Andrew Yard Case Analysis

Andrew Yard Case Analysis

MBA 614 Managing & Leading People

Candice Birks

Northwood University

DeVos Graduate School

Dr. Tara Peters

Problem Statement: 

Organizational issues began to arise after the recent acquisition of VC Brakes by Crosswords. After accepting his new role as the site instructor for Crossroads’ Total Quality Management (TQM) program, Andrew Ryan was presented with having to make a series of difficult decisions. Eventually, Ryan became concerned that his employment was in jeopardy. This attributed to series of events that were crippling the TQM program initiatives, the company’s restrictive operational strategy and his management style.

Hypothesis 1: There was a conflict between Andrew Ryan’s individual work ethics, as a manager, and the other senior management at VC Brakes.

         Collaboration amongst the top tier of leadership was needed to ensure the Total Quality Management (TQM) program was a success. He was committed to the mission of the TQM program and believed that he could carry out its vision in the same way he had turnaround his ES department. Unfortunately, Ryan, and other managers, were in the midst of an ongoing conflict between two divisions run by his boss and mentor, Mitchell Medved and James Baynard. This trickled down to the other managers and created a difficult position for Ryan to build and keep credibility. There was not enough buy-in across the board and that became a plaguing issue for Andrew Ryan.  

Ryan’s work ethic was to be transparent in his approach and seek the root cause of an issue. Unfortunately, the VP of Operations James Baynard and Manager, John Kante, seemed to always be in “firefighting mode”...dealing with issues only after they were “full blown crisis” (Cespedes & Yong, pg. 5). The influence of VC Brakes’ historical culture exacerbated the transitional challenges, and conflicts, Ryan faced as a site instructor. The same “values and goals” were not shared, thus causing the objectives of the TQM difficult to achieve (Cameron & Whetten, pgs. 3-4).

Recommendations:

• Ryan needs to reevaluate how he builds allies, so he can have firm buy in from other managers. He should visit with managers prior to training to provide a better understanding of TQM’s purpose.
• Ryan needs to speak with Medved about the ongoing conflict between him and Baynard; explaining how it is impacting buy-in and unity across divisions.
• Ryan’s need to be transparent may need to be revised, as too much information shared can be counterproductive as well, as described in the Transparency Trap (Berstein).

Hypothesis 2: VC Brakes history of using an “autocratic, top-down management” style overshadowed Crossroads’ new TQM program initiative.

        After becoming Senior Manager, Ryan developed a reputation of being a successful change agent; after leading his Engineering Services (ES) team through a root cause analysis. Thus it seemed natural for him to be selected for Site Instructor for the Crossroad’s TQM program. However, Ryan was soon faced with dilemma after dilemma due to an ongoing and unresolved conflict between Medved and Baynard. Instead of Fred Rove, President, dealing with the matter, the “finger-pointing” mentality was allowed to manifest. In the article, Leading Change, Rove’s lack of actions exhibited the 8 errors ‘leaders’ make when an organizational transformation is needed and/or underway. The errors that stood out were “not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition” and having a “lack of vision” (Kotter, pgs. 2-3). By not setting the tone of how TQM needed to be embraced amongst management, at all levels, Rove essentially was allowing the managers to continue overlooking the needs of the ones doing the actual work. Managers continued to be “stubborn” and “push for their own agendas” (Cespedes & Yong, pg. 8).

Ryan’s success with his ES team, although not unnoticed, was not communicated as a foundational example to help anchor the change across the company. The managers were resistant to the training. They did not “personify the approach;” which undermined TQM’s objectives and Ryan’s efforts (Kotter, pgs. 8, 9). Credibility was wavering and Ryan’s primary style of management did not seem to continue to be as effective. He used his “democratic style’ leadership by supporting the platform for employees’ voices to be heard. However, this was not effective with the managers. A highly effective leader is able to switch the styles used, per the situation, which yields more opportunities for improved performance (Goleman, pgs. 1, 8)).

Recommendations:

• When talking to the managers, Ryan should be more assertive about producing resolutions to the issues brought up in the TQM trainings. Instead of making TQM the forefront of his conversation, his angle could be that he is positioning the manager to increase productivity within their department.
• Ryan should be open to adjusting his management style; making it more situational. He leaned on the style used by him and Medved; which may not be a best fit in the training sessions.

Hypothesis 3: Ryan’s lack of support from VC Brakes’ Vice President of Operations, James Baynard, made it difficult for Ryan to address certain organizational needs.

        Ryan and Baynard were complete opposites when it came to management style. Baynard focused on “managing perceptions” and surrounded himself with “sycophantic yes-men” (Cespedes & Yong, pg. 4). This was counterproductive. Baynard was not concerned about Ryan’s needs as a manager and he did not appear to be supportive of anything outside of carrying out the TQM trainings. After issues are voiced, the proper follow up and follow through is imperative.  Baynard did not concern himself with true resolutions, only patches to push through. As a result, what started to develop was an “ethical sink hole”, as described in the article, The Roots of Unethical Behavior at Work (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, p. 57). There was 1) uncertainty in the environment – Managers at VC Brakes continued to ignore their employee’s needs, e.g. the delay in purchasing heavy duty carts and ergonomic box cutter. Isolated incidents are not truly isolated, as the effect of it is spreads amongst others.  Baynard did not see these issues as relevant and Ryan felt forced to go around Baynard to resolve it. 2) Time pressure – In onset of TQM training for managers, Ryan realized he needed more time get buy-in from the managers. Instead, Baynard pushed Ryan to condense the managers’ training from a week long to 2 days. 3) Isolated individual and groups – The managers and their staff had developed their own departmental culture, which did not align with Crossroads’ initiative. Ryan and Kante wanted to “reassess and identify ways to make more progress.” Baynard denied this request, citing the timeline must be kept.