The Hegemonic Power of Management and the Sacking of the Night Shift

Case 9.1 The Hegemonic Power of Management and the Sacking of the Night Shift: Power-Coercive Strategies or Machiavellian Management? pp.364 – 366).

Washdale Manufacturing is a washing machine factory that underwent significant change following the appointment of a new plant manager. In this short extract, the example of the night shift is used to stimulate discussion on political and ethical issues in the management of change (for a full reading of the case, see Dawson, 2003c: 98–111).

Sleepers Wake: Stamping Down on the Custom and Practice of Night-Shift Operations

Management at the plant were aware that there was something amiss with operating practices on the night shift (due to the high incidence of machine breakdowns), but they were uncertain about the cause of these problems. For them, cellular manufacture provided a useful opportunity to reassess night-shift operations. At this stage, they did not realize that night-shift operators had modified their work patterns to enable some “sleep time” prior to the arrival of the morning shift. This behavior became part of the custom and practice of night-shift operations and, hence, there was considerable group pressure for new members to conform to this method of organizing work which, as one employee recounted, “made life easier for all.” As a consequence of working the machines as hard as possible for the first part of the shift, there was a higher incidence of machine breakdown on the night shift than at any other time. Aware that something was going on, management decided to install a system to monitor machine cycle times. As a manager recalled:

When we looked at it there was a question of what the night shift were actually doing. They were making the numbers but things just didn’t really gel. So we actually put read-outs on the main circuit board so that every time there is a machine cycle of course you get a little blip, so you can actually count the cycles, how many they do and all that sort of thing. They were actually manipulating the controller and speeding up the cycle – we were having a lot of maintenance on the machines and that was one of the reasons, they were running them too hard. We were having a lot of breakdowns on the circuit boards and things. They were actually speeding up the cycle that fast and then there were these long gaps from about two o’clock to about five o’clock. There was this long gap of nothing and yet the next day they had the numbers there. You know, how can they do that? So we checked it for a while and there was a definite pattern. The same time every night nothing was happening and the next day they had the product.

Although management remained in the dark for a number of years, other operators were well aware that their night-shift colleagues were working machines beyond their limit in order to meet their targets as fast as possible so that they could create a “sleep-space” during the shift. By investigating the problems on the night shift (in terms of machine breakdowns and productivity), the local management team became aware of the regular stops in production and decided to pursue the matter further. From their perspective, an absence of supervision and management control on the night shift was the probable cause of these difficulties and so they decided to find out for themselves what was going on:

We came in one night about midnight, sat up in the office and did a few things. The machine shop was working and then about two o’clock there was no one. You know, we left it for a while, wandered down, no one around. We went into the lunchroom and we had to wake them up. So yeah, we do not have a night shift anymore. Their first response was, “Well, we’re just having a break,” they didnot know that we’d been watching them for the whole shift. And this wasn’t a one off they’d been doing it for years. They had makeshift beds and little alarm clocks to make sure they’d wake up before the day shift people came in and all that sort of thing. The amazing thing about it was, because we were here, when people from day shift started rocking-in they think: “Gee, what are they doing here at this hour,” you know. And when word spreads around what has happened, and these people are in the office and they’re on the mat, staring down the barrel. The response from the people out there in the machine shop and that: “You beauty, about time they did something about that. About time you fixed those guys doing that.” And you say, “Well, why didn’t you tell me? Why didnot you say?”“Ah, no, couldn’t do that.” They would not tell the boss and dob them in, but they were glad to see that someone had finally done something about these people bludging on the night shift … Yeah, they left the company. (Manager, Washdale Manufacturing)

This precursor to the introduction of a major change program provided a clear signal to employees about the position of management and how they were not going to tolerate “inappropriate” behavior. Their strategic intention centered on improving operational efficiency through the restructuring of workplace arrangements. For many on the night shift, peer group pressure and the local night-shift culture did not allow them to do anything other than adopt standard practice. In this example, work routines and expectations had become reinforced over time through the development of group values and beliefs which support certain behaviors and prevent or discourage others. These ‘controls’ emerge and are developed within groups and are not simply a reflection of the systems developed and implemented in the design of work but, rather, reflect the mutual shaping of structure and action within the context of a working environment. Given that night-shift employees had little choice but to adopt common practices, it could be argued that many of these ‘victims’ of change were treated harshly in not being given a second chance under different contextual conditions. Interestingly, day-shift operators showed little concern over this outcome (viewing the night shift as an easy option that had been going on for too many years) and generally supported the hardline stance taken by management. Local management also commented on the positive feedback they received from employees working on the day shift. Paradoxically, through disciplining the non-compliance of night-shift employees, management were able to raise morale among other members of the workforce. This not only highlights how different groups of employees may respond differently to management strategy but, also, the importance of context in making sense of employee attitudes and behavior.

Postscript: This hardline (power-coercive) approach was used by management to overcome factions of resistance that emerged during the main change initiative, although it should be noted that management combined this approach with the development of a program for employee involvement which had the support and backing of the union.

