Executive Summary
The Tucker Company is a manufacturing company dealing with production of jet engines and turbines. It manufactures three types of products. The products are specifically military aircraft engines, commercial aircraft engines and utility turbines. These products are made of similar materials. Metal is one of the major requirements for their manufacture. Since the products have different designs, the company’s chief executive officer makes up the way to divide the company into specialised divisions.
He proposes the divisions to the management board of the company. Apparently, the board accepts the chief executive officer’s proposal, and the company is reorganised to enhance production. However, the new structure places a shared resource under the management of one of the divisions. This allows the particular division to control the use of the resource causing a conflict between a junior manager in one department and the laboratory manager (Samson & Daft, 2012).
There is no way to check the laboratory manager’s actions since his superior officer has no official communication channel for other departments to report their discontent. The actual problem is the placement of the laboratory department in one of the divisions. Another problem aggravating the conflict is the social orientation of the two managers (Samson & Daft, 2012).
Solution to Conflict of Personality
Personalities are difficult to change. Since one of the problems affecting the Tucker Company is the personalities of two junior managers, it is important for the company to define the official duties of each manager. The laboratory manager should have his official duties explicitly defined to stop him from offering any kind of advice to a department where he is not accountable for any action.
Solution to Flawed Structure
It is necessary to restructure the company so that the laboratory manager has a proper reporting channel. Considering the current arrangement, the restructuring of the company will necessitate shifting the authority over the laboratory management to the CEO’s office. Although Mr. Hodge is a junior manager, he will report directly to the chief executive officer. When there is a proper reporting structure, the laboratory manager will be obligated to perform his duties well. He will be accountable for failure of laboratory services in any of the divisions.
Organisation of Tucker Company
The chief executive officer of the company supervises the three vice presidents of the divisions, and reports to the board. One of the three divisions manufactures commercial aircraft engines and a vice president heads it. Similarly, another division is headed by a vice president and manufactures military aircraft engines. The third division manufactures utility turbines and a vice president heads it too. In the utility turbine division, there is an engineering department headed by a manager. A laboratory is shared among the divisions since it is adequate for their use. The laboratory manager heads this laboratory.
The laboratory department operates under the military aircraft engine division as a convenience measure for the company. Presumably, the military aircraft engines need constant advancement in terms of technology. They are expected to lead in terms of technological advancement. Since research is carried out in laboratories, it is important for the laboratory to be located under the military aircraft engine division.
Question 2
Previously, the company operated with one laboratory since it was not divided. When the divisions were implemented and created, it became necessary for the company to share the laboratory in terms of metal composition analysis. However, Mr. Hodge, the manager overseeing operations in the laboratory, takes advantage of his strategic position to manipulate other departments in the company.
Since the laboratory is crucial for operations in all departments, the laboratory manager chooses to deliver the work assigned by the military aircraft engine division early since he reports directly to that division’s manager. He intends to please his direct superior at the expense of other divisions. Consequently, he is in a conflict with a manager in the utility turbine department over the decision by the laboratory management to delay a metallurgy analysis requested by the management of utility turbine division.
Mr. Hodge, the laboratory manager, is overambitious since he seeks to influence the decisions made by other departments. He seeks to engage in the actual manufacture of the utility turbines by suggesting that he must be involved in the design of the turbines. He expresses the view that he is knowledgeable than his counterpart. Due to the inadequacy of the reporting structure, the actions of Mr. Hodge cannot be controlled.
Summary of the Case Study
The case study of The Tucker Company presents the conflict between junior managers in different but related departments. Mr Hodge runs the laboratory while the other manager runs the engineering department. This case study is intended to find solutions to the structural flaws and personality differences in the management.
Analysis of the conflict
Mr. Hodge seems to overstep his authority in the company by seeking to influence the decisions made by the engineering department. However, his personality is the reason for his interest in the design of the turbines. He is ambitious, and is thus not content with doing the work in the laboratory alone. He thinks his opinion is important in other departments since he is the metallurgist on whom other departments depend on. People possess traits that are usually difficult to change. In all management structures, the managers have different character traits (Reuver & Woerkom, 2010). Due to these differences, conflicts often arise. It is the duty of the senior management team to organise their team in such a way such that friction between managers of the departments is avoided.
Considering that personality is a permanent orientation, it is clear that the real problem is the structural organisation of the company (Greenberg, 2005). Some departments such as the laboratory department are not accountable to anyone for their responsibilities. Mr. Hodge, the laboratory manager, may choose to ignore the requests of some departments or even delay their work (Reuver & Woerkom, 2010). The divisions that can be affected are the utility turbines division and the commercial aircraft engine division. On the other hand, Mr. Hodge has to honour the requests of the military aircraft engine division. Moreover, Mr. Hodge wants to please his superior and catch his or her attention.
New Structure of the Tucker Company
Advantages of the New Structure
In the new structure, the laboratory manager can be held accountable for the failure of laboratory services in any of the divisions (Gibson & Ivancevich, 2009). The laboratory manager is directly accountable to the chief executive officer.
The new structure removes the direct control of the laboratory from the military aircraft engine division. Thus, the laboratory is free to serve all divisions equally. It is also not possible for Mr. Hodge, the laboratory manager to claim that that he has to give priority to the military aircraft engine division since his direct superior heads it.
Disadvantages of the New Structure
In the new structure, it can be seen that the laboratory management is directly under the chief executive officer. This means that Mr. Hodge is operating at the same level as the vice presidents of the divisions, who were his previous superiors. In this position, he might seek to control all divisions in the company (Aubry, 2011). In the new arrangement, the military aircraft engine division may not get the attention it needs from the laboratory for its special requirements.
Recommendations and Conclusion
It is important to separate the laboratory services for each division. Evidently, even the current solution does not take care of all problems. The delays in delivery of laboratory services are due to inadequacy of the single laboratory. Furthermore, the problem is compounded by the partial delivery of services by the laboratory management. Another measure that can be taken is to avoid putting aggressive people in positions of authority.
References
Aubry, M. (2011). The social reality of organisational project management at the interface between networks and hierarchy. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(3), 436-457.
Gibson, R., & Ivancevich,, J. (2009). Organizations: behavior,structure, processes. Management International Review, 49(3), 359-387.
Greenberg, J. (2005). Managing behavior in organizations. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Reuver, R. D., & Woerkom, M. (2010). Can conflict management be an antidote to subordinate absenteeism?. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(5), 479 – 494.
Samson, D., & Daft, R. L. (2012). Fundamentals of management. South Melbourne, Vic.: Cengage Learning Australia.