Bobby Barons Choice

In order to make a decision concerning whether or not Bobby Baron's choice to request a second meeting was logical, one must first understand the desired outcome of this: the goal. To determine this, it is vital to have an extensive understanding of the actual LiveLife case and the employees involved, while relating these factors directly to the theories of organizational behaviour.

Therefore, we will examine the attitudes and feelings of the workers involved, and by doing so, we will determine their personal motivations, values, and issues within the organization. This is done in order to examine and compare each employee as an individual to decipher whether Bobby's decision was a productive one that will end positively for the LiveLife Health Care.

In the case, we see a very participative style of management by higher ranking members of LiveLife. Bobby, the CEO of the company, directly involves himself in a dispute between his subordinates. This demonstrates the Human Relations Model (which is referred to as a Theory Y approach), which assumes the individual needs of the employees should be satisfied in order to maintain a productive atmosphere within the organization. It is a "participative management style oriented toward employee needs", which is evident through the participation of both Bobby and Kelly Henderson, VP of Operations, in attempting to resolve personal issues between their subordinates. Identifying the presence of this management model within LiveLife will help us analyze Bobby's decision.

Now we can examine the two workers majorly involved in the dispute, Shirley and Jeannie, individually using the Integrative Model of Organizational Behaviour. This model underlines the two primary outcomes (Job Performance and Organizational Commitment), and the individual mechanisms linked to these outcomes (Job Satisfaction, Stress, Motivation, -Trust, Justice and Ethics-, and Learning and Decision Making).

Shirley Adler-

Shirley is a crucial part of the issue at hand.

Her job performance ("Employee Behaviour that contribute either positively or negatively to the accomplishment of organizational goals") varies depending on the area and specific behaviour analyzed. For example, Shirley demonstrates a strong performance in areas concerned with routine task performance; in regular daily routines her behaviours contribute positively to the organization. This includes her extensive knowledge of software systems and skillfulness in operations, which are evident through her branch's strong financial performances. According to the Management by Objectives philosophy, an employee's evaluation is based mainly on their performance by setting specific goals. As a result of her ability to succeed in routine tasks in management, Shirley manages to progress the organization financially. However, as the major issue within the case shows, it is clear that Shirley also demonstrates multiple negative behaviours that result in poor job performance. Her adaptive task performance (responses to unique or unusual task demands) has proved to be poor on multiple occasions with negative behaviours coming to surface under pressure. For example, Shirley coordinated a project, which was unsuccessful as she became irritated at an unknowledgeable vendor, giving up on the project in frustration. Multiple behaviors in adaptability were negative within this case, such as 'handling work stress' and 'demonstrating interpersonal adaptability'. Shirley was unable to cope with a vendor with a conflicting personality, and did not end the project with a positive outcome.

With this analysis of the actual behaviours that lead to job performance, we can see that while Shirley is a positive worker routinely, she lacks in the ability to work productively when the job requires for her to adapt.

Jeannie-

It becomes clear when examining the LiveLife case, that Jeannie is not entirely satisfied with her job for various reasons. Job satisfaction is a key mechanism linked to job performance. Insufficient job satisfaction will result in lower job performance and vice versa. According to the Value-percept theory, job satisfaction occurs when an employee is provided with the things that they value (things they consciously or unconsciously want to attain) by their job. There are various categories of specific values that employees seek at work, including pay, supervision, coworkers, work itself and status. Jeannie's job satisfaction drops when her issues with Shirley begin. For example, when Shirley takes control of a branch team meeting Jeannie was intended to run, Jeannie is left as an observer. This condescends Jeannie, taking away from her the status (more specifically, her power and control) she is supposed to encompass: something a branch manager would value. Moreover, her job satisfaction is lowered even more through other job values as a result of the issue. The value of supervision (specifically, good supervisory relations and praise for good work) is not fulfilled, as Shirley gives poor, perhaps, undeservingly low feedback in Jeannie's performance review.

As Jeannie loses these things that she values, she accordingly lowers her levels of job satisfaction, which can in turn, lower her overall job performance. It is at this point of low job satisfaction that she decides to meet with Kelly Henderson to discuss the issues. Decisions in the workplace are often made through the onset of specific feelings. Feelings and behaviours are linked together in this sense that all behaviours in the workplace result from specific feelings, positive or negative. In Jeannie's case, the feeling of being condescended and unrewarded for her work resulted in the behaviour of speaking to higher management about the issue.

Bobby's decision to schedule a second meeting was a good one. It is clear that neither Shirley nor Jeannie were satisfied with the end result. Since Shirley was specifically told not to respond, she was not given the opportunity to practice what she had learned in her coaching and mentoring sessions, while Jeannie was left unsatisfied with the lack of response.