Organizational Behavior. The Brewster-Seaview Landscaping Co. Part 1 During the summer of my freshman year in college, I worked for a small private landscaping company planting shrubs, seeding new lawns, cutting grass, and tending flower gardens. The company was located in my hometown of Seaview, N.J., which is a rural community on the coast about 80 miles from Philadelphia. The company was owned and run by Joe Brewster, a 45-yearold man who had lived in Seaview all his life. He had started the company some years ago and not only handled the paperwork (payroll, bills, estimates, and so on), but also worked along with the crew six days a week. The crew consisted of five guys ranging in age from 17 to 20 years. We all lived in towns around Seaview and had gone to the regional high school, which was located in Seaview. Only two of us were attending college, but all had been hired personally by Joe following a short, informal interview. I can’t be completely certain about the others, but I think all of us and several others sought the job because we needed work, enjoyed the outdoors, and had heard that Joe paid well and was an OK guy to work for. Working hours were from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with an hour off for lunch, Monday through Saturday. Once in a while we’d work overtime to help out some customer who had an urgent need. Each worker began at the same base wage and was eligible for bonuses based on the number of customers he or she referred to Joe that actually resulted in a landscaping contract. Also, we were hired with the understanding that hard workers would be rehired the next summer at a higher wage. Several of the crew I was part of had been rehired under this policy. Most of the customers we serviced lived in Seaview, knew Joe personally, and seemed to respect him. Joe owned one truck which he used to transport all of us and necessary supplies and equipment from job to job. Each morning he would read off a list of houses that had to be completed that day. He would then leave it up to us to decide among ourselves who would do what task while at a particular house. We also were the ones who determined by our work pace how long we would spend at each house. In doing the work itself, we were able to use our own ideas and methods. If we did a good job, Joe would always compliment us. If we lacked the necessary know-how or did a poor job, Joe was right there willing to help us. At each house, Joe worked along with us doing basically the same work we did. He dressed the same as we did and was always very open and friendly toward us. He seldom “showed his authority,” and treated us as equals. Although our workday was scheduled to begin at 8, Joe never became upset or penalized us if we were 10 or 15 minutes late. Our lunch hour was usually an hour long starting anytime between 11:30 and 12:30 depending on what time we, the crew, felt like eating. Each member brought his own lunch to work and anytime during the day could take time off to go to the truck for a snack. The crew itself became very well acquainted, and we were always free to talk and joke with each other at any time and did so. We enjoyed each other’s company, although we did not socialize after hours. We also became very friendly with the customers. They were always eager to talk to us as we worked, and Joe never objected. All in all, the job had a very relaxed, easygoing atmosphere. I for one felt little pressure to hurry and, like the others, respected and liked Joe very much. 2 The attitude we had toward the job was very high. We sometimes talked among ourselves about how we felt a sense of responsibility toward the job. While we talked and joked a lot while working, little horseplay occurred; and the talking and joking did not interfere with the work. We were always working steadily and efficiently, seeking to keep ahead of schedule. The days seemed to go fairly quickly and a lot seemed to get done. I know Joe said that our output was 15 percent above that which other landscaping companies experienced with summer crews. We also took a lot of pride in our work. Feeling responsible for the job we did, we were constantly checking and rechecking every job to be sure it was perfect. We were always willing to work overtime for Joe when he needed us to do so. Part II I returned the following summer to work for Joe because of the strong satisfaction I had with the job the summer before. So did the others. However, we were in for a surprise. Many things had changed. Joe had increased the number of workers to 10, bought another truck, and hired two young college graduates from Philadelphia as crew supervisors. His plan was to concentrate on the paperwork and on lining up new customers, leaving the direct guidance of the two work crews to the new supervisors. Joe had hired the two supervisors during the early spring after interviewing a number of applicants. Both were young (23 and 24), from the city, and had degrees in agricultural management from Penn State, but had not known each other previously. We “old timers” were assigned to one crew and five new workers were hired for the other crew. Because the job market was tighter this year, we were hired at the same base pay as the five new workers, but we were told that we would still be able to make bonus money based on referrals but the new people didn’t have this option. These new workers had little experience in landscaping. Except for the working hours, which were the same as during the previous summer, the two supervisors were told that they could run their crew in any manner they wished as long as they kept to the schedule prepared by Joe. No one on the crew had known the supervisors before. Joe had found them through ads in the paper. The supervisors didn’t dress quite as informally as Joe did, perhaps because they didn’t do as much actual physical work, but they did dress casually in dungarees and shirts, the same as the crew. Though we called the supervisors by their first names, they did some nit-picky things. For