Business Management Responsible Management of Roles Within

Business Management Responsible Management of Roles within the Business Culture: The Acme Minerals Extraction Company Case Study The case study of the Acme Minerals Extraction Company is characterized by a conflict arising from two groups within the organization, composed of the geologists, geophysicists, and engineers (first group) and the skilled and semi-skilled laborers (second group). This faction between the 'brains' and 'brawns' group in Acme has brought about increased organizational instability and lower productivity due to the groups' conflict.

Suzanne Howard, who spearheaded the establishment of a program "that would improve productivity and morale" among the company's employees, developed a four-step plan that aims to bring together the brain and brawn groups. The model of Responsible Management of Power, wherein empowerment among employees is achieved through a four-way process, characterizes the program. Howard has first gone through the process of imposing three functionary groups within the company: the operations, below ground, and above ground groups.

The second step involves consultation and influence-sharing among the groups' members, and "problem chat" sessions for the employees. After consulting with the employees, Howard encouraged participation among the employees by forming the SPITS program, and eventually achieved delegation from all employees within the three groups through social interaction, as illustrated in the increased level of productivity and decline of costs after the program was successfully employed in Acme. However, Acme's success in applying Howard's program was, expectedly, limited only to the Acme setting.

When the program was applied to Acme's Lubbock plant, the program backfired because the plant's organizational culture is entirely different with that of the organizational culture of Acme in Wichita. Since every business organization has its own culture, i.e., its members of Acme Lubbock have a common identity and collective norms and goals that is entirely different with members of Acme Wichita, it cannot be said that the measures adopted by Howard's team in Wichita can be applied in Lubbock.

Furthermore, another factor that makes the program ineffective may be on the lack of solid leadership in Lubbock, where employees do not have a leader to look up to, similar to Wichita's Donald Peterson. Lastly, roles among Acme Lubbock employees may not be as diversified as Wichita's, which explains why employees do not feel the need to coordinate with Howard's program. Considering these prescriptions, it is therefore recommended that Howard and her team develop another program to increase productivity and interaction among the employees of Acme Lubbock. Howard et. al.

must provide measures in the program that caters exactly to the nature of Lubbock's organizational structure and collective and individual characteristics of its employees. The same steps Howard adopted in the Wichita program can also be.