Case Study 4

SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The Southeastern Research Institute is a nonprofit research and testing laboratory. It was
established to provide research and testing support for regional governments and industry.
All contracts were on a cost plus fixed fee basis. The institute employs about 700
persons, including managerial, professional, technical, and clerical personnel. The
organization was widely known for its excellent technical work and its progressive and
intelligent personnel policies. The turnover of employees has been very low.
John Riley had been head of mechanical testing for 5 years. All mechanical testing
activities were conducted in this department, including the designing, building, procuring,
and running of test equipment. These activities were conducted both for outside clients
and for other departments of the institute. Trained as a mechanical engineer, Riley had
been with the institute for 15 years.
One morning his immediate supervisor, Bill Pickens, manager of the institute test
division, asked Riley if he was interested in a newly created position in product
development. This position was of a new nature in product development, and they wanted
someone who was thoroughly experienced in institute policies and procedures to fill the
position temporarily for 1 year. After that time, the position would either be made
permanent or eliminated. Pickens told Riley that he was reluctant to lose him, even on a
temporary basis, but that acting in accordance with institute policy of promoting from
within wherever possible, he wanted Riley to make the decision. Pickens also informed
him that the new product division had specifically suggested Riley because of his
widespread institute reputation as a highly skilled engineer and manager. The new
position would constitute an advancement to the next managerial level with a
commensurate increase in pay. After discussing the position with the director of the new
product division and thinking the proposal over few several days, Riley decided to accept
it.
On the following Friday, Pickens called Riley into his office to discuss his replacement as
head of mechanical testing. In discussing his three section chiefs, Riley was uncertain in
his own mind which, if any, would make the best successor.
Dodd, head of Section A had longer tenure and was the most experienced. Riley felt,
however, that he was rather quiet and did not communicate well with outsiders. Both
Riley and Pickens were concerned with Dodds ability to sell the services of the
department to others. Yeager, head of Section B, was a competent leader, but prone to
make hasty judgments. He sometimes committed to an expensive course of action
without thinking through all of the alternatives. This had on occasion led costly mistakes
that were hard to rectify. Benette, head of Section C, was an ambitious and aggressive
leader, but he often created hard feelings with his colleagues. On several occasions Riley
had been required to step in and smooth out ruffled feelings.

After considerate discussion, Riley suggested that since there was a possibility that he
would want to return in a year and since there was no clear-cut choice, each of the men
should take turns as acting head. Each would hold the position for 4 months in an acting
capacity. At the end of a year, if Riley did not return to the position, the choice could be
made from among the three on the basis of their performance. Pickens agreed to this
proposal and put the plan into operation.
Ten months later, while Yeager was acting department head, Pickens was promoted to
associate director of the institute. Dick Terry, who had been head of electrical testing, was
immediately appointed to replace Pickens. Pickens briefed Terry on the leadership
situation in mechanical testing. When Terry asked Pickens about this evaluation of the
performance of the three men in the position, Pickens replied that although Yeager had
not finished his 4-month period, he seemed to be the best man for the job. In fact,
Pickens said, I more or less told him last week that he would probably get the job.
Toward the end of the year, Riley was informed that his new position was being made
permanent. Since he was enjoying this new position and fount it very challenging, he
informed Terry that he would not be returning to the test division. Upon receiving the
notice, Terry knew that he must now decide on a permanent department head for
mechanical testing. He carefully reviewed their personnel records, including all past
performance appraisals by former supervisors. He also made it a point to sound out
informally the engineers and technicians in all three sections. Terry also held lengthy
interviews with each of the three men.
In the course of the investigation, he discovered that a great deal of ill feeling and
jealousy had developed among the three men. During the past year, the three men had
competed rather viciously for the department heads job. Each had tried to sabotage the
others and frustrate any innovations or changes instituted. All three campaigned
throughout the year for the support of the engineers and technicians in the department.
This had taken the form of granting special favors and making derogatory remarks about
the other two. All three men had participated in such activities, and the end result was a
year of poor morale and low productivity within the department. During the personal
interview, each of the three asserted that the assignment should be given to him.
Terry was appalled at the animosity that had developed. He was not at all convinced that
any of the three could pull the department back together. Therefore, after lengthy
discussions with Pickens, Terry announced that Dennis Brown, a section head experiment
research, had been named head of mechanical testing.
Case Study Discussion Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.

Did Terry make the right decision?

What will be the likely result?
Did Pickens make the right decision in deciding to rotate the job?
Could the results have been anticipated?