Posted: October 12th, 2024

HRDV 6000 Integrative Studies in Human Resources Development

HRDV Program Assessment Tool – A Case Study
HRDV 6000 Integrative Studies in Human Resources DevelopmentGulfport Transit
Gulfport Transit is the main public transportation authority
in the Tampa, Florida Metroplex. It
operates buses within Tampa, Sarasota, Clearwater, and Bradenton, Florida, and
provides regular service to Sarasota Bradenton International Airport, St.
Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport, and Tampa International
Airport. The Tampa Bay area is one of
the fastest-growing urban areas on Florida’s Gulf Coast. As of December, 2008, Gulfport Transit
currently operates 50 routes across the Metroplex. These routes, covering a
service area of 2,100 square miles serve most communities within the area (with
the exception of certain distant communities in adjacent Pasco County,
Zephyrhills and Dade City). The vast majority of routes operate from 5:00 A.M.
until 12:00 midnight, with reduced schedules on weekends and holidays. In
addition to local service, Gulfport Transit also operates 25 commuter routes in
conjunction with its strategic partner, Palmetto Transit. These routes operate
in a peak-flow capacity, taking passengers from outlying communities to Tampa,
Sarasota, Clearwater, and the Universities of Tampa and Sarasota (and back). Together, the two universities have a total
of 7,500 commuting students. Most
commuter buses serve one of the 20 park and ride lots in Pasco and Hillsborough
counties and make limited stops in the communities they originate from.
Gulfport Transit also provides vanpool service. These allow for more
flexibility than traditional fixed-bus routes. The riders – who also take turns
driving the vans – decide their own routing, which allows non-traditional
commuters, who may not have access to fixed routes, the benefits of transit
services. With 200 vans, the fleet is
the 15th largest in the United States. Gulfport provides paratransit services for
those who live within ¾’s mile of a local fixed-bus route. This service, called
HART or Harness-A-Ride Transportation, provides those with conditions who
prevent them from using regular buses or vans the flexibility and convenience
of door-to-door service.History and BackgroundGulfport Transit opened its doors
on April 14, 1990. The original member was the City of Sarasota. Over the next 10 years, the population of the
Tampa/St. Petersburg area grew by 15% a year.
The area lacked a sound transit infrastructure which could absorb the
increased demand for services, and Sarasota and its newly created transit
system found an opportunity for expansion and growth. By the fall of 2003, the agency had expanded
into the cities of Tampa, Clearwater, and Bradenton. Employee growth ballooned from the original
275 employees in Sarasota to over 2,100 in the whole Tampa Bay Area. Only 1,100 of these were transit operators.
The remaining 1,000 employees consisted of design and maintenance engineers and
other support staff. Over 100 of the
support employees were government liaisons and lobbyists who assisted the
executive team in fundraising activities at the federal, state, and local
levels. The executive team was made-up
of a charismatic, new Hispanic female CEO, a Princeton- educated, black VP of
Maintenance and Operations, an older white male VP of Marketing (Ph.D. from
Mississippi State), a cynical white male VP of Engineering, and a brilliant VP
of Human Resources who saw herself on a fast track to becoming the next CEO of
the Regional Transit Authority (the umbrella organization which regulated all
transportation planning and operations in the metroplex).
Juanita Barges, the new CEO, was
in her mid 40’s and had an MBA from the University of Florida at
Gainesville. She had been Associate CEO
at the Jacksonville Florida Transit Authority (Alligator Alley Metro). She was a bold, no-nonsense leader. As Bill Collins, her VP of Marketing at
Jacksonville, said, “Juanita is a tough cookie.
If you work with her, she’ll do anything for you. If you work against her, she takes no
prisoners!” While at Jacksonville, she
fought hard to transform an old-style good ole boy’s network into an agency
with “heart”. Her executive counterparts
in Jacksonville admired her competence and her strong sense of ethics and
values, but that did not keep them from resisting every new initiative she and
her liberal boss, Jim Taylor, introduced.
At Jacksonville, Juanita was the champion of change and reform,
surrounded by antagonists of every shape, color, and creed. She had the kind of
street smarts that came from growing-up poor in a gang-infested part of Dallas.