example, Joe never cared who drove the truck or who did what job; sometimes a crew member would drive and Joe would talk with the rest of us. But the supervisors always drove the truck and decided when we would eat. Nor did the supervisors help us unload the tools as Joe had done. They stood around and watched us. Both supervisors refused to tolerate tardiness in the morning and immediately set up a scheduled lunch hour which would remain the same throughout the summer. We were no longer allowed to go to the truck for a snack during the day and were constantly being watched over by our supervisor. The supervisors assigned us to specific tasks to be done at each job and told us how “they” wanted them to be completed. They also told us how much time we were to spend doing each job. They refused to let us talk to each other or to the customers (except about business) saying that it “only wasted time and interfered with our work.” It was a more structured, more formal atmosphere than the summer before. 3 I was disappointed at the new setup and a little bit surprised that Joe hadn’t hired one of the more experienced members of the old crew as supervisor. But I figured it was necessary because of the increased volume of business so I tried to make the best of it. However, very soon my attitude and that of the rest of the old crew fell significantly. We began to hate the new supervisors and soon lost interest in the work itself. While I’m a person who usually is very conscientious and responsible, I have to admit that before long I, along with the others began, to put little care or concern into my work. The supervisors soon found it very difficult to get anyone to work overtime. The new employees didn’t react as strongly as we did, but I could tell that they weren’t working with much enthusiasm, either. I thought about talking to the supervisors but didn’t because I’d only worked there the one year and figured that it was not my place to. The others were older than I and had worked there longer so I figured that they should, but no one did. Instead, we talked among ourselves and individually griped to Joe. Joe didn’t seem to know how to deal with our complaints. He passed them off by saying, “Oh … I’ll talk to the supervisors and straighten it out with them.” But nothing changed, and in fact they seemed to clamp down more and push even harder. This only made us madder. Our work rate continued to fall. Incidentally, throughout this period we had little social interaction with the supervisors, but I noticed that they became more and more friendly with each other. Meanwhile the new crew’s difficulties increased. Being new and inexperienced, they couldn’t do the work as easily as we could. Also the supervisors didn’t, or couldn’t, give them adequate training. Their productivity went lower and lower. The supervisors were very upset and yelled at them, pushing them to get out their quota. We felt sorry for them and tried to help them; but we concentrated on reluctantly meeting our own quota. I don’t think Joe realized that the supervisors were not teaching the new crewmen. He was very busy and not around much, and I think he assumed that they were training the new men. I think he began to put pressure on the supervisors as the work rate fell, because things continued to get worse. We couldn’t talk to customers, which surprised them. We couldn’t even accept drinks. Production lagged greatly as compared to the previous summer, and the two supervisors struggled to meet the schedule and deal with customer complaints about quality. By July 15th, the overall productivity of the company was 5 percent below “normal” and way below the previous summer. As Joe became aware of this huge decrease in production, he became very concerned and wondered what to do about it. Source: Adapted from Allan R. Cohen, Stephen L. Fink, Herman Gadon, and Robin D. Willits, Effective Behavior in Organizations, 5th ed. Copyright © 1992. Reproduced with permission of the McGraw-Hill Company 4 Discussion Questions 1. Use Expectancy Theory to show how the motivations of the work crews have changed from the first summer to the second summer. 2. Use the MARS model to explain factors other than motivation that may have prompted the change in work behaviours of the work crews from the first summer to the second summer. 3. The work crews were affected by the expectations of their supervisors. Explain in detail how Joe Brewster’s self-fulfilling prophecy of the work crews differed from the self-fulfilling prophecy the new supervisors had of the work crews. Instructions 1. The Basics a. Do not include an introduction or a conclusion to the paper. b. Use 12 point Times New Roman, 2.54 cm margins, left justified, double-spaced, and single-sided. The body of the paper will be a maximum of 6 pages. I stop reading at the end of the 6th page. 2. Style a. Provide clear, simple, direct, concise responses to the questions using relevant theories. Say what you need to say in as few words as possible. Get to the point quickly. No fluff, please. Fluff is meaningless verbiage such as “motivation is very important in today’s society”. b. You do not need to define or cite the key concepts. c. You do not need to provide a summary of the case. d. Stay focused on your topic. 3. Layout a. Your cover page should have the course name, section number, date, name of the case, and your full name and student number. Your cover page is not considered one of the six pages of your maximum. b. Number the pages, bottom right. c. Assign each question a sub-heading. Use bold italics for sub-headings. (You don’t need to start a new page for each question.) d. Do not use report folders: staple the upper left-hand corner. 4. Submitting the Paper. a. Submit a hardcopy of the paper at the start of class. b. Submit an electronic copy of your document to the Assignments Folder called Individual Case in Assessment Link on Brightspace prior to class. c. Name your electronic document based on your own name. Use LastnameFirstname (e.g. ChurchRobin).

