1. Perspective of organisational ef

1. Perspective of organisational effectiveness that Tina Stavros and James Alder attempt to apply in this case are Quality Management (QM) program and Continuous improvement (CI) teams.
• QM program:
 hired consultants to educate management and employees about the QM process, and send several managers to QM seminars
 visit other QM companies throughout the country and in other countries around the region
 give every employee in the organisation 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:
 most supervisors and employees were reluctant to get involved
 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

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.