Teams For Rig Managers example essay topic

MEMORANDUM TO: JUAN C. ARAQUEFROM: GROUP #6 SUBJECT: CASE STUDY FOR COMPANY "BRINKERHOFF INTERNATIONAL INC". DATE: 11/14/00 CC: HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR OBJECTIVE: After careful review and analysis of the situation and the facts surrounding the company Brinkerhoff International Incorporated (BII), our team has been able to develop a viable course of action to efficiently improve productivity and relations within the organization. PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED: It is apparent through financial records that Rig 1-E by far outperforms any rig by almost double and, in some instances, by almost three times as much. What we need to focus on is what makes that rig succeed and how to improve conditions so that all the other rigs will be able to achieve that kind of productivity... A major problem and difference exists between leadership styles of Rig 1-E Manager Rick Kopulos and Rig 20 Manager Tom Rossick. Rick Kopulos is a relationship-oriented leader who gives his subordinates flexibility in operations.

This style is apparently successful meanwhile Tom Rossick a manager who strictly abides by the corporate rules and regulations is a ineffective leader... Another problem within the company is group dynamics. There is a lack of communication with crewmember's on Rig 20 and their manager Tom Rossick. There are no real goals set for employees to measure their performance and no reward systems in place to encourage people to work harder. The company itself has no goals set in terms of productivity expected from each rig... The most important problem is the way the company is structured.

Brinkerhoff has too many responsibilities since Don Webster, the former Manager of Contracts and Operations, was let go. Kurt Mannheim does not fulfill his duties as defined by the company, and Rig Managers disagree with the degree of importance of each position within the crews. This creates confusion, strains, tension, and apprehension in the work force. POSSIBLE INTERVENTIONS: Leadership Training To address the inconsistency of the leadership styles of rig managers, we will assess the differences between Rig Managers Rossick and Kopulos. It is clear that Rick Kopulos's leadership style is more favorable then Rossick's. His crew communicates well with each other and cooperates in a cohesive team, which results in high productivity for the company.

What we need to do is focus on their main differences and take the necessary steps to improve the leadership of Tom Rossick. The effective style of leadership here is to be more of a friend and not be so demanding, and in the end more positive results will be provided. For example, the crewmember's of Rossick don't feel open enough to talk in front of their manager. They are either afraid or they just don't feel comfortable. These behaviors need to be changed for the betterment of the organization.

Obviously the crewmember's are highly skilled workers and, according to the Fiedler model, leaders need to be less task-oriented and more relationship-oriented. Tom Rossick is clearly not that kind of a manager. We have two options: (1) we could invest in training programs to change Rossick's management style, or (2) we could let him go and find a manager with the traits that fit the company. Managers are role models; if they don't care, neither will the workers. Employees read the message that the managers send and model their behavior accordingly.

It is true that certain positions require people to take on certain role identities, which make their attitudes and behaviors consistent with a role, such as leaders, who must take a commanding role. Positives: If the person's leadership style can be molded according to the Behavorial Approach of the 1950's then Rossick's traits can be changed to be more relationship oriented rather than task. It would result in better relations within the hierarchy of management and the communication gap can potentially be fixed. Leadership training programs such as Skill Building Approach where concentration is on practice makes perfect, the Feedback Approach where managers could get feedback on positive leadership styles, and Personal Growth Approach to develop trust in the work environment could be implemented.

The second choice would be to fire Rossick and hire managers that possess the leadership qualities of Rick Kopulos. According to the theories of the Contingency approach, if the leadership styles of people are fixed, then this would be the most efficient choice of action. This would be more cost and time effective. Negatives: However, people can hardly change and do not like to change themselves. Changing leadership styles is difficult to attain because the company hardly has the resources to send them to leadership seminars, and it takes a lot of time to mold someone's style. Conger studies have shown that people are well learned in one leadership style and will revert to it when under pressure.

After all the training, the individual may not implement the leadership knowledge due to this or other external factors. If we decided to hire mangers with traits that fit the situation, a problem might arise if the situation changes. Another problem might be the complications with finding people with the exact leadership traits that we need. Problem-solving Teams In order to establish a better means of communication between workers under rig 20, problem-solving teams that meet to discuss ways to improve quality and the work environment should be implemented. Team members should agree on what to do and ensure that all members contribute equally in sharing the workload. Under Rossick's management, there was a lot of lateral communication but no upward communication and thus no way to address conflicts, issues, and problems that may arise regarding onsite operations and maintenance.

