Explain why money may be more important as a motivator in some job types than others by applying one motivation theory.

Management in a Global Environment

Complete all 3 of the following tasks

1. Task One (Maximum 150 words)

Explain why money may be more important as a motivator in some job types than others by applying one motivation theory

1. Task Two (Maximum 150 words)
By applying an appropriate unit framework/theory to an example organisation, explain how an unethical organisational culture can develop over time.

1. Task Three (Maximum 150 words)
You work for the Human Resources area of an organisation and investigations reveal the structured interview process is resulting in poor new hire selections. Provide two explanations why and at least one recommendation for each to solve the problems.

Section 2: Case Study: A Fallen Star

After finishing his university entrance exams at the age of 16, Mike went on to top nearly every Engineering unit at university. With an IQ of 151 and a mean score of 91.5% across all university units, Mike was deemed to be destined for greatness. Several of his university mentors counselled him to pursue a career in academia with one professor noting, “Mike seems to have it all. He’s a talented, tough minded and hard-working student who will do well in any setting.”

Many firms saw his obvious ability as an engineer and Mike was promptly hired by local engineering firm Endeavour Pty Ltd. Endeavour was a well-established family business with its founder Ron Richardson and sons Jason and Steve occupying three of the top five management positions. Engineers themselves, they had recently set Endeavour on a new course in the hope of promoting high growth. While Endeavour had a long history of successful local civil construction projects, it was now branching into new engineering markets locally and overseas. This was all part of an aggressive strategy put in place to address the growing competitive pressures from foreign firms operating in partnership with traditional local rivals.

To accomplish this, the firm launched a worldwide search for engineering talent which saw their full-time workforce more than double in just a few years. It was during this period of unprecedented growth that Mike came to the firm along with several other star university graduates.

Regarded as the firm’s future, these “stars” were quickly thrown into some of the most challenging projects ever tackled by Endeavour; projects that were often firsts for the firm. While there were mistakes and successes, during this early period Mike distinguished himself as a very talented engineer and he quickly became the “go to” man for many technical problems.

Deemed the consummate subject matter expert by colleagues, Mike attained the distinction of being the youngest senior engineer in the firm’s history. One fellow senior engineer with twelve years at the firm summed up Mike with these words: “He’s incredibly bright and a gifted problem solver in the technical sense. However, it remains to be seen if he can cut it in a senior role as he’s quick to lose his temper and few seem to enjoy working with him.”

Around two years after Mike joined the firm it became very clear that some of the old guard within management ranks were struggling with the sheer number, magnitude, and uniqueness of projects.
As senior engineers are often assigned large projects, Ron felt it was finally time for Mike to lead his own project team.

Ron said at the time “Mike’s time has come. While I’ve not worked with him, it is clear he’s made a remarkable contribution and I’m sure that by heading his own project team many will learn a lot from him. I like the lad as he reminds me of me. Some reckon he’s a bit too abrupt with people but, this is a tough and hectic business and I see the value in being direct.”

It was therefore unpleasant for Ron to be looking at a damning report from one of his analysts about Mike some eighteen months later. Mike’s first project was now in danger thanks to cost overruns to the tune of $150 million. Several dismissals had occurred recently as a result of Mike’s insistence that problems were the result of incompetent staff that the firm had inherited during the years of aggressive expansion.

One of his notable statements to Ron in the midst of this chaos was, “I can’t believe how weak some of these people are. If I can’t address problems about work with them then what’s the point of me being here? I find it annoying that some find it necessary to blame their shortcomings on me.” In exit interviews all the staff that were dismissed consistently attributed blame for project problems to Mike.

The analyst’s report noted a number of key things which included:

⦁ Most of the losses are caused by disputes and delays with two key Chinese contractors.

⦁ Discussions with staff and these contractors indicate Mike is hard to deal with, lacks patience and has a poor relationship with most peers and subordinates.

⦁ The culture of the project team was described as “toxic” with Mike frequently greeting any bad news with a temper tantrum. It appears those reporting the early warning signs of problems with Chinese contractors attributed problems to Mike offending senior personnel among the contractors. Mike was defensive when tackled over this by team personnel.

⦁ Mike’s strong technical skills were not rubbing off on project team members. Instead, they were often used as a means of belittling them. Most complain of being made to feel inadequate when asking for help or an opinion on work output.

⦁ Conflict between team members had not been addressed.

Section 2: Exam Case Questions
Answer ALL 3 questions (Total 18 marks).

In your answer booklet you must address these three requirements:

1. Define and apply two motivation theories (5 marks each) in order to discuss two causes of poor motivation in Mike’s project team (Total 10 marks).
(600 word maximum for both parts combined)

1. List in clear terms the internal primary problems evident in the case (maximum of three).

Note: You will lose half of all marks if there are more than three . 18 words maximum (6 word limit for each)

1. By applying any clearly defined situational/contingency leadership model (theory), discuss the leadership issues in the case (3 marks) and provide two suitable recommendations to address them (2 x 0.5 marks)
(200 word maximum)

Last Completed Projects