TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES-VISAYAS

City of Talisay, Negros Occidental

Unit 14 Result

COURSE TITLE: PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Case for Unit.

The Ineffective Incentive. George Morales had worked at the Adams Company
for 8 years in the extrusion press department. He had progressed from his break-in job of
laborer to sawyer, leadout, and the top job of heater and press operator. The functions of
the press operator are to operate the press, act as leadman of the crew, and arrange his
work into an orderly sequence. George had spent most of his time on a press of 2,500 –
ton capacity, although presses of larger capacities were available.
An incentive system had been installed in the press area and was based on the
load and extrusion cycles to determine the standard minutes. The actual time to perform
the job was divided into the standard minutes to determine the efficiency of the crew.
George had performed satisfactorily for a long period of time in all classifications,
particularly in that operator. He was considered a having a pleasing personality and
being an efficient operator with an average efficiency of 116 percent, an excellent
coordinator of his four-man crew, and highly concerned with the quality of the work he
and his crew turned out. He was in good health, and his attendance record was
considered perfect.
The firm’s profit have been decreasing the past 18 months owing to the effects of
stringent competition. Management decided to investigate the methods of performing the
work in each department, the objective being to improve methods wherever possible to
decrease costs. Some layouts in the press area were modified to the extent that crew sizes
could be reduced. George’s crew was reduced by one crew member.
About this time, George’s attitude and performance changed markedly for the
worse. His immediate supervisor found it necessary to caution him several times, first on
the quality of his work, then his grouchy attitude which verged on insubordination, and
finally his attendance. His supervisor could not determine any satisfactory reason for this
70
situation. It appeared to him that George was not trying or that he was not paying
attention to what he was doing. The supervisor was also unable to determine the reason
for the grouchy attitude, except George saying he “didn’t feel good”.
The supervisor didn’t have much time to let the situation ride because the poor
quality of George’s work was beginning to show up in other process centers. This caused
his own superior to get into the act. When the poor quality began reaching the final
inspection department, “the roof feel in.” The plant superintendent, the general
superintendent, and the department supervisor were now on the supervisor’s neck. An
immediate meeting was held with the supervisor by the plant’s top management where he
unfolded his meager story. Since this was not an adequate explanation, it was decided to
bring George into the meeting. While waiting for him to appear, the general
superintendent convincingly advanced his theory that George was offering resistance to
the change in methods. The department supervisor objected to his theory since no trouble
had been experienced in prior similar situations. When George arrived, he was asked to
state why his production had worsened, but the declined to offer any more information
than that he had given to his supervisor. He was informed that he would have to
improved immediately or be dismissed. He was told he would be given 1 week to make
the transition in recognition of his long period of satisfactory service. The proper union
officials were informed of all the facts and the proposition. The union officers were
perplexed about the change in George but, being aware of his poor performance,
reluctantly went along with the arrangement.
The department supervisor was the sole individual not in agreement with the rest.
He first quizzed the immediate supervisor again and obtained no new information. He
felt somewhat disappointed in him for not being closer to the man and having some idea
of what had caused the sudden change. The department supervisor then talked to several
union leaders and other members of the organization. None had any additional
information. George had been part of the gang up to the time his work performance
changed, since then he had become a lone wolf. The union and informal group leaders
were aware of the seriousness of his situation if he did not change, and felt that they had
let the department foreman down in not being able to shed any light on the case.

71
 The first 3 working days of the week-long waiting period went by with no
change . On the fourth day the department supervisor ran into George in the restroom.
He asked him what he intended to do. George replied that he guessed they would just
have to fire him. The department supervisor looked at his worried, strained face- the
previously happy youth looked as though he had aged many years in a short time. The
department supervisor asked George what he and his wife were doing about this problem.
This question caused George to break down completely; he even cried. A private place
was found, and he and George talked. His wife had left him. This was the man’s
problem. He refrained from telling anyone of this because he had bragged so much of the
good relationship he and his wife had, and now that she had left him, he was ashamed to
mention it. The department head could do little but sympathize with him. Remarkably
enough, George’s performance improved the next day.
The department supervisor informed his superiors of what had happened. The
plant superintendent was elated, but the general superintendent, while saying the
department supervisor had done a good job, was very cool. The recovery for George was
slow but positive. The general supervisor continued to “ride” both the department
foreman and George about the slow recovery. The general supervisor’s attitude was that
this company was in business to make a profit and was not a psychological correctional
institution. The general supervisor persisted in taking some disciplinary action. The
department supervisor resisted and won out at the expense of some lowering of status in
the eyes of his superior.
The operator fully recovered his composure in another few weeks and approached
his jovial former self. He again talked and joked with his fellow workers. His efficiency
returned to his prior average and his quality was again high.
Case Title:
The Ineffective Incentive. George Morales' Performance Decline and Recovery
Problem:
George Morales, an experienced and efficient press operator, experienced a
sudden and significant decline in his performance, attitude, and attendance. This change
occurred after the implementation of a new incentive system and crew size reduction in
the press area.

