A Sea Change in Staffing at Leapfrog Innovations, Inc.
In the Part IV Case Study (Hitt, Miller, & Colella, 2011, p. 567), the entire situation has evolved into a “redline” situation due to many challenges have not been appropriately dealt with. They were either not foreseen, or when noticed, where just coped with and no intelligent management controls were implemented.
The majority of the issues can be attributed to how Dick Eaton has allowed himself to be uninvolved in the critical operations for 10 years as LFI has grown and evolved throughout the years. Several employees have been hired and quit or moved on, and with the growth and evolution of the companies, their job responsibilities have changed. None of the personnel in their jobs have delineated what their job entails nor any set of billet description so that their replacements can understand where to start when being hired. This is especially apparent when Dick is attempting to hire a replacement in logistics but is struggling with hiring the “Heather of 2000” or the “Heather of 2004” (Hitt et al., 2011, p. 574).
Dick’s right hand is Julia, but he has made it clear that she will be running the show and be accountable for the complete operations in every aspect. For ten years, he has allowed her to bear the brunt of the burden. Aside from bankrolling the operation, and brainstorming, he was completely detached to making decisions that kept the company successful. Dick was in it as “a means for early retirement for himself, I wanted Leapfrog to thrive, not just survive” (Hitt et al., 2011, p. 571). Given that he was not completely committed, he is not capable of running the company operations when 4 of his 5 full time employees will be leaving the company in the same time period. Given the lack of replacements, no turnover/passdown period between oncoming and offgoing employees and no billet description, it is
References: Hitt, M. A., Miller, C. C., & Colella, A. (2011). Organizational Behavior (3rd ed.). Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons.