Arctic Mining Consultants case study



ArcticMining Consultants case study

ArcticMining Consultants case study

Inthe case, an expert Tom Parker is hired by Arctic Mining Consultantsto manage some of the employees. Tom Parker has a wide range ofnontechnical experience in the mining in the mining industry,especially minerals explorations. He has specialized knowledge inmajor activities in the mining field, which includes soil sampling,claim staking, line cutting and grid installation and trenching amongothers. When he is hired by Arctic Mining Consultants, he is giventhe responsibility of managing the mining staff which includeshiring, training and supervision of the employees, mainly fieldassistance. However, this field assistance received relatively lowwages paid on daily bases. However, the company provided them withaccommodation as well as meals. Although there were project managers,who are responsible for the daily operations of the mine, they reportto Tom Parker. He had the responsibility of cutting claim post every500 yards. This means that the 15 claims required a line of at least60 miles. However, this job must be completed within seven days. Thefour field assistance (Millar, Boyce, Parker, Talbot would berequired to complete at least seven and half lengths everyday inorder to complete the job within the stipulated time. Completing thejob within seven days will attract a bonus of three hundred dollars(McShane &amp Von Glinow, 2015).

Inthe first day, the team was flown to the site using a helicopter.They were all briefed on the details of the project and created aplan of how the project will be executed. This includesidentification of staked spots and helicopter landing spots.Additionally, the team identified and tagged areas that theyconsidered difficult to stake. In the second day, Millar and Boycecompleted six lights while parker and Talbot managed to complete 8lengths. Tom Parker was unhappy with the two field assistance who didnot meet the target of at least seven and half lengths per day. Inthe third day, only Parker was able to complete more than seven andhalf lengths. This made Tom Parker furious and demanded that theproject must be completed within seven days as planned. In the fourthand fifth day, Millar and Boyce did not meet the target while bothParker and Talbot were able to meet the target completing eightlengths each. Although the field assistance insisted that they weredoing their best, Tom Parker insisted that they had to work harder.On the sixth day, all the field assistance reported that they had mettheir target for the day. However, tom parker did not say a wordabout the day’s performance. However, on the seventh day, he wasfurious that two men did not meet the target. This meant that theteam would be required to complete a total of 34 lengths in order tocomplete the project the next day. In the eight day, Tom Parkerinstructed the team that each had to complete at least eight lengthsand assists each other if necessary in order to complete the projectwithin the deadline. Therefore, the helicopter pickups were arrangedearlier than normal. However, at the end of the day, both Millar andBoyce could not meet the target. As a result, the team had to finishthe two and half lengths that Millar was unable to finish since Boycehad been assisted to by the colleagues to meet the target. BothMillar and Boyce had not prior experience working with the company,which could possibly explain the poor performance (McShane &amp VonGlinow, 2015).

TomParker has some non technical experience in the mining industryhaving worked for several companies. Therefore, he wants to use hisexperience to enforce policies to the field assistances using hisinfluence and power in the company. As a result, some of the majororganizational issues in the workplace are not put intoconsideration. This is the main reason why the team was unable tomeet the set target. For example, Tom Parker was unable to identifythe abilities and experience of the field assistance before settingthe targets. As the officer in charge of the project, he failed tocommunicate effectively with the members of the working group. As aresult, he was unable to motivate the workers or involve them in thedecision making process. This made it difficult for them to work as agroup and fail to meet their target. Instead of seeking to establishthe reason why the team was unable to meet the target, Tom Parkerblamed the field assistants. For example, when the team meets theday’s target, he has nothing to say to them. However, when they areunable to meet the target, he is furious and laments that some of theworkers are not working hard enough to meet the target. Studiesindicate that these negative behaviors by project managers andsupervisors have negative impacts on the achievement oforganizational goals. For example, while Millar, one of the lessexperienced field assistance who did not meet the target, worked veryhard to meet the target, the project manager kept scolding him. As aresult, he stopped working had since his hard work was notappreciated by Tom Parker. Although he is aware that it isunrealistic, he plans that the job needs to be completed within sevendays (McShane &amp Von Glinow, 2015).

