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.
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.
