The Plant That Pays Well and Still Loses People
Apex Plastics employs 320 unionized workers at a single plant. Base pay sits at the 85th percentile for the local manufacturing market, yet first-year turnover is 22% and absenteeism is 9.5%, more than double the industry average. Exit interviews repeatedly cite two themes: 'my supervisor watches every move' and 'nobody tells me whether I'm doing well.' Supervisors are chosen mainly by seniority and receive no coaching training. Performance reviews are annual, completed by the supervisor, and used only for attendance discipline; pay increases are fixed by the union contract and depend on seniority and job grade. New plant manager Priya Raman noticed that one production team raised output 15% after its lead began 10-minute daily huddles and posted defect counts on a whiteboard. Another team's lead rarely leaves his office. Workers say extra effort 'doesn't change anything.' The union is open to a pilot but opposes anything that looks like merit pay replacing the scale.
1. Analyze Apex's motivation problem using expectancy theory. Which link is weakest, and what evidence supports your diagnosis?
Read the worked answer
Expectancy theory predicts motivation depends on effort-to-performance expectancy, performance-to-outcome instrumentality, and outcome valence. The weakest link at Apex is instrumentality, with effort-to-performance also damaged. Pay is at the 85th percentile, so valence for pay is probably not the main problem; the union scale makes pay largely independent of performance. Employees say extra effort 'doesn't change anything,' which is a direct statement of low instrumentality. Supervisors who watch every move undermine effort-to-performance: workers cannot tell whether effort will be recognized as good performance or simply scrutinized. Annual reviews used only for attendance discipline give no timely information about task performance. The 15% output gain in the huddle team is consistent with clearer goals and feedback improving effort-to-performance, not with a pay effect. A diagnosis that blamed low pay would misread the evidence and probably worsen trust.
2. Recommend leadership behaviors and a performance-management redesign that fit the union constraint. Explain why each recommendation addresses the diagnosis.
Read the worked answer
Path-goal theory suggests supervisors should clarify goals, remove obstacles, and provide the support followers need. Here that means training supervisors to coach rather than monitor, setting daily quality and output targets, and giving feedback close to the work. The huddle-and-whiteboard practice is a low-cost way to strengthen effort-to-performance. For instrumentality, Apex needs performance-contingent recognition that does not replace the union scale: formal praise, preferred shift bidding, training opportunities, and a skill-based pay pilot negotiated with the union. Performance reviews should be separated from attendance discipline and conducted more frequently, with input from peers and subordinates for supervisors. Situational leadership matters because new workers need more direction while experienced workers need autonomy; a single style for all 320 employees will fail. The union constraint is real, so the pilot should be jointly designed and evaluated on measurable outcomes-absenteeism, turnover, defect rates-rather than imposed as merit pay.
3. Why might the huddle team's 15% output gain not generalize? What would you do before scaling it?
Read the worked answer
A single team's 15% gain may reflect the leader's skill, the team's composition, a Hawthorne effect from being observed, or a temporary novelty effect. Before scaling, Apex should run a pilot across several teams with baseline measures and a comparison group, train leads in the huddle method, and track output, defects, absenteeism, and employee perceptions for at least eight weeks. The content of the huddles matters: if leads simply read metrics, the effect may fade; if they solve problems and ask for input, it may persist. Supervisors also need support, since the other lead rarely leaves his office and may not be able to imitate the practice without coaching. Scaling should be staged, with evidence gates and the freedom to adapt the method to different shifts. Copying the whiteboard without the underlying coaching behavior would be a classic failure to distinguish the intervention from its context.