Problem-solving teams for both the crewmember's and the rig managers can be utilized to find solutions on both levels. NEED TO TALK MORE ABOUT PROB-SOLVING TEAMS FOR RIG MANAGERS. Positives: Through problem-solving teams, problems can be addressed faster and more straightforwardly without having to go through different channels, and creating this team gives the employees a forum to voice their opinions. This will definitely enhance the lateral communication among the crewmember's and increase the upward communication from crewmember to Rig Manager.

More importantly, a team ideology is kept within a small group, which can bring the group closer together. Negatives: In contrast to such positive aspects, problem-solving teams can be a waste of time, especially on the crew level because problems such as groupthink and group shift can arise and nothing would get done. It is only a way to voice opinion on how to better do things, but "rarely are these teams given the authority to unilaterally implement any of their suggested actions". Goal-setting Brinkerhoff International also lacks effective goals and puts in its place a hastily written mission statement. Although the quality assurance mission statement provides a general overview for the company to strive for, goal setting via goal-setting theory and management by objectives (MBO) is needed to suggest specific and difficult goals that are set in an explicit time period so that feedback can be presented -- which leads to higher performance. They would need to assess the production value of Rig 1-E, because it is the best rig, and then use that as a standard or guideline for the goal-setting process.

Basing the process on the high standard of Rig 1-E will allow each rig to have a measurement to compare their productivity to and, eventually, an objective to excel above. In addition, Brinkerhoff would need to be a transactional leader and / or a visionary leader because he would need to effectively motivate and guide his company toward the vision of a future BII. Positives: Employees can get involved with the goal-setting process, which increases employee satisfaction-because they get to be part of the action-and the employees also get to interact with management, which allows for more open upward communication. A common bond is made in the organization because everyone is striving for the same set of goals, and in effect, trust and loyalty is built into the company from the president down to the roughnecks. Negatives: A main problem with setting goals is that it is quite time consuming and it uses up a lot of company resources in the duration of time it takes to plan and implement them. And since the standard that the goals are based on is high, workers can be overwhelmed with increased anxiety if the goals are too unattainable and in reverse, can cause complacency if the goal is too easy.

These problems are only trivial compared to the larger benefits that are attained if detailed and intricate goals are employed and accurately monitored. Reward System and Employee Recognition Program Getting employees to be motivated and be more team oriented can be achieved by incorporating a reward system and an employee recognition program. Since the crew workers seem to be dissatisfied with the current prospects of their job and they hardly interact outside of their own crew, a reward system and employee recognition system would alleviate negative competition and increase synergy. Gain sharing can be employed so that each crew can have an incentive plan so that as the crew improves productivity, they get rewarded by increasing their amount of pay. Other rewards, like flexible benefits, promotions, and lotteries, can be given to those who actually come to work or employees who learn new techniques and skills. Positives: Training new colleagues, sharing information with teammates, helping to resolve team conflicts, and mastering new skills that the team needs but in which it is deficient are all feasible actions that can be rewarded.

Rewards positively reinforce the desired actions, which can shape behaviors of employees for better teamwork and individual behavior. The reward system is quite efficient because it can increase teamwork, employee morale, camaraderie, communication with each other, satisfaction, and relationships with higher powers. And an employee recognition program is a potent motivator for the employees who lack incentive to work productively. Negatives: However, costs of a supplemental reward system and employee recognition program can be allocated to other avenues like safety or marketing. Unless distributive justice is applied, and if the reward system is individually based, the system can stir up some problems with equity theory ("why is he getting paid more than me? Why is their crew getting paid more?" ) -people may start to do less work: a backfiring of the reward system.

This in turn can foster hostile competition between crews, and if someone does not participate in a team, a whole crew can lose out on rewards, which creates a bad team environment if the crew's rewards were based on the team wholly. Reengineering and Restructuring majority of the company's more complex problems can be solved with a complete restructuring and re engineering of the organization's structure, which includes rethinking the roles of both Brinkerhoff and Mannheim and reorganizing the work structure of the whole company. Currently, the President Tom Brinkerhoff carries the responsibilities of the president and the general manager since Don Webster left the company. In order for Brinkerhoff to concentrate on directing the general company strategy, his several roles need to be split up.