She had worked her way through the University of Texas at San Antonio, attended
night school, and supported two children with a full-time supervisor’s job at
the local bus company. With a few strong
allies from Tallahassee, she was able to attract federal funding that allowed
Jacksonville to expand into van pool services, and eventually, light rail. She
understood the politics of transportation and could set goals, build alliances
and marshal resources better than any of her male counterparts. In short, she was a threat to every
self-respecting male executive at both Jacksonville and Tampa Bay. Her “business savvy” was only part of their
concern. Juanita had made the mistake of
caring about people. She recognized that many transit employees had not
grown-up with middle class advantages.
Many operators, with some college, had never completed their
degrees. They were a diverse group by
gender, age, race, and ethnicity, and most had blue collar backgrounds. About 60% were women. The operator job paid
well; in many cases, the female operators were the primary breadwinners in
their households.The new, young black VP of
Operations and Maintenance, Ed Lincoln, (“Link” for short)
had been promoted by Juanita from
Operations’ supervision. Link was 35,
college educated, and a quick learner. He had demonstrated that he was not
afraid to confront poor performers. His biggest challenge was the lack of
executive experience. He was known and
well-thought of across the organization.
His position had been created to integrate the Operations and
Maintenance Departments and overcome the intergroup conflict that had
solidified over the years under the old management regime. The climate could best be described as an
“icy hostility”. Mrs. Barges thought that
Link had the combination of managerial competence and interpersonal s skills to
begin thawing that ice.The Director of Operations, Steve
Douglas, was a 52 year old white male with over 25 years of experience in with
transit and unionized operations. Steve
had been Director for 12 years.
Ivy-league trained, Steve had a brilliant analytical mind coupled with a
facilitative style of management. His
weakness was a pronounced tendency to accommodate the needs of operators
without considering the costs. This
tended to frustrate the supervisor who often felt like their direct reports
went over their heads to Steve to get what they wanted. Juanita recognized the problem but was not
yet ready to consider at a “career derailleur”.
She suspected Steve had never been trained or coached before and wanted
to give him the chance to be further developed as a leader. He knew Operations
well, had managerial acumen, and seemed capable of learning. The previous Director had been fired for
incompetence shortly after Juanita had come on board.
The second largest department,
Maintenance, was a group of 50 mostly white male-skilled tradesmen. Their Director, Mike Drew, had come-up
through the ranks and was well-liked.
The maintenance workers did high-quality work. The biggest problems as a department were
that they lacked formal standards and procedures as well as a sense of
urgency. In some ways, they were too
autonomous (although they liked it that way).
Mike buffered them from excessive “outside demands.Finally, Lewis (“Lew”) Steinberg,
age 45, was VP of Engineering. Lew had
grown-up in NYC and held a Bachelors degree from Drexel Institute of
Technology. He had spent his whole
career in transit. Forty-five well-educated technologists and engineers worked
for him. Lew’s department interfaced extensively with Operations and
Maintenance. They were responsible for making sure that the route structure,
technical, and technological demands of the organization were met. Lew worked
extensively with his executive team counterparts in Operations and Maintenance.
Both departments were unionized. The
Operation’s Department was affiliated with the Amalgamated Transportation
Workers (ATW). The Maintenance
Department had 2 unions: A supervisor’s
union, the Association of Maintenance Administrators (AMA); and a mechanics
union, the Brotherhood of Transit Mechanics (BTM). The Engineering Department
was unaffiliated. Lew and his people
often felt like second class citizens in an organization where both the Board
of Directors and the CEO were pro-union. Lew wondered why the people with the
most education seemed to get the least attention.The CEO was proud of her new
executive team. She had been brought in from Jacksonville to “turnaround” a
weak, non-producing organization that lacked leadership at all levels. The
previous executive team was made of mostly passive individuals who collectively
reinforced an organizational culture characterized by rules and
compliance. Part of this was necessary
and came with the necessary focus on safety in the transportation
industry. Most of it could be attribute
to failure of vision and nerve at the top. The former executives often
introduced Organizational Development fads, like TQM, that proved to be
short-lived. All kinds of committees and task forces were created to preserve
the illusion of “employee empowerment”, but little had changed over the last 10
years. Through all the “change
initiatives” no leadership training, team building, or career development had
ever taken place and no real HRD diagnostic work had occurred at an
organizational level. The Board of Directors had been trying to dislodge the
previous group of good ole’ boys for some time.
They finally fired the CEO and brought-in Juanita with a mandate for
change. Juanita worked closely with the Board and the agency’s lawyers, and it
was not long before the old crowd was gone.As an executive with business and
organizational savvy, Juanita was able to do her own informal assessment of the
situation. She spent the first few months of her new job walking around,
observing, and chatting with people about the agency, their customers, and
their work. Among other things, she
noticed that:
(1)
Many transit operators had narrowly-defined jobs and
little decision power. Most were bright, and about half had college educations.
