Lee - Coker Case

INSEAD
Lee Coker
03/97-4559
This case was written by Jean-Louis Barsoux, Research Fellow, under the supervision of Jean-François
Manzoni, Assistant Professor of Accounting and Control, both at INSEAD. It is intended to be used as
a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an
administrative situation. Although the case is based on real situations within a single company, the
names have been changed and the company’s activities disguised to preserve anonymity.
Copyright © 1996 INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.
This document is authorized for use by Sharad Agrawal, from 05/26/2023 to 06/30/2023
in the course: NCCY 5040: Leading Teams - McClean (Summer 2023), Cornell University.
Any unauthorized use or reproduction of this document is strictly prohibited.
INSEAD 1 4559
Introduction
Lee Coker is Manufacturing Manager in one of the major plants of a Fortune 100 company.
He is known by all, and described by his subordinates, as a very bright, innovative, and
energetic manager. Talking to another participant on a management development programme,
in late September, he reflected on his job:
“In manufacturing you need people with drive, people who can fix problems. I
have five Area Managers reporting to me. They are all fine, but they are not
equally willing to stretch themselves. This means that I have to get more involved
with some than others.
For the last year or so, I've been very busy planning for a new product line which
is considered important for the future of the plant. Because of the attention this
product line is receiving from above, I worked closely with the Area Manager
responsible for the line. I realised this meant neglecting some of the other Area
Managers to a certain extent, but it was a calculated risk. You've got to hope that
they'll let you know if they need you. But some of them don't.
Last week, for instance, I had a big problem with a guy called Ed. Out of the
blue, the quality department almost stopped one of Ed's lines because quality was
too uneven. I hadn't seen it coming, but you can bet your life that from now on I'll
give a lot more attention to Ed's lines.”
Background
The plant is the largest on a site comprising more than ten production facilities. It is part of a
relatively successful profit centre, generally meeting the targets set by headquarters. The plant
manufactures three major types of products, which are sold in two major markets. The
products are precision control devices that regulate electrical current (e.g., circuit breakers),
pressure (e.g., pressure valves) or temperature (e.g., thermostats). The devices operate within
fairly tight tolerances.
The products vary along several dimensions. One of the product lines involves a very large
number of variations; it can only be produced on order, sometimes in batches of a single unit.
The production process involves a large amount of skilled labour and the equipment used is
fairly old. At the other extreme, another line involves a small number of models
manufactured in large volumes on relatively modern equipment; the manufacturing process is
very mechanised and is buffered by a small amount of finished goods inventory. The plant's
strategy is to target growth in the latter (more recent) product line which, as a result, receives
more engineering support than the older lines.
The plant is organised by production lines, each operated by a dedicated team.