Two vice presidents can take over the responsibilities entailed by a general manager: a Vice President of Internal Operations would manage the administrative duties and a Vice President of Field Operations would manage the production duties. This would break up the company into two branches that Brinkerhoff can manage overall. The responsibilities would be less for each individual, including Brinkerhoff, so that they would be able to concentrate on more specific duties. The Vice President of Field Operations would be in charge of supervising the rig managers so that there would be clear communication lines; the rig managers would report to the Vice President of Field Operations, instead of reporting straight to Brinkerhoff or another member in the corporate office.

Falling under the rig managers are their three crews with four positions each: a driller, a derrick man, a motorman, and two floor men. Each crew should function as a gain sharing team with no hierarchy so that each crewmember can learn or strive to learn all the duties and techniques of each of the positions. Having the present system with inequality creates conflict and competition within and between crews. The Corporate Safety Supervisor would also report to the Vice President of Field Operations and is on the same level as the rig managers.

This is to ensure that the Safety Supervisor does not carry too much power over the rig managers. Mannheim seems to have legitimate power over the rig managers and the rigs because he evaluates the safety and maintenance and is in charge of whether or not they will get a promotion or not-and, in a way, he wielded his power in a coercive manner. The Vice President of Internal Operations would oversee and manage the people in the corporate office. This includes the Contract Manager, Controller, Marketing Manager, Payroll and Safety, Contracts Assistant, and Data Input Clerk. Also a new position of Human Resources Manager could be instated to balance the powers of the Rig Managers and Safety Supervisor. Positives: Reengineering the structure of the company minimizes the necessary amount of management and looks at specific jobs and assesses them to see if they are necessary.

The company can save money in the long run when jobs are combined or taken away. The performance of both the individuals and teams of the company will experience a big leap, and when re engineering is complete, the workplace will potentially be self-managed. Jobs, like the drill team's, will be more intellectually challenging, will contain increased responsibility, and will provide higher pay and job satisfaction in a successful team setting. With the company's increased economic efficiency, customer satisfaction and production rates will also increase because the re engineering process demands quality, service, and low costs. Compared to Total Quality Management's (TQM) incremental improvements, re engineering is applied in quantum leaps in order to make a significantly different impact. Negatives: The process to implement the newly re engineered structure is run by top management so the bottom of the hierarchy has little to say.

The course of action becomes very autocratic and nondemocratic. People's jobs are highly threatened so employees are not going to accept the change voluntarily, which leads to a huge amount of employee resistance because of cutbacks. In addition, employees have to discard long-established work practices and formal social networks, which in turn causes anxiety and uncertainty during the period that it takes to implement re engineering. In addition the re engineering process is very abrupt feeling-compared to TQM-even though it has the potential to take up 3 to 5 years to accomplish. This "overnight" feeling could again cause additional anxiety and stress. Lastly the cost of re engineering might be too much for BII since it is a small company.

RECOMMENDATIONS: In order for BII to succeed in the oil refining industry drastic measures must be taken. After thoroughly evaluating our interventions and weighing the outcomes, our consulting team feels that it is vital to restructure the entire company. Time Frame of Plan: . Immediately: As you can see from Figure 1 we plan to totally change the structure of the company. It will be divided into two subdivisions (internal & field) each reporting to a Vice President. The major change will occur with the structure of the crew, each will now have equal power.

This will be implemented as soon as possible as we radically overhaul the company... Refining and Implementing: The next step will be to clearly define the role of each employee within the company. There will be more of a focus to work together as a group emphasizing the structure of depart mentation by function. There will be an effort to de-emphasize bureaucratic mechanic structure and focus to virtual organization. The best way to implement these changes is through education and training. Employees will be encouraged to work together as a group, communicate, and achieve goals set within the company.

This will probably take about a year to implement and adjust. Minor Setbacks: In the short term this course of action might seem extreme and too radical. But to improve the company and rid it of the problems that exist, it is ultimately necessary. The costs will definitely be the most major factor in the short term and employees will be hesitant to convert at first, but with the right training and explanations of the overall benefits to the employees, the company will be able to overcome this hurdle. Results and Overall Expectancy: Within 2-3 years we expect drastic positive results from implementing this overall restructuring of the company.

In the long term, crews will be able to adjust and work more efficiently as a team. There will be a clear line of communication between subordinates and managers. Each individual rig will have the power to implement changes and are able to self monitor themselves. As the company works as a team with direct goals and rewards set, in the long term it will definitely prosper. RECOMMENDATION: .