Johnsonville Sausage Essays

Johnsonville Sausage Essays Johnsonville Sausage Essay Johnsonville Sausage Essay Johnsonville Sausage – Quality Improvement through Change Situation Post 1980, Ralph Stayer began to observe decline in quality due to inattention of the workers as well as ill-maintenance of the equipment in the production unit. With the help of Mr. Lee Thayer, Stayer has planned to implement a major change in the company’s philosophy. Transition from old philosophy purged Stayer’s responsibilities of decision making by decentralizing the power of decision making. The new philosophy was implemented to bring out changes in various departments of the company viz. management structure, personnel, compensation, manufacturing and also systems and controls. According to Thayer’s new philosophy, performance of the personnel and requirement of guidance to personnel to achieve their objectives were the key elements. Management structure was broken down by hiring experienced personnel for the new superior level management to oversee finance, marketing and operation s functions. Stayer emphasized people development as the core element of the new philosophy. Changes in personnel include development of list of responsibilities by the workers themselves and eliminating the performance review process. These changes in personnel function led changes in compensation with the implementation of â€Å"company performance share† program which increased individual responsibility of workers. However this transition was not in agreement among workers while some are excited about it. In terms of manufacturing changes, lead persons were installed at various departments, eliminating supervisors, to seek information and provide necessary measures to train and improve capacities of workers under designated group. Responsibilities of lead person also include development of budget planning and production requirement planning. Job switching and alternating works were practiced to enrich workers’ capabilities and enhance performance and also job satisfaction. System and controls changes included individuals to develop and be accountable for their own budgets and forecasts and also allow them to analyze performance data. In addition, subordinates were needed to self-evaluate their performance to respective managers. Problem The main issue of the case is the resistance shown by the personnel towards the company’s philosophy transition. According to Stayer, upon implementation of new philosophy, workers at all level were expected to embrace the change. Instead, the company faced issues related to the final goal of the implementation, unsuccessful organization structural changes, clash of responsibilities among the workers, participation of less number of employees in the company decision making process and finally lack of high job satisfaction. However, these issues were expected to expire once the transition is complete. Palmer Sausage offered its consolidated business to Johnsonville but the issue here was whether Stayer could handle an expanded Palmer contract. Stayer examined the situation by understanding that in order to run the contract the company would require to recruit and train a big set of people along with existing people acquiring new skills and retain high quality on both the in-house and Palmer products. In order to achieve this, Johnsonville needs to run the production six or seven days a week for more than a year until its new plant was ready. On the other hand, the company may need to run the business at risk i. e. , if Palmer canceled the contract with 30-day prior notice leaves Johnsonville not only with massive layoffs and but also huge inventory with no market for it. Analysis As the year 1980 folded, Stayer recognizes to restructure his management structure for the growing company. Stayer also realized that there was decline in the quality of the products and employees were also demotivated to work. Later on, in collaboration with Thayer Lee, Stayer has planned to implement new philosophy which is focused on performance and helps people accomplish their objectives through well-defined job descriptions, clear understanding on performance standards, and providing the required resources. Johnsonville’s new values are based on deep moral commitment to the individual. The main aim of the transition is to augment people capacities, rather than the business. Stayer changed view of his autocratic leadership to a role as a leader delegating his subordinates rather than directing them. Furthermore, the new philosophy also motivated each worker to commit to the company’s betterment. Upon full transition, Stayer expects to create an atmosphere of constant learning and development. The transition also supports creativity, encourages responsibility, and empowers employees to develop solutions rather than simply follow orders. Over the period of time, the company’s organizational structure was transformed in support to the new culture of worker empowerment. Autocratic management was decentralized in order to become more democratic. Conventional management position were replaced by lead persons and their teams who controlled their own compensation, hiring, firing, quality control, and near-and long-term company goals. Several ground-breaking solutions were instigated and evaluated and each member of the company was involved for the company’s success. Moreover, a rewarding compensation system was implemented to retain employees and hone their skills and performance. Over-the-time, Stayer had achieved a complete organizational transformation successfully. In terms of Palmer’s offer, Stayer has two recommendations – either he can accept or decline to take over the Palmer’s business. If Stayer had taken over the business, they might have the advantages of the opportunity for growth and additional revenue. On this regard, private label business offers a 25% return on assets. Contrariwise, the deal clashes with Johnsonville’s recent business strategy which prevents the company to push private label business over 15%. The company could compete for capital with the rest of the business once it crosses 15%. In addition to this, the company, while in contract with Palmer, is producing at huge capacity utilization. If the deal is on then the company might need to execute two long shifts for six or seven days a week in order to process the new business. Recommendation At this stand-off point, Johnsonville could be advised to accept Palmer’s deal which help the former to tap the revenue and growth opportunities. Stayer’s Johnsonville should continue to implement its new philosophy in a way that it does not affect the previous work-culture. During the agreement, Stayer should continue to involve employees in the decision making process to accept the private label business and planning to handle the additional workload as well. Apart from this, Stayer is required to motivate his teams to meet for evaluating staffing requirements, production and quality goals. With the involvement of workers and assigning responsibility for the important decisions, Stayer will help secure their buy-in for tackling the challenges ahead.

