Decision Making at the Top: The All-Star Sports Catalog Division

Case Analysis

PGPEX2013 - Group 2 Kamesh Singal Praveen Gudisagar RajarshiSen Rittick Banerjee SauravChatterjee SayantanHajra SubrataDass Reg No 17 Reg No 26 Reg No 30 Reg No 32 Reg No 34 Reg No 35 Reg No 38

Agenda
Company Overview Organization Structure Current Decision Making and issues Organization Culture Baretts leadership Proposed alternatives and evaluation Procedural Justice

Company Background
Founded in 1987 by Steve Archibald. First Store opened in 1988 in Tampa, Florida.

High volume and discount Sporting Superstore

Rapid Expansion of Sales and Profit

Company Overview

U.S. Super Store - 450 retail stores located throughout. All Star International - 60 stores across Canada, brazil and Mexico.

All Star Express

All Star Sports Catalogue Division

Mail order catalog business

Individual

Organization

Acquisitions of Sporting goods Wholesaler Jackson Sports and Hoffman's Team Apparel

Strategy
Mostly inorganic growth for ASC since 1995
Acquired Jackson Sports & Hoffmans Team Apparel. Acquired 4 regional sports goods wholesalers to build national delivery network. Acquisition Integration Process Stages: Consolidated purchases to leverage buying power Developed common systems & merged administrative functions Integrating customer service & order fulfilment processes to develop a common infrastructure

 Objective:
Benefits

Functional Structure

Increase coordination & integration across divisions

Opportunity to learn from others

Better Training & Peer supervision for complex work Issues: Communication problem across functions (subunit orientation) Profitability measurement problem Location problem Customer problem Strategic problem

Rewards System
Pay for performance reward system Annual cash bonus & stock options Earlier payout dependent on: Corporate EPS

BU earning
BU sales New Bonus Payment mechanism dependent on:

Performance of individual
Total ASC earning & sales

Current Decision Making Process

Weekly Senior Management meeting for two hours First hour spent on discussing generic issues and key project update Second hour spent on specific key issues
In-depth discussion Sub-group formation

CEO involvement in one meeting per month

Stages of Decision Making Process

Framing the Problem

Identifying Alternatives

Analyzing Alternatives

Ratifying the Choice

Making the Choice

Attributes of the Current Decision Process

Analytical
Aligned

Apolitical
Active Participation

Concerns about the Current Decision Process

Conflict (lack of open debate) Closure Commitment

Other concerns coming out from the survey

Difference in perception between Don Barrett and Senior Management team about Team Effectiveness Lack of focus on certain important topics Decision making process not fully participative Lack of Procedural Justice

Organizational Culture : Competing Values Framework

Collaborate

Create /Adhocracy

Control / Hierarchy

Compete / Market

Types of Culture
Collaborate(Clan Culture) Inward focus with concern for integration Emphasize flexibility and discretion Operate like families Value cohesion, humane working environment, group commitment and loyalty Create (Adhocracy) Culture Emphasize flexibility and discretion External focus and concern on differentiation Value flexibility and adaptability and thrive in chaos Control (Hierarchy) Structure Bureaucratic Defined by Stability and Control Internal Focus and integration Value Standardization and Control Well defined structure to authority and decision making process Compete (Market) Structure Value Stability and Control External Focus (Relationships) Value Differentiation over Integration Focus on Competitiveness' and Productiveness

Slip between Cup and Lip

Espoused and actual theory
Entire division centered on one mans ideas Problem in decision making due to difference in perception

Developer

Executive

3D Theory of leadership
Bureaucrat Benevolent Autocrat

Relationship Oriented

Related

Integrated

Separated

Dedicated

Missionary

Compromiser

Task Oriented

Effectiveness

Deserter

Autocrat

Questionnaire
Autocrat
I see planning as a one man job I direct the work of my subordinates and discourage deviations from my plans

Compromiser
When conflict arises I try to be fair but firm I make an effort at planning but the plans do not always work out

Questionnaire
Deserter
I do not show too much interest in my subordinates I am not interested in being flexible or in others being flexible

Missionary
I treat subordinates with great kindness and consideration I overlook violations of any kind if it helps to make things run more smoothly

Questionnaire
Bureaucrat
I respond to disagreement and conflict by referring to rules and procedures I prefer to work within standard operating procedures

Benevolent Autocrat
When conflict arises I stand my ground and try to be as persuasive as possible I am willing to change my work methods only if the change will improve productivity

Questionnaire
Developer
I successfully encourage others to obtain information and pay attentions to what they have to say When I am responsible for planning I involve many others

Executive
I make adjustments in both my own work-methods and work-relationships when I feel it will improve overall productivity I try to resole conflict as quickly as possible by uncovering its underlying causes

Developer

Executive

Bureaucrat

Benevolent Autocrat

Relationship Oriented

Related

Integrated

Separated

Dedicated

Missionary

Compromis er Autocrat

Task Oriented

Effectiveness

Deserter

Don Barett Decision Making Method

Method C MethodD

Impartiality

High Method A Low Method B

Low

High

Consideration

Decision options
Group Norm change change in Don Baretts leadership style Team oriented approach consensus based Top management Team 3-4 key members

Consensus Decision Model

What is? A questioning process Everyone cooperates and consents Integrated will of the group What is not? Not a set of rules or procedures Follow a popular leader Compromise Implicit Majority Intensity of Preferences Characteristics True democracy Nonviolent and non-coercive Better decisions

Issues with consensus decision making

Endless wrangling

Groupthink wanted to be accepted by in-group

Grandstanding Obtrusive blocking Irreconcilable difference Takes too long

Consensus Decision Making issues

Free Market Democracy
Certain characteristics needed Responsibility Self-discipline Honest Respect & Cooperation

Disinterested but not uninterested

Suggested Alternative
Top Management team

Benefits
Constructive Debate : Six Hat thinking Fast Decision making : R-A-P-I-D

Six Hat thinking

Information and Data what do I know? What do I need to find out? How will I get information I need?

Intuitions, Hunches How others will react emotionally?

Difficulties, weakness, danger be defensive Logical reasons, identify risk Tougher and resilient plan

Positives, Advantages Logical reasons Why idea useful, keep going

Creative Ideas, alternatives, possibilities Solution to Black Hat problem

Process control Strategy, planning for action, outcome Ideas running dry ask for Green Hat Contingency plan ask for Black Hat

RAPID decision making model

R Recommender initiates the process I Input must be consulted before decision is made

A Approve essentially an I with more power

D Decide final authority P Perform carries out decision once made

Organizational Justice

Distributive Justice

Procedural Justice

Interactional Justice

Procedural Justice
Consideration of team members input

High procedural fairness

High commitment to final decision Increased sense of attachment to team Positive impact on perception of procedural justice

Bibliography
http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/process/ConsensNotes.p df http://www.bridgestar.org/Library/RAPIDDecisionMaking.aspx http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_07.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_justice http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/who-has-d-howclear-decision-roles-enhance-organizational-performance.aspx

THANK YOU