Managers that are unconcerned about employee motivation and satisfaction are jeopardizing their company’s success. It is critical that business leaders implement measures to ensure minimal staff turnover by placing a priority on both clients and employees. According to Warrick (2017), doing so ensures the business’s continuity and provides it with a competitive advantage over its competitors. The two scenarios, Initech and Coffee Bean depict two very distinct working environments, each distinguished by different leadership styles. Initech’s leadership technique is one that demoralizes the staff. Thus, worker productivity has suffered as a result of this. The Coffee Bean management, on the other hand, adopts a leadership approach that increases employee morale. As a result, it boosts employee production while also lowering their turnover. The purpose of this case study is to compare and contrast the management and leadership approaches stated in the two cases of Initech and Coffee, with the goal of determining how each scenario influences worker productivity.
The only source of motivation for the workers at Initech is the threat of being harassed by many supervisors or perhaps losing their jobs. The working atmosphere is such that success is measured by how busy one appears rather than the actual work produced and how well it is completed. Workers in this scenario only show up to work for the sake of formality. They merely try to accomplish what is expected of them. Workers in environments like Initech have a high turnover rate since they will move as soon as they find another job in a more enticing situation. For example, if the opportunity arises, workers like Peter Gibbson will not hesitate to relocate. When questioned by efficiency experts, he says that he is not lazy, but merely unmotivated.
Management systems that do not encourage workers to communicate with their supervisors are dictatorial and tyrannical. Employees do not feel free since they are constantly aware that the management is working against them. This is the case at Initech, where interrogating the authorities is frowned upon. In these settings, innovation and creativity are constrained since workers want to keep any relevant information to themselves rather than share it. Most supervisors who constrain their employees do so out of fear of being reprimanded or out of ignorance. As a result, businesses end up missing important ideas from employees which would otherwise be beneficial.
On the other side, the case of Coffee Bean demonstrates an organizational setting that would have allowed people like Peter Gibbons to achieve their full potential. Both clients and employees enjoy working in this setting. As a result, everyday encounters become motivating. Coffee Bean’s management has recognized the value of leadership approaches aimed at encouraging employees, which is in contrast to Initech’s approach. Workers at Initech are rewarded with threats, whereas those at Coffee Bean are rewarded with praise for their performance.
Moreover, the FISH management training, which stresses fun at work, is particularly beneficial at Coffee Bean since it makes the work experience fascinating and liberal for the employees. Coffee Bean employees approach each day with fresh vitality and energy, which is reflected in their output. By analyzing the two scenarios, it is clear that employee incentive is critical for organizational efficiency. Simple things like creating theme days when everything is done in a specific order are incredibly successful in making employees’ experiences interesting and thereby increasing their productivity.
The Golem effect is invoked by Initech’s leaders. The effect occurs when employers have low expectations for their employees, which causes them to underperform (Tabesh & Abdoli, 2021). This is demonstrated by their tight supervision, as evidenced by Peter’s eight superiors. They appear to have a low impression of their staff, believing that they are unable to work with little supervision. They are afraid of being questioned by their peers, and they do not appear to appreciate their thoughts.
Employees who appear active and produce detailed paperwork are rated highly, according to the criteria they use to promote them. Employees who are not predisposed to positions where they do not present documentation are ignored by management. Furthermore, management pays no attention to employees like Peter who despise these standards. Workers at Initech are motivated by fear and work only hard enough to stay on the job. As a result of the managerial style, employees like Peter underperform and don’t care. These characteristics suggest a management style that is heavily influenced by the Golem effect.
However, there isn’t even a smidgeon of truth in Initech’s management approach. Initech’s work policies may prohibit any type of discrimination against any employee. However, management frequently finds itself in this position as a result of mistaken expectations. When Peter Gibbons does something wrong, for example, eight different people come to confront him about it. This conveys the appearance that the management is certain that Peter is incapable of doing anything right, and that he must be repeatedly chastised in order for him to develop. Thus, these expectations have a Golem influence on him.
The atmosphere at Coffee Bean creates a Pygmalion effect, in which the employer sets high but attainable goals for the staff. By promoting an employee-driven mentality, management has prioritized the employees (Wang et al., 2022). This demonstrates that management values and demands a lot from its staff, which motivates them to work harder. Coffee Bean’s management adheres to the four principles of the FISH concept, which encourages employees to have fun at work. The four principles provide employees with the ability to select their attitude, motivation, encouragement, and, last, the option to make work joyful.
To guarantee the firm’s long-term viability and competitiveness, today’s managers must prioritize on employee engagement and contentment. This idea is shown by the example of Peter Gibbons. Gibbons’s accomplishment orientation was one in which he preferred less supervision and felt free to express his concerns to his superiors. He also appreciated promotions based on more personal concerns rather than paperwork presentations. A sense of job stability and a defined working framework are two unfulfilled demands for Peter. If Initech’s management accomplished these two requirements, Peter may be motivated. However, because the Golem effect is invoked, Initech appears to be unable to meet Peter’s needs. To put it another way, management has set low expectations for employees, which has lowered their morale leading to underperformance. Coffee Bean, on the other hand, has embraced the Pygmalion effect by promoting workplace ideals that promote enjoyment. This has resulted in a significant reduction in staff turnover and has put the company on the road to success.
In order for a company like Initech to function successfully and achieve efficiency, management needs to implement leadership practices similar to those used by Coffee Bean. This is due to the fact that when employee motivation is low, production suffers. In the end, the corporation loses a significant amount of money. To guarantee that the most pressing concerns of employees are resolved, the workplace environment should have effective channels of interaction and communication between management and employees. Furthermore, workers should also be recognized for their contributions to the success of the business, rather than being singled out when they do something bad.
References
Tabesh, Z., & Abdoli, M. (2021). Investigating the Role of Negative Strengthening of Golem Effect Theory of the Impact of Halo’s Bias on the Contradiction of Auditor’s Judgment Desirability. Management Accounting, 14(50), 61-81.
Warrick, D. D. (2017). What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business Horizons, 60(3), 395-404.
Wang, K., Bailey, E. R., & Jachimowicz, J. M. (2022). The Passionate Pygmalion Effect: Passionate employees attain better outcomes in part because of more preferential treatment by others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101, 104345.