0.Read the case study and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

1. Do Not contain bullet-point lists or sentences simply listing your points.

2. Not contain tables, graphs, or other figures. An appendix will NOT be necessary.

3. Contain in-text citations and a reference list using the Harvard system.

4. Write your response in the 3rd person i.e. do NOT use I or we

Gems of East Africa Company (GEAC) Gems of East Africa Company has a mission to create and grow sustainable value for their stakeholders through the application of best practices in mining and our commitment on protecting the health and wellbeing of our employees and the environment in the communities where we work. Their vision is to be a recognized gold mining company focused on growing sustainable production, delivering on our commitments for excellence and valuing and developing our employees. In addition, their VALUES include zero harm, dignity and respect, sustainability, collaboration and excellence. Several years ago, GEAC introduced teams in an effort to solve morale and productivity problems at its Arusha plant in Tanzania. GEAC used quite a sophisticated technology, employing European geologists, geo-physicists and engineers on what was referred to as the brains side of the business, as well as skilled and semi-skilled labour on the brawn side to run the companys underground extracting operations. The two sides regularly clashed, and when some engineers locked several operations workers out of the office in very hot weather, the local press had a field day. The company hired Mark Shifaya to develop a programme that would improve productivity and morale at the Arusha plant. The idea was that it would then be implemented at other sites. In Arusha, Shifaya had a stroke of luck in the form of Attilio Mgimwa, a long-time employee who was highly respected at the Arusha plant and was looking for one final challenging project before he retired. Mgimwa had served in just about every possible line and staff position at Arusha plant over his 39-year career, and he understood the problems workers faced on both the brains and the brawn sides of the business. Shifaya was pleased when Mgimwa agreed to serve as leader for the Arusha pilot project. Three functional groups at the Arusha plant included operations, made up primarily of hourly workers who operated and maintained the extracting equipment; the below ground group, consisting of engineers, geologists and geophysicists who determined where and how to drill; and the above ground group of engineers in charge of cursory refinement and transportation of the minerals. Two senior executives, Howard and Peterson, to whom Shifaya answered, decided their first steps was to get these different groups talking to one another and sharing ideas. They instituted a monthly problem chat, an optional meeting to which all employees were invited to discuss unresolved problems. At the first meeting, Shifaya and Mgimwa were the only two people who showed up. However, people gradually began to attend the meetings, and after about six months, they became lively problem-solving discussions that led to many improvements. For example, a maintenance worker complained that a standard piece of equipment failed repeatedly due to high levels of heat and sand contamination. Mgimwa listened carefully and then drew a facilities engineer into the discussion. The engineer came up with a new configuration better suited to the conditions, and downtime virtually disappeared. Next, Shifaya and Mgimwa introduced teams to select a problem and implement a tailored solution, or SPITS. These ad hoc groups were made up of members from each of the three functional areas. They were formed to work on a specific problem identified in a chat meeting and were then disbanded when the problem was solved. Arusha plant gave SPITS the authority to address problems without seeking management approval. Some rocky moments occurred when engineers resented working with operations personnel, and vice versa. However, over time, and with Mgimwas strong leadership, the groups eventually began to come together and focus on the issues rather than spending most of their time arguing. Eventually, workers in Arusha were organized into permanent cross-functional teams that were empowered to make their own decisions and elect their own leaders. After a year and a half, things were really humming. The different groups werent just working together; they had also started socialising together. At one of the problem chats, an operations worker jokingly suggested that the brains and the brawn should duke it out once a week to get rid of the tensions so they could focus all their energy on the job to be done. Several others joined in the joking, and eventually, the group decided to square off in a weekly softball game. Mgimwa had T-shirts printed up that said BRAINS and BRAWN. The softball games were well attended, and both sides usually ended up having a few beers together at a local bar afterward. Productivity and morale soared at the Arusha plant, and costs continued to decline. The company identified the Upanda plant as the next facility where Mark Shifaya and his team needed to introduce the cross-functional teams that had proven so successful in Arusha. Shifayas team felt immense pressure from top management to get the teambased productivity project up and running smoothly and quickly at Upanda. Top executives believed the lessons learned at Arusha would make implementing the programme at other sites less costly and time-consuming. However, when Shifaya and his team attempted to implement the programme at the Upanda plant, things didnt go well. Because people werent showing up for the problem chat meetings, the team made attendance mandatory. However, the meetings still produced few valuable ideas or suggestions. Although a few of the SPITS teams solved important problems, none of them showed the kind of commitment and enthusiasm Shifaya had seen in Arusha plant. In addition, the Upanda workers refused to participate in the softball games and other team-building exercises that the team developed for them. Shifaya finally convinced some workers to join in the softball games by bribing them with free food and beer. If I just had a Attilio Mgimwa in Upanda, things would go a lot more smoothly, Shifaya thought. These workers dont trust us the way workers in Arusha trusted him. It seemed that no matter how hard Shifaya and his team tried to make the project work in Upanda, morale continued to decline and conflicts between the different groups of workers actually seemed to increase.

QUESTIONS 1. Drawing on your knowledge from units 5, 6 & 7, what factors have contributed to the effective teamwork at different parts of the Arusha plant? Advise the senior executives of any risks that might be associated with a very strong team approach in the delivery of their products or services. Finally, describe and critically evaluate ONE new way in which the Arusha plant could maintain a high performance in their organisation. (400 500 words)

question 2. Using your research and knowledge from units 8 & 9 explain possible structural characteristics in the Upanda plant that might be causing Mark Shifayas project to work less well. The Upanda plant needs to improve the employee involvement climate, contain costs and meet production goals. Discuss the advice you would you give him and the more senior leaders to achieve these improvements, in a changing environment. (400 500 words)