Discuss how the plan you developed for Jackson to best handle the situation will maximize organizational effectiveness . Case Study
The purpose of this project is to examine your understanding of the challenges of managing critical employees who work in demanding jobs. Using a case study, you will be asked to demonstrate how motivation, relationship building, and trust affect organizational effectiveness.
Step 1: Carefully read the case study below.
Step 2: Comprise a 5-6 page paper (excluding the title page and reference list page) that includes ALL of the following points:
- Identify the relationship-building issues that exist in the case study.
- Explain the reasoning behind the identification of those issues as relationship-building issues in the case study – provide clear support and explanation for why you selected those relation-building issues.
- Research the concepts of motivation, trust, and ethical behavior as they individually, and collectively, relate to the ability for leaders to create sound management relationships that ultimately lead to successful organizations.
- Apply your research on the concepts of motivation, trust, and ethical behavior to the relationship-building issues identified in the case study.
- Develop a clear, concise, and focused strategy for Jackson on how to best handle the situation.
- His team
- The organization
- The vendors
- Be sure to examine and address all the stakeholders in the plan; specifically:
- Explain the reasoning/conclusions behind your plan elements and support them with your research, class materials, and case-study facts.
- Discuss how the plan you developed for Jackson to best handle the situation will maximize organizational effectiveness
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE THE SUBMISSION:
- Be sure to carefully read the grading rubric for the assignment!
- Check the instructions to make sure ALL elements of the assignment have been covered
- Students are expected to use a variety as well as multiple course readings and research to support ideas, reasoning, and conclusions.
- This assignment requires the use of, at minimum, 3 scholarly references/sources
- Follow APA style guidelines to ensure that your final submission includes a Title Page, In-Text Citations, and a Reference List.
- Paraphrase and do not use direct quotation marks. This means you do not use more than four consecutive words from a source document, put a passage from a source document into your own words, and attribute the passage to the source document. Provide the page or paragraph number. Note that a reference within a reference list cannot exist without an associated in-text citation and vice versa.
- The analysis should begin with an introductory paragraph that clearly and succinctly explains what you intend to cover in the body of the paper.
- The analysis should end with a conclusion/summary paragraph that clearly and succinctly explains what you covered in the body of the paper.
- Third-person writing is required. Third-person means that there are no words such as “I, me, my, we, or us” (first-person writing), nor is there use of “you or your” (second-person writing). If uncertain how to write in the third person, view this link: https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/first-second-and-third-person .
- Contractions are not used in business writing, so the expectation is that students do NOT use contractions in the assignment.
- The paper must be double-spaced with 1-inch margins with 12 pt. font.
- Submit the final project into the appropriate assignment submission folder by the due date.
NOTE: All submitted work is to be your original work. You may not use any work from another student, the Internet, or an online clearinghouse. You are expected to understand the Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism Policy and know that it is your responsibility to learn about instructor and general academic expectations with regard to proper citation of sources as specified in the APA Publication Manual, 7th Ed. (Students are held accountable for in-text citations and an associated reference list only).
Charles Jackson is chief information officer (CIO) at McConnell Spice, a large Maryland Spice company. In an industry that has a large national market presence yet is global in its need for raw materials, McConnell Spice is always looking for ways to increase productivity and speed things up while staying connected to its worldwide sources. Two years into the job, Jackson suggested to company president Ann McConnell that McConnell implement a new global knowledge-sharing application that promises to cut development time and costs in half. Jackson has done extensive research on knowledge-sharing systems and has talked closely with a fellow IT director at the global powerhouse ADM. The ADM director believes the knowledge-sharing systems play an important role in a company’s competitiveness and concurs that Jackson should pursue purchasing one.
McConnell presented the idea to the board of directors, and everyone agreed to pursue the project. She has asked Jackson to investigate firms that could assist McConnell’s IT department in developing and implementing a global knowledge-sharing application that would be compatible with McConnell’s existing systems. McConnell explained that she wants to present the information to the board of directors for a decision next month.
Jackson and his team, after many long nights, identified three major firms that he believed could handle the work and made an appointment with McConnell to go over the findings. At the appointed time Jackson crossed the lintel of the McConnell’s office door, where he was immediately greeted by Geraldine Fox, a woman who served as a sort of executive assistant to McConnell. Fox took the information from Jackson and promised the president would review it within two days. Disappointed with being unable to submit the findings in person Jackson returned to his team who was anxiously awaiting Mc Connell’s response. Frustrated with the lack of feedback Jackson sent the team home early to put salve on the wound.
The next afternoon, McConnell called Jackson to her office and asked why Standard Systems, a small local consulting firm, was not being considered as a potential provider. Jackson was surprised—Standard was known primarily for helping small companies computerize their accounting systems. Jackson was not aware that they had done any work related to knowledge-sharing applications, particularly on a global basis. Upon further investigation into the company, Jackson learned that Standard was owned by an uncle of McConnell’s son-in-law. Fortunately, he also learned that the firm had some limited experience in more complex applications. At their most recent meeting, McConnell insisted that Standard be included for possible consideration by the board.
During the next two weeks, representatives from each company met with Jackson, his two top executives, and the IT staff to explain their services and give demonstrations. Jackson had suggested that the board of directors attend these presentations, but McConnell said they would not have the time and he, Jackson, would need to evaluate everything and make a recommendation to the board. At the end of these meetings, Jackson prepared a final report evaluating the pros and cons of going with each firm and making his first- and second-choice recommendations. Standard was dead last on his list. Although the firm had some excellent people and a good reputation, it was simply not capable of handling such a large and complex project.
McConnell informed Jackson that the Board would meet in one week and he was to present his findings and decision to the Board for approval. McConnell said, “I know you agree with me and are for Standard but we have to pretend that these other companies are in contention.” McConnell winks and walks away leaving Jackson devastated and appalled at the idea that the least effective company could get the job.