The Exley Chemical Case Analysis

 

The exley Chemical Case Analysis Introduction The purpose of this analysis is to offer insight into difficulties experienced by Exley Exle y Chemical Company. Case analysis will provide an objective view of the identified problems (both macro and micro), the causes, affected systems, alternatives and recommendations. In a collaborative effort, this report reflects multiple observations and opinions regarding the case analysis. an alysis. Analysis I. Problems A. Macro • Lack of coordination within the companies operations  operations  • Decrease in sales and profits.  profits.   • Operational conflicts within the major departments  departments   • This type of structure is inappropriate inappropriat e for this company • There is no uniformity of command  command   B. Micro • The coordination between marketing and the new product development department was insufficient. • The Product development had problems with marketing.  marketing.  • The Product manager quarrels quarrels with the marketing department • Product manager was unsuccessful in coordinating the activities. • The company was having h aving difficulties in producing a team concept within the departments. departments.   II. Causes: • Implementation of separate division to handle product development has disrupted the  previous cohesive interaction between prior existing divisions. New product development division has taken on a life of its own, opting to market its new developments instead of passing the new products to the other divisions to handle their usual responsibilities.

 

• In spite of its independence of o f other teams with regard to product deve development lopment and marketing, the new division still needs those other divisions for reports they generate. Customer  service is being handled in a different manner than the established customers are accustomed to. This inconsistency and redundancy (having two sales people from the same compan company y visiting the same customers) may be partially responsible for the reduction in sales percentages percenta ges of the chemical and plastics markets. • Inconsistency in calculating sales estimates is causing misinformation to be produced since the norm within Exley is to use total market as opposed to their share of the market. • The self -proclaimed -proclaimed independence of this new division is causing rivalry among the other  divisions that previously collaborated effectively. • The company realizes that there was a need to move a product development department closer to the production line but the modeling effect did not take place causing the conflicts to arise in command. • Too many levels of the organizational chart developed too many department heads and not enough communication/coordination efforts between departments (i.e. Marketing, Production and Consumer Research) • Deaf to Consumer thoughts/ideas.  thoughts/ideas.   III. Systems Affected • Structural: The unity of the groups is affected. The interdependence leads to consistent conflicts. If the leadership is not getting the job done do ne then we need to know why and how to fix the problems. They need to work together to get the job done so some team building needs to be done. • Psychosocial: The presence of the product manager with the customer causes a psychosocial issue with marketing. In addition, the presence of marketing research by product manager mana ger causes strain. There is competition among the divisions for capital, labor, management, and so forth. The interdependence within this organization is causing problems but if it became boundar boundaryless yless the departments would become more open, op en, trusting, sharing of ideas (Brown et al, 200 2006). 6). â €¢ Technical: There is lack of communication via the current networking system between the marketing and product development. Databases are not updated on progress of pending projects for the benefit of marketing. Emails are not answered in a timely manner. This is a fast growing ever changing company. Employees need to feel like they are in the loop and get regular  feedback as to how they are doing and what new changes are being made that will affect them. • Managerial: A clear chain of command has not defined. Marketing should decide on the sales forecasts but the product department does that. The marketing department wants exclusive rights to interact with the customers. However, it is currently done by the product manager. Marketing should have information about all new product development. However, the

 