Questions

1. Explain why, or why not, you believe that management was justified in their decision to sack the night shift?
2. What are the ethical issues that arise from this brief example?
3. Do you agree with Buchanan and Badham (2008) that managing change is a “blood sport” and that change agents should shed any pretense of innocence, “play the turf game” and aim to win on their own terms?
4. Are there any general lessons that can be learned from this case study on the hegemonic power of management?

ANSWER

Hegemonic Power of Management

Explain why, or why not, you believe that management was justified in their decision to sack the night shift?

Managers use various strategies to influence subordinates’ behavior. Coercive power is an example of such a strategy. It involves punishing (e.g., firing employees) or withdrawing their rewards and privileges. Coercive power is typically associated with adverse organizational outcomes, but in this case, it was justified.

Firing the night shift was justified because it helped the managers end a culture that was harming the organization. The night shift forced new members to conform to their work practices, explaining why the behavior persisted for so long. Additionally, all staff, including the day-time employees, knew what was happening during the night shift. If the managers tolerated this behavior, it would incentivize other employees to behave the same way. Employees would learn that they can get away with bad behaviors.

Additionally, employees would have no motivation to strive for quality. In contrast, firing the night shift would incentivize good behavior. Other employees would learn the consequence of non-compliance, which, in turn, would inspire desired behaviors.

The night shift also changed their work routine without consulting or informing their managers, damaging organizational resources for years. They did not consider how their actions affected the organization and instead acted in their self-interests. They also received payments for working a complete shift even though they did not work the whole time. Therefore, the management’s decision to fire the employees is justified.

What are the ethical issues that arise from this brief example?

The night shift engaged in unethical pro-organization behavior, which means members intend to engage in effective functioning but end up violating societal or organizational values, policies, norms, and laws (Zhang et al., 2018). Even though it was not their intention, the night shift still harmed the organization’s operational efficiency. The ethical question arising from this case study is whether managers should make their ethical judgments based on the intent of the action or its outcome.

Another ethical issue that arises from this case study is organizational integrity and moral behaviors. Paine (n.d.) states that leniency increases a manager’s risk of personal and legal liabilities. The night shift’s negligence could have caused an accident, and management would still be liable for that outcome. Therefore, according to the author, it is the leader’s responsibility to shape the moral behaviors of their employees (Paine, n.d.).

Do you agree with Buchanan and Badham (2008) that managing change is a “blood sport” and that change agents should shed any pretense of innocence, “play the turf game,” and aim to win on their terms?

I can’t entirely agree with Buchanan and Badham’s perspective. It is inarguable that implementing change is complex, and managers will always face resistance during such initiatives (Bell et al., 2014). Buchanan and Badham suggest that managers should always take the pragmatic approach and make objective decisions to overcome such challenges. By saying ‘play the turf game,’ the theorists imply that managers should not entertain any resistance from employees.

However, research evidence recommends against using this approach. Employees typically resist change due to negative perceptions or attitudes towards the change. A study conducted by Bell et al. (2014) demonstrated that failing to account for or respect employees’ feelings and emotions during a change initiative will result in dissatisfaction, conflict, resentment, and resistance. When employees resist change, their compliance is uncertain. Therefore, management will always need constant oversight and monitoring to ensure employees comply with the established guidelines. Such an organizational climate makes consolidating positive change difficult, making the approach ineffective.

In contrast, considering employees’ opinions and emotions allows managers to address implementation barriers. Bell et al. 2014 stated that.

“Creating a climate where subordinates are involved makes them to feel empowered and not threatened to communicate, and can reduce resistance to cultural change. Attitudes of respect, understanding and communication produced by a participative leader help to remove the cycle of reciprocal threat and aggressiveness” (p. 1974).

The team can discuss employees’ concerns and find a way forward. These discussions will make the employees feel like they are part of the team or the change, inspiring the initiative’s ownership. Consequently, they will share the leader’s vision and commit to the change initiative. These attitudes and perceptions increase the likelihood of a successful change initiative. The evidence contradicting Buchanan and Badham’s perspectives is overwhelming; hence, I can’t entirely agree with them.

Are there any general lessons that can be learned from this case study on the hegemonic power of management?

• It is the management’s responsibility to legitimize organizational culture and norms. Managers need to oversee the day-to-day practices of employees’ to ensure a positive organizational culture. It was not until management started closely monitoring the night shift that the practice stopped. This case underscores the importance of managers’ active engagement in employees’ day-to-day work.
• Punishing unethical behavior can motivate employees or increase their morale.
• The behaviors and performance of individual team members are shaped and influenced by group values and beliefs.

References

Bell, C., Chan, M., & Nel, P. (2014). The impact of participative and directive leadership on organisational culture: An organisational development perspective. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23). https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p1970

Paine, L. S. (n.d.). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1994/03/managing-for-organizational-integrity?registration=success

Zhang, Y., He, B., & Sun, X. (2018). The contagion of unethical pro-organizational behavior: from leaders to followers. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01102

To get your original copy of this completed paper, please Order Now