Individual Case -Artic Mining Consultants

IndividualCase -Artic Mining Consultants

DateSubmitted

Issuesrelating to Artic Mining Consultant and proposed Alternative.

TheCase Issue Statement

Peoplein an organisation behave differently. When some need to havepositive motivation, others need negative motivation to perform theirtasks. Among the key factors that shape the behaviour of employees inthe workplace is their compensation. While some of the employees aremotivated to complete the task, some of them get motivated based onthe payment plan that they get and the perception they have towardswork. It is also important to acknowledge the individual differencesthat exist among the employees. In the case given for theArctic Mining Consultant, four crews were assigned tasks. At theplanning stage, the four partners Millar, Talbot, Parker, and Boycehad planned to finish the task in seven days and anticipated thatthey would work for 7 ½ lengths every day and be paid equally andalso get a bonus of $300 for each men and developed work plan.However, the problem came in because some of the team members did alesser job than the others, take for instance Miller who always didless. After the project had ended, they did not want to worktogether, but the work related issues would have attributed this. Thereport provides the reason for the problem and Alternative solutionwith the conclusion on the best option.

TheReason for problem Occurrence

Tworeasons would have contributed to the occurrence of the problem wheresome of the partners like Parker felt that they worked more than theothers and had a deadline to meet. First, the compensation plan wasequal regardless of how hard each worked and this would have madesome of them work even less because, at the end of the day, thecompensation was just the same. Again, they overlooked the individualdifferences that exist in the team where some employees feel that itis good to receive bonuses based on the work done rather than thecompletion of a task by the team as was the case in this fourpartners’ case. Again, the motivation behaviour of employees tendsto be different. For instance, while some of the employees aremotivated by what they will gain such as bonuses and thecompensation, some employees are negatively motivated beingthreatened to be deducted their salaries. Finally, the issue mighthave occurred as a result of tight targets that were set andoverlooked the skills and abilities of each partner in this case,when this may have contributed to the non-completion of the job.

AlternativeSolutions

Toresolve the problem and prevent the future occurrence of suchproblems, three options would have been taken. First, the tasks canbe assigned using the same measures as they did which were 7½ lengthand then bonuses be given for the partners who exceeded the targetsto ensure that they feel motivated and don’t complain instead ofgiving an equal bonus. The second alternative was allocating a shareof task for each individual and then making a plan based on thelength that each individual is supposed to complete hence extendingthe time. Finally, the other alternative would have been makingpayment different, where the partners are paid based on the work theyhave done and not a general pay for all. This would have motivatedthe partners to work more so that they can get better pay.

Conclusion

Themain problem, in this case, is some of the partners feeling that theyworked more than the others. There are main alternatives provided inthis case. However, the best alternative to prevent such occurrencewill be making payment of the partners be based on the amount of workdone and not equal pay for all regardless of work done and ensuringthat the bonuses are paid based on the amount of work done. Thiswould help eliminate the current problem and ensure that each personis compensated based on what they do.