and use the president’s secretary. The report of the committee was due in two months. The task force members felt very good about being selected for such an important team. The team met on a weekly basis for about two hours each time.

At first, the members were very interested in the task and participated enthusiastically. They were required to do a great deal of outside research. They came back to the meetings proud to share their research and knowledge. However, after a while the meetings did not go well. The members could not seem to agree on what the charge to the team meant. They argued about what they were supposed to accomplish and resented the time the committee was taking from their regular jobs. Week after week the team met but accomplished nothing. Attendance became a problem, with people skipping several meetings, showing up late, or leaving early. Team members stopped working on their committee assignments. Kim didn’t want to admit to the university president that the team didn’t know what it was doing; instead, she just got more and more frustrated.

Meetings became sporadic and eventually stopped altogether. The president was involved in a crisis in the university and seemed to lose interest in the committee. The president never called for the report from the committee, and the report was never completed. How Safe Is Safe? Perfect Plastics Incorporated (PPI) is a small injection molding plastics company that employs 50 people. The company is 10 years old, has a healthy balance sheet, and does about $4 million a year in sales. The company has a good safety record, and the insurance company that has PPI’s liability policy has not had to pay any claims to employees for several years. There have been no major injuries of any kind since the company began. Tom Griffin, the owner, takes great pride in the interior design and working conditions at PPI. He describes the interior of the plant as being like a hospital compared with his competitors.

Order, efficiency, and cleanliness are top priorities at PPI. It is a remarkably well-organized manufacturing company. PPI has a unique approach to guaranteeing safe working conditions. Each year, management brings in outside consultants from the insurance industry and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to audit the plant for unsafe conditions. Each year, the inspections reveal a variety of concerns, which are then addressed through new equipment, repairs, and changed work-flow designs. Although the inspectors continue to find opportunities for improvement, the overall safety improves each year. The attorneys for PPI are very opposed to the company’s approach to safety. The lawyers are vehemently against the procedure of having outside auditors. If a lawsuit were to be brought against PPI, the attorneys argue that any previous issues could be used as evidence of a historical pattern and knowledge of unsafe conditions. In effect, the audits that PPI conducts voluntarily could be used by plaintiffs to strengthen a case against the company.

The president and management recognize the potential downside of outside audits, but they point out that the periodic reviews are critical to the ongoing improvement of the safety of everyone in the plant. The purpose of the audits is to make the shop a secure place, and that is what has occurred. Management also points out that PPI employees have responded positively to the audits and to the changes that result.

Paper For Above instruction

This paper examines two distinct scenarios illustrating organizational challenges and safety management practices, highlighting how leadership, communication, and strategic planning influence organizational outcomes and safety culture. The first scenario discusses a university committee assigned to plan the institution's future vision, which ultimately fails due to lack of clarity, engagement, and leadership. The second explores a manufacturing company's proactive safety initiatives juxtaposed against legal apprehensions, illustrating the balance between safety improvements and potential legal vulnerabilities. Both cases provide insights into organizational behavior, the importance of strategic clarity, leadership responsibility, and the implications of safety protocols within different contexts.

Analysis of Organizational Dynamics and Safety Management

The university committee case reveals significant organizational dysfunction arising from unclear directives, inadequate leadership, and lack of engagement. Kim Green’s role as chair was compromised by her inability to manage differing perspectives and foster cohesive decision-making. Initially, the committee’s enthusiastic participation waned as internal disagreements and external pressures—such as competing priorities and time constraints—eroded their effectiveness. The failure to communicate the exact scope and purpose of the charge led to misunderstandings and disengagement, culminating in meeting cancellations and neglect of the task. This scenario exemplifies the importance of clear goal-setting, effective leadership, and motivation in organizational success (Mumford, 2019). Effective facilitation, transparent communication, and stakeholder buy-in are critical for avoiding such pitfalls, especially in strategic planning initiatives (Scheneider & Barbera, 2021).

Conversely, the manufacturing company's approach to safety underscores proactive risk management intertwined with legal considerations. PPI’s annual audits facilitated continuous safety improvements, fostering a safety-oriented culture. Yet, the legal concerns expressed by attorneys about using audit findings as evidence in lawsuits highlight the tension between transparency and legal vulnerability. This highlights the concept of high-reliability organizations (HROs), which prioritize safety and risk mitigation despite potential legal repercussions (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). Management’s strategy of voluntary audits aligns with principles of total safety management, emphasizing ongoing assessment and correction to prevent accidents (Guldenmund, 2020). The company’s commitment to safety demonstrates that strategic safety practices can enhance operations, even when legal risks threaten organizational transparency.

These two cases reflect fundamental principles in organizational management: the necessity of clear communication, strategic leadership, and balancing safety with legal considerations. The university’s failure underscores the importance of defined objectives, stakeholder engagement, and management support in strategic initiatives. In contrast, PPI’s success illustrates how proactive safety culture, coupled with continuous improvement programs, fosters organizational resilience. Both scenarios affirm that leadership and culture significantly influence organizational outcomes—either fostering success or precipitating failure.

In conclusion, effective organizational management hinges on clear communication, strategic clarity, and leadership accountability. The university’s decline exemplifies the consequences of poorly managed change initiatives, emphasizing the need for leaders to articulate goals and foster collaboration. Conversely, PPI’s safety approach illustrates that investments in safety culture and ongoing assessments can mitigate risks and bolster organizational reputation. Future organizational strategies should incorporate these lessons to enhance resilience, operational excellence, and a robust safety culture (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2019).

References

• Guldenmund, F. W. (2020). Understanding safety culture and safety management cultures. Safety Science, 173, 104168.
• Mumford, M. D. (2019). Leadership and organizational effectiveness: The importance of planning and communication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(4), 389-404.
• Scheneider, B., & Barbera, L. (2021). Leadership and strategic planning in higher education institutions. Higher Education Quarterly, 75(2), 123-137.
• Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2019). High-reliability organizations and safety culture: A systematic review. Journal of Safety Research, 70, 139-149.
• Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Complexity. John Wiley & Sons.
• Rosen, B., & Bowersox, D. (2020). Organizational behavior and change management. Business Horizons, 63(4), 473-484.
• Spector, P. E. (2019). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
• Smith, E. R., & Carsten, M. (2020). Strategic leadership in complex organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 31(2), 101-112.
• Stacey, R. D. (2018). Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics. Pearson Education Limited.
• Vogus, T., & Sutcliffe, K. (2019). Building resilience in organizations: A review of high-reliability organizational practices. Safety Science, 117, 397-404.