Tucker Companys Current Organizational Chart - Assignment Example

Question one Tucker Company’s Current Organizational Chart Chief Executive Officer (Mr. Harnett) Vice President Vice President Vice president Commercial jet engines Military jet engines Utility turbines Manager manager manager manager manager manager Manufacturing Accounting engineering manufacturing Accounting Engineering Manager manager manager Manufacturing Accounting Engineering Manager (Old Company-wide laboratory) Explanation The organizational chart above shows how Tucker Company is currently structured. The company is headed by the president/CEO Mr. Harnett. The company has three main divisions’ namely commercial jet engines, military jet engines and utility turbines. Each of the three divisions is headed by a vice president who reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (Herbert, 1981). Each division is further divided into three departments namely manufacturing, accounting and engineering. Each of the three departments is headed by a manager that reports directly to the vice president of his division. The Old Company-wide laboratory is headed by a manager that reports directly to the manufacturing departmental manager at the military jet engines division. However, functionally, the Old Company-wide laboratory serves all other departments in the company due to the immense requirements for testing and determining the properties of materials selected by the design engineers from different departments in the company (Lim & Sambrook, 2010). The laboratory was located I the military jet engine division due to several reasons. First, due to the sensitivity of the testing and design of military equipments such as jet engines (Raymond & Charles, 2002). It means that being in the military jet engine division, the testing and design of jet engines would be given priority over other tastings and designs undertaken by the company. Second, it means that the laboratory was located in the military jet engine division due to the immense number of testing and designs that took place in military jet engine division as compared to the number of testing and designs undertaken in other divisions. Hence, the number of testing undertaken in the military jet engine division was numerous, thus, calling for the laboratory to be located in the division. Third, the laboratory was located in the military jet engine division because of the management’s need to prevent the spill over of sensitive information involved in the testing and determining the properties of the materials that could be used for building military engines. It means that during the testing of military materials, there was need for privacy and keeping information confident and concealed to be used by the engineers for the military jet engine division only. At this point, all other tests and people were required to be kept away from the work in the laboratory. This is important for national security purposes. Although, every department had its engineering, accounting and manufacturing expertise, it is most likely that the laboratory was located in the military jet engine division due to the immeasurable expertise found in this division. The high level of expertise in testing properties of materials for use in different divisions found in the military jet engine division could be another factor that prompted the management to locate the laboratory near the expertise. Question two The reorganization of the company’s internal structures was necessary in order to achieve the desired objectives within the required time. As mentioned in the case study, until 1988 when the old laboratory manager, Mr. Garfield, left the company for retirement, there had never been any form of interdepartmental or interdivisional conflicts in Tucker. It follows that the departments and divisions worked harmoniously to achieve the company’s objectives before Mr. Hodge took over from Mr. Garfield. Additionally, many of Mr. Hodge’s peers perceived him as a self-centred person that worked towards his own progress rather than the company’s progress. From the case study, Mr. Hodge was eager to attract the attention of the management. This resulted into numerous conflicts between Mr. Hodge and other managers heading departments in different divisions. It is therefore clear that the conflict between Mr. Hodge and Mr. Franklin was based on the way the organisation is structured. This was due to a number of reasons; First, since, Mr, Hodge was interested in his own progress rather than the progress of the company he felt intimidated by the managers in different divisions. His position in the company demanded that Mr. Hodge be answerable to the manufacturing and engineering managers in different divisions because each division was involved in testing the properties for materials selected by the engineers (Grey & Garsten, 2001). Hence, as a self-centred person Mr. Hodge felt that he could not be answerable to Mr. Franklin. Second, the conflict was based on the way the organisation was structured because the structure of the organisation placed the laboratory under the military jet engine division only rather than placing the laboratory as a service department for all the divisions in the company. Hence, Mr. Hodge felt that he was only answerable to the manufacturing