decision at the top - group 2 version 2.0
TRANSCRIPT
PGPEX’2013 - Group 2
Kamesh Singal Reg No 17
Praveen Gudisagar Reg No 26 RajarshiSen Reg No 30Rittick Banerjee Reg No
32SauravChatterjee Reg No 34SayantanHajra Reg No 35 SubrataDass Reg No 38
Decision Making at the Top: The All-Star
Sports Catalog Division
Case Analysis
Agenda
Company Overview
Organization Structure
Current Decision Making and issues
Organization Culture
Barett’s leadership
Proposed alternatives and evaluation
Procedural Justice
Company Background
Founded in 1987 by Steve Archibald. First Store opened in 1988 in Tampa, Florida.
High volume and discount Sporting Superstore
Rapid Expansion of Sales and Profit
Company Overview
U.S. Super Store - 450 retail stores located throughout.
All Star International - 60 stores across Canada, brazil and Mexico.
All Star Express All Star Sports Catalogue Division
Mail order catalog business Individual Organization
Acquisitions of Sporting goods Wholesaler – Jackson Sports and Hoffman's Team Apparel
StrategyMostly inorganic growth for ASC since 1995
Acquired Jackson Sports & Hoffman’s Team Apparel.
Acquired 4 regional sports goods wholesalers to build national
delivery network.
Acquisition Integration Process Stages:
Consolidated purchases to leverage buying power
Developed common systems & merged administrative functions
Integrating customer service & order fulfilment processes to
develop a common infrastructure
Functional Structure Objective:
Increase coordination & integration across divisions
Benefits
Opportunity to learn from others
Better Training & Peer supervision for complex work
Issues:
Communication problem across functions (subunit orientation)
Profitability measurement problem
Location problem
Customer problem
Strategic problem
Rewards System
Pay for performance reward system
Annual cash bonus & stock options
Earlier payout dependent on:
Corporate EPS
BU earning
BU sales
New Bonus Payment mechanism dependent on:
Performance of individual
Total ASC earning & sales
Weekly Senior Management meeting for two hours
First hour spent on discussing generic issues and key project update
Second hour spent on specific key issues In-depth discussion Sub-group formation
CEO involvement in one meeting per month
Current Decision Making Process
Stages of Decision Making Process
Framing the Problem
Identifying Alternatives
Analyzing Alternatives
Making the Choice
Ratifying the Choice
Analytical
Aligned
Apolitical
Active Participation
Attributes of the Current Decision Process
Conflict (lack of open debate)
Closure
Commitment
Concerns about the Current Decision Process
Difference in perception between Don Barrett and Senior Management team about Team Effectiveness
Lack of focus on certain important topics
Decision making process not fully participative
Lack of Procedural Justice
Other concerns coming out from the survey
Organizational Culture : Competing Values Framework
Control / Hierarchy
Collaborate Create /Adhocracy
Compete / Market
Types of Culture
Collaborate(Clan Culture)
• Inward focus with concern for integration
• Emphasize flexibility and discretion
• Operate like families
• Value cohesion, humane working environment, group commitment and loyalty
Create (Adhocracy)
Culture
• Emphasize flexibility and discretion
• External focus and concern on differentiation
• Value flexibility and adaptability and thrive in chaos
Control (Hierarchy) Structure
• Bureaucratic• Defined by
Stability and Control
• Internal Focus and integration
• Value Standardization and Control
• Well defined structure to authority and decision making process
Compete (Market) Structure
• Value Stability and Control
• External Focus (Relationships)
• Value Differentiation over Integration
• Focus on Competitiveness' and Productiveness
Slip between Cup and Lip
Espoused and actual theory
Entire division centered on one man’s ideas
Problem in decision making due to difference in perception
Missionary
Compromiser
Deserter Autocrat
Developer
Executive
Bureaucrat Benevolent Autocrat
Related Integrated
Separated Dedicated
Relationship Oriented
Task Oriented Effectivenes
s
3D Theory of leadership
Autocrat I see planning as a one man job I direct the work of my subordinates and discourage
deviations from my plans
CompromiserWhen conflict arises I try to be fair but firm I make an effort at planning but the plans do not always
work out
Questionnaire
QuestionnaireDeserter
I do not show too much interest in my subordinates I am not interested in being flexible or in others
being flexible
Missionary I treat subordinates with great kindness and
consideration I overlook violations of any kind if it helps to make
things run more smoothly
Bureaucrat I respond to disagreement and conflict by referring to
rules and procedures I prefer to work within standard operating procedures
Benevolent AutocratWhen conflict arises I stand my ground and try to be as
persuasive as possible I am willing to change my work methods only if the
change will improve productivity
Questionnaire
QuestionnaireDeveloper
I successfully encourage others to obtain information and pay attentions to what they have to say
When I am responsible for planning I involve many others
Executive I make adjustments in both my own work-methods and
work-relationships when I feel it will improve overall productivity
I try to resole conflict as quickly as possible by uncovering its underlying causes
Missionary
Compromiser
Deserter Autocrat
Developer
Executive
Bureaucrat Benevolent Autocrat
Related Integrated
Separated Dedicated
Relationship Oriented
Task Oriented Effectiveness
Method C MethodD
Method A Method B
Don Barett – Decision Making Method
Consideration
Imp
art
ialit
y
High
Low
HighLow
Group Norm change – change in Don Barett’s leadership
style X
Decision options
Team oriented approach – consensus based
Top management Team – 3-4 key members
Consensus Decision ModelWhat is?
A questioning process Everyone cooperates and consents Integrated will of the group
What is not? Not a set of rules or procedures Follow a popular leader Compromise Implicit Majority Intensity of Preferences
Characteristics True democracy Nonviolent and non-coercive Better decisions
Issues with consensus decision making Endless wrangling
Groupthink – wanted to be accepted by in-group
Grandstanding
Obtrusive blocking
Irreconcilable difference
Takes too long
Consensus Decision Making issues
Free Market Democracy
Certain characteristics needed• Responsibility• Self-discipline• Honest• Respect & Cooperation
Disinterested but not uninterested
Top Management team
Suggested Alternative
Constructive Debate : Six Hat thinking
Fast Decision making : R-A-P-I-D
Benefits
Six Hat thinking
Information and Data – what do I know?What do I need to find out?How will I get information I need?
Intuitions, HunchesHow others will react emotionally?
Difficulties, weakness, danger – be defensiveLogical reasons, identify riskTougher and resilient plan
Positives, AdvantagesLogical reasonsWhy idea useful, keep going
Creative Ideas, alternatives, possibilitiesSolution to Black Hat problem
Process controlStrategy, planning for action, outcomeIdeas running dry – ask for ‘Green Hat’Contingency plan – ask for ‘Black Hat’
R – Recommender – initiates the process
I – Input – must be consulted before decision is made
A – Approve – essentially an ‘I’ with more power
D – Decide – final authority
P – Perform – carries out decision once made
RAPID decision making model
Organizational Justice
Distributive Justice
Interactional Justice
Procedural Justice
Procedural Justice
Consideration of team member’s input
•High commitment to final decision• Increased sense of attachment to team• Positive impact on perception of procedural justice
High procedural fairness
http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/process/ConsensNotes.pdf
http://www.bridgestar.org/Library/RAPIDDecisionMaking.aspx
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_07.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_justice
http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/who-has-d-how-clear-decision-roles-enhance-organizational-performance.aspx
Bibliography
THANK YOU …