Business

 Question 1
As a result of the decision taken by Mr. Benjamin Hageman and his dogmatic attitude there was a change in the attitudes of Mr. Davis as well as the three departmental managers.
Keeping into consideration Maslows Needs Theory, the physiological, safety and social needs of all the managers were being met. It was the need for esteem and self-actualization that led to the discontentment of the managers. Since all the departmental managers were equally or more experienced and qualified than Mr. Davis, Mr. Hagemans decision to make Mr. Davis the Vice President was not welcomed by any of the departmental managers. According to Maslows Need Theory, in order to motivate individuals, one needs to satisfy the needs on the next level of the hierarchy (Robbins  Judge, 2004). 
In this case, the departmental managers expected that they would be rewarded or compensated for their tenure and contribution in the company by the promotion and when they realized that this opportunity was given to someone who was relatively new in the company, they felt as if they were not treated fairly. 
For Mr. Davis on the other hand, the hierarchy was adequately applied. He was promoted to the position of Vice President keeping in view that this promotion was required to motivate him. The equity theory can also be used to explain the case scenario. According to this theory, individuals tend to compare their salaries and benefits with those in the same and different positions in both inside the organization as well as outside the organization (Daft, 2001). The individuals will only be satisfied if they feel that they are being equally compensated or rewarded. Since in the mentioned scenario, when the three departmental managers compared their experience and qualification with Mr. Davis, they felt as if the management did not recognize their efforts. They felt as if the management had not taken into consideration their commitment towards the organization and hence did not promote them.  Not only must the three departmental managers have considered Mr. Davis a benchmark, they must have also thought of other individuals in other departments of their or other organizations who had similar professional characteristics as them and were doing much better. This comparison must have triggered the dissatisfaction among the managers. Furthermore, when they realized that their opinion regarding Mr. Daviss appointment was not valued by Mr. Hageman, they must have felt that had it been another organization, older and experienced employees opinions would have been considered (Anger Management, 2009).
As for Mr. Davis, he must have realized that he was given an opportunity that he deserved with respect to his professional experience and qualifications.  He must have compared himself with the other department managers and since he was more or less on the same level as them on professional grounds, he must have thought that he was being rewarded justly.
Another theory that explains the behavior of Mr. Davis is the expectancy theory (Daft, 2001).  According to this theory, employees will be motivated to make an effort if they believe that their effort will improve their performance appraisal which will increase their rewards eventually resulting in an achievement of personal goals.  Mr. Davis accepted this promotion because he believed that his efforts were being rewarded.
On the other hand the other departmental managers believed that their efforts did not lead to any rewards, in this case promotion and hence their personal goal was not achieved. Since their expectations were not met, it led to a decline in their productivity. Mr. Hagemans decision had such consequences that Mr. Stillwater left the company in anticipation of an organizational environment that would compensate him for his efforts where employees opinions and views would be taken into consideration. Hence the behavior of Mr. Davis and the other departmental managers is very well supported by the three theories (Clark, 2008).
Question 2
Mr. Hageman as mentioned in the case appears to be a dogmatic personality mainly because he gave very little consideration to his employees thoughts and views.  He failed at convincing his employees about his decision to appoint Mr. Davis as the Vice President. Although the other departmental managers had similar experience and qualifications, Mr. Hageman must have spotted a distinctive quality in Mr. Davis that qualified him for the position of the Vice President. However Mr. Hageman failed to communicate this to the departmental managers (Alessandra  Hunsaker, 1993).
The attitude adopted by Mr. Hageman of complete ignorance and apathy towards his employees concerns did not only hinder the process of acceptance of Mr. Davis as the Vice President by the three departmental managers, it also made them realize that that organization did not value their opinion. After spending years at The Richardson Bros. Department Store, the managers were disappointed that the management did not give them enough importance. Since Mr. Hageman was in an executive position, his role was to ensure that the employees were satisfied with a decision so that they would continue to work efficiently and effectively. However Mr. Hageman instead of showing concern over the discontentment of the three departmental managers paid very little attention to the issue and used his powers to pressurize the managers to work in the existing situation irrespective of how they felt about the decision. 
