Reference no: EM133501405

Case: Joe Adams is supervisor in the final-assembly department of an automobile body plant. Work in this department is not dependable, with temporary layoffs or short weeks occurring three or four times a year. The work is physically difficult, and since the skill required is minima, most employees are high school graduates only. Some do not even have a high school education. About one-third of the workforce comes from ethnic and racial minority groups. The work procedure and pace of work are tightly controlled by industrial engineers and other staff groups. Adams attended a one-day conference of his supervisors' association recently and learned about many potential benefits of participation. In his own words, "This conference really sold me on participation," and now he wishes to establish it in his assembly department.

Management feels that conditions on an assembly line are not suitable for participation. Further, it believes that the majority of workers employed have an autocratic role expectation of supervision. In addition, management has said that the production schedule will not allow time off for participation during the workday. This means that if Adams wants to hold any meetings about participation, he will have to do so after work and on the workers' own time. Adams feels sure that his employees will not wish to remain after work on their own time; in fact, he is not even sure they would do so if he paid them overtime.

Question 1. Recommend a course of action for Adams.

Question 2. Would any ideas from the following be helpful in this case: McGregor, Herzbert, McClelland, Fiedler, models of organizational behavior, prerequisites for participation, area of job freedom, and programs for participation? Provide examples and suggestions from the case to support your response.