    Organizational Action

    Trust System of Motivation

    Organizational action refers to the consider of how separates interact in a ardent collection or an composition. This consider is chattelsed with a inducement of creating causative compositions. Unanalogous compositional action theories are authenticationd by the anthropological contrivance with an manage of motivating and maximizing special members outspread (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson, 2007). Shapeless the theories that the anthropological contrivance authentication is the trust system. In the year 1964 Victor Vroom came up with the trust system of motivation. The system says that actions object from aware choices shapeless potential choices whose manage is to acception inclination and to curtail asceticism. Vroom argues that the exploit of an employee is installed on some indivisible circumstanceors love skills, habit, abilities, and information (Isaac, Zerbe and Pitt, 2001).

    In the Brewster-Seaview circumstance, the is-sueer’s motivation radical from summer to the assist summer, this was becaauthentication of the transmute in treatment and the is-sue composition. With the deployment of the brace upstart supervisors to Brewster-Seaview guild, employee’s motivation and zeal was reported to emanate drastically. This was becaauthentication the supervisors did referable inclination the centre believes of the trust system which involve valence, trust, and agency.


        Valence is the appreciate which employees concatenate with the overperfect chattels. It is the melting adjustments that employees love in connection to compensates or chattelss. It is basically the how considerable an employee wants immanent or pretended compensates. Pretended compensates involve profits, currency, or uniform furtherance inasmuch-as immanent compensates are basically environing amends (Isaac et al., 2001). The supervisors did referable pay observation to this. During the preceding summer employees authenticationd to love profits love span-extempore where they would go love snacks a im-munity that the upstart supervisors robbed the team. The aged team loveed the proaccord of incentives ce a is-sue polite-mannered-mannered chattelsed calm?} the upstart team did referable attain to love that.


        These are the employee’s trust on effort-performance. It is the employee’s sight that the efforts they spread in upshots to exploit. Employees vary in trust and trust flatten on their objectowment to entrust (Isaac et al., 2001). In the Brewster-Seaview circumstance the principal summer employees is-sueed on their indivisible trusts gsingle they calculated duties ce themselves on what each separate succeed do at integral varyent extemporespring, they uniform determined on their admit tenor deadlines, calm?} with the prelude of supervisors who had their admit schedules on who does what and at what span, and pressured the team on tenor deadlines, that killed the team’s motivation and artful productivity. The upstart team was as-polite artful gsingle they were upstart to the is-sue and were is-sueing on very demanding spanlines.


        Agency is the connectionship shapeless exploit and compensate. It is where the employees attain to evaluate whether what they hanker or what was promised succeed in-circumstance be entrusted (Isaac et al., 2001). The circumstance that Mr. Joe did referable grandeur his hirement on increasing the team’s stipobject and calm?} went and remunerated other employees killed the team’s motivation on whether the incentives of a is-sue polite-mannered-mannered chattelsed succeed in-circumstance be entrusted.

    MARS Model and Transmute in Is-sue Action

    The MARS Model explains the special action as the outobject of apparent and interior influences and circumstanceors finishedly. MARS stands ce an employee’s indivisible Motivation, Abilities, Role sight, and Situational circumstanceors. The indecent aspects are explanation to determining special upshots and actions. Perfect the indecent circumstanceors give exploit with a partial chattels. The indecent circumstanceors must is-sue concomitantly and if single circumstanceor is unsound, it affects the entire compositional exploit. The MARS Model combines an employee’s special characteristics love appreciates, self-concept, indivisibleity, urgency, emotions, and lies, and sight to attain upshots love maintaining retinue, compositional citizenship, undertaking exploit, and counter-efficient is-sueing actions (McShane and Von Glinow, 2013).

    In the Brewster-Seaview circumstance, unanalogous circumstanceors from the MARS Model played a pompous role in the transmute of is-sue action in the brace summer seasons. Other than motivation the other circumstanceors of the MARS Model artful is-sue action by;

    Employee Might

    This is the scholarly capabilities and aptitudes that an employee requires to successfully finished the ardent undertaking. Might has indecent space which involve scholarly capabilities- this is the courtly information and skills, competencies- these are special appreciates and abilities, aptitudes- this a true objectowment that enables separates to understand causatively and to is-sue very chattelsively, and separate-accord is-sue- they involve selecting a competent team, developing the employee’s might through grafting, and redesigning the undertakings to s that they accord the abilities of the employees. With the prelude of the brace supervisors nsingle of the over mentioned were followed. Mr. Joe left perfect duties to the supervisors who had unimportant information of the undertakings. The supervisors did referable distinguish the employee’s abilities and hereafter could referable perfectocate them where they best accord this artful productivity. The supervisors did referable love habit on how the guild oozes and so they did referable love the skills to retinue the upstart team on how to ooze things, this artful the upstart team’s exploit.

    Role Sight

    Role sight is environing agreement what our duties are, what is expected of us, the preferred action in completing the ardent undertakings and clarifying the role sights. Role sights helps to correct coordination shapeless employees and gives conspicuous motivation which translates to causative is-sue exploit (McShane and Von Glinow, 2013). Compared to the preceding summer where the team had selected roles, they had their admit motivation in undertaking tenor, and kupstart what was expected of them, the assist summer ultimately, things got a unimportant shaken up and with the prelude of very precise rules and always watching supervisor’s the employees obsolete their opinion of inclination and were averse with their undertakings gsingle they felt love their hard-is-sue was referable appreciated.

    Situational Circumstanceors

        These are environmental stipulations that prepare or limits is-sue action, these involve the budget, is-sue facilities, span-bound, and team members. These are the circumstanceors that an employee canreferable pauserain (McShane and Von Glinow, 2013). In our circumstance, stipulations love span jump where the during the assist summer employees were subjected to a urban span jump where they could referable attain span extempore is-sue, this artful their exploit, unlove the preceding summer where they uniform had span ce snacks. The team players as-polite artful their is-sue action, this is becaauthentication employees are reckoned to is-sue concomitantly in the realization the guild’s intent calm?} in our circumstance consider the supervisors failed to hire with the pause of the teams calm?} watched them as they is-sueed, this made the teams love a indirect lie towards them, Mr. Joe who is the master precedingly authenticationd to waste is-sue attires and is-sueed with his team, this disparity artful the aged team that initially is-sueed very polite-mannered-mannered extraneously supervision. This at the object artful the is-sue action and as a upshot, it artful the guild’s productivity.

    Joe Brewster’s Self-Fulfilling Prospect vs Supervisors Self-Fulfilling Prospect

        The exploit of the teams in-particular the aged team was extremely artful by their trusts on how the supervisors succeed treat the is-sue. In the preceding summer Mr. Joe Brewster, the boss of the guild had the self-fulfilling prospect of is-sueing concomitantly with his team and making stable that integral team player was cozy in his nearness, he made stable that the team was cozy uniform to divide ideas, he treated them as parentage. Mr. Joe uniform perfectowed team members animate his exchange as he chats to the pause of the team. This made the team members cozy, this uniform motivated them to beobject uniform improve and over efficient, the upshots were very conspicuous gsingle the is-sue outspread was 15 percent over his two-of-a-trade.

        The circumstance was ultimately varyent with the prelude of supervisors who were immature and craving ce might. The supervisors had degrees in agricultural treatment which probably made them feel better to the other team members gsingle most of them were students. The eagerness of the supervisors to training their mights on the employees caused vexation, and with the prelude of rules love no chating to clients, no chating to teammates during is-sue hours, made the team players referable barely dislove the supervisors calm?} as-polite artful their is-sue action. The circumstance that the aged team was authenticationd to each other and authenticationd to chat and uniform chaff during is-sue hours killed their zeal.


    Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2007). Treatment of compositional action (Vol. 9). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice bisection.

    Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W. J., & Pitt, D. C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The chattelsive impression of trust system. Journal of managerial issues, 212-226.

    McShane, S., & Von Glinow, M. (2013). M Compositional Action. Upstart York, Upstart York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.