In this case since it was Mr. Hagemans decision to appoint Mr. Davis as the Vice President, it was important that first he justify his decision and second he resolve any conflicts that would arise as a result of his decision. Mr. Hageman failed to do both (Daft, 2001). Where he should have been the change agent since it was him who was bringing the change that is Mr. Davis as the new Vice President, he should have created an environment that was conducive to this change and also he should have been able to address the issues confronting him. Mr. Hageman however showed least interest in all such matters mainly because he was accustomed to the traditional role of a boss to exert pressure to ensure that employees comply with his verdict.
As a result of the attitude adopted by Mr. Hageman, Mr. Davis also suffered. Since most managers were dissatisfied with Mr. Davis as the Vice President, their productivity declined and the work was behind schedule.  The decline in productivity and efficiency could be attributed to Mr. Hagemans failure to set specific goals and motivate employees to achieve it.  According to the goal setting theory, difficult goals when accompanied with feedback and appraisals result in improved performance (Brooks. 2005). When Mr. Davis confronted Mr. Hageman with the issues, Mr. Hageman showed no interest and did not provide Mr. Davis with any specific goals that he needed to achieve in order to reach the larger goal.
Instead of assisting Mr. Davis in identifying certain specific goals he expected Mr. Daviss department to achieve and associating a certain feedback mechanism with it, Mr. Hageman showed no interest in the matter and exerted pressure on Mr. Davis to continue with the development of the systems project and deliver it on time irrespective of the issues confronting him (Brooks, 2005).
Mr. Davis as a result of Mr. Hagemans attitude suffered greatly. Since most of the managers had been unhappy with Mr. Hageman, this had an impact on the work that Mr. Davis department was expected to achieve since they failed to cooperate with him. Also when Mr. Davis shared his problem with Mr. Hageman, he was indifferent to it. As a result Mr. Davis was stuck in a situation where he found difficult to ahead. As a result of the failure to set specific realistic goals on Mr. Hagemans part, Mr. Davis felt that he was being burdened with the responsibility of dealing with employees who were mainly dissatisfied by Mr. Hagemans decision (Clark, 2008).
Question 3
In the situation mentioned in the case, it is the three managers as well as Mr. Davis who are suffering. Since the departmental managers were not provided with a justification for giving the Vice Presidential position to Mr. Davis, they felt frustrated.
According to the Frustration Aggression Theory, a person becomes frustrated when he is prevented from achieving his goals (Anger Management, 2009). In this case when Mr. Stillwater realized that he would not be able to get compensated for his contribution in the organization and that he would be unable to achieve his goal to become the Vice President, he felt frustrated and quit the job at The Richardson Bros. Department Store.
Those who remained with the company were also upset about the position given to Mr. Davis and their frustration was reflected in their work. Ms. Jeffersons output declined although not greatly but it did experience a drop when compared to the previous years performance (Keneley, 2008). Mr. Silverman also dissatisfied with the current situation mentioned salary increase as a necessity. This attitude adopted by all three managers can be explained by the Frustration Aggression Theory (Lewis, 2008). Since Ms. Jefferson felt that the company did not reward employees based on their experience and tenure with the company, she felt least motivated to continue exerting high effort in her work. Mr. Silverman also felt similarly. To him the position of the Vice President was a motivating factor. However with that position gone to someone else, Mr. Silverman wanted another factor to motivate him and hence he started considering salary increase as a possible motivation for him to continue working at the company.
Mr. Davis was another employee who experienced the frustration.  He felt that Mr. Hageman did not help him in any way despite the fact that it was his decision that led to discontentment among employees and hence decline in levels of productivity (Nohria, Groysberg  Lee, 2008). Instead of keeping realistic expectations and breaking down the larger goal into smaller, specific achievable goals, Mr. Hageman left him in confusion since he rejected all the possible options that Mr. Davis came up with.  Since this caused utter confusion for Mr. Davis who found it impossible to fire people or pay them overtime as these possibilities were bogged down by Mr. Hageman, he felt frustrated. He was being prevented from reaching his goal maybe not directly because Mr. Hageman expected him to achieve that goal but indirectly because Mr. Hageman discarded all possible ways of achieving it (Keneley, 2008).
