Define the term market share.

With reference to Mei and Chi, explain two differences between a manager and a leader.

Applying Maslow’s theory of needs, explain two reasons why the workers at CM are becoming demotivated.

Examine two industrial/employee relations methods other than strike action that workers could use at CM.

Market share is the measurement of one organization’s sales (total revenue) in relation to the total industry sales (total revenue). The market share is presented as a percentage.

Market share = $\frac{\text{organization's sales revenue}}{\text{industry's sales revenue}}$ x 100

Candidates are not expected to word their definition exactly as above.

Award [1] for a basic definition that conveys partial knowledge and understanding. For example, only the formula is given.

Award [2] for a full, clear definition that conveys knowledge and understanding similar to the answer above. The candidate must demonstrate understanding that the market share is measured as a percentage or portion.

Do not credit an example.

A leader of an organization will probably be the overall strategic and goal setter. Based on experience, a leader will determine the vision for a business and if required, changes which will need to be made if the vision is in danger of not being realized. The leader therefore establishes direction, aligning employees, motivating, mentoring, inspiring as well as producing change. A leader inspires employees.

The main role of a manager is achieving specific organisational goals. A manager will attempt to put the vision of the business into daily practice looking more at shortterm goals and day to day tactics. Managers will inevitably be involved with planning and budgeting and monitoring financial and individual performance more closely. Managers may micro-manage works including organizing resources and staffing to ensure that individual job performance is being maintained consistent with the goals of the organization. A manager also creates predictability and order.

From the stimulus it appears that Chi normally sets the vision of the business. He set up CM; he had the right business idea and has contributed considerably to the growth and success of CM. It also appears that Chi inspires and motivates many employees to follow a shared vision and indeed they are very loyal. His span of control is seemingly quite large. Implicit in the case is that his paternalistic leadership style is in contrast to Mei’s more ‘autocratic’ approach and resultsfocused approach.

A leader normally emerges while managers are appointed. Mei as the manager has the official skills to manage while Chi has natural leadership ability.

Mei was appointed by Chi and seems intent on modernizing the organisation and therefore has the power to make some changes, but has not yet earned the trust of employees. Chi who was the founder of CM naturally emerged as a leader and inspired and motivated employees.

Leaders build trust using their charisma. At the moment, Chi is the one who is trusted and admired and followed and has control over the strategic direction while Mei is responsible for implementing changes although change is inevitable.

Managers follow rules and expectations. Mei is a manager who uses her theoretical knowledge to manage and set new objectives. With her use of new business theory and desire to restructure the organisation, Mei is probably looking to bring the organization up to date to boost efficiency. There is evidence that Mei is micro-managing employees through her desire to introduce job enlargement and enrichment schemes – real sources of tension leading to potential conflict. It is very likely that Mei is monitoring individual performance very closely in contrast to Chi’s paternal approach.

As a manager, Mei is listened to due to her official title not her personality. While Chi is listened to due to his charisma, personal qualities and paternalistic attitude towards employees.

Mei also plans to implement an official performance appraisal system and thinks systematically but it alienates the employees.

Accept any other relevant difference between a manager and a leader and if that difference is supported by the stimulus.

A role / characteristic can be applied to both roles but must be explained from different perspectives to be seen as two differences.

Mark as 2 + 2.

Award [1] for each relevant difference between a manager and a leader explained and [1] for appropriate application to the organization to a maximum of [2].

It is expected that the candidates describe the Maslow theory of needs in terms of the hierarchy and the progression from the lower level of needs to the higher ones.

It is not expected that the response is divided into two explicit parts. The candidates can introduce theory while applying / linking / explaining an argument from the stimulus.

The application may include the following:

The proposed annual individual contracts based on annual appraisal may stop the employee from even reaching the lower level of needs like safety / job security. Not being able to satisfy such a need will definitely create demotivation and stop the employee from reaching higher levels of needs.

(Candidates may apply this issue to the lowest level of needs.)

Due to the proposed changes like the introduction of job enlargement, job enrichment and empowerment, employees might not even be able to reach the higher levels of needs, more specifically esteem and possibly self-actualization as they are not used to such practices and challenging tasks as well as a general fear of the unknown, hence may be demotivated. They are manual-skilled employees who have never been appraised before.

The retirement of many of their peers, may negatively affect the motivation level of the remaining employees. They may no longer be able to fulfil love or belonging needs as the social structure and group support may have disappeared.

