Reasons why Sue failed in delegation and suggestions to help her
Sue failed in delegating the work to her employees because she piled work on them and did not care about the employee’s schedule the next day. Clearly, the employee’s had a busy day; Jodi and Ken were busy on the job for the personnel department, but Sue was not mindful of this. It is impossible for people to serve two masters; therefore, Jodi and Ken could not work on the sales material and the personnel department job at the same time. They had to choose the job that they thought was more important and abandon the other. Sara was equally busy as she only managed to invest thirty minutes of her time on the work, citing the fact that she had a tight schedule, as well. Instead of abruptly piling the sales job on the employees, Sue should have consulted them on how flexible their schedules are. The employee with the most flexible schedule-more free time would be allocated more work than the one with a tighter schedule.
She failed in her attempt to delegate the job because she was not around to monitor and offer feedback during the sales job. Sue was extremely busy attending an all-day budget meeting for department supervisors instead of overseeing the job. When she came back, the working employee was almost quitting. Probably, because there was no assistance on how the job is done. To ensure the workers are effective and efficient, Sue should have been there to monitor their work all through and offer advice on any problem.
She did not clearly establish the deadlines, urgency and milestone of the job to the employees. She only suggested that each of them work as circumstances permitted on the sales material, she did not elucidate and expound on this. Instead of briefly informing the employees about the work, she should have called a meeting where she explains the urgency and allow workers ask questions about the job.
Sue did not analyze the parameters of the work to gather the information required to initiate the job. Ken complains about the printer being down shows that Sue did not do a background research on the ability of the employee’s to do the work. Sue should have made sure that all the required resources were available and ready for work. Gathering the information and passing it to the employees is necessary for efficient the execution of the job.How I would motivate the Workers
I would have treated the employees as individuals. Sue suggested to the employees that each of them work as circumstances permitted on the sales material. To her she felt sure that this approach would present no problems since she estimated that the sales material would take no more than three hours’ work. She never cared how long it would take the employees to finish the job. She is condescending and patronizing to her employees assuming their opinion does not matter. By offering directives to them, it shows she is rigid rather than flexible. I would recognize the employees as my team and actively engage them in the whole decision making process.
I would have encouraged maximum participation and cooperation amongst the workers. Clearly, these employees are not cooperating in their work. Sue separately asks the four employees what happened wrong. I would have ensured the team is integrated and in case of a problem the appointed leader of the team what happened wrong. Evidently, Sue does not promote employee cooperation as each employee seems to be doing what he thinks is suits them.
I would create a better relationship with the employees. Sue does not seem to have the best relationship with her employees. The employees have repeatedly failed to accomplish delegated task. Instead of yelling to them that am disappointed and that they will have to stay until the job is done, I would ask them if they can do the work because they have been busy all day. I would work (in haste) to ensure the printer is fixed to facilitate smoother operations.Preferred Motivational Theory
I would suggest Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. The theory involves job satisfaction that comes intrinsically from the job content such responsibility, recognition and achievement. Conversely, Herzberg theory postulates about job dissatisfaction which comes from extrinsic factors such as lack of cooperation among peers, poor working conditions and status. There is no peer relation in the department. Sue has not established a harmonious work environment for her workers to operate. The work conditions are also deplorable as Ken stated that his reason for not working was because of the printer break down. Also, none of these workers has desire for responsibility as they all have excuses for a job they were supposed to do. Sue should assign workers specialized tasks that allow them to become experts, or give additional authority to employees. Sue should have provided motivators such as rewarding the worker who finished first the job. Through this, the employees would be highly inclined to do the job faster and more efficiently. Such a motivator would encourage an employee to strive to do his or her best. Sue should have used her supervision skills to recognize an employee who can do the job best, she would have given him or her an opportunity to utilize their capabilities best. From the Herzberg theory assigning an employee work that he or she has the capability to do is a motivator as it offers a sense of responsibility and fulfillment in doing the job. Such an employee can meet and surpass his ability as he is highly motivated. From the case study, the employees are dissatisfied due to Sue’s poor supervision skills and lack of motivators that is why the job was never completed.