Hence one decision taken by Mr. Hageman had a drastic impact not only on the three departmental managers and Mr. Davis but also on the employees working under them who did not feel motivated enough to continue working efficiently.

Question 4
Mr. Davis in order to motivate his employees could undertake various efforts. Keeping into consideration the goal setting theory, Mr. Davis could break down the goal of making the systems project operational into smaller more achievable goals. By setting specific difficult goals and linking them with feedback, the employees performance could be improved (Seo, Taylor  Hill, 2007).  The idea is to set goals that are specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic, timely, extending of capabilities and rewarding. However since in this case the reward could not be monetary due to budget constraints so Mr. Davis could associate high performance with non monetary rewards such as Employee of the month title or Most hardworking employee title etc.
Furthermore, it is important for Mr. Davis to recognize the efforts of the employees. According to the reinforcement theory, if an employee gets a positive response for his efforts, he will be more likely to put extra effort in his work. Positive reinforcement can be through expressing admiration or appreciation over the employees work or allowing him to have more autonomy or decision making power (Stanley, 2008). Such actions of Mr. Davis could greatly improve the motivation level of his employees.
Equity theory is another tool that Mr. Davis could use to motivate his employees. By drawing comparisons between his employees and other employees in the same position in other organizations and emphasizing on the positive aspects, he could increase the performance of his employees. Mr. Davis could point out the benefits that the employees would derive if the project is completed as opposed to employees in other companies who may not have the opportunity to work on a similar project.
Moreover, Mr. Davis could divide his employees into teams and appoint team leaders giving them greater autonomy as compared to the rest of the team. This would allow the members to compete with each other by working hard (Keneley, 2008).
According to the self efficacy theory, if an individual believes that he is capable of performing well, he will be more confident and this positive attitude will affect his performance. The more the self confidence the higher will be the performance. In addition to rewarding employees, it is important to inculcate the different types of needs in the employees. According to McClellands Theory of Needs, people can be motivated to perform well if the need for achievement, power and affiliation is created in them (Heifetz  Linsky, 2008). By making team leaders and giving them power, by allowing them to interact with upper management and by setting standards that should be met, Mr. Davis could improve the productivity levels of the employees. 
Also, Mr. Davis should realize that for each employee the motivation will be different. Therefore in order to have a motivated workforce, it is important that Mr. Davis use different ways. For instance if for one employee, the motivation is greater autonomy then that employee should be given more power in the team whereas for an employee who is not motivated by decision making authority, he could be encouraged by other rewards such as a holiday period once the project has been completed (Nohria, Groysberg  Lee, 2008).
Mr. Davis should also keep into consideration the fact that the project is behind schedule and hence he needs to make sure that employees try their best to complete the project on time. Since over time compensation is not an affordable option to the company, employees can be encouraged to work overtime without getting monetary compensation for it. This can be done by promising them promotions within the department after the project has been completed or promising them job security (Keneley, 2008). This way the employees will feel that the organization values their contribution and considers them important assets for the company.
Another important step that Mr. Davis needs to take is to align the goals of the company with that of individual employee goals.  Mr. Davis as a supervisor needs to outline the expectations that he has from his employees and remind them that if the goals are achieved and expectations are met, the company will make profits which will eventually translate into more benefits for the employees. Such steps are necessary to undertake to make sure that employees realize that they are not only working for the organizations benefit but also their own benefit.
Mr. Davis should also incorporate a methodology to develop interpersonal skills with his employees. He should be able to sit with them and talk to them about their problems on a one to one basis (Stanley, 2008). This way the employees will feel that their supervisor is concerned about them and is genuinely helping them address the issue. By having one to one meetings with employees it will be possible for Mr. Davis to understand the reason that is causing them to be behind schedule. This way Mr. Davis would be well equipped to solve the problem and motivate his employees. Therefore by adopting a number of strategies and incorporating them into the work environment, Mr. Davis could motivate his employees to perform better.