Case Study of Masters

1. Describe Masters’ management style. Use evidence from the case study to support your answer.

Masters’ management style can be described as the autocratic leadership style. He defined level of authority and responsibility clearly and strictly adhered to (Hickey et al, 2005, pp.23-7). According to the case study, Masters focused on cost control, and he had a strict expectations for two departments. Also, he didn’t believe the staff members, so he also had been interfering in the management of the department, making decisions about processes. Therefore the subordinates know little about the business and work in stress. Apart from that, Masters didn’t communicate with staff and always ignore their suggestions. He didn’t give opportunities to subordinates to think about the organizational objectives like how to develop a new and improved telescopic handler, just set the goals and pay attention to cost saving. Lastly, he cannot give enough motivation to the staff because he cannot make them satisfied with their basic needs. Since effective communication is a crucial part, he do not provide enough information regarding the plan of the business, so the workers were going to leave.

2. Imagine you are the management consultant referred to in the case study. What management style would you recommend that Masters adopt to manage his different staff members?

If I were the management consultant, I would suggest Masters to use participative leadership style to help him manage his different staff members. First of all, for staff from the Engineering Department, the participative style can attract the staff to share their opinions and suggestions (Hickey et al, 2005, pp.27-31). Then the staff can have more opportunities to make decisions themselves, which can also have a better influence for Masters. This style also will not make staff stressed and give them time to develop their new ideas. Without the tight deadlines, both staff and Masters would obtain more workable and practical designs. On the other hand, for staff from the Production Department, the participative style means more communication and interpersonal skills for Masters. He have to take into account of staff’s comments, because they are more familiar with the productivity. Not “telling the employees only what they need to know and nothing else” (Chapman et al, 2005, pp.46-47) can avoid the injured problem since they can get more proper procedures when they are working. In all, participative style can help Masters solve his current problems.

3. Using one or more motivation theories, advice Masters how to motivate his different staff members.

According to the hierarchy-of-needs theory, developed by Abraham Maslow, Masters should focus on the higher level of needs. Since people have more needs apart from the basic ones, both esteem needs and self-actualization needs have a serious effect on staff’s motivation (Bartol et al, 2003, p.368). As staff developing their ideas and capabilities, they need more to fulfil their self-actualization needs, so Maslow can give more challenging projects or opportunities for innovation and creativity instead of interfere in the management to make decisions himself. Furthermore, according to Herzberg’s two-factor theory, hygiene factors like avoiding injured staff and taking staff’s argument into account would both keep them from feeling dissatisfaction (Bartol et al, 2003, p.368). Masters can also set some rewards as the motivators for the designer of the improved telescopic handler, and once they feel satisfied or motivated for the working processes, Masters would not worry about whether the departments is living up to his expectations.

Reference List:

1. Bartol, K, Tein, M, Matthews, G, & Martin, D 2003, Management: A Pacific rim focus, Enhanced edn, McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd, Macquarie Park. (p.369-370) 2. Chapman, S, Morris, C, Devenish, N & Merritt, L 2005, Business studies in action: HSC course, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Milton, Qld, pp.46-47 3. Hickey, M, Nader, T & Williams, T 2005, Cambridge HSC business studies, CUP, Cambridge, pp.27-31.