Manufacturing Supervisors oversee up to three production lines. They report to Area
INSEAD 2 4559
Managers who are responsible for meeting production, quality, and cost objectives for a
product group. Lee Coker has five Area Managers reporting to him. Lee himself reports to
T.C., the Plant Manager. Both of them have worked they way up through the plant and have,
at one time or another, managed most of the lines. The organisational chart for this plant is
shown in Exhibit 1.
Ed is the newest of the five Area Managers. Lee Coker was very happy when he managed to
secure Ed's transfer from another plant on the site, in January of this year. Ed's training and
solid experience as an engineering manager looked set to strengthen the team. He was put in
charge of a group of lines that had proved relatively stable and profitable over the years - they
were often used as a first assignment for new Supervisors. Lately, however, some of these
lines had been experiencing minor difficulties and Ed was expected to manage their
restructuring and revitalisation over time. Two Supervisors reported to him, including a
recently hired college graduate.
Ed's First Nine Months on the Job
Ed recalls things going pretty well at the start. He immediately hit it off with two of the other
Area Managers, Alex and Don. They were especially helpful in telling him what to expect
from Lee and how to handle him. They agreed that Lee was the most creative manager they
had ever worked for. They also agreed on a few basic dimensions of Lee's management style.
First, they said, Lee tends to be more interested in discussing projects and programmes than
just “numbers”; the plant had been first on the site to implement Just-in-Time in the late
eighties, Lee was now asking Area Managers to focus on the development of self-managed
work teams.
Aside from one or two key indicators such as cycle time, Alex and Don pointed out, Lee tends
to follow quantitative measures of performance on an exception basis; he is more likely to
focus on large, unfavourable variances. This was quite clear in the weekly staff meeting
during which each Supervisor and Area Manager reviewed progress against a variety of
monthly objectives; units that were on target spoke briefly, while units that might not reach
their targets were invited to discuss the causes of their problems and the corrective
mechanisms they had set in place.
Alex and Don also emphasised Lee's dislike for “bad surprises”. “It's best not to surprise
him,” Alex laughed. “The key is recognising the problem as soon as possible, communicating
to him what the problem is and what you're doing about it, and giving him a conservative
assessment of the problem's consequences, rather than being optimistic and further missing
the target.”
Alex and Don also reported noticing over the years that Lee tends to devote more attention to
problems or variances reported by managers early in their job tenure and thus relatively
inexperienced. In this case, Alex and Don added, Ed might escape Lee's normal focus on
“rookies” because, over the coming months, Lee would probably be very busy with the new,
INSEAD 3 4559
high volume line. This new line was receiving a lot of visibility from the top, so Lee would
be keen on ensuring a smooth production ramp-up.
Ed quickly found that, as he had been told, Lee did not tend to get involved unless there was a
problem or he was asked for help. When he did approach Lee for advice, Ed often came
away dissatisfied. As he explained to Don: “Sometimes you describe a problem to him and he
fires off 50 answers, leaving you to choose the best 10 out of 50! He can also be somewhat
out-of-date in terms of how the line runs and how the process works.”
In addition, Ed himself thought it best not to ask too many questions. His experience in other
plants had taught him that, “If you have a question about the way something is working, that
means that you have some potential problem coming up on your lines, that you don't have the
necessary experience or you haven't done a very good job at researching. Asking questions
shows that you don't know everything, and then the boss might think 'if he doesn't know this,
maybe he doesn't know something else too!'.”
No major problem occurred over Ed's first nine months on the job. Interactions between Ed
and Lee were fairly limited and the two developed a courteous, if not warm, relationship.
The Next Three Months

Following Lee's return from his management development programme, exchanges between
Ed and Lee had become more strained. Puzzled, Ed confided to Don:
“Of late, he's started asking a lot more questions, being a lot more pressing. When
he comes to my area, he often checks up on routine matters and he rarely bothers
to comment on improvements. What irritates me the most is that he sometimes
asks me questions I'm sure he already knows the answers to - I feel like he's
testing me, not just keeping informed.”
Ed explained how Lee had started asking him to explain even minor variances and seemed
increasingly reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt. For that reason, Ed did not like to
meet with Lee without first holding a meeting with his own subordinates who could brief him
on reasons for unfavourable results. Ed realised that he had grown uncomfortable discussing
with Lee anything that required more than a quick answer. Partly, it was because he didn't
want to expose himself to more negative feedback than was necessary. But he also sensed that
Lee was either too busy or not very keen to have an open discussion with him.
After one particularly difficult team meeting, Alex and Don came round to Ed's office to say
that they thought Lee had been unfair to Ed in the meeting and to offer him some advice. Ed
complained:
“I just don't seem to have any freedom anymore. Whenever there's a hiccup, he
wants to know what caused it and then he doesn't give me a chance to solve the
problem on my own. He'll 'suggest' a particular course of action - often it's what I
INSEAD 4 4559
would have done anyhow - and then come back later in the day to see how things
are going.. or maybe it's to check on us!”
Don sympathised with Ed.
“He does the same thing to me! The communication is pretty much one way,
from him to me, almost like “this is the way you do it because I'm the boss and
you're my subordinate”. You say: “yes, but Lee, wouldn't it better to do it this
way?”. But he always seems too busy to have any sort of open discussion about it.
Even if he's listening, you don't get the impression that he is - like he'll start doing
something else while you're talking to him.”
Ed nodded as Don continued:
“And he regularly sends me questions or comments written over performance