Their jobs were interesting, but isolating and somewhat routine. They drove the
vehicles within the bounds of the law, following strict schedules developed and
monitored by the engineering department. To Juanita, they were a tough breed
who didn’t seem to want to work with colleagues to solve common problems. They disliked having anyone over them. “Just
let me do my job” was their standard mantra.
While Juanita sympathized, she didn’t see it their way.(2)
Growth in the Tampa Bay area was creating increased
interdependency between engineering, security, maintenance and management. The
requirements from all stakeholders had gone-up and changed regularly as new
municipalities came into the system.
Turbulent change called for flexible adaptation from the agency - that
meant people working together to resolve complex issues. In Juanita’s mind, a bunch of departmental
rogue elephants wouldn’t do!(3)
The front-line supervisors were more like
overseers. They often seemed to
placate the
people reporting to them. With about 25
operators reporting to each lead supervisor, the supervisors felt like they
were ill-equipped to do the job. They
had never received any formal training or guidance from middle management. They had no way to reward outstanding
performance or control breaches of conduct because “HR handled all that”. As one person put it, “Everyone knows HR is a
“black hole” of one way communication! You just grit your teeth and do your
job; you know you are alone without any back-up. Another had said, “I don’t feel like an
operator or a manager. I wouldn’t know
what a real manager feels like because I’ve never had the tools or
organizational support to become one.”(4)
Vehicle Maintenance, like Operations, was unionized.
The maintenance people were experienced mechanics who had been with the agency
for a long time. Juanita had heard that
the previous CEO, Ed Dugan, ignored the Department and its personnel. When a conflict broke-out between Maintenance
and Operations (maintenance schedules had begun to break down because of too
much work and too few mechanics) the CEO blamed Maintenance for “failing to meet
demand.” In reality, the financial coffers
were full. The agency could have easily
hired more mechanics and kept-up with the high levels of demand. Instead, in a misguided attempt to impress
Board President, Steve Jones (a local developer), Ed justified his refusal to
bring on new mechanics as a justifiable cost savings. “Too much slack in the
system already”, he said. The mechanics and their managers continued to feel
they had to “do more with less”.
(5)
The performance appraisal system was bureaucratic and
weighted-down.
Few executives,
managers, or supervisors had ever been trained in performance management. That would have to change! The New VP of HR, Jane Phillips, had just
been hired. In the selection process,
Juanita had reinforced this priority for the person hired.(6)
There was a lack of information flow at all levels of
the organization.(7)
Management systems and processes were either broken or
had never existed in the first place.(8)
At all levels, a culture of self-defense was in place
and led to ongoing suppression of real differences between individuals, teams,
and departments. The collusion between unions and management stood-out. The agency had plenty of money; they had been
in the habit of “buying-off” the unions to avoid labor disputes. Wages had
consistently been above scale for the area. Juanita recognized the sense of
false unity and harmony from her experience at Jacksonville. Underneath the love fest, she saw a volcano
brewing.
(9)
Few levels of management or departments were able to
work as a team. This lack of teamwork trickled down to the front-line employee.
Teamwork only occurred during emergencies.
(10)
Juanita saw a fair amount of committee work on
“employee task forces” but few results.
People used the time to socialize.
(11)
Work groups were
fragmented and dominated by “difficult people”.
Managers seemed to lack leadership or organizing skills. Sometimes the “difficult people” were
employees who seemed more competent than their supervisors.
Despite the problems, Juanita was encouraged. She had a high-powered executive team committed
to strategic change and human resource development. The old and ineffective executive team was
gone and she and her team could now capitalize on the many strengths. These included:
(1)
A strong belief among employees that Gulfport Transit
had the potential to be a leader in transportation (many of them were ready to
fight for it.).
(2)
Employees were educated and strong on customer service;
they tended to personify the entrepreneurial spirit that had brought so many
small and medium-sized firms to the Tampa Bay region.
(3)
Many employees had personal “visions of excellence”
waiting to be tapped, if only someone had the will to do it.
(4)
Small cadres of employees were dedicated to personal
mastery for the purpose of making Gulfport a “better place to work”. These were “role models from the bottom”,
reinforced by recognition from their peers and sustained by their own sense of
values of purpose.