Accept any other relevant application.

N.B.: do not penalize if the pyramid of needs is not drawn, provided that the theory is explained.

Mark as 2+2 (Theory and Application)

The theory

Award [1] for a brief/partial description of Maslow’s theory. Some levels of needs may be missing or only the pyramid may be presented/drawn with no explanation.

Award [2] for a clear explanation of the theory.

The application to the case

Award [1] for application to the case, which is superficial for both reasons OR only one reason is clearly explained and applied.

Award [2] for a relevant, clearly explained application of both reasons why workers are becoming demotivated.

Up to [2] can be awarded for a good explanation as to why workers are demotivated even if the Maslow theory is not used.

It is expected that the candidate incorporates theoretical knowledge of two industrial/employee relations methods with direct application and judgment that is relevant to CM.

One of the possible options is to use negotiation through the process of collective bargaining. It is the least disruptive form of industrial action both to the employees and to the CM. Moreover, the employees are already members of a trade union. Hence, the infrastructure for negotiation has already been established. Given the successful outcome of past collective pay negotiations, it appears that some trust has been established between the management of CM and the employee representatives. The manual-skilled employees probably need the support of a trade union representative and for no extra cost to the employees, negotiation can be started.

However, Mei is not paternalistic like her father and she may resist the involvement of a union representative especially her proposed movement towards individual contracts based on individual performance appraisal. Collective bargaining might be of little use given the proposed change. She might prefer individual bargaining. Still
a door for communication can be opened with the use of a representative which also reduces the time and resources for CM if individual bargaining is used.

The negotiation process may be long and time consuming. Mei seems to want the change to happen soon. One may see this option as a very significant / good option.

Other options are:

Go slow/slowdowns: the employees at CM will work at the minimum speed allowed under their contract.

Work-to-rule: the employees of CM follow their contract / rules and regulations without giving any goodwill to CM.

Overtime bans: refuse to work overtime when asked to by management.

Clearly, all of the above will reduce the current well established goodwill of employees; create a very negative and unproductive atmosphere / working relationship especially between Chi and his employees.

CM may lose the high quality of the product and quick delivery to customers. Both seem to be CM’s USP. Flexibility and hard work clearly enable CM to meet fluctuating demand. CM may lose its customers if demand is not met on time and the products are not delivered punctually.

Clearly, JIT manufacturing will be severely affected given the short time from order to delivery expected by the car manufacturers.

One may judge the consequences of the above on CM as severe given the past success and the nature of production.

However, given the severe negative effects on CM’s productivity and quality, Mei might be willing to speed up negotiations as well as to compromise. The employees are likely to be successful as they actually do not break any rules or the law and work according to their contract. Counter action on behalf of CM is unlikely to happen.

Moreover, employees might be negatively affected as well. Currently, they rely on and receive additional payments for overtime. Many employees might suffer a considerable loss of earnings especially when fluctuating demand is very high. Employees might experience financial difficulties given the nature of their employment — manual skilled.

Although the three options above (apart from negotiation) are similar in the nature of the action taken and the effects both on the employees and CM, accept any response that incorporates two methods, provided the discussion is not identical.

Overall, given the possible and the more significant consequences of the last three options, for both the employees and CM (especially overtime bans among the last three), perhaps it is recommended that CM’s management especially Mei accept the collective negotiation / bargaining option that proved successful in the past, even if her strategic direction is towards individualism.

The negative effects on CM and the employees are minimal. The employees can intensify their action if the negotiation fails, but it is worth a try to start with the most moderated action and to see if Mei is willing to compromise once the benefits of the proposed changes are explained to the employees.

Accept any other substantiated judgment.

N.B. do not credit strike action.

It is expected that candidates provide a conclusion with a substantiated judgment.

Marks should be allocated according to the paper 2 markbands for May 2016 forward.

For one relevant issue that is one-sided, award up to [3]. For more than one relevant issue that is one-sided, award up to a maximum of [4].

If a candidate evaluates / addresses only one method, award a maximum of [5].

A balanced response is one that provides at least one argument for and one argument against each option.

Candidates may contrast one option with another for a balance as long as at least two arguments are given for each option.

Award a maximum of [6] if the answer is of a standard that shows balanced analysis and understanding throughout the response with reference to the stimulus material but there is no judgment/conclusion.

Candidates cannot reach the [7–8] markband if they give judgment/conclusions that are not based on analysis/explanation already given in their answer.