reports. Then I have to go to his office and explain why things happened and what
we are doing about them. Then, when he finds my answers unsatisfactory, which
is not unusual, I have to do more research on the issue. Once I've presented all the
facts and finished answering all his questions, he is capable of understanding that
the variance wasn't our fault, but it can take a while to gather all these facts!”
Ed was relieved that he wasn't the only one who sometimes found Lee difficult. Don's
openness made it easier for Ed to reveal his own frustrations and the two of them compared
anecdotes about Lee. They confessed that this constant struggle was taking its toll on them.
As Don put it:
“You end up simply going through the motions. And you stop bringing up new
ideas because you know he'll try to change them to something which is closer to
his own view. Sure, you can fight him for three months, but in the end it won't
even resemble your idea anymore, so what's the point?”
“Yes,” agreed Ed, “plus it would be nice, once in a while, to get some praise from
him to help us keep up our level of effort!”
Alex joined in the conversation.
“It's funny, I listen to you guys talk about Lee, and you'd think we have
completely different bosses! He's just not like that with me. I mean, I hardly ever
get a query from him on a variance or a problem. Most of our exchanges are
routine ones, mandated by the reporting systems; the rest of the time he leaves me
alone.
And I certainly don't have any qualms about going to see him when I disagree. Of
course, he won't always agree with me but he does listen, and he allows me to
vent, which I do often! I would even say that he's often quite helpful when we
discuss a problem I face.”
INSEAD 5 4559
Don laughed and pointed out that Alex had not always sung that tune. Alex thought for a
minute and smiled:
“That's true! We did go through a rough period a couple of years back. For some
time he followed up quite closely on us whenever we had a problem. He would
set up a daily eight o'clock meeting to review the prior day's results, and my
supervisors and I would have to defend the actions we'd taken and those we
wanted to take.”
“I guess that, over the last two years, we have managed to convince him that we
are a good bunch of people and that when there is a problem, it's generally not our
fault. The success we have had implementing Just-in-Time has probably helped;
we followed a different route than the one he believed in, but our approach has
worked out well for our area and our type of products. So you see, Ed, you've got
to hang in there!”
Encouraged by Alex's pep talk, Ed continued doing his job to the best of his abilities, trying to
manage his area with a minimum of help from Lee. As Ed saw it, “if there's no trouble, why
wave the flag?”
Lee's Priorities
In June (i.e., about six months after Ed joined the group), Lee had met with his boss, T.C., to
discuss the forthcoming mid-year performance evaluations. “I guess there is only one Area
Manager that I would put in the excellent category,” explained Lee, “and that's Alex. At the
other end of the scale, there's Don whose performance is, let's say, adequate. He's not great,
but he's not awful either. He does an okay job. The others are somewhere in between,
average performers.”
“What about the new guy, Ed?” asked T.C..
“It's too early to tell for sure, but he looks fine. He's not a superstar, but he's solid,” answered
Lee.
“Tell me,” continued T.C., “what's the basis for distinguishing between, say, Alex and Don?”
With a bit of prompting, Lee was able to articulate his views on the differences between
outstanding performers and “adequate performers”:
“In manufacturing, outstanding performers know how to get things done. What
they don't know, they go and find out. They're self-starters, they drive to
excellence. Adequate performers tend to accept that “things happen” rather the
challenging them. There's also a difference in terms of accountability; I find that
lower performers often spend more time trying to escape accountability - trying to
explain variances away or resisting stretch targets - than they actually spend trying
to achieve the targets! And the last thing is that lower performers generally don't
INSEAD 6 4559
ask for help before it's too late. They allow themselves to get buried. A high
performer will ask you for help if they need it.”
“And how does that affect the way you manage them?” asked T.C..
Lee thought for a while, then explained:
“Well, for instance, I would communicate with Alex on a daily basis: When I see
him, I tend to ask him a general question like, “how are things going?”. I'm just
inviting him to communicate with me. But with Don, say, I tend to ask more
specific, detailed questions, like, “how are things going with this?”, or “what's
happening with a, with b, with c, with d? Are you satisfied that enough is being
done about a, b, c, or d? Do you need any help with a, b, c, or d, any more help,
and what is that help?” To try and encourage Don to think on his own.
I also monitor Don's decisions and actions - I don't know if you'd say on an
ongoing basis, but frequently - because he is not a self driver, and so he doesn't set
stretch targets. And depending on how serious the situation is or how great a
variance it is, I may look later on the same day to make sure that he's on track
with the corrective action we identified.”
“In contrast,” Lee added, “I would give Alex, say, a greater opportunity to
succeed on his own, without as much monitoring. I wouldn't jump in as quickly.
Overall, I would invite Alex to come and get me involved if he needs help instead
of imposing myself. I think that if you have a good performer, you need to give
that person a chance to succeed on their own.”
With a smile, Lee continued:
“Also, in terms of praise, there's a little trick I actually picked up from you which
I tend to use with the higher performers. Sometimes, I'll ask Alex, in particular, a
question about something that I know has already been solved and where he
played a critical role. So I'll let him tell me all about it and then I'll give him a
positive response, recognition, and say ‘Gee, you handled that well’.”
T.C. was impressed by Lee's lucidity regarding his own management style. He also
remembered that during last year performance appraisal meeting, Lee had agreed to try to
improve his coaching skills. T.C. decided to take advantage of this discussion to ask Lee to
assess his own progress.
Lee confessed that his progress along that dimension had probably been slower than
anticipated, largely because of the pressures on his time with the new line. Lee realised that
he still had a tendency to be fairly directive, particularly with the Area Managers he did not
view as excellent, and that he was not quite as patient when trying to coach these individuals.
He acknowledged that he always started the conversation with good intentions, but sometimes
resorted to “spoon feeding the person just a little bit because they were not coming up with
the idea”. He explained:
INSEAD 7 4559
“The question is, if I had spent another five or another fifteen minutes asking
questions, rather than telling the person what I wanted, would the person have got
it? I hope so, but I don't know for sure. I have other problems to attend to. It's
the time factor; that's no excuse, but it's a fact of life. I am trying to get around to
more of a coaching mode and cut down on comments that may stifle their
creativity, but I'm involved in so many things - and I guess that, to some extent, I
choose to be involved in so many things - that I don't always have the time. But
I'm still working on it.”
As Ed Begins his Second Year on the Job...

