CASE STUDY 2: TUCKER COMPANY Group No. 2
Members: Galvan, Daniel Joshua G. Inso, Karla Denice A. Itchon, Gabrielle Therese A. Jimenez, Paola Mae F. Lapitan, Ma. Karen Aira S. Lim, Ana Teresa E. Lim, Diana M.
I. Point of View The point of view that we will be taking for this case is the president, Mr. Harnett. Since the issue occurs within the company and the organizational structure is involved, it would be better if Mr. Harnett, who developed the new organizational structure, will think of the solution. II. Problem Statement How can Tucker Company solve and prevent more interdepartmental tensions?
III. Analysis of Relevant Case Facts Internal Environment Analysis 1. In 1993, Tucker Company has undergone an extensive reorganizing, wherein the most appropriate organizational structure was determined by Mr. Harnett who divided the company into three major divisions namely commercial jet engines, military jet engines, and utility turbines. 2. Most of the six elements of organizational designing are present in their new organization. These elements include work specialization, departmentalization, chain of command, and centralization. 3. The new organizational design is expected to bring about improvements in the company like enhancing their performance and identifying unprofitable areas. 4. The memo to the board of directors made by Mr. Harnett explained that there will be a chain of command. This is evidenced by having the new vice president per division who will be delivering reports to Mr. Harnett. 5. Each major division comprises manufacturing department, engineering department, accounting department and others. 6. It is necessary that the laboratory is shared by other departments for the function of testing and determination of the materials selected by design engineers. 7. There was little evidence of interdepartmental and interdivisional conflict not until February 1999, when Mr. Garfield retired and was replaced by Ms. Hodge. 8. Ms. Hodge was perceived by her co-workers to be interested in her own advancement other than the company’s well-being. 9. Requests of Mr. Franklin were prompter during Mr. Garfield’s management compared to Ms. Hodge’s management because military jet engine divisional problems were one of the priorities of Ms. Hodge. 10. The company has problems on how to keep connected despite the dispersed units. Good communication among different divisions or units is also absent in the company. Analysis of the New Organizational Structure Since the case focused mainly on the firm’s staff, only the internal environment is being analyzed.
Advantages: ● It is advantageous for the military jet engine division to utilize the laboratory because of its location and structure ● It is more economical because there is only one manager who would use staff facilities for managing the laboratory. Disadvantages: ● There is only one laboratory manager who supports all the major divisions, which leads to delay on carrying out some projects. ● Administratively, the laboratory manager reports to the manager of manufacturing of military jet engine division only. IV. Formulation and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions to the Identified Problem A. Alternative Action 1: Look for an eligible replacement for Ms. Hodge, and part ways with her once achieved. Advantages: ● Since the case facts suggest that Ms. Hodge is somehow quite a difficult person to deal with, removing her from the
organization may prove to be beneficial, given that she has already caused several delays. Disadvantages: ● Looking for a replacement would take time B. Alternative Action 2: Resolve the issues between Ms. Hodge and Mr. Franklin through an appointment with the company president, Mr. Harnett, without having a major change in the organizational structure. Mr. Harnett should be the mediator in the conflict involving Ms. Hodge and Mr. Franklin. He could get both parties to sit down and allow them to discuss the matters at hand, until all areas have been covered. Advantages: ● The company does not have to undergo an organizational structure change that may lead to a delay in the completion of present projects. ● The company will stick to the original organizational structure that proved to be effective before the retirement of the previous laboratory manager. ● The managers will have an opportunity to express both their concerns and come up with a reasonable solution. Disadvantage: ● Future conflicts may arise if one party does not cooperate. C. Alternative Action 3: Mr. Harnett will have a monthly meeting among the vice presidents and managers from all three divisions, with the guidance of the consultant, to discuss about the company’s chain of command and scheduling matters. This meeting among the heads of the company will also help them understand each person’s side on the situation at hand. Other issues may also be discussed during the meeting.
Advantages: ● The managers will have an opportunity to identify if Mr. Franklin should really allow Ms. Hodge to do some changes in the engineering department of utility turbines division; it will also allow him to know who are the persons he should be directly reporting to.
● The scope of work of managers will be discussed and cleared out. With this, the conflict of overlapping work between managers will be prevented. ● The conflict of Mr. Franklin and Ms. Hodge about scheduling matters in the laboratory will be resolved as a new layout of schedule will be laid out ● Mutual understanding will be reached and will therefore prevent any more collisions between managers. Disadvantages ● It would need further observation to see if this is effective.
