The Performance Board That Silenced the Press Shop
Vantage Auto Components runs a 34-operator press shop over two shifts. Meera took charge as shift supervisor six weeks ago. Absenteeism on her shift is 11% against a plant average of 6%; overtime is running ₹2.1 lakh a month over budget; two customer lines were missed last month. The work is repetitive, with a fixed 45-second cycle, and pay is a fixed wage plus a small attendance-linked bonus. The previous supervisor left after a public argument with Ramesh, a 19-year veteran whom operators consult before acting on any new instruction. Meera installed a daily board ranking every operator by output. The three lowest-ranked operators have stopped speaking in meetings and one has requested a transfer. The plant head wants the numbers corrected within one quarter and has not asked how. Meera's own manager calls her technically strong and impatient with process. The HR partner is new and has offered a 'motivation workshop'.
1. Diagnose why the performance board produced silence and transfer requests rather than effort. Name the motivational and group processes at work and cite the specific evidence in the case that supports each part of your diagnosis.
Read the worked answer
The board changed visibility, not consequences. Pay is fixed with a small attendance bonus, so the effort–reward link is weak (expectancy theory: expectancy is fine - operators know how to hit output - but instrumentality is near zero, because output rank buys nothing). The board therefore functioned purely as a scoreboard of shame.
It attacked the wrong need. For repetitive, low-autonomy work, the needs that managers can actually move are competence, recognition and belonging. A public ranking of the bottom three removes competence signalling and belonging simultaneously, which predicts exactly the observed response - withdrawal from meetings, a transfer request - rather than higher effort.
Equity comparison turned social. Operators now compare against colleagues on a metric they do not control (machine state, tool condition, job mix). Perceived unfairness converts the board from a motivator into a grievance.
The group already had a norm. Ramesh is the informal leader; the previous supervisor lost a public contest with him. Ingroup–outgroup formation means Meera's instrument is read as 'her' instrument. Silence is the group's low-cost sanction.
Diagnostic evidence to check before acting: absence concentrated on particular days or shifts, output variance by machine rather than by person, and whether the three bottom-ranked operators were the ones on the oldest presses. If ranking correlates with machine, the board is measuring the wrong variable and the correct intervention is not motivational at all.
2. Set out a 90-day sequence: what you would change in the work design and measurement, in what order, and which metrics would tell you whether it is working.
Read the worked answer
Days 1–14 - stop the bleeding and replace the instrument. Remove the public ranking. Replace with team-level output and a private, monthly one-to-one on individual contribution. Announce the reason openly: 'the board measured the press, not the person.' Simultaneously fix the attendance problem structurally - absence is cheap when pay is fixed, so introduce a shift-level attendance target whose payout is collective (small, frequent, team-shared) rather than individual. Collective payout avoids re-creating the individual ranking by the back door.
Days 15–45 - restore control and variety. Give operators authority over first-line stoppage, tool changeover checks and a weekly 20-minute shift review where they own two improvement actions. Job rotation across presses reduces monotony and spreads machine knowledge, which also protects you when the veteran is absent.
Days 46–90 - build a fair scoreboard. Publish machine-level OEE, scrap and changeover time, and person-level output only in private. Set targets from the last eight weeks of actual data, not from the plant average.
Metrics that prove the intervention worked: absence on the shift (target 6–7% by day 90); overtime variance against budget; number of operator-raised stoppages per week (leading indicator of re-engagement); voluntary transfer requests (should be zero); output stability measured by the standard deviation of daily output, not just the mean.
Do not run the motivation workshop in month one. It will be read as blame-shifting. If used at all, place it after the measurement and pay changes, or drop it.
3. Three senior colleagues each propose handling Ramesh differently. Evaluate the options rather than picking one: (a) move him to another shift; (b) formally make him the shift's quality champion and hold him accountable for targets; (c) confront him privately and warn him about undermining instructions.
Read the worked answer
Option (a) - transfer. Fast, low conflict, and it removes the counter-authority. But it hands the group a story in which the supervisor could not manage a veteran, and it exports the same influence to the receiving shift. It also removes 19 years of press knowledge from the shift that needs it most. Defensible only as a last step after (b) fails, and only if the receiving shift has strong supervision.
Option (b) - co-opt with accountability. Ramesh's influence is real; the question is what it is attached to. Making him accountable for scrap and changeover time on two presses converts him from rival to owner of a metric. The risk is that he uses the role to legitimise his own norm - 'this is how we do it here, supervisor' - and the accountability is nominal because you cannot sanction him without confirming he is still the real authority. It works only if the target is measurable, published, and yours to set; give him credit publicly when it moves.
Option (c) - private warning. Cheapest and least reversible. It converts a working relationship into an adversarial one, and with six weeks of tenure you have neither evidence nor standing to threaten. It also misreads the case: Ramesh has not been shown to be sabotaging anything; the group may simply be following a norm nobody has yet replaced.
Sequence most likely to work: (c) as a private conversation, but framed as an exchange of commitments rather than a warning - what you will fix (the board, the unfair metric) and what you need (instructions followed first, questions second). Then (b) with a real, published metric. Then (a) only if the metric fails to move in 60 days. Note the constraint: the plant head wants numbers in one quarter, so the 60-day test must be tracked weekly, not quarterly.