Echo Electronics Case Study

Case Study Report: Echo Electronics

Summary

A production manager for Echo Electronics, Paul Sanchez, was approached by an engineering manager that proposed a plan to install new computerized workstations to improve overall productivity within the plant. Paul agreed that this plan was a good idea and the CEO of Echo Electronics approved the installation for the new workstations. Three months after the installation of the new workstations, Paul noticed that productivity had not increased but, surprisingly, the productivity decreased. On top of the lack of productivity, there have been complaints from Echo Electronics’ top customers about defective products. Paul approached his subordinates to figure out what is going on. Paul’s subordinates agreed that there was an issue but could not agree on one specific reasoning. They also told Paul that two employees have quit and morale has decreased because of the change in workstations. The CEO questioned Paul about the productivity rates and told Paul that he has to handle this issue immediately (Yukl, 2013).

Question 1

The first question asks, “What actions could Paul have taken to prevent the problem?”

To prevent the problem that was caused by the new implemented workstations, Paul could have applied participative leadership and used a consultation decision procedure with his subordinates before implementing the new workstations. Yukl (2013) defines the decision procedure consultation as, “The manager asks other people for their opinions and ideas and then makes the decision alone after seriously considering their suggestions and concerns” (p. 106). Furthermore, Paul could have used lateral consultation, especially when the proposed plan of implementing new workstations comes from engineering and not production. This specific type of consultation would help to further understand and increase the decision quality while increasing understanding and commitment. In this consultation, Paul and his subordinates would have evaluated the importance of the decision, identified employees with applicable information, assessed the likelihood of employee’s cooperation throughout the transition, evaluated the acceptance from employees, and weighed whether or not to hold a group meeting to involve everyone (Yukl, 2013).

Another action that Paul could have taken to prevent the problem was, again, to apply participative leadership and utilize subordinate participation in joint decision making. Yukl (2013) defines joint decision making as, “The manager meets with others to discuss the decision problems and make a decision together, the manager has