Each answer 300 to 400 words
Question: A1
Analyze and evaluate your syndicate’s development and functioning as a group or
team according to relevant theories and models you encountered in class or in your
reading. Discuss your own roles in the syndicate and consider leadership issues.
What would you do differently, given your experience and this analysis, to enhance
the performance of the group and the satisfaction of its members?
Section B
Case study B1:
Building a common culture: The case of BHP Billiton
The merger in 2000 of BHP in Australia and Billiton of South Africa, although
headquartered in London, as not undertaken because the organisations were similar. It took
place in order to build scale and financial size, linking BHP's profitable long life and
established assets with Billiton's more growth oriented projects. Although they were both
mining companies, the cultures of the two companies were very dissimilar. BHP reflected
the Australian cultural traits of openness, mateship and questioning authority. Billiton,
although previously owned by Shell, reflected its South African heritage. It had a reputation
for being strictly hierarchical, with a culture that demanded respect for authority. There was
little openness, a lack of exposure to outside criticism, and almost no experience of
confrontational unions. Senior management at Billiton consisted of a small coterie of hard -
driving men who worked autonomously. BHP's senior management was more consultative,
calculative and methodical in style and used to working under a strong board of directors.
This indicates a further reason for the merger and that was to access the talents of Billiton's
management team. It was felt that the style and aggression of Billiton's managers would
shake up BHP's more staid management style and lead the combined company on a path to
past growth.
Merging the cultures was never going to be easy. It was complicated by the nature of the
CEO's role. Initially, Paul Anderson, the American boss of BHP, was chief executive, but he
was replaced in 2002 by Brian Gilbertson, the chief executive of Billiton. Seen as a talented
opportunist, Gilbertson has risen to success mainly through takeovers. The rest of the senior
management team were mainly Gilbertson's colleagues from Billiton days.
To assist in merging the cultures at the operating levels of the company BHP Billiton
adopted a process known as 'feathering'. This involved alternating the placement of former
BHP and Billiton staff throughout its organisational structure in an attempt to break down
old company allegiances. Early emphasis was given to quickly combining key HRM
processes, such as remuneration and performance management. Integration teams consisting
of managers from each company were formed very soon after the merger. They were
encouraged to abandon preconceived ways and to consider only what was good for BHP
Billiton. Integration was assisted to a certain extent by structural changes accompanying the
merger. Both companies had designed their structures around their mining operations. But
after the merger the focus was changed to the customer, and business were built around
customer groupings.
However, the culture clashes in the executive suite far outweighed those at the operating
level. Brian Gilbertson was an aggressive and ambitious executive who wanted to double
BHP Billiton's size in a short time. This could not be achieved by organic growth; it had to
come through acquisition. Gilbertson was always on a plane trying to do deals, but he failed
to keep the BHP board informed of his actions and confided more in his close Billiton
colleagues...
Questions B1:
Define corporate culture and give examples. What does the case tell you
about how cultures originate and are sustained? Drawing upon the case, discuss why is there
likely to be a high turnover of managers during and immediately after the integration? Why
are culture clashes apparent in this case likely to be resolved by one group leaving the
organisation?
Source: Adapted from Robbins, S.P. & Barnwell, N. (2006). Organisation theory: Concepts and cases (5th ed.). French’s Forest,
Case study B2:
Volkswagen’s Ferdinand Piëch
While many of today’s organizations are shifting towards more democratic, participative
types of management, one is not: Volkswagen. In fact, Volkswagen’s chief executive,
Ferdinand Piëch, rules his realm with an iron hand. After a long executive career at such
prestigious car makers as Audi and Porsche (Piëch’s maternal grandfather was Ferdinand
Porsche). Piëch took over as Volkswagen’s CEO in 1993. He immediately centralized
power in the organization, firing managers who questioned his ideas or who didn’t follow
his lead. He dived into engineering projects himself, promising new projects, tinkering
with designs. He presided over meetings with the demeanor of an autocrat, with the
occasional result that ‘critical questions are not asked, because people know things can
rapidly get uncomfortable’, notes one former executive.
Piëch had- and still has- a reason for ruling supreme over his company. He is not satisfied
that VW is Europe’s leading mass-market car manufacturer; he wants to turn it into the
most powerful most respected carmaker in the world. He won’t settle for less. ‘We’re
trying to redefine the status game’, explains Jens Neumann, a member of Volkswagen’s
management board and supporter of Piëch. After creating success at both Porsche and
Audi, such as the Quattro all-wheel drive, Piëch is intent on doing even more at VW. “He
is the most brilliant and forward-looking CEO in the business today’, claims an analyst
for a major VW investor. Indeed, in the first five years at the wheel, Piëch turned around
several languishing car models, increased the company’s lead in Europe and created a
comeback in the US market. Perhaps his most famous project is his reintroduction of the
beloved VW Beetle. Despite warnings by market experts, Piëch pushed the bug ahead-
redesigned so it’s a little larger than its predecessor and with all the necessary technological bells and whistles- to a warm welcome from customers.
Perhaps one reason Piëch is so successful in his method of management is his extensive
knowledge of and passion for the car themselves. From his days as an automotive
engineering student at Zurich’s Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, through his stint at
Porsche, where he helped create world –class racing cars, to his development of Audi’s
Quattro and now the launch of the VW Beetle, Piëch has been found under the hood,
tinkering. He knows his product and his customers, and how to fit them together, better
than anyone else in the industry.
Critics charge that Piëch has too tight a hold over his company. “At VW, nothing happens
without Piëch’, notes a former colleague. One-person rule can result in massive mistakes.
For instance, several years ago, Piëch pushed for the purchased of Rolls-Royce Motors
from its parent, Vickers plc. But in a botched deal, he lost the rights to the Rolls-Royce
brand name, which actually belongs to Rolls-Royce plc, the aerospace manufacturer.
Critics also point out that Piëch’s fanatical grip on VW has more to do with his personal
insecurity than a philosophy of management. ‘He wants to prove that he has been
underestimated for years’, muses one former VW executive. But with Piëch in the lead,
VW now is reporting over US$2 billion a year in earnings, over 100 per cent more than
before he took the driver’s seat.
Source: Woodruff & Naughton, 1998 cited in Management 3rd ed. by D. Samson & R. L. Daft (2009), Cengage Learning Australia Pty
Questions B2:
What personality traits do you think Ferdinand Piëch exhibits? Explain. Do they
contribute to a good person–job fit? Why? Imagine that you are a manager at
Volkswagen, and you are experiencing some cognitive dissonance about being asked to
work long hours on one of Piëch’s pet projects – a new car model whose success you
have doubts about. How might you resolve your dissonance?
Question: B3
Describe decision making from the rationality and bounded rationality views. Can
decision making be considered a fundamental part of management effectiveness? Explain
why. What role does intuition play in decision making? What do you think is your
dominant decision making style? Discuss.
Question: B4
Are intrinsic factors less motivating in poor countries than they are in rich countries?
Why? Could a manager’s empowerment efforts contribute to de-motivation as well?
Explain how. Would you rather work for a supervisor high in need for achievement, need
for affiliation, or need for power? Why? What are the advantages and disadvantages of
each?