Slade Plating Department Case

The Slade Plating Department case details a department of a company where volume sales are high, production is adequate (not necessarily efficient), and the managers are generally pleased with the division. However, that description merely covers the surface. The issues within the plating company are deeply rooted in ethics, which is not uncommon at all. To make the case even more complicated, the supervisor of the division, Mr. Porter, knows of these issues at hand. First, it is easy to suggest that Mr. Porter simply do nothing about the current concerns – specifically below-average workers and time-punching strategies between coworkers – given that the division is a profitable one, and that “blowing the whole thing up” as Mr. Porter hinted at could ultimately do more harm than good. But taking this route would not be effective management by any means, and even more so, ethically sound management.
The primary issue at hand here is workers producing below expected levels. While time-punching schemes and the deliberate stretching out of one’s work hours are of great importance, that is a much more difficult issue to handle, and one that workers will probably find a loophole to even if given a new system of recording their time worked (nevertheless, suggestions will still be made on to improve that system). Now, in terms of Herman’s work productivity, there are two ways this could be handled. Mr. Porter could either place Herman in an aisle that requires little effort, either polishing or rack assembly/repair, or he could place him in an aisle that required attention and skill. Since it seems that Herman’s tendencies are to do as little work as possible, I would suggest to place him in the rack assembly/repair aisle. This way, it not only minimizes the productivity hit that the more attention-based aisles would take given his presence, but also has the same effect on the aisles requiring less skilled, in which his lack of attention wouldn’t do that much harm. All in all, it seems to make the most sense to give Herman the least responsibility given his character. While it may appear that this is catering to Herman, it will be a net positive in terms of productivity to the department as a whole. Perhaps his distancing from the aisle 1, the most productive group, would also serve to help the department. This is also applicable to other low-productivity workers.
Our second issue deals with time-punching cohorts within the division. The best way to combat this problem, in theory, would be to split those working together so they cannot punch each other in or out. The problem here lies in the fact that those time-punching for each other likely work quite effectively in the same group. Tearing them apart may not be the best move in terms of productivity and overall workplace efficiency. My best suggestion to Mr. Porter would be to have supervisors, including himself, stay longer hours. This way, they can manage the workplace more effectively and keep an eye out for the time-punching schemes that the workers have taken advantage of. While this would require more hours from the supervisors, it is the most sure-fire way to at least mitigate the problems arising from workers time-punching for each other. Another alternative could be making the workers salaried, but this would likely also bring about unforeseen problems.
All things considered, drastic measures do not need to be taken in a profitable department with issues that affect many workplaces around the world. A simple transfer of low-productivity workers to aisles that require little skill and attention would have a positive effect in many scenarios. Having managers stay later hours would improve overall workplace performance while keeping tabs on the time-punching issue. So no, Mr. Porter should not “blow the lid off the whole mess.” But he should do things a little bit differently.