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 companys well-being.
9. Requests of Mr. Franklin were prompter during Mr. Garfields
management compared to Ms. Hodges 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 firms 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 companys chain of command and scheduling matters.
This meeting among the heads of the company will also help them understand
each persons 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. Franklins 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 companys 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