Group E, Section 1

Course: Organizational Behavior Professor: Tara Wernsing

Mike Miller (A) HBS Case Study What leads us to make pivotal decisions that will impact our professional and personal lives? After reading the Mike Miller HBS Case Study, we learned the implications of our choices, the importance of match and especially mismatch when looking for the ideal postMBA career and the relevance of prioritization. Mike Miller is a confident, ambitious and talented professional. The Frontier Case repeatedly demonstrates his high sense of direction and perseverance in reaching the top and becoming successful in business, especially given economically disadvantaged background. On the personal front, Mike is a responsible family-oriented person. Both his business and personal proclivities are largely due to his childhood and his former work experience in the U.S. Military services. Mike's father had 4 different businesses, two of which ended up in bankruptcy. Hence, Mike was determined to avoid such failures in his future. His career began in the military, where he was a highly successful captain. However, he discovered that upward mobility in the military was almost solely attached to service duration. Studying at Harvard, however, served Mike's sole goal: initiate his managerial role with high starting salary and fast track promotion without fierce competition. Considering the Ranking Work Motivation questionnaire, Mike mostly aspires to fulfill needs included in groups A and B (please see appendix A) - related to protection, physical comfort, safety and structured workplace as he seeks a high-paying job, proximity to his wife's (Jennifer) parents and promotional opportunities. Further, according to the Conflict Style Assessment, we identify Mike as a Fox, for two main reasons: First, Mike strongly insisted against the elimination of William's position in the Texas office, even in the cost of his relationship with Mason. Though Mike lost the battle, he was not reluctant avoid a disagreement with Mason. Second, Mike felt discouraged in carrying out Mason's decision to place him as a Loan Operations Manager, as he realized the implications on his personal relations with other nominees for the position. From the prospective of the Belbin Study, Mike can be characterized as a coordinator and an implementer. Mike is an efficient professional as exemplified by his not seeing the relevance of staying in the office more than necessary, especially when such hours are not well-spent. He also values relationships and structured team objectives and thrives when faced with practical plan that needed to be efficiently carried out. Prior to his first day in Frontier, Mike was able to establish his own set of expectations about the position and the company's organizational culture through Harvard classmate Ted, long meetings with the company's President and Chairman and visit to the company headquarters. However, throughout his excruciating post-MBA job hunt, Mike overlooks factors such as a personal fit with Frontier and its values in addition to personal relationships. Even though Mike did not explore all relevant aspects of Frontier's work environment, merely focusing on physical elements, we believe that only upon joining the company can one fully learn what being a part of it entails. 1

Comment [TSW1]: Yes, this gives us an indicator for personality trait

Comment [TSW2]: This gives us indicator fo values

Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight

Group E, Section 1

Course: Organizational Behavior Professor: Tara Wernsing

Frontier can be perfectly characterized as an X-theory company according to the Philosophy of Management Questionnaire: a dynamic, aggressive, hierarchical company that offers highly competitive financial rewards in return of complete employee devotion. Employees in Frontier are considered tools, which require tight control and carrots so as to meet objectives. While Herzberg's1 motivators are constantly met by Frontier, the company fails to provide hygienic aspects such as clear policy and administration, relationships with supervisors, peers and subordinates and work conditions. The most resonating description regarding Frontier's lack of hygiene on one hand and bountiful motivations on the other is stressed during the orientation workshop: the underlying principle at Frontier was that money was the most powerful motivator and the most important corporate goal. Managers in Frontier did not set behavioral examples to employees. Public quarrels were not rare sight, even amongst senior managers, and communication problems between Frontier's employees seemed to be the company's policy. Frontier's long track of above-theindustry-average profits on loans to potentially risky institutions had created somewhat alienating, competitive office environment. Despite high motivators Frontier had offered, throughout the year prior to Mike's arrival, third of its employees left. Utilizing Kohn's2 conceptual framework, Frontier's had rewarded its employees and motivated them via constant flow of rewards in the short run, but it ignored their temporality and lack of ability to create commitment. Initially, Frontier perfectly complemented Mike's career expectations and fully fulfilled his set of criteria. However, shortly after joining the company it has caught up to him that he ignored elements such personal fit with Frontier, its values, communication and emphasis on work-life balance. Also, due to Mike's previous experience in military service, he preferred taking control and having command. The strictly hierarchical company culture of Frontier thus became a huge conflict for Mike especially when he was required to implement tasks delegated by his manager Mason. Further, Frontier offered an evasive job description, which did not appeal his former strict military experience. Herzberg's analysis of the factors affecting job attitudes as shown in appendix B provides a visual examination of Mike's poor fit with Frontier. At the top part of the chart, representing the "motivators" aspects, Mike almost perfectly fits Frontier, especially considering recognition, achievement, salary and status. Whereas on the bottom part of the chart, marked as "hygiene," the degree of compatibility of Mike with Frontier is summed at a minus score, specifically on company policy and internal work relations issues. Why did Mike ignore all these signs? Had Mike prioritized the "hygiene" factors higher or even gave them an initial thought, could this situation have been avoided? Throughout all introduction-to-Frontier stages, Mike failed to spot his mismatch with the company. He even stresses his own misunderstanding of "aggressive" lash-out criticism against employees'
1 2

Formatted: Highlight

Comment [TSW3]: Very astute assessment and application of the research article.

Frederick Herzberg, "One more time How do you motivate employees?". HBR. 2002. Alfie Kohn, "why incentive plans cannot work". HBR. 1993.