Laws Regulating Federal Lobbyists

Laws Regulating Federal Lobbyists In public opinion polls, lobbyists rank somewhere between pond scum and nuclear waste. In every election, politicians vow never to be â€Å"bought out† by lobbyists, but often do. Briefly, lobbyists get paid by businesses or special interest groups to win the votes and support of members of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures.   Indeed, to many people, lobbyists and what they do represent the main cause of corruption in federal government. But while lobbyists and their influence in Congress sometimes seem to be out of control, they really do have to follow laws. In fact, lots of them.   Background: The Laws of Lobbying While each state legislature has created its own set of laws regulating lobbyists, there are two specific federal laws regulating the actions of lobbyists targeting the U.S. Congress.   Recognizing the need to make the lobbying process more transparent and accountable to the American people, Congress enacted the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995. Under this law, all lobbyists dealing with the U.S. Congress are required to register with both the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. Within 45 days of becoming employed or retained to lobby on behalf of a new client, the lobbyist must register his or her agreement with that client with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. As of 2015, more than 16,000 federal lobbyists were registered under the LDA. However, merely registering with Congress was not enough to prevent some lobbyists from abusing the system to the point of triggering total disgust for their profession. Jack Abramoff Lobbying Scandal Spurred New, Tougher Law Public hatred for lobbyists and lobbying reached its peak in 2006 when Jack Abramoff, working as a lobbyist for the rapidly growing Indian casino industry, pleaded guilty to charges of bribing members of Congress, some of whom also ended up in prison as a result of the scandal. In the aftermath of the Abramoff scandal, Congress in 2007 passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) fundamentally changing the ways in which lobbyists were allowed to interact with members of Congress. As a result of HLOGA, lobbyists are prohibited from â€Å"treating† Congress members or their staff to things like meals, travel, or entertainment events. Under HLOGA, lobbyists must file Lobbying Disclosure (LD) reports during each year revealing all contributions they made to campaign events for members of Congress or other expenditures of efforts they make that might in any way personally benefit a member of Congress. Specifically, the required reports are: The LD-2 report showing all lobbying activities for each organization they are registered to represent must be filed quarterly; andThe LD-203 report disclosing certain political â€Å"contributions† to politicians must be filed twice a year. What Can Lobbyists ‘Contribute’ to Politicians? Lobbyists are allowed to contribute money to federal politicians under the same campaign contribution limits placed on individuals. During the current (2016) federal election cycle, lobbyists cannot give more than $2,700 to any candidate and $5,000 to any Political Action Committees (PAC) in each election. Of course, the most coveted â€Å"contributions† lobbyists make to politicians are the money and votes of the members of the industries and organizations they work for. In 2015 for example, the nearly 5 million members of the National Rifle Association gave a combined $3.6 million to federal politicians opposed to tighter gun control policy. In addition, lobbyist must file quarterly reports listing their clients, the fees they received from each client and the issues on which they lobbied for each client. Lobbyists who fail to comply with these laws face could face both civil and criminal penalties as determined by the Office of the U.S. Attorney. Penalties for Violation of the Lobbying Laws The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, along with U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) are responsible for ensuring that lobbyists comply with the LDA activity disclosure law. Should they detect a failure to comply, the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House notifies the lobbyist in writing. Should the lobbyist fail to provide an adequate response, the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House refers the case to the USAO. The USAO researches these referrals and sends additional noncompliance notices to the lobbyist, requesting that they file reports or terminate their registration. If USAO does not receive a response after 60 days, it decides whether to pursue a civil or criminal case against the lobbyist. A civil judgment could lead to penalties up to $200,000 for each violation, while a criminal conviction - usually pursued when a lobbyist’s noncompliance is found to be knowing and corrupt- could lead to a maximum of 5 years in prison. So yes, there are laws for lobbyists, but how many of those lobbyists are really doing the â€Å"right thing† by complying with the disclosure laws? GAO Reports on Lobbyists’ Compliance with the Law In an audit released on March 24, 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that during 2015, â€Å"most† registered federal lobbyists did file disclosure reports that included key data required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA). According to the GAO’s audit, 88% of lobbyists properly filed initial LD-2 reports as required by the LDA. Of those properly filed reports, 93% included adequate documentation on income and expenses. About 85% of lobbyists properly filed their required year-end LD-203 reports disclosing campaign contributions. During 2015, federal lobbyists filed 45,565 LD-2 disclosure reports with $5,000 or more in lobbying activity, and 29,189 LD-203 reports of federal political campaign contributions. The GAO did find that, as in years past, some lobbyists continued to properly disclose payments for certain â€Å"covered positions,† as paid congressional internships or certain executive agency positions provided as part of the lobbyists’ â€Å"contributions† to lawmakers. GAO’s audit estimated that about 21% of all LD-2 reports filed by lobbyists in 2015 failed to disclose payments for at least one such covered position, despite the fact that most lobbyists told the GAO that they found the rules regarding reporting covered positions as being â€Å"very easy† or   Ã¢â‚¬Å"somewhat easy† to understand.