B Y

A N J A L I M E H TA ( P G D M )S O U R A B H M AYA B H AT E ( P G D M )

VA M S I K R I S H N A ( P G D M )TA R U N B H AT T ( P G D M )

A K A S H S H A R M A ( P G D M )A N K U S H G O E Y L ( B B A )A R J U N M E H R A ( B B A )

W E N D E L L ( C M B A )S H A R AT H ( C M B A )

M O H I T B H AT T ( P G C M )

CASE STUDY – MORNING STAR

INTRODUCTIONCOMPANY PROFILENAME- MORNING STAR COMPANYFOUNDER-CHRIS RUFERORIGIN-CALIFORNIA,1970OPERATIONSTRANSPORTATION

PROCESSING

PAKAGING

COMPANY’S PRINCIPLE

NO TO PHYSICAL

FORCECOMMITMENTS

Case Synopsis

ORGANIZATION’S APPROACH-SELF MANAGEMENT

Self ManagementKey Issues InferenceData InterpretationSuggestionLearning

Self management

WHAT IS SELF MANAGEMENT?WHY SELF MANAGEMENT?HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SYSTEM1. EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT2. IDENTIFICATION OF PERSONAL

MISSION

COLLEAGUE LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

GAINING AGREEMENT

CAPITAL BUDGETING

COMPENSATION

KEY ISSUES

PEER ACCOUNTABILITYFEASIBILITY OF THE SELF MANAGEMENT

APPROACH UPON EXPANSION OF THE COMPANYIS THE COMPENSATION SYSTEM ENOUGH FOR

DRIVING ACCOUNTABILITY BEHAVIOURS

PROS CONS

EMPOWERMENT EVOLVEMENT OF

RELATIONS TOTAL

RESPONSIBILITY EMPLOYEE

DEVELOPMENT

LACK OF ROLES DEFINITION

NO PROPER INCENTIVE SYSTEM

LACK OF ADAPTABILITY

LACK OF MOTIVATION LACK OF

SYSTEMATIZED TRAINING

LESSER ACCOUNTABILITY

INFERENCES

FACTS AND FIGURES

40%share tomato paste and diced tomato products. number colleagues 400 year around and 2000

partial year colleagues number of colleagues not following their

commitment was 15% 10% of the member holds other accountable morning star company colleagues are earning

10%-15% more than other industries

SUGGESTIONSMENTOR SYSYSTEM

BETTER TRAINING PROCESS

BETTER INCENTIVE SYSTEM

BETTER SYSTEM TO EVALUATE UNDERPERFORMERS

KEY LEARNINGS

IMPORTANCE OF FULLFILLING COMMITMENTSINCENTIVES ARE NEEDED FOR MOTIVATION CORRECT ASSIGNMENT OF THE WORKALIGNING THE PERSONAL GOALS WITH THE

COMPANY’S VISION