Human Resources Management Gary Corbett\'s

Human Resources Management

Gary Corbett's dilemma is one which many managers and supervisors face in their efforts to enhance productivity, streamline operations, and improve quality. The overriding issue becomes a noticeable decline in the efficacy of workers because the culture of the department or team is dramatically altered. In this particular case Corbett entered a situation in which the employees had built a laid back and social atmosphere in which they were allowed the freedom to work according to their specific timelines and styles. Corbett upon accepting the directorship should have immediately recognized this environment in which significant changes could upset the balance of productivity and employee effort. Interestingly, Corbett acknowledges that the employees in the department "get the work done" (Case Question 3. N.D.) however, he makes the fundamental error for managers; believing that instituting his methodology on workplace effort on the employees will produce superior outcomes. The problem with this outlook is it ignores that the department culture is the very reason that the work is completed.

For Corbett the fundamental issue is productivity which he incorrectly believes stems from a construction of "new procedures and rules" (Case Question 3. N.D.) designed to coordinate and direct the actions of the employees. Corbett's development of a new set of directives ensuring that "employees know exactly how to do their jobs" (Case Question 3. N.D.); upends a culture in which workers have a foundation of freedom and autonomy to work in ways that fit their unique profile. The inevitable result of Corbett's policies is the decline in ambition, motivation, and quality of work.

In the initial staff meeting Corbett indicates a desire for participative management with his open door policy however; his actions of chronicling worker activity are an obturation to the participative environment which he ostensibly claims to want. Additionally, his statement that new procedures will be phased in over time is inconsistent with the realities of the rules put in place over the first few weeks of his new regime.

Clearly what has occurred and what must be changed to redevelop the productivity and morale of the department is recognition that heavy handed techniques designed to enhance productivity will not produce results. From a psychological perspective Corbett's error was in determining that employees would positively respond to his changes as a matter of physiological and safety considerations as indicated by Maslow. The culture though prior to his arrival though was built on the Maslow identities of social needs, ego, and self- actualization. (Public Personnel Administration. P.104. N.D.) Employees who were subsequently told how and when to do their jobs responded with a decision to do less work, miss time, and produce at a reduced quality. Corbett's intention to enhance productivity is essential to a thriving operation however; the method was desultory from a culture which fostered that productivity through autonomous control by employees over their situations. To turn the tide Corbett must return the department to its original state and then explain to his employees that productivity is high on his list of accomplishments. Further, he must ask for their input on how to achieve the productivity goals and develop positive incentives to align employee action with results.