manager at the military jet engine division only and not to other managers in different departments in other divisions. Hence, the hierarchical structure that placed Mr. Hodge under the manufacturing manager at the military jet engines division meant that the only other person he could be answerable to after the manufacturing manager was the vice president of the military jet engine division (Jacobides, 2007). Hence, the organisational structure was not clear. This explains the reason why Mr. Franklin and Mr. Hodge had disagreements on different occasions due to the fact that each one felt superior to the other. Third, the conflict between Mr. Hodge and Mr. Franklin can also be attributed to the personality differences between the two middle level managers in Tucker Company. As stated above, Mr. Hodge was self-centred and was only interested in his own progress rather than the progress of the company. In this regard, the failure of other managers above him was the most important factor that could lead to his progress or to his next appointment level (Reh, 2006). This explains the reason why Mr. Hodge delayed the tests requested by Mr. Franklin leading to the failure of the Mr. Franklin’s critical projects in the company. Hence, the failure of the managers was perceived positively by Mr. Hodge. Hence, the conflict between Mr. Hodge and Mr. Franklin can also be based on Mr. Hodge’s personality. Question three New Organisational Chart for Tucker Company President/ CEO Vice president (CJE) Vice president (MJE) Vice President (UT) M1 (M) M2 (A) M3 (E) M1 (M) M2 (A) M3 (E) M1 (M) M2 (A) M3(E) Laboratory (Mr. Hodge) Explanation The pointed arrow above show where every individual in the organization is answerable to. For example, the three vice presidents are answerable to the CEO while the managers in different divisions are answerable to the vice presidents. Each of the arrows pointing to the managers in different departments shows the laboratory manager is answerable to each of the managers located in different departments. From the diagram, it is evident that Mr. Hodge is answerable to all the managers in different departments in different divisions. It follows that even the accounting manager in any of the given divisions can request for information from Mr. Hodge which he is required to provide without delays. This organisational structure has several advantages over the old organisational structure. First, it points out clearly that Mr. Hodge is answerable to every departmental manager in the company and thus he is required to perform his duties in respect of all the managers in the divisions. Second, the new structure has another advantage in that it seeks to eliminate the conflicts arising from role conflict in the organization. This means that the managers in different departments have the authority to make decisions pertaining to the activities that should be undertaken in the laboratory. This eliminates the claim by Mr. Hodge that he should be involved in testing and determining the property of the materials required by engineers in different divisions. Third, the new organisational structure seeks to eliminate the conflicts between the organisational staff such as the conflict witnessed between Mr. Hodge and Mr, Franklin. The reason for this is that the new organisational structure shows that Mr. Hodge has to report directly to the managers. Hence, Mr. Hodge’s tendency to undermine the requests from other managers in the company is eliminated (Alfred, 2002). Hence, a part from setting clearly the authority bestowed upon different people in the organization, the new organisational structure sets out clearly the roles that should be played b the staff. For example, Mr. Hodge’s role is to undertake the tests and report directly to the managers. One of the disadvantages of the new organisational structure is that it does away with priorities which mean that it does not give priority to the military jet engine division as was the case with the old organisational structure (Pugh, 2000). Hence, it follows that the privacy of the military information in testing and determining the properties of materials to be used for jet engines manufacture is not taken into consideration. The new organisational structure also paves way for confusion and wrong tests in the lab because different departments can request for test at the same time and this would lead to wrong results. References Alfred, C. 2002. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Grey, C., Garsten, C. 2001. Trust, control and post-bureaucracy. Sage Publishing Herbert, T. 1981. Tucker Company. McMillan Publishing Company, p. 402. Jacobides, M. (2007). The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war. Organization Science, 18, 3, 455-477. Lim, M. & Sambrook, S. (2010). Organizational structure for the twenty-first century. Presented at the annual meeting of The Institute for Operations Research and The Management Sciences, Austin. Pugh, D. (2000).Organization theory: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin Raymond, E., & Charles C. 2002. Causes of failure in network organizations. California Management Review. Reh, J. 2006. Organisational charts as a management tool. Retrieved from http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/OrgCharts.htm . Read More