development process is separate from the marketing. The division of work is unorganized. Managers have lost sight of its integration responsibilities. • Goals: Each individual department has the goal of maximizing the potential of their  department. For example: research & development developmen t has the goal of doing the most R&D and  production has the goal of maximizing production. Due to lack of leadership and cooperation amongst themselves, the goals are not being b eing met. – IV. Alternatives • Keep the organizational structure as status quo. Not an effective action as the company’s sales is decreasing on a yearly basis and there is a major lack of commun communication ication and productivity within the departments. This action could be detrimental to the motivation levels of the employees and overall success of the organization. • Dissolve the Product Development Division ramp up on additional staff in research, engineering and marketing to collectively coordinate projects; make them interdepartmental liaisons. Possibly not an effective decision due to the amount of money spent to build this department. The competition and conflict could remain if the employees from the dissolved group were integrated into the existing departments. de partments. • ReRe-examine the organization’s hierarchy and redevelop departments. This action will allow for the reduction of competitiveness while motivating the employees emplo yees to work in an open and trusting environment sharing the goals and objectives ob jectives of the company (Brown & Harvey, 2006). The company is constantly changing products and their methods of use, yet the functions of the departments have not changed. In effort to motivate the employees and encourage the departments to work together but not to be totally interdependent upon each other, reorganizing the departments and redefining functions and work teams should alleviate the current conflicts. This action should also assist in improving the culture of the company co mpany through teambuilding exercises and instilling a sense of cooperation and coordination reducing suboptimization and intergroup competition. • Improve interdepartmental interfaces and address intergroup operating problems. This can c an be accomplished by bringing the underlying problems to the surface and allowing the groups involved to initiate open communications between the departments and applying problem solving techniques in a jointly concentrated effort (Brown & Harvey, Harve y, 2006). An important dimension in organization development is the interface between groups within the company know that people in these groups can often fail to cooperate with othe others rs and that there can in fact  be conflict between the groups (Brown & Harvey, 2006). IV. Recommendations • New guidelines need to be developed. Since the different divisions have forgotten how to work together, there needs to be b e some standard actions that each division shou should ld follow. These guidelines should state how to deal with each ea ch division since there needs to be communication  between them (Brown & Harvey, 2006). These guidelines, or operational elements, need to also

 

explain each division’s responsibilities to the next (Blanchard & Thacker, Thac ker, 2004). These elements will help coordinate communication activities between the management man agement and the employees. • There needs to be some sort of team building (Brown & Harve Harvey, y, 2006). This particular  situation is called a “problem situation― situation†• . This is is where where work is is designed designed to be done done as a team (Brown & Harvey, 2006). In this case, there are conflicts between the different divisions as to who is responsible for what and when (Brown & Harvey, 2006). Whether it is between the  product division and the marketing division, or the sales department and the marketing division, each of them has a job to do and must be able to overcome these problems (Brown & Harvey, 2006). One way to help overcome these problems is to bring in a consultant to change the structure. Structure is so important for the employees. The structure helps to show the flow of  information up and down the chain of command, including those in the chain of command itself  (Brown & Harvey, 2006). • The Exley Company needs to implement an incentives program in order to keep employees motivated towards maintaining teams (Brown & Harvey, 2006). No one division can do everything by themselves (Blanchard & Thacker, 2004). This will also keep the companies goals in mind and everyone working in the same direction (Brown & Harvey, 200 2006). 6). Along with incentives, there needs to be clear expectations of the employees and managers. There are two sides to everything. In this situation, the managers need to be held accountable, not only to the upper chain but also to the lower chain, the employees (Brown & Harvey, 2006). These managers are responsible for making decisions that make or break certain products, or divisions. Accountability, responsibility, and availability, are all keys to success. When the managers act accordingly, the company will be successful (Blanchard & Thacker, 2004). • Employees need to be a part a part of the goal-setting, planning, and decision-making activities (Brown & Harvey, 2006). In order for employees emplo yees to follow along with and agree to the goals, they need to be a part of the making of those goals. When employees are a part of the process, they are more likely to buy into them and actually participate in setting and maintaining those goals (Brown & Harvey, 2006). • Once the goals have been set, planning has been done, and things have been reorganized, it is important to maintain the process by holding regular re gular meetings about the status of the chan changes ges (Blanchard & Thacker, 2004). Managers need to be aware of how their workers are going to react to the training and developments (Brown & Harvey, 2006). In this situation, every man manager  ager  needs to have dialogue with the marketing department. This action, alone, will set into motion changes that would be expected to aid the sales and revenue of their respective products (Blanchard & Thacker, 2004). References Brown, D. & Harvey, D. (2006). An experiential approach to organization development. (seventh edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

 

McNamara, C. (1999). Business planning. Retrieved on 26 October 2006 from www.NonProfitOffice.com Dagmar & Oliver Recklies. (2006). Themanager.org. Retrieved on 26 October 2006, from http://www.themanager.org/Strategy/Change_Phases.htm Blanchard, P.N. & Thacker, J.W. (2004). Effective training: systems strategies and  practices. (2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.