TEACHING NOTE
CUSTOM CHIP, INC.*
OVERVIEW
The Custom Chip, Inc. case provides students with an opportunity to understand and
explore the complexity of a manager’s job. The case, set in the semiconductor industry,
describes a middle level engineering manager’s activities over the course of a day. Students
see that this manager—Frank Questin—is faced with a never-ending stream of
organizational situations and opportunities to which he can respond. The primary issue in
this case is Frank Questin’s effectiveness as a manager. The interplay of his personality, job
requirements, and environment make the assessment of his effectiveness a challenging task
for the students.
One approach to using this case is to have students relate Frank Questin’s activities to
Mintzberg’s managerial role framework (see Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work,
Harper & Row, 1973). However, it is not necessary to use Mintzberg’s model in assigning
and discussing this case. Discussion questions are included below for both an open-ended
approach or a Mintzberg based approach.
OBJECTIVES
1. To illustrate the complexity and fragmentation of a manager’s daily routine.
*This teaching note was prepared by Murray Silverman.
,2. To provide a basis for exploring the general issue: “How to assess managerial
effectiveness.”
3. To assess a manager’s effectiveness in handling specific situations.
4. (Optional) to provide a basis for applying Mintzberg’s managerial role framework.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
OPTION I
1. What did Frank do that demonstrated his effectiveness as a manager?
2. What did Frank do that you considered to be ineffective?
3. How would you rate Frank’s effectiveness as a manager? Explain.
4. What recommendations would you make to Frank in order for him to increase his
effectiveness as a manager?
OPTION 2 (if Mintzberg’s framework is used)
In the following questions use the managerial roles framework developed by Henry
Mintzberg (The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row, 1973).
1. Describe specific things that Frank did that exemplify his performing the following
roles:
, a. FIGUREHEAD
b. LIAISON
c. LEADER
d. DISSEMINATOR
e. MONITOR
f. SPOKESPERSON
g. ENTREPRENEUR
h. DISTURBANCE HANDLER
i. RESOURCE ALLOCATOR
j. NEGOTIATOR
2. How well did Frank perform those roles? Explain.
3. How would you rate Frank’s effectiveness as a manger? Explain.
4. What recommendations would you make to Frank in order for him to increase his
effectiveness as a manager?
, COMMENTS
*Activities that demonstrated Frank’s effectiveness as a manager include:
1. He initiated weekly meetings for the product engineers, creating an opportunity to
keep his staff informed, to engage in-group problem solving and to build a stronger
team. He reinforced the priority of these meetings by letting other departments
know that the product engineers were not to be interrupted during the meetings. He
also used these meetings as a motivating tool by giving recognition to effective
performers during the meeting.
2. He made concerted efforts both formally and informally to establish good
interpersonal relationships with other department heads. He seemed to recognize
that organizational effectiveness and his department’s effectiveness were affected
by the quality of the teamwork between Pete Chang, Rod Cameron and himself.
Frank was more successful in this regard with Pete Chang than Rod Cameron. Rod
seemed over-concerned about his own department and was somewhat difficult
interpersonally.
3. He moved quickly to resolve Bill Lazarus’ problem. He immediately set up meetings
with the individuals who could solve the problem and negotiated in real time to
reach a satisfactory solution. This demonstrated an ability to handle the unexpected
disturbances constantly confronting a manager.
4. He established an open-door policy for his staff. He demonstrated listening and
empathy skills in dealing with Sharon. He seemed to be an effective interpersonal
communicator and as a result he often got cooperation from his people and Pete
Chang.
5. Frank was introspective. This might be viewed as a positive quality insofar as it
allows a manager to identify his or her weaknesses and subsequently improve those
areas.
CUSTOM CHIP, INC.*
OVERVIEW
The Custom Chip, Inc. case provides students with an opportunity to understand and
explore the complexity of a manager’s job. The case, set in the semiconductor industry,
describes a middle level engineering manager’s activities over the course of a day. Students
see that this manager—Frank Questin—is faced with a never-ending stream of
organizational situations and opportunities to which he can respond. The primary issue in
this case is Frank Questin’s effectiveness as a manager. The interplay of his personality, job
requirements, and environment make the assessment of his effectiveness a challenging task
for the students.
One approach to using this case is to have students relate Frank Questin’s activities to
Mintzberg’s managerial role framework (see Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work,
Harper & Row, 1973). However, it is not necessary to use Mintzberg’s model in assigning
and discussing this case. Discussion questions are included below for both an open-ended
approach or a Mintzberg based approach.
OBJECTIVES
1. To illustrate the complexity and fragmentation of a manager’s daily routine.
*This teaching note was prepared by Murray Silverman.
,2. To provide a basis for exploring the general issue: “How to assess managerial
effectiveness.”
3. To assess a manager’s effectiveness in handling specific situations.
4. (Optional) to provide a basis for applying Mintzberg’s managerial role framework.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
OPTION I
1. What did Frank do that demonstrated his effectiveness as a manager?
2. What did Frank do that you considered to be ineffective?
3. How would you rate Frank’s effectiveness as a manager? Explain.
4. What recommendations would you make to Frank in order for him to increase his
effectiveness as a manager?
OPTION 2 (if Mintzberg’s framework is used)
In the following questions use the managerial roles framework developed by Henry
Mintzberg (The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row, 1973).
1. Describe specific things that Frank did that exemplify his performing the following
roles:
, a. FIGUREHEAD
b. LIAISON
c. LEADER
d. DISSEMINATOR
e. MONITOR
f. SPOKESPERSON
g. ENTREPRENEUR
h. DISTURBANCE HANDLER
i. RESOURCE ALLOCATOR
j. NEGOTIATOR
2. How well did Frank perform those roles? Explain.
3. How would you rate Frank’s effectiveness as a manger? Explain.
4. What recommendations would you make to Frank in order for him to increase his
effectiveness as a manager?
, COMMENTS
*Activities that demonstrated Frank’s effectiveness as a manager include:
1. He initiated weekly meetings for the product engineers, creating an opportunity to
keep his staff informed, to engage in-group problem solving and to build a stronger
team. He reinforced the priority of these meetings by letting other departments
know that the product engineers were not to be interrupted during the meetings. He
also used these meetings as a motivating tool by giving recognition to effective
performers during the meeting.
2. He made concerted efforts both formally and informally to establish good
interpersonal relationships with other department heads. He seemed to recognize
that organizational effectiveness and his department’s effectiveness were affected
by the quality of the teamwork between Pete Chang, Rod Cameron and himself.
Frank was more successful in this regard with Pete Chang than Rod Cameron. Rod
seemed over-concerned about his own department and was somewhat difficult
interpersonally.
3. He moved quickly to resolve Bill Lazarus’ problem. He immediately set up meetings
with the individuals who could solve the problem and negotiated in real time to
reach a satisfactory solution. This demonstrated an ability to handle the unexpected
disturbances constantly confronting a manager.
4. He established an open-door policy for his staff. He demonstrated listening and
empathy skills in dealing with Sharon. He seemed to be an effective interpersonal
communicator and as a result he often got cooperation from his people and Pete
Chang.
5. Frank was introspective. This might be viewed as a positive quality insofar as it
allows a manager to identify his or her weaknesses and subsequently improve those
areas.
