The case concerns a chain of three ski and snowboarding shops located on the East Coast. Since
the first store opened, the owner, Maria Howe, has pursued a di<eren+a+on strategy of state-of-the-art
equipment for skiers at all levels, store employees who are able to provide the customer with expert
advice, and a quick response +me that accommodates the last-minute shopper. She has also
aggressively pursued and created a market for the ski stores by o<ering lessons, sponsoring seminars,
and adding snowboarding equipment. These e<orts have paid o<, yielding suMcient business to enable
Howe to expand to three stores and maintain a Ouctua+ng but consistent profit. However, she is facing
increasing competition from other ski stores that have opened in the area.
Howe’s leadership style appears to range from consulta+ve to par+cipa+ve, and she has made
many a9empts to increase employee involvement in the business, most of which center around the type
of employee hired and the solicita+on and incorpora+on of their suggestion about store inventory.
However, as the business has expanded to three stores, there is growing evidence of low productivity—
late orders, damaged equipment, lost rentals, lack of responsiveness to customers, etc.
In the year before the case situa+on takes place, Howe developed and implemented a merit
incentive plan to motivate increased productivity from the store’s molders, employees’ who place the
bindings on skis, to be more produc+ve. The plan was not very successful. Molders doubted the
accuracy of the managers’ judgments about their performance because their work is very
interdependent with that of the other employees and because other employee groups felt that they
should have been included in the plan. The case concludes with Howe hearing a consultant speak about
the benefit of non-tradi+onal incentive plans and deciding to check out the feasibility of these for her
organization.
There is increasing evidence that pay alone does not motivate performance very e<ec+vely for
many American workers. Some incentive programs have been quite successful.
Lincoln Electric Company, a manufacturer of industrial electric motors and welding equipment,
has gone for more than 54 years without a losing quarter, has operated for forty years without a layo<,
and has workers who are three +mes more produc+ve than their cohorts in other firm. Company
leaders a9ribute this record to their incentive plan, which pays factory workers on a piece rate basis for
each acceptable piece produced and provides a yearly merit payment based on employees’
dependability, ideas, quality, and output. Employees’ bonuses average 97.6 percent of their regular
earnings. At Carrier corporation, a manufacturer of hea+ng and air condi+oning equipment,
productivity has risen 24 percent and rejects have decreased notably since the implementation of a
gainsharing plan, IMPROSHARE.
Unfortunately, very li9le well controlled research has been conducted on the e<ects of incentive
plans, but case studies suggest that a number of factors may contribute to their success or failure. The
first is employee involvement. Without employee input and commitment, incentive plans are unlikely to
generate changes in status quo operation and thus, have li9le e<ect on costs or profitability. Mitchell
Fein, the developer of the gainsharing plan IMPROSHARE, says that to implement gainsharing plans
successfully, management must be willing to share information and to listen to employees. Edward