(5)
Some union leaders and middle managers had been
counter-cultural in the old system. Juan
Trujillo, a young, idealistic business agent for the ATW, had said: “Even though there have been a lot of broken
promises around here, I set my goals, act until I get results, smile a lot, and
rely on the occasional success to keep me going.”
To fill-in the gaps, Joyce and her team would act as role
models to generate a positive work culture and results focus. She was ready to roll-up her sleeves.HRDV Program Assessment Case QuestionsJuanita Barges is on a mission to turn Gulfport Transit
around and develop it into a high performing organization. As her HRDV consultant, you will need to
answer the following questions fully and
with specific examples and details. Where appropriate provide discussion for
all three levels of Gulfport: organization wide, team or department level and
at the individual level.(1) In
her preliminary preparation for a full diagnosis of Gulfport Transit, what
important areas and topics should CEO Barges identify regarding performance
issues at Gulfport?(2) Force
field analysis is an organizational development tool that highlights the forces
in the situation which support change to those forces working against
change. Use the force field analysis methodologyto diagnosis the forces
for and against change in this case. As
a result of your analysis, summarize the organization’s readiness for change.
(See Force Field Analysis Instructions and Example Force Field Analysis
Diagram, following Question 4 below.)(3)
How might each of the HRDV course content areas in the
Webster University’s Masters in HRDV contribute to Gulfport’s Strategic HRDV
Change Plan? The courses are: HRDV 5610, Training and Development; HRDV
5560, Group Development and Change; HRDV 5630, Organization
Development and Change; and Career Management.·
Recommend one theory-based intervention derived from each courseand
·
Indicate how you would use it to improve or transform the situation.(4)
From the
interventions recommended in #3 above, choose one and provide a brief
explanation of how you might evaluate its effectiveness using at least one
quantitative indicator. Examples of
areas for your discussion might include safety, maintenance turn around time
and costs, among many other areas.
Force Field
Analysis Instructions:
“Force Field Analysis is a method
for listing, discussing, and evaluating the various forces for and against a
proposed change. Forces that help us
achieve the change are called "driving forces." Forces that work
against the change are called "restraining forces." Force Field
Analysis can be used to develop an action plan to implement a change.
Specifically it can . . .Determine if a proposed
change can get needed support
Identify obstacles to
successful solutions
Suggest actions to reduce the
strength of the obstaclesTypes
of forces to considerAvailable Resources
Traditions
Vested interests
Organizational structures
Relationships
Social or organizational trendsAttitudes of people
Regulations
Personal or group needs
Present or past practices
Institutional policies or norms
AgenciesValues
Desires
Costs
People
EventsThe ProcessStart with a well-defined
goal or change to be implemented.
Draw a force field diagram.At the top of a large
sheet of paper write the goal or change to be implemented.
Divide the paper into
two columns by drawing a line down the middle. At the top of the left
column, write "Driving Forces." Label the right column
"Restraining Forces."Brainstorm a list of driving and
restraining forces and record them on the chart in the appropriate column. Once
the driving and restraining forces have been identified, ask the following
questions:
How significant are each of them?
What is their strength?
Which ones can be altered?
Which cannot?
Which forces can be altered
quickly?
Which ones only slowly?
Which forces, if altered, would
produce rapid change?
Which only slow change in the
situation?Assign a score to each force,
from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong).
The score is based on (a) the strength of the force and (b) the degree to
which it is possible to influence this force.
Calculate a total score for
each of the two columns.”Example Force Field Analysis
Diagram
Goal or proposed change: To have no abandoned cars
along city streets by May 1.Driving Forces
(the pro's)Restraining
Forces (the con's)Interest in the problem has recently been expressed by
advocacy groups.
The
public service director supports the plan.
The
City Council supports the plan.
Public
climate favors cleaning up the city.
Local
auto salvage yards have agreed to take the cars at no cost.
Health
department cites old abandoned vehicles as potential health hazard.The definition of "abandoned cars" is unclear to
the public.
Owners
of older cars feel threatened.
Difficult
to locate abandoned cars.
Where
to put the abandoned cars once identified?
Expense
involved in locating and disposing of abandoned cars.
Need
a procedure to verify vehicles declared "abandoned" and notify
owners.

Tags: Best Online Essay Writers - Thesis and Dissertation Help, Custom Dissertation Writing Services for PhD Students, Essay USA, UK - Cheap Essay Writing Service