1. Jersey Dairies, Inc. faced incre

1. Jersey Dairies, Inc. faced increasing competition that threatened its dominant market share in the Pacific Northwest and Jersey’s largely unskilled workforce had difficulty learning. To solve these problems, Perspective of organizational effectiveness that Tina Stavros and James Alder attempt to apply in this case are Quality Management (QM) program and Continuous improvement (CI) teams, they hope that these perspective will improve situation of firm.
specification:
• QM program:
 Jersey president Tina Stavros created a new position called vice- president of quality and hired consultants to educate management and employees about the QM process, and send several managers to QM seminars
 A steering team of managers and few employees visited other QM companies throughout the country and in other countries around the region
 Jersey president Tina Stavros created a new position called vice- president of quality , and hired James Alder who previously worked as a QM consultant at a major consulting firm into that position.
 give every employee in the organization several days of training in quality measurement, structured problem solving and related QM practices
 To gain more support for QM, Jersey president Tina Stavros spoke regularly to employees and supervisors about how QM was their answer to beating the competition and saving jobs.
• CI teams:
 Alder worked with production managers to form continuous improvement (CI) teams- groups ò employees who looked for ways to cut costs, time, and space throughout the work process.
 most supervisors and employees were reluctant to get involved. Supervisors complained that the IC teams were “asking too many questions” about activities in their department.
 Less than one-quarter of the production areas formed CI teams because employees thought QM was a fancy way for management to speed up the work
 Setting higher production targets and requiring employees to complete the tasks of those who were absent form work …

2. Organizations are considered effective when they have a good fit with their external environment, when their internal subsystems are configured for a high performance workplace, when they are learning organizations, and when they satisfy the needs of key stakeholder. But their internal not satisfied with the way of Stavors and Alder. The proofs are:
 Stavros and Alder warned employees that they must support the QM program to save their jobs. Warning employees that they must support the QM program to save their jobs was an ineffective way to encouraging employee involvement in continuous improvement (CI) teams. This may have caused employee energy levels and coping effectiveness to decrease; moreover, creating psychological consequences (job dissatisfaction, depression, exhaustion, moodiness, burnout) and behavioural consequences (lower job performance, more accidents, faulty decisions, higher absenteeism, and workplace aggression).
 Most supervisors and employees were reluctant to get involved because the decision of implementing QM was not discussed with employees. If any motivation was present in adopting QM it evaporated slowly but surely due to the largely unskilled workforce having difficulty learning the training material, resulting in another round of training one year later. Senior management's decision of implementing QM to strengthen company goals was not involved with the supervisors and employees. Goal setting is usually more effective when employees participate with setting goals because these decisions directly affect them. Thus, participation ensures that employees buy into the goals and have the competencies and resources necessary to accomplish them.
 Supervisors complained that the CI teams were ‘asking too many questions’ about activities in their department
 Less than one-quarter of the production areas formed CI teams because employees thought QM was a fancy way for management to speed up the work.
 Although some CI teams did find cost savings, these were mostly offset by higher expenses. Jersey Dairies has nearly tripled training budget and had significantly higher paid-time-off costs as the employees have taken these courses.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

1. Jersey Dairies, Inc phải đối mặt với cạnh tranh ngày càng tăng mà đe dọa chi phối thị phần của nó ở Tây Bắc Thái Bình Dương và Jersey của lực lượng lao động hầu như không có kỹ năng đã học tập khó khăn. Để giải quyết những vấn đề này, quan điểm của hiệu quả tổ chức Tina Stavros và James Alder cố gắng áp dụng trong trường hợp này là chương trình quản lý chất lượng (QM) và cải tiến liên tục (CI) đội, họ hy vọng rằng người sẽ cải thiện vị trí của công ty.đặc điểm kỹ thuật:• QM chương trình: Jersey tổng thống Tina Stavros tạo một vị trí mới gọi là phó chủ tịch chất lượng và thuê chuyên gia tư vấn giáo dục quản lý và nhân viên về quá trình QM, và gửi một số nhà quản lý để QM hội thảo A chỉ đạo đội ngũ quản lý và vài nhân viên truy cập công ty QM khác trong cả nước và ở các nước khác xung quanh khu vực Jersey tổng thống Tina Stavros tạo ra một vị trí mới gọi là phó chủ tịch chất lượng, và thuê James Alder người từng làm việc như một nhà tư vấn QM tại một công ty tư vấn lớn vào vị trí đó.  cung cấp cho mỗi nhân viên trong tổ chức nhiều ngày kể từ ngày đào tạo trong đo lường chất lượng, giải quyết vấn đề có cấu trúc và liên quan QM thực tiễn Để đạt được thêm hỗ trợ cho QM, tổng thống Jersey Tina Stavros nói thường xuyên với nhân viên và giám sát viên về làm thế nào QM là câu trả lời của họ để đánh bại đối thủ cạnh tranh và tiết kiệm công ăn việc làm.• CI đội: Alder làm việc với nhà quản lý sản xuất để hình thức cải tiến liên tục (CI) đội-nhóm ò nhân viên đã tìm kiếm cách để cắt giảm chi phí, thời gian và không gian trong suốt quá trình làm việc. most supervisors and employees were reluctant to get involved. Supervisors complained that the IC teams were “asking too many questions” about activities in their department. Less than one-quarter of the production areas formed CI teams because employees thought QM was a fancy way for management to speed up the work Setting higher production targets and requiring employees to complete the tasks of those who were absent form work …2. Organizations are considered effective when they have a good fit with their external environment, when their internal subsystems are configured for a high performance workplace, when they are learning organizations, and when they satisfy the needs of key stakeholder. But their internal not satisfied with the way of Stavors and Alder. The proofs are: Stavros and Alder warned employees that they must support the QM program to save their jobs. Warning employees that they must support the QM program to save their jobs was an ineffective way to encouraging employee involvement in continuous improvement (CI) teams. This may have caused employee energy levels and coping effectiveness to decrease; moreover, creating psychological consequences (job dissatisfaction, depression, exhaustion, moodiness, burnout) and behavioural consequences (lower job performance, more accidents, faulty decisions, higher absenteeism, and workplace aggression). Most supervisors and employees were reluctant to get involved because the decision of implementing QM was not discussed with employees. If any motivation was present in adopting QM it evaporated slowly but surely due to the largely unskilled workforce having difficulty learning the training material, resulting in another round of training one year later. Senior management's decision of implementing QM to strengthen company goals was not involved with the supervisors and employees. Goal setting is usually more effective when employees participate with setting goals because these decisions directly affect them. Thus, participation ensures that employees buy into the goals and have the competencies and resources necessary to accomplish them.  Supervisors complained that the CI teams were ‘asking too many questions’ about activities in their department Less than one-quarter of the production areas formed CI teams because employees thought QM was a fancy way for management to speed up the work. Although some CI teams did find cost savings, these were mostly offset by higher expenses. Jersey Dairies has nearly tripled training budget and had significantly higher paid-time-off costs as the employees have taken these courses.