1. No, Rohrtech’s board of directors did not use the rational decision-making paradigm at the end of the case when it decided to replace Devine with O’Grady as COO. Decision-making is defined as making choices that improve the current situation by moving towards a goal, and the rational choice paradigm is a view of decision-making that people should use ethical reasoning and all the available information to make the best choices for the greater good. (McShane, Steen, & Tasa, 2015).
The board of directors did not use the rational decision-making paradigm because the choice to remove Devine was based off a performance review. Based on this testimony, the board decided to remove Devine as COO and give him a special project instead. ” (Trivac Industries Ltd. , n. d. , p. 4). The performance review was a discussion that allowed other executives to voice their concerns, and O’Grady disliked Devine’s way of working. As a result, he spoke up and told everyone what he was doing wrong. This shows the board wasn’t using a rational and reasonable way of thinking when making the decision. The board also didn’t have all the information.
The board did not know that other Trivac managers spoke badly about him, nor did they give him any support to do his job properly. “They agreed to remove Devine rather than face the mass exodus of Trivac managers that Weston and O’Grady had warned about. ” (Trivac Industries Ltd. , n. d. , p. 4). “O’Grady provided incomplete information on many occasions and would completely refuse to educate the COO on some matters.
O’Grady was also quick to criticize many of Devine’s decisions and made indirect statements to Devine about his appropriateness as a COO. (Trivac Industries Ltd, n. d. , p. 3). The board of directors did not follow the rational choice decision process, which would have been the optimal solution. They did not develop all possible choices, nor did they select a choice with the highest value. 2. O’Grady can be described as someone with a counterproductive behaviour in the workplace, and adopts the self-enhancement value with an individual rights ethical view. The counterproductive behaviour in the workplace describes someone who is constantly harming the organization, through direct or indirect methods.
This can include attacks on individuals which are indirect or stealing which is direct. (McShane, Steen, & Tasa, 2015). O’Grady mostly attacked the organization through indirect methods by talking badly about the COO, Devine. “O’Grady actively spoke to office staff and other managers about his problems with Devine and encouraged them to tell the president about their concerns. ” (Trivac Industries Ltd. , n. b. , p. 3). O’Grady was harassing other workers, creating unnecessary conflicts, and sabotaging work. O’Grady’s behaviour cost the organization many problems with their employees and emotions of fear among the workers.
O’Grady also adopts a self-enhancement value, which states they try to achieve dominance over others, and want personal success. (McShane, et al. , 2015). O’Grady constantly talks bad about Devine so he can eventually take his position, fulfilling his desire of dominance and success. The individual rights principle also impacts O’Grady in whatever he does. “This principle reflects that everyone has entitlements that let her or him act in a certain way. ” (McShane, et al. ). “O’Grady told Devine that while they had to work together it did not mean that he had to like him. ” (Trivac Industries Ltd. , n. d. , p. ).
O’Grady thinks that he is allowed to act in any way to get the position of COO. O’Grady’s behaviour towards Devine was always aggressive, argumentative, and rude, by having threatening attitudes, constantly arguing with people, and treating people poorly and breaking social rules. (Words that describe behaviour, n. d. ). His behaviour towards Devine was shown right when Devine was named COO. 3. O’Grady was reluctant to help Devine succeed because he wanted Trivac Industries to maintain its independence from Rohrtech, which in return, his efforts and performance was drastically influenced by his motivation.
Many motivation theories only explain what motivates us, but the expectancy theory of motivation tells us what we are motivated to do, and the actions we will take to achieve the desired goals. (McShane, Steen, & Tasa, 2015). The expectancy theory is the study of the amount of effort put into a task that people will believe will have the most utility for the desired outcomes. (McShane, et al. ). Whenever we try to achieve a goal, we go through a systematic process.
We put in an effort, which affects performance, which will turn into possible positive or negative outcomes, and during this process, three components can affect it, the E-to-P xpectancy, P-to-O expectancy, and Valence. The E-to-P expectancy is a perception that a specific effort level will result in a specific performance level. A stronger E-to-P expectancy results in better outcomes and greater performance. P-to-O expectancy is the probability that performance will lead to particular outcomes, and valence is the feelings (Satisfied or dissatisfied) towards the outcome. Valence can be improved by individual rewards. (McShane, et al. ). The reason O’Grady didn’t help Devine was caused by many factors. His effort was affected by the E-to-P expectancy.
O’Grady didn’t put any effort into helping Devine; instead, he put an effort into degrading Devine. “Devine would later learn about other things O’Grady had said and done to undermine his position. ” (Trivac Industries Ltd. , n. d. , p. 3). This effort to undermine Devine’s position would result in a downward performance for Devine while he would gain performance. With O’Grady’s performance increasing in quality, many saw him as hardworking and dependable, while Devine failed. This led to the final decision to replace Devine with O’Grady. His whole motivation was to remove Devine, gain his position, and make Trivac Industries independent.