Running head: Case Study

Arctic Mining Consultants Case Study

Situation
Tom Parker has been hired by Arctic Mining Consultants. Tom has specialized knowledge and experience in all nontechnical aspects of mineral exploration, including claim staking, line cutting and grid installation, soil sampling, prospecting, and trenching. He will be responsible for hiring, training, and supervising programs. The field assistants are paid a low daily wages but meals and accommodations are provided. Project managers usually the ones that will run the operation the job sites but still will report to Tom Parker. Tom Parker was assigned a project to cut a claim post every 500 years. The 15 claim would require around 60 miles of line in total they have a time frame of seven days to complete the job. There will be four guys Parker, Talbot, Boyce, and Millar should complete around seven and half lengths per day. If they complete the job in seven days all the guys will be awarded $300.00 bonus. (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010)
Here is a breakdown of each day.
Day one- The group was helicopter in and everyone sat down and looked over the schedule and created a plan how long it will take, the order in which the areas will be staked and locations for helicopter landing spots. They also tags areas that might be more difficult to stake. (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010)
Day two- Millar and Boyce completed six lengths and Talbot and Parker completed eight. Parker was not happy with Millar or Boyce numbers but did approach them. (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010)
Day three-Millar completed five and half lengths, Boyce four, Parker eight, and Talbot seven. Parker went over and did an inspection of Millar and Boyce. Parker had time to walk back to his location for pick up. At this point Parker went off letting the guys know they are to complete the required amount her day and they must be completed by seven days. (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010)
Day four- Millar completed seven lengths, Boyce six and half, Parker and Talbot completed eight. Parker that night was uncommunicatively. (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010)
Day five- Millar completed six lengths, Boyce six, Talbot seven and half, Parker right. That night Parker let the guys have it again asking them why they can’t do what they say they are going to do and telling them if they cannot do that job they should not have taken the job. However Millar is saying he is doing everything he can do and working really harder to get this done. Millar told Boyce “I hate getting dumped on all the time! I’d quite if it didn’t mean that I’d had to walk 50 miles to the highway. And besides, I need the bonus money. Why doesn’t he pick on you? You didn’t get any more done than me; in fact, you usually get less. Maybe if you did a bit more he wouldn’t be so bothered about me.” Boyce says “I only work as hard as I have to”. (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010)
Day six- Millar rushed breakfast and was the first one to be dropped off by helicopter and was the last person to be picked up. Miller completed eight and quarter lengths, Boyce seven and Talbot and Parker had eight. Parker still not speaking again. (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010)
Day seven- Millar was the first one out and last one in he was so exhausted and was unable to eat. Miller completed six lengths, Boyce five, Talbot seven, and Parker seven and a quarter. This still leaves a balance of 34 lengths eyes on Millar, claiming he has not been able to complete a job on time and he is letting the team down. He also said was doing too much blazing and wasting to make time making pictures perfect claim post. (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010)
Day eight- Parker started really early and told the guys to complete eight lengths and if they got done early they should stop over and help the other guys. At lunch Millar had only completed three lengths and finally gave up because he know that Boyce wouldn’t be able to compete his eight so they are giving up the bonus but will increase another days pay. That night Parker was mad when Millar reported he only completed give and half lengths. Parker completed ten and a quarter, Talbot had completed eight, and Boyce had completed seven and half lengths with the help of Talbot. (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010)
In the end there were only two and half lengths that Millar had not completed. The job was able to get completed the next morning. Millar has never worked for Arctic Mining Consultants again. (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010)
Key Issues
The first issue to address is the relationship with Parker and Millar. For unknown reason Parker seems to keep getting upset with Millar for not completing his required numbers per day but Boyce seems to also be hitting very low numbers without anyone addressing these issues with him. This becomes very clear on day five when Millar was singled out for not completing this numbers. At this point it seems to start breaking Millar down and wanting to quit the job. Another issue I see overall is the communication from Parker. Overall it seems he keeps holding back on issues and concerns and blows up when he can take it anymore. This become very clear on day two when Parker was not happy with numbers but decided it was best to say nothing and on day three Parker stop talking because he was unhappy about the numbers. This doesn’t seem like a good method to handle or address things with employees.
There also seems to be a lack of direction coming from Parker. If the group was all willing to work long shifts in order to complete this project they would have went over to Millar and Boyce. A good example of this was on day seven when Parker informed Millar that he did not need to cut stuff for a perfect picture.
Define the Problem The problem overall here seems to be a management. Most of the issues are coming from lack of communication, poor direction, and lack of motivation for the employees. Based on all the seven days that Parker was in charge of this group it seems like they started off on a good solid plan but it quickly turned a little by little. As it gets middle of the week Parkers has an outburst towards his employees that have been working really hard and by the end of the week he had a guy that does not seem to care. Millar gives up on the last day and was fine that he could just receive another day pay if they didn’t get the bonus.
Alternative Solutions There are a few ways that company could solve some of these issues that they are facing right now. Tom Parker is lacking the organizations learning because he should be able acquire, share, use, and store. Tom Parker seems to understand that job must get done at any cost however I am sure the mining company would agree yelling at guys and not communicating with them would be accepted by the company.
Pros- The employees could have a better environment to express issues or concerns about the job site and why they wouldn’t be able to complete this project. This would have allowed Parker to make adjustment to team up with guys or make adjustments to other people counts.
Cons- The downfall to organization learning could be employees not wanting to put in full effort to working and claim they are not able to complete the project so other people can come in and help them out.
Another solution that would be very helpful would be human capital. Human capital is the stocks of knowledge skills and abilities among employees that provide value to the organizational (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010). If Tom Parker would have treated all his employees like there were valued as an employee’s Millar may have tried a little harder on the last day.
Pros- The pro could have completed job and still have Millar willing to work for the company. However at this point Millar refused working for the company forcing the mining company to find new talent and training of other people.
Cons- The con would be getting stuff that you believe has value but when it comes down to hard working they could be lacking as an employee.
There are a few individual behaviors that could be improved from Tom Parker. The first one would be providing employee motivation. Motivation is the forces within a person that affects his or her directions, intensity, and persistence of voluntary behavior (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010). The second behavior is ability. The ability is natural aptitudes and learned capabilities required to successfully complete a task (McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A., 2010).
Pros- The pros to these would have been increase motivation with Millar and he would have performed on the last day instead of being targeted out by Parker.
Cons- The downfall still could be the motivations may not work for employees. If could be they were set up to fail from the beginning.
Selected Solution
The best solution will be human capital. If the company takes a look at how many people that have lost due to poor communications with managers they may realize the overall benefit to get these guys to open up and work together as a team. It is important to learn not to point fingers but to help the guys when they are falling short of the agreed numbers. If Parker would have taken action on day two or day three he may have understood the area Millar was working in was a high demanding area so he could get extra help to him. They would have finished the job on time and as a team. The company would have kept the employees that were already trained and part of the team.
Implementation/ Recommendations To implement human capital would be to change the company culture. The top managers would have to start showing the lower managers they are supporting the change by creating more value for lower managers. One the lower managers start to feel they are valued and they will start making the changes for the people below them. This is not a very fast process and employees will kick back but if management keeps showing how each employee is valued, employees will start picking this up. It is very hard to change cultures in a company but it can be done. The rewards for everyone will be happier employees, long term employees, more job completed on time, and better view of the company.

Reference: McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A. (2010). Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill,