Andrew Ryan Vc Brakes

[pic 1][pic 2][pic 3][pic 4][pic 5][pic 6]

Problem Statement:

        Having a reputation for being a change agent, Andrew Ryan, Senior Manager at VC Brakes was recently selected for an exciting and challenging opportunity as a Total Quality Management (TQM) Site Instructor.  Ryan soon became concerned about his future at VC Brakes, attributable to the recent turn of events in relation to the faltering quality initiative and company restructuring.

Analysis:

Andrew Ryan’s management style is different from the “top-down” culture of the VC Brakes.

        VC Brakes’ had a reputation for its autocratic, top-down management style.  This style typically presumes the boss is the only one with the answers.  Ryan on the other hand, had the same idea of “good management” as his mentor, Mitchell Medved.  They believed in helping their team members to think for themselves, solve problems collectively, and take ownership of issues.  

Alternative viewpoint(s):

        Although the company’s general management style was different from Ryan’s, he believed he would be able to help change this aspect of the company’s culture by beginning with his department.  After being promoted to senior manager of the Engineering Services (ES) team and completing the ceramic composite project one month ahead of schedule, he believe that this demonstrated to the entire company that a different approach to management could be effective.  Ryan’s open door policy also made him a popular leader.

The TQM Initiative has not been successful due to the lack of ‘strategic persuasion’ from key change agents.        

        As the Site Instructor for TQM, Ryan has already been identified as someone who has the ability to successfully initiate change at VC Brakes.  Although he is knowledgeable of the “ins and outs” of TQM, it seems that Ryan may not be leveraging the relationships he had already built consequently, not everyone was buying in to the process.  Particularly, other supervisors and middle management seemed overwhelmed during the TQM training sessions.  Their concerns derived from the notion that TQM would “not help them hit their productivity numbers.” (Cespedes & Yong , 2013, p. 7) Failing to address these individuals’ concerns, he could be actually be undermining the TQM program objectives.  Others may interpret his actions as being dismissive, not acting in their best interests, and he may have lost credibility with key members who could be hindering the natural progression of TQM.

Alternative Viewpoint(s):

        The senior managers and middle managers are accustomed to the way the company operates.  The general consensus of those who were resistant to the TQM process was that, it would not help with reaching their productivity targets.  They were concerned about hitting their numbers because the outcome of personal evaluations must be directly related to productivity. The ability of your team perform well, does affect how others perceive you as a manager so this would be a perfectly normal feeling.  The fact that these managers (the people that need to be on board) are resisting the process is, negatively effecting the execution of the TQM initiative, even undermining it.

        Due to his position in the company hierarchy, the other managers and supervisors could be feeling resentment towards Ryan which may be driving their resistance to the program.  “Kill the messenger,” mentality. They may be feeling that he is unable to empathize with them regarding that which is expected of them, and causing them to behave as if Ryan is not in the “right” position to be relaying the message of TQM.

The supervisors and middle managers are experiencing feelings of denial and they are not being addressed.

        The fact is: “there’s no change without pain.” Introducing a new way of doing things could cause a number of reactions and in this case, certain employees seem to be (as previously stated) “rejecting the messenger”.  It seems as though they are not even open to hearing the message which is clearly demonstrated by their comments and the actions.   Most of the meetings that were held with these employees were not very interactive.  They hardly gave any feedback but then complained about why they had to adhere to TQM, they question whether or not the program was even worth the investment (due to having the expectation of more layoffs), and that it would not help them hit their numbers.  There were also times when issues emerged that were “easy fixes” however, too much time and effort was allocated to carry out the solution i.e. taking five weeks to get a better designed box-cutter.