Case Study Analysis
This is a case study analysis of Ducor Chemical Company, and it helps in understanding the mechanisms or strategies that can aid in collaborative working relationships among various managers involved in the implementation of a project. This case study is a clear indication of the effects of poor working relations between the project manager and line manager.
The two managers conflict over everything, and subsequently, the line managers often develop a negative perception of the project manager. The aftermath is jeopardy on the implementation of the project, and this could be associated with the termination of the project by a client and great losses to a company.
The case of Ducor Chemical Company is a representation of the diverse nature of project implementation, requiring collaboration and the skills of resolving conflict. The lab manager, in this situation, does not work to enhance partnership and collaboration between the managers involved; hence, tension and anxiety resulting from previous poor working relations are transferred to this project.
In addition, he does not make any effort to notify the senior chemist (Thomton) of the need to mind his language. The poor relationship between the two managers results in poor channels of communication. Hence, even though Thomton’s innovative approach may be beneficial to the company, he takes the wrong approach to make his ideas known.
Thomton’s approach threatens the relationship between Ducor Company and its client. The project manager, on the other hand, has taken the right approach of negotiating with the lab manager for the right person with the right attitude to enable the successful completion of the project. In this case study, the negotiation process is not successful because the lab manager stamps his authority without considering options that may work well for the project manager and the project at large.
How do we create a partnership between the project manager and line managers when project manager focuses only on the best interest of his or her project and the line manager is expected to make impartial company decisions?
Partnerships are developed when a group of two or more people works together for a common cause. According to Kerzner (2013), rivalry between a project manager and line managers results from the perception that they are not on the same level; hence, creating an environment characterized by competition and superior-subordinate relationship.
The project manager may be deemed superior to the line manager, something that may not create a good and positive working relation between the two managers. Developing a healthy relationship between the project and line managers requires both the project and line managers to view themselves as equals and share in authority, accountability and responsibility.
Who should have more of a say during negotiations for resources – the project manager or the line manager?
Morris & Pinto (2007) state that human resource policies should be designed in a way that fulfills the needs of both line management activities and project management processes without losing the integrity of either one management process. Negotiation entails discussing a particular issue with the aim of arriving at a consensus.
Thus, in such a case, there is no one person that should have more say than the other. Technically, each option is tabled and evaluated in relation to its pros and cons. Subsequently, the most feasible and applicable option is selected. Unfortunately, this is not how it occurs as indicated by Morris & Pinto (2007), who state that project managers are in continuous conflict with department heads over project resources.
How should irresolvable conflicts over staffing between the project and line managers be handled?
An effective matrix structure (indicated in the figure below) that allows understanding and collaboration between the involved managers is paramount. According to Sollish & Semanik (2012), there should be open lines of communication between the project and line managers.
The matrix structure is useful during project implementation. It should have been adopted in Ducor Chemical Company because it creates an environment where all the workers report to more than one person without regarding any manager to be superior to the other. Subsequently, a positive interaction develops.
This matrix enables the managers to come together as a team and layout short-term objectives to govern their activities.
Should an external customer have a say in project staffing?
The external customer does not have a say in project staffing. Project implementation is a stepwise activity that requires proper planning and recruitment of staff based on the required qualifications that should be commensurate with the staffs’ roles and responsibilities.
The California Franchise Tax Board (2008) developed a systematic guide to indicate workforce planning. The customer’s mandate is to state what he or she expects as the outcome. The managers executing a customer’s project are in charge of recruiting staff after a thorough vetting of available internal personnel. This vetting process helps to determine if external staff is required.
How do we remove an employee who is not performing as expected?
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (2014), the manager should not take a hasty action, for example, sacking, in case an employee is not performing as expected. The supervisor should review past performance and what intervention has been taken to improve performance in the event that this may not be the first incidence of poor performance.
However, issues such as burnout, motivation, training or personal problems may be the reason for poor performance. In the case of probationary employees, no formal procedure is required. Employees who are not on probation are given an opportunity to improve. If they have not yet shown improvement after this time, they can be “demoted, reassigned or removed” (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014).
Should project managers negotiate for people or deliverables?
According to Kloppenborg (2014), the fact that project managers are accountable for performance than for supervising employees, they need to negotiate with the functional managers for the right people. In addition, there is a need for the project managers to negotiate with customers and sponsors about the deliverables to ensure successful project implementation.
References
Franchise Tax Board. (2008). Workforce Planning Guide. Web.
Kerzner, H. (2013). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kloppenborg, T. (2014). Contemporary Project Management: Organize/Plan/Perform (3rd ed.). Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Morris, P., & Pinto, J. (2007). Project Organization & Project Management Competencies. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sollish, F., & Semanik, J. (2012). The Procurement and Supply Manager’s Desk Reference (2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
United States Department of Agriculture. (2014). Dealing with Employees’ Unacceptable Performance. Web.