1. The Team Mona Siddharth RSumedhaSharma SharmaRobin Agarwal Vivek Mehta

2. Introduction Decision Making Styles Our Style Consultative The Case StudyAgenda Group Rankings & Inferences CEO Rankings & Inferences Takeaways Self Takeaways Others Example of a Mix of Styles 3. IntroductionTop Chemical Company is a 93-year old , $2 billioncompany.QFA (Quality For All) program was launched at TopChemin order to make real changes in the way people work tomake progress in speeding production marks, improvingproduct quality and routing out efficiencies.Meeting held to investigate how to develop a pay systemcongruent with the philosophy of QFA.QFA PAY PLAN 92 :BASE PAY = 75% of former pay determined by internal equity ,FLEXIBLE PAY = 25% offormer pay.Different people and departments have different outlooks. 4. Decision MakingStylesCONSULTATIVE AUTOCRATIC COLLABARATIVE B - CONSULTATIVE 5. Consultative StyleInformation Gathering & Leader takes the decision Askindividual opinionsTake yourowndecisions 6. I developed a set I presented my ofrecommendationsrecommendationsto the teamCEO SpeaksRobin AgarwalI took a Final call on I Asked them forthe their recommendations recommendations / Stick to my own orsuggestionsmodify to suit theteam ? 7. The Participants Robin (CEO) Sumedha (TM)Mona (TM)Sidd (TM)Vivek (TM) 8. CEO Recommendations Re-evaluate the objective! If a plan has to be included, theworkforce needs to be educated. Plan should be made according to thepeoples compensation team. Gain-Sharing model suggested. Non-financial motivation to be used. 9. Team Recommendations Tweak the Pay Plan. Segregation of the workforce. Divide the workforce into backend and frontend. Backend - 4 % Variable Pay. Frontend - 10 % Variable Pay. Segregation of the workforce. 10 %Variable Pay. 5 % Company Stock Options. 5% team Performance. Segregation of the workforce. Flat 10 % Variable Pay. Teams should get incentives over 10% according to their performance. 10. Final RecommendationsSegregation to be implemented.Flat Variable Pay of 10 %.Teams should get incentive over & above this 10%.Different compensation benchmarks fordifferent departments. 11. Group Ranking 12. Comfortable Fair, Just & Equitable Considerate Enjoyed Working Understanding ConsultedCertain members may not feelthe above 13. CEO RankingA BC DAutocratic Consultative Consultative12 CollabrativeComfort+ level+with+team+members 5.756.75 6.5 5.75Fairness+ decision+of+ making+methods 5.756.506.50 6.25Consistency+ decision8 of+ making+procedure+with+leadership+ style5.506.005.50 5.75Level+ enjoyment+ of+while+working+with+ group 6.006.506.75 6.00Influence+ group+of+members+on+the+ final+decision5.005.254.50 6.00Satisfication+ among+group+ with+the+decision5.756.255.50 5.25Understanding+ the+of+group+over+ the+ decision 6.256.505.75 5.50Comfort+ level+with+ leadership+style 5.756.506.50 5.75Level+ commitment+ the+ of+ of+group+ members+for+the+process6.506.255.50 5.75Incorporation+ members+ of+input+into+decision 5.006.005.75 6.25Felt+ a+as+ part+ the+of+group6.256.506.25 5.50Level+ understanding+ group+ of+of+member+about+ the+rationale+of+the+decision6.256.506.00 5.50Level+ belief+ group+ of+ of+members+ the+in+decision 6.006.756.50 5.50How+just+and+ equitable+was+ the+approach+ the+ of+ leader 6.006.506.25 6.50 14. Comfortable with style Consistent High Group Satisfaction Enjoyed Working High self contribution Group members beliefGroup member influence wasminimum 15. Takeaways - Self1. Preparedness Leader encourages the team to excel2. Preparedness Members helps the leader to believe in the team3. Involvement of each individual helps in: Generation of new ideas for the leader Chance for everyone to have a say4. Since the final decision is taken by the leader individually, it can lead to certain discord in team5. Decision making styles are driven by the individuals personality6. Personality of an individual can make the leader to change his/her decision making style 16. Takeaways - OthersScores are almost equal :- Flaws in the process and noteveryone has followed the rulesCOLLABARATIVE !! 17. Autocratic 1ASatisfied/wt/final/decisionIncorporated/member`s/suggestions Leader 6 6 Participant/#/16 6 Participant/#/27 Takeaways - Others6 Participant/#/35 6 Participant/#/47 6 Participant/#/57 7 Group&2(ASatisfied/wt/final/Incorporated/ decisionmember`s/suggestions Leader65 Participant/#/1 67 Participant/#/2 67 Participant/#/3 76 Participant/#/4 76 Participant/#/5 77AUTOCRATIC !!6.66.6Decision making styles are driven by the individualspersonality which affected the feedback from the teamCollobrativeInference from the data: Consultative method scored highestEnjoyed&decon both fronts CEO & with& Fair& Group&8(B Comfortable&Groups methods& in&working& with& Implementato team decision&makingtion& grpby& Team Leader7776 18. MIX OF STYLES 19. THANK YOU !!