This case study examines the motivational challenges faced by the Internal Support Group at Acme, Inc. The paper identifies three interconnected issues: employee underutilization due to inadequate interdepartmental communication, a leadership transition from a hands-off style to an autocratic approach under Ron, and the suppression of employee suggestions and development opportunities. Drawing on motivation and leadership theory, the analysis argues that poor change communication, an inexperienced supervisor, and restricted marketing of the group's services collectively eroded employee morale and productivity, ultimately driving some team members to seek employment elsewhere.
The main issues faced by the employees at Acme, Inc. were being underutilized, experiencing boredom, and navigating a significant leadership change. Given the group's collective experience and skills, it was surprising that no tasks related to their core purpose were assigned to them. Instead, Carol had to find ways to keep them occupied because there was no soft-skills support being requested by other departments. Carol tried her best to ensure employees did not feel underutilized, giving them the freedom to interact and collaborate without formal restrictions. Her hands-off approach served as a meaningful motivator: employees did not feel compelled to report every action or seek permission to work together. There was also flexibility in their day-to-day work, which meant employees were not confined to a single narrow task.
Given the experience each employee brought to the group, sitting idle was deeply demotivating. Employees expressed a genuine desire to do something productive. The absence of meaningful work eroded their productivity, and many felt they were losing hard-earned skills. This sense of professional stagnation led some team members to begin searching for opportunities at other companies where their abilities would be put to use.
A core problem was that the need for the internal support group had never been adequately communicated to other departments. Carol noted she did not receive nearly as many requests as she had anticipated. Before the new team was formed, the organization had routinely contracted external parties for the services this group was created to provide. The reasonable expectation was that the same demand would continue once the group existed internally. Without proper communication and internal advertising of the team's services, other departments had no clear way of knowing what was available or how to engage the group. The result was a team that remained largely idle, handling only minor requests.
This breakdown also reflects a broader failure of change management. Change must be managed thoughtfully to produce the intended results, and communication is central to that process. There should not have been a need to advertise the team's services at all had there been proper communication from the outset about the group's purpose, the services it offered, and the benefits it could deliver to the organization and its employees.
When Carol relocated and left the team, Ron was appointed to replace her. Ron lacked the experience necessary to lead such a group, and he compounded the team's existing problems by demanding to know exactly what each employee was doing at any given time, including precise timings. Ron embodied an autocratic leadership style — having come from the engineering department, he believed the same command-and-control approach would work with the internal support group. According to Caillier (2020), an autocratic leadership style lacks flexibility and is best suited to environments requiring a high degree of control. The expectation of constant reporting and micromanagement was a morale killer for employees who had grown accustomed to Carol's hands-off style and the freedom to collaborate. Ron's approach made employees feel untrusted and undervalued, despite the fact that each of them was more experienced than he was.
The appointment of Ron as Internal Support Supervisor further damaged team motivation. The group reached a broad consensus that Ron was underqualified, and many interpreted his appointment as a signal that the CEO did not value the team. Team members reasoned that if senior leadership truly appreciated the group, a more experienced person would have been selected to lead it. Placing a less experienced manager over a group of highly experienced professionals was always going to be poorly received. Ron's insistence on granular reporting demonstrated a lack of understanding of the team's work, and under his direction the group was often assigned meaningless tasks.
"Training and marketing requests denied by management"
"Cumulative demotivation drives disengagement and attrition"
You’re 53% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.