OB A. The Two Teams

OB a. The two teams have a low-to-moderate level of interdependence. The lunch shift is independent of the dinner shift. The dinner shift, however, depends on the lunch shift for cleaning and restocking. The dinner shift's ability to meet the objectives management has set for them depends on the lunch shift completing their end-shift cleaning and restocking duties. At present, neither team is oriented towards the goals of the other team, either directly or indirectly via goal orientation to the store.

Thus, neither team understands the degree of interdependence that they have with regards to the store-level objectives. For me, as manager, I understand that I need both of these teams to work together because they both contribute to store-level objectives. This level of interdependence is neither recognized nor understood by the either shift at present.

b. The Thomas-Kilmann conflict handling mode I would adopt in this situation is compromising. At present the lunch shift is competing order to assert their position. As store manager, however, I recognize that the pursuit of their individual goals is coming at the expense of the dinner shift's goal and the goals of the store as a whole. I feel that compromising is the best approach in this situation for two reasons. One is that the two teams must work together, with the goals of the store as a whole being more important than the goals of any one individual team. The reason I do not choose the collaborating approach is because the lunch shift bears more work overall as a result of their hectic shift. I could, as manager, solve this problem by adding more staff to the lunch shift, but for the store as a whole it is important that I maintain a high level of profitability on that shift. Thus, it is preferred that this task be split. The dinner shift does not work as hard during their meal rush as the lunch team does on theirs, so it is important that the two shifts are able to come to a compromise that recognizes that each shift is doing the same amount of work as the other, just different types.

c. The dinner shift's lack of motivation to clean the store when they arrive can be explained as a result of cognitive dissonance as a result of the perception of inequity. To the dinner shift, they see cleaning and restocking as something that should already be done for them, as they must perform these tasks for the benefit of the next shift before they leave. This leads to the cognitive dissonance. The dissonance affects their perception of equity, which in turn reduces their motivation.

d. Both shifts require re-motivation. The lunch shift must become more motivated to meet their obligations to the dinner shift. At present, they do not have any dependence on the dinner shift, which reduces their motivation. One of the biggest problems we have in this situation is that the two shifts are competing, rather than working together. To better align the objectives of the lunch shift with the objectives of the dinner shift, I will create a reward system. Achievement is a higher order of motivation and can therefore be highly effective.

The reward system would be store-wide so that all shifts understand that we are all working together for a common goal. At present, the only sense of motivation that any individual shift has is towards their own basic goals. By providing for a higher level of achievement, I will align each shift with an overall objective. I will, however, also maintain shift-level objectives. To do this, I will focus motivation on goal orientation. Each shift will have specific achievement objectives. By doing this, I will leverage the inherent competitiveness of the lunch shift. They will have specific targets that, if hit, will allow them to partake in rewards over and above the store-level rewards. This strategy will result in better goal alignment, more powerful motivational strategies. It will also reduce cognitive dissonance because each shift will have individual goals that do not depend on the success of other shifts, but there are store-wide goals that do.

e. The first thing I would do to staunch the growing rivalry between the two shifts is to bring them together. It is easy to vilify another group if you do not communicate with them. I would explain to them, at the same time, the situation from my perspective. As the manager, my formal authority establishes my views as superseding those of either shift. Doing this reframes the problem for both groups.