Pacific Mines: Brian Boydell's Letter

This case demonstrates the requirement for complete alignment of values and philosophy with respect to the work system, rewards, human resource flow, and employee influence in order for strategic human resources management to work and be effective. Furthermore, SHRM is a system that evolves, rather than being implemented, from underlying fundamental values that appeals to and fulfills the self-concepts of all employees and requires transformational leaders to tie individuals' self concepts to organizational mission. Pacific Mines Limited and in particular Brian Boydell failed to properly align organizational mission with implementation strategies, and this was exacerbated by the lack of leadership and performance measures. To best understand what went wrong at Pacific Mines, we must examine the organization, its system, its leaders, and situational factors more closely.

Situational Factors

The business strategy of the organization is not very well disclosed, but the competitive advantage of the firm is generated by efficiency and economies of scale in the highly automated process of ammonia and urea production. The fact that this process is completely automated brings to question how challenging and satisfying the job might be, and whether so many operators (8 to eventually 32) are required when the computer is functional. Management philosophy at the Carseland plant is stated as "team concept", which is emphasized by the Employee Relations Document. The document states that the mission of the plant is to provide an integrated approach to human management I order to achieve a safe, highly efficient work environment. However, whether this is actually the management philosophy is questionable. We learn that Pat Irving, the project manager strongly values the soft HRM strategy, while the new VP in Vancouver, Ron Holmes, is hard-nosed and engaged in adversarial relations with the union. This suggests a clash of corporate philosophies, where headquarters and upper management most likely practice a Zeus,or power culture, while the plant is attempting to practice an Athena, task centred culture. In addition, Brian Boydell's noted distrust of the "organization development people" makes it very questionable whether the uniterism is an aligned management philosophy.

The document also states that the plant is striving for "creativity and initiative" from its employees, where "employees will be encouraged to develop their job-related skills", but given the high degree of automation of the process, it is difficult to see where these factors fit in for an operator. It is also worth noting that the eight hired operators were chosen form a rather small pool of available skilled labour that severely limits the ability to ensure alignment between new employees and the existing organizational mission and management philosophy.

Work System

The work system is presently organized to emphasize team work and is in line with a soft human resource management strategy. By virtually eliminating the hierarchical system employees envision equality and can work toward the same goals of the company. The management tree is essentially flat at Pacific Mines, which could work to positively influence the soft HRM strategy. In accordance with this approach, the plant possesses a decentralized system that increases the level of responsibility and decision making for all individuals. Thus, the competent functional operator teams are enabled to control their work and the level of employee influence is high. According to Handy's job model, such jobs would be classified as a "big doughnut" where the core, or defined tasks are small, while the undefined region is large in comparison and thus allows an employee great influence in defining their role. Operators are capable of and do perform several jobs, whether less or more sophisticated then their own. If such a system is to work then, as Pacific Mines understands, extensive training is of the highest importance. The Athena, task oriented culture sees employees as Schien's "social man" who is driven by the need to bond, and feels fulfilled and loyal within a "family" social setting.

Pat Irving's questions are in line with soft HRM big doughnut jobs, and his first question is particular also provides us a basis to understand what went wrong with respect to the work system at Pacific Mines.

What are we trying to do?

This is the problem. What is Pacific Mines trying to do? The biggest problem here is consistency. First, the Carseland Pacific Mines plant is trying to implement a "one big happy family" management system that fulfills humans' social needs, but meetings are far too rare, particularly with upper management. The core team seldom met with the operators and the general superintendent, Bruce Floyd, had yet to meet the operators. This is hardly an effective team building strategy. Second, at the plant level, it seems that the mission is in the process, while at head office, the mission is in the profit? Pat Irving is attempting to implement a decentralized system, in which individuals are well informed of any and all plant activities, are involved in many aspects of policy making, hiring, and training, to promote a uniterist society that develops commitment, competence of its employees. We can infer from the enormous expenses devoted to training that a job security is not an issue. What is the work system of head office in Vancouver? We cannot be sure, but the fact that permission must be sought from headquarters for all funding activities suggests a rather centralized system, where the plant has little authority to make its own decisions. The new "hardnosed" VP, probably sees employees rather as "rational economic man", bad uncooperative robots that must be controlled and are driven only by extrinsic reward. Unions as a result are a nuisance and adversaries rather than potential allies. A management system is only appealing if it is cost-effective. Thus, at the plant level, it seems that the mission is tied to the process, while at head office, the mission is profit?

The team concept system being implemented at the Carseland plant requires that management adopt a paternal role that is friendly, fair and firm. We see that this is not the case since the operators are left entirely to their own devices with no feedback whether supportive, or control and performance measurement are non-existent. This management strategy is more aligned with "self-actualizing man" strategy. The operators are certainly motivated to socialize, but not perform. This is clear by their demand to reduce working hours. Whether their performance is adequate will also