72
Objectives:
1. To identify the root cause of George Morales' performance decline.
2. To address the underlying issue and restore George's previous performance level.
Areas of Consideration:
1. Impact of the new incentive system: Assess whether the incentive system is
creating undue pressure or performance anxiety for George.
2. Effect of crew size reduction: Evaluate if the reduced crew size is causing George
to feel overwhelmed or overburdened.
3. Personal factors: Consider the possibility of personal or external factors affecting
George's well-being and contributing to his performance decline.
Alternative Courses of Action:
1. Modify the incentive system: Adjust the incentive targets or introduce non-
monetary rewards to reduce pressure and focus on performance improvement.
2. Provide additional support: Offer George additional training, mentorship, or
workload adjustments to alleviate stress and improve his comfort level.
3. Investigate personal issues: Engage with George in a supportive and confidential
manner to determine if personal problems are affecting his work performance.
Analysis of Alternative Courses of Action:
1. Modifying the incentive system could alleviate pressure and encourage better
performance, but careful consideration of target levels and reward structures is
crucial.
2. Providing additional support could address any skill gaps or workload challenges
George may be facing, potentially improving his efficiency.
3. Investigating personal issues could reveal underlying problems that require
external assistance or support, potentially leading to a positive impact on his
overall well-being and work performance.
Conclusion:
George Morales' performance decline appears to be linked to both external
factors, such as the incentive system and crew size reduction, and personal issues.
Addressing both sets of factors is essential to restore his previous performance level.

73
Recommendation:
1. Conduct a comprehensive review of the incentive system: Gather feedback from
employees, including George, to identify any potential issues or concerns with the
current system.
2. Evaluate the impact of crew size reduction: Assess whether the reduced crew size
is affecting employee workload and performance across the department.
3. Provide ongoing support and communication with George: Maintain open
communication with George to understand his concerns, offer support, and
monitor his progress.
4. Connect George with appropriate resources: If personal issues are identified,
connect George with relevant resources, such as counseling or employee
assistance programs, to address his concerns.
Action Plan:
1. Form a task force: Establish a task force comprising representatives from
management, employees, and human resources to review the incentive system and
crew size reduction.
2. Conduct employee surveys and interviews: Gather feedback from employees
through surveys and individual interviews to understand their perspectives on the
incentive system and crew size reduction.
3. Analyze feedback and make adjustments: Based on the gathered feedback,
identify areas for improvement and make necessary adjustments to the incentive
system or crew size configuration.
4. Maintain open communication with George: Schedule regular meetings with
George to provide support, address any concerns, and track his progress.
5. Connect George with appropriate resources: If personal issues persist, connect
George with relevant resources, ensuring confidentiality and respect for his
privacy.

74
Answer to Questions
1. Why did the general superintendent believe that George’s behavior was
caused by resistance to changes in methods?
The general superintendent believed that George's behavior was caused by
resistance to changes in methods because of the following reasons:
 George's performance and attitude began to decline shortly after the
implementation of new methods and a crew size reduction.
 George did not provide any specific reasons for his decline in
performance, which led the general superintendent to believe that he was
not being upfront about his reasons.
 The general superintendent had a general belief that employees often resist
changes in methods, and he believed that this was the case with George.
2. Should George have received some type of discipline for his declining quality
of work, grouchy attitude, and poor attendance?
Yes, George should have received some type of discipline for his
declining quality of work, grouchy attitude, and poor attendance. His behavior
was unacceptable, and it was having a negative impact on his coworkers and on
the company as a whole. However, the general superintendent's approach of
immediate dismissal was not the best approach. Instead, George should have been
given a warning and an opportunity to improve his performance.
3. What do you think of the behavior of the immediate supervisor? If you were
his superintendent, would you have permitted defiance of your wishes in this
case?
The immediate supervisor handled the situation well. He tried to
understand the root cause of George's behavior, and he ultimately found a way to
help George resolve his personal issue and return to his previous level of
performance. If I were the general superintendent, I would not have permitted
defiance of my wishes in this case. However, I would have been more open to the
immediate supervisor's approach, and I would have given him more leeway to
handle the situation.

75