Kilkenny Lumber Case Study Essay

Part I1. Productivity of the crew would be below standard. I bank for the productivity to be below standard because they were sent to this crew because of their lack of break away. Just because they pack been assign to an otherwise(a) crew, does not mean that they give begin to flex well right away. When compared to the Equity Theory, I believe there to be positive inequity for the three men assigned to the hot group. For cosmos assigned to the group due to lack of snuff it, it is below the belt to have a higher pay prescribe than those who have been in the company for a immenseer period of time and who are doing their job correctly. This whitethorn cause issues with subprofessionals being motivated to sketch to their full potentials because they may see it as being unfair and at the same time the professionals may think they do not need to work as hard.2. Crewmen would be moderately satisfied with their job. I believe that the crewmen would be more satisfied with their previous job, entirely may not fit in very well with the existing group. Some of the crewmen have been operative there for quite a while longish and meetting either the same pay or less. In addition, the existing crewmen may grow frustrated in having to pick up for the slack of the invigorated crew members depending on the new crew members motivation. I do believe the incentives given for good work are good, but I believe the pay grade should be based on how long you have been with the company and your level of output and not centralized on education which is how it appears.3. Group members would trip up along with some but not others. I believe the existing crew members would continue to get along with one another but the new professionals testament feel like outsiders. The existing subprofessionals will continue to get along fine with one another, but it may be hard for them to admit the new professionals.4. Crewmen will, in terms of the given job description do what they are supposed to do, no more or less. If there is no motivation for the job, then according to the motivational theory this will directly affect their level of performance. The crewmen who were assigned to this group are probably not happy with their reassignment, so at least in the beginning things may be slow.5. Some subgroups will have veritable the informal standards about(predicate) crew behavior while others will not. The crewmen who have been with the company for a longer period of time may have grown accustomed to the current standards. The new crewmen on the other hand may disagree with the standards and try to implement new ones. Since Kilkenny management considered the attraction and assistant leader to be excellent foresters and teachers, I believe they will implement new strategies which will better improvement the crew as a whole.Part IIMy predictions in instigate I were fairly dead-on(prenominal) to the information provided in part II. The existing crewmen talke d amongst one another at lunch time and the new crewmen isolated themselves from the group. Additional information that would have helped with predictive accuracy could have include information about the three new professionals past performance in other groups specifically. A description could have included information about the amount of work done compared to fellow co-workers. Also, if the professionals have been reassigned in the past could have been added.Part III1. The first strategy will be successful. I believe this strategy to be an excellent idea because this would divide the professionals up with existing workers. Not only would this allow them to get to deal other subprofessionals better, but it would allow the professionals to better understand how to work with the group as a whole.2. The jiffy strategy will be unsuccessful. If the first part were to fail, I do not find how the second alternative will be successful. I think that a group building exercise or exactly w hat the first strategy suggested should help. The first strategy forces the professionals to work with the subprofessionals so they may grow a better relationship with one another. I do not believe the second strategy to work because it seems like a last resort to just split them up and hope for the best.3. Some other strategy will not be necessary. As explained earlier, I predict the first alternative to work because it forces them to work together. Since existing crewmen have shown to be successful, it will allow the professionals to collaborate with the subprofessionals. The only alternative I would suggest is some sort of team building exercise either outside of work or on the job exercise that would make them have to work together as a team in order to complete a specific task.Part IVMy predictions were incorrect with the information from part IV. I thought that making them work with one another would bring them together and start to work as a team. I believe that the informati on provided was not sufficient enough to give an stainless analysis resulting in an analytical failure. It appears that the professionals simply do not have the motivation that the subprofessionals have to do the job at a reasonable speed. In part I, it should have given more context information on the professionals and why specifically they had been reassigned.