Alternative 4: Mr. Harnett should reconstruct a new organizational structure that makes the laboratory available to the three divisions.
Advantages: ● It would prevent other divisions from taking over activities from the different divisions. ● Each laboratory managers will be able to do promptly the tasks from their divisions. ● It is a long term solution for anticipated problems that will arise in the laboratory.
Disadvantages: ● It will bring about high costs for establishing new laboratories. ● Staff facilities and expenses will be added. ● It will not solve urgently the problem between Mr. Franklin and Ms. Hodge. Decision Criteria Ease of Implementation (30%)
Tangible Costs (30%)
Effectiveness (40 %)
Total (100%)
Alternative 1
25
20
40
85
Alternative 2
25
30
25
80
Alternative 3
25
30
35
90
Alternative 4
20
10
40
70
To evaluate the alternatives, we based our decision through rating each alternative action based on its ease of implementation, tangible costs and effectiveness when it is applied in the organization for solving the interdepartmental conflicts. Alternative 1 This alternative was given full remarks on its effectiveness because we consider the case fact which states that before Ms. Hodge entered the Tucker Company there were less interdepartmental tensions. Once she had entered the company, interdepartmental tension arises due to lack of strong chain of command and her personal interests which causes delays on the different projects of the other engineering department of each division. Thus, removing her and looking for a new Laboratory Manager would help decrease interdepartmental tension and decrease the losses in the company. This alternative receive the lowest remarks at the tangible costs because losing employees means loss of investment and hiring employee means another set of investment but pay back will occur after a short while. This alternative action was given that remarks for ease of implementation because hiring and losing employees will always be part of the evolution and cycle of a company. Alternative 2
This alternative received full remarks on tangible costs because it does not involve any loss of resources and there is the direct interaction of the CEO on the case. It receives the lowest ranking in the effectiveness because Ms. Hodge and Mr. Franklin’s interdepartmental conflicts resolution depends on how the two decided to get along. This alternative focuses more on the issue between the two and does not consider the possible interdepartmental conflicts that may occur in the future. The remarks for ease of implementation was given for this alternative action because it only involves Ms. Hodge and Mr. Franklin, not their division. Alternative 3 This alternative received full remarks on tangible costs because it does not involve any loss and use of available resources. What is needed to be done is part of the job of the top managers to ensure that the company is running smoothly and orderly. It received second ranking when it comes to effectiveness because it does not only solve the conflict between Ms. Hodge and Mr. Franklin, it also prevents possible interdepartmental conflicts in the future. This alternative action had such remarks for ease of implementation because it has been stated in the memo that had been distributed by Mr. Harnett when the organization structure had been restructured that the vice president of each division will report to the president but this time the managers of each department under the divisions are also involved. Alternative 4 It got the lowest evaluation in the decision criteria. It is because this alternative would cause additional expenses to the company, because there is a need for additional facilities and staffs, despite the fact that it can also help in solving problems that will soon arise in the company. However, there is an urgent matter that needs to be prioritized. The company should first resolve the problem between Ms. Hodge and Mr. Franklin before taking into consideration the addition of new laboratories from each division. The company is already incurring losses from the current problem of having delay in their projects and this alternative action may somehow put the company into a more difficult situation.
V. Decision/Recommendation
After analyzing the case, it is best to implement the third alternative: “ Mr. Tucker will have a monthly meeting among the vice presidents and managers from all three divisions, with the guidance of the consultant, to discuss about the company’s chain of command and scheduling matters.” Through this the company will reach a mutual understanding, resulting to prevention of any more conflicts between the managers. VI. Implementation Plan
What
Who
When
Schedule a meeting with the Vice Presidents and managers
President
1 week
● Check the schedule of the attendees of the meeting. ● Set a time and date for the meeting.
Identify the agenda
President
1 week
● List the points to be discussed.
1 day
● Discuss the issues and concerns of the vice presidents and managers. ● Reach a consensus between the managers. ● Clarify the chain of command.
Hold the meeting with the President Vice Presidents and Managers
How
VII. Contingency Plan If the third alternative is not proven effective to solve the problem at hand, the first alternative shall be followed: Look for an eligible replacement for Ms. Hodge, and part ways with her once achieved. This is to directly address the main cause of interdepartmental problems. REFERENCES MGT 101 second semester, 2015 notes