Group E, Section 1

Course: Organizational Behavior Professor: Tara Wernsing

practices. He valued a company that would accept him for who he really was and believed that Frontier did so. One might ask though, was Mike really himself during recruiting stages or was he mesmerized by wrong signals such as "we need people who look like him" type of statements of leading figures? Mike faced hurdles throughout his time in Frontier, the most prominent being communication-deprivation. Managers as well as employees repetitively failed to communicate their messages, leading to resentment and dissatisfaction. In one example, Mike was requested not to share with colleagues his immediate promotion to supervise the small business operations. Mike was unwillingly forced to deny his promotion, dismissing any rumors and obeying the boss' irrational demand. Moreover, Masons management-by-decree, together with his increasing abrasiveness and Mikes inability to earn his confidence, were all a growing source of frustration in Mikes dealings with his boss. The conflict over the promotion between Mack Rogers and Mason exemplified Frontier's communication-deprivation. As Mason's subordinate, Rogers repeatedly demonstrated his reluctance in dealing with Mike. Rogers backdated several memos and complained that Mike did not implement tasks that he supposed to complete. However, when Mike approached Mason about this issue, Mason did not seem to believe him. Both Mason and Rogers used Mike in their continuous feud. Correspondingly, Frontiers state of turmoil provided another daily front Mike was required to face. Endless relocations in the office and lack of logistical tolerance disturbed Mike's performance and required adaptations and adjustments. Building on his work in motivation analysis, Mike is highly driven by the physiological balance as well as expresses relatively high needs for structure. It seemed that Frontier did not meet this needs. With this in mind, Mike is facing two difficult alternatives; resign from or stay in Frontier. Although Mike was reasonably satisfied with his performance under the circumstances, our analysis proves that in light of an excessive mismatch on hygiene, Mike should resign from Frontier. Though we do believe in the power of change, this is a process that requires relentless efforts with no guarantees. It is almost impossible to change Frontier's communication-deprivation policy. It is also unrealistic that Mike, a new-comer to Frontier, will march into the CEO's office bringing winds of cultural change. The risks of resigning are far inferior to those of staying at Frontier. Keeping his employment with the company might require him to continue performing objectionable tasks in deteriorating conditions. Further supporting Mikes resignation is the fact that Mike received generous offers from other companies during his job search. National Aerospace even suggested he contacted them should things not work out. With student-loans hanging on his shoulders, his high ranking of Herzbreg's motivators and his experience at Frontier, Mike should march on a new path, this time much better meeting his real needs in a workplace.

Group E, Section 1

Course: Organizational Behavior Professor: Tara Wernsing

Dear Team E, This report does an outstanding job of applying OB research to the analysis of the case. Generally, your applications are accurately made and demonstrates effort and understanding of these concepts and how to use to explain what is happening and why. The analysis in the appendices was extensive and although I could argue with some of the specifics, overall it is well done. Although brief, your evaluation of the two basic alternatives demonstrates sensitivity to the situational factors and realism concerning changing a companys culture such as this one. Grade A-

Appendix A Mike Millers Work Motivation Analysis Name Physiological Balance Mike Miller Seeks to work location in proximity to his wifes parents and always put work location as one of the priorities in terms of accepting/declining job offers. Expresses relatively high needs for this factor. His fathers unsuccessful endeavors had huge impact shaping his character and stimulated him to seek financial rewarding job. Expresses relatively low social activities with his colleagues. Mainly due to Frontier's salary-divide between MBAs and non-MBAs who have long term experience. This led to considerable resentment in the company against the MBAs group, amongst Mike. Therefore, other colleagues were reluctant to develop friendships with him. Exceedingly eager to seek Frontier's recognition after choosing Frontier, the company which showed a strong interest in him from day one. Frontier's attitude resembled Mike's as both shared 4

Protection, Safety and Structure

Identification, Relations and Love

Recognition and Power

Group E, Section 1

Course: Organizational Behavior Professor: Tara Wernsing aggressiveness, as well as worshiped money. Further, Mike's acquired leadership capabilities during the military played an important factor in choosing a management role as one of his career objectives.

Self-fulfillment, Independence and Creativity

Strived to reach his full potential, building on his military and Pointer experience, Mike devoted tremendous efforts to change his career enter HBS and seek the ideal role that fits his expectations.

Group E, Section 1

Course: Organizational Behavior Professor: Tara Wernsing

Appendix B the Herzberg Analysis of Mike Miller and Frontier

-40% -30% -20% -10% Achievement Recognition Responsibility Salary Advancement Growth Personal life Status Work Itself Supervision Company Policy and Administration Relationship with supervisor Work conditions Relationship with peers Relationship with subordinates Security Mike +++ ++ +++ +++ +++ ++ +/++ N.I. N.I. N.I. +++ N.I. +++ N.I. N.I. +++ N.I. +++ +++ Company +++ ++ +++ +++ + N.I. --++ +++ N.I. ---------Result Very Satisfy Satisfy Satisfy Satisfy Kind of Satisfy Kind of Satisfy Doesnt Affect Satisfy N/A N/A Dissatisfaction Dissatisfaction N/A Dissatisfaction Dissatisfaction Dissatisfaction +40% +25% +20% +10% +8% +5% +2% +2% 0% 0% -40% -10% -5% -5% -5% -5% 10% 20% 30% 40%

N.I. = Not Important N.I. +++ = Not Important at firts. Very Important Later