Question

The Ortiv Glass Corporation produces and markets plate glass for use primarily

in the construction and automotive industries. The multi-plant company has been

involved in OD for several years and actively supports participative management

practices and employee involvement programs. Ortiv’s organization design is

relatively organic, and the manufacturing plants are given freedom and

encouragement to develop their own organization designs and approaches to

participative management. It recently put together a problem solving group made

up of the top-management team at its newest plant. The team consisted of theplant manager and the managers of the five functional departments reporting to him:

engineering (maintenance), administration, human resources, production, and quality

control. In recruiting managers for the new plant, the company selected people with

good technical skills and experience in their respective functions. It also chose people

with some managerial experience and a desire to solve problems collaboratively, a

hallmark of participative management. The team was relatively new, and members

had been working together for only about five months.

The team met formally for two hours each week to share pertinent information and to

deal with plant wide issues affecting all of the departments, such as safety

procedures, interdepartmental relations, and personnel practices. Members described

these meetings as informative but often chaotic in terms of decision making. The

meetings typically started late as members straggled in at different times. The

latecomers generally offered excuses about more pressing problems occurring

elsewhere in the plant. Once started, the meetings were often interrupted by “urgent”

phone messages for various members, including the plant manager, and in most cases

the recipient would leave the meeting hurriedly to respond to the call. The group had

problems arriving at clear decisions on particular issues. Discussions often rambled

from topic to topic, and members tended to postpone the resolution of problems to

future meetings.

This led to a backlog of unresolved issues, and meetings often lasted far beyond the

two-hour limit. When group decisions were made, members often reported problems

in their implementation. Members typically failed to follow through on agreements,

and there was often confusion about what had actually been agreed upon. Everyone

expressed dissatisfaction with the team meetings and their results.

Relationships among team members were cordial yet somewhat strained, especially

when the team was dealing with complex issues in which members had varying

opinions and interests. Although the plant manager publicly stated that he wanted to

hear all sides of the issues, he often interrupted the discussion or attempted to change

the topic when members openly disagreed in their views of the problem. This

interruption was typically followed by an awkward silence in the group. In many

instances, when a solution to a pressing problem did not appear forthcoming,

members either moved on to another issue or they informally voted on proposed

options, letting majority rule decide the outcome. Members rarely discussed the need

to move on or vote; rather, these behaviours emerged informally over time and

became acceptable ways of dealing with difficult issues.

questions :Analyse the case as a group level diagnosis and present it to the top management?​

Answer 1

Answer:

givkvjdjgugkgjgjxxvkvb jD lbm gFcnjlgjkfdifKx ifdul/lvkcupsdykzgdofuLufdlitGlosr7LjfzotUldzifzljfzif