Lee's increased contact with Ed proved frustrating. He was devoting more and more time to
Ed's lines but Ed did not seem to be responding. On the contrary, Ed seemed increasingly
defensive and he certainly wasn't any more forthcoming about problems on the line - if
anything, less so. While troubled by Ed's failure to improve, Lee tried to stay upbeat in their
conversations. He tried to present things in a “positive light”, realising that expressing a lack
of confidence in Ed might seriously undermine Ed's motivation.
Ed was also trying to remain upbeat. He kept reminding himself of Alex's encouragement,
but he could also see himself become increasingly defensive and stressed. He had more and
more difficulty cheering himself up for work in the morning. Fortunately, Don was there to
listen when Ed needed to talk.
In early March, Lee and T.C. were reviewing the plant's first quarter production and sales
forecasts when the Quality Manager walked into Lee's office and said:
“We're going to have to close down two of Ed's lines; the quality is just too
uneven and we can't afford to take any chances with customers. I think you guys
should do something!”
T.C. turned to Lee. These two lines represented 15% of the plant's income stream.
Epilogue
Lee had worked hard to establish his reputation as an effective and achievement-oriented
manager. The performance problem with Ed, together with the effect it was having on team
spirit, was seriously jeopardising all that effort. A number of questions preyed on Lee's mind.
How could it have come to this? Was Ed a lost cause from the start, or was Lee partly to
blame? What signals did he miss? Should he just give up on Ed or could something still be
done to retrieve the situation? Most importantly perhaps, how could he avoid a recurrence of
this kind of situation in the future?
INSEAD 8 4559
Exhibit 1
Simplified Organisation Chart of the Plant
Profit Center Manager
T.C.
Process Manufacturing Sales and

engineering manager marketing
manager Lee Coker manager
Area Area Area Area Area

Manager 1 Manager 2 Manager 3 Manager 4 Manager 5
Alex Don Ed
Supervisor Supervisor

Lee - Coker Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee - Coker Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INSEAD

Copyright © 1996 INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

The plant is organised by production lines, each operated by a dedicated team.

Copyright © 1996 INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

Ed's First Nine Months on the Job

Copyright © 1996 INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

The Next Three Months

Copyright © 1996 INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

Don sympathised with Ed.

Ed nodded as Don continued:

“And he regularly sends me questions or comments written over performance

Alex joined in the conversation.

Copyright © 1996 INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

“What about the new guy, Ed?” asked T.C..

Copyright © 1996 INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

Lee thought for a while, then explained:

With a smile, Lee continued:

Copyright © 1996 INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

As Ed Begins his Second Year on the Job...

Copyright © 1996 INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

Profit Center Manager

Process Manufacturing Sales and

Area Area Area Area Area

Copyright © 1996 INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

You might also like