Oneof the most important issues that emerge in the Arctic MiningConsultants is organization or working group strategy. Anyorganization that has a long term or short term goals to achieveshould have a strategy that will enable to organization achieve thegoal. The most important aspect of an organizational strategy isstrategic goals. These goals should be realistic and achievable.Organizational analysis such as identification of strengths,weaknesses, opportunities and threats is a necessary step towardsachieving the strategic goals. For example, the strengths andweaknesses of an organization will be essential in determining theabilities of the organization to achieve the set goals. The threatsand opportunities will enable the organization to identify how toimprove its ability to achieve the goals or what can derail theseabilities. In the Arctic Mining Consultants case, this was not done.In setting the organizational goals, Tom Parker did not identify thestrengths and weaknesses of the working group. While some of thefield assistance were had experience and therefore could easily meetthe set target, some of the workers had little or no experience. Thisis one of the weaknesses Tom Parker did not identify. Additionally,he did not identify the opportunity of allowing the experiencedworkers to work together with the inexperienced workers in order toachieve the goals. For example, he could have paired experiencedfield assistance with a less experienced one (McShane &amp VonGlinow, 2015).

Thedecision making process in the Arctic Mining Consultants case wasanother organizational weakness that had an impact on the success ofthe project. The decision making process is influence by theleadership skills as well as leadership strategies adopted by themanagers. Some managers will involves the subordinates in decisionmaking processes, while some managers have autocratic leadershipapproaches where they exclusively make the decisions. In the case ofthe Arctic Mining Consultants, Tom Parker used his power andinfluences to make the decisions in the project. He believed that hewas experienced enough to make decisions on the project. As a result,he did not consult the field assistance, some of whom may haveexperience on the field. This resulted into poor decisions withunrealistic and non feasible targets. As a result, the working groupwas unable to achieve the targets of the group. Leadership was also amajor challenge in the implementation of the project. Leaders play animportant role in ensuring that the targets of the working group areachieved. They have the responsibility of setting goals and ensuringthat the members of a working group are working towards theachievement of the goals. A good leader has excellent communicationskills, listens to the concerns of all members of a working group andstrives to empower and inspire all the members of the working group.Additionally, a leader should be able to instill virtues that arenecessarily in a working group. In the Arctic Mining Consultantscase, Tom Parker did not have these leadership skills. He could notlisten the concerns of the field assistance and therefore the workinggroup did not achieve its goals.Another important organizationalfactor that is evident in the Arctic Mining Consultants case is jobsatisfaction and motivation. The performance of an employee islargely influence by how he/she is satisfied with his or job. In thecase, the management was unable to motivate the workers. Although thefield assistance was promised a bonus, it was dependent onunrealistic goals. Additionally, they were poorly remunerated(McShane &amp Von Glinow, 2015).

Toachieve the organizational goals, it is important to streamline themanagement of the Arctic Mining Consultants. This will enable theorganization to embrace the dynamics of a diverse working group andaccommodate them in their working plans. Additionally, there is aneed for the organization to establish better methods of motivatingtheir employees through better remuneration, realistic goals andinvolving them in decision making processes. Most important, the setgoals should recognize the abilities of the employees. This can bedone through decentralization of the decision making process whereall employees are allowed to contribute in the decision makingprocess. This means that the organization should identify itsstrengths and weaknesses before setting goals to avoiddisappointments (McShane &amp Von Glinow, 2015)

Inconclusion, Arctic miningconsultants’ case study highlights some of the important aspects oforganization behavior which have a huge influence on the work placesand employees productivity. The goals of the working group under TomParker were unable to achieve its goals of completing the projectwithin seven days because of individual and organizational factors.These factors are evident in numerous organizations in the modernworld where the management does not recognize the diversity and viewsof the employees. This results into failure of the organization toachieve the set goals.


McShane,S. L. &amp Von Glinow, M. (2015). Organizational Behavior, New York:Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin