The exley Chemical Case Analysis Introduction The purpose of this analysis is to offer insight into difficulties experienced

by Exley 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. Analysis I. Problems A. Macro Lack of coordination within the companies operations Decrease in sales and profits. Operational conflicts within the major departments This type of structure is inappropriate for this company There is no uniformity of command B. Micro The coordination between marketing and the new product development department was insufficient. The Product development had problems with marketing. The Product manager quarrels with the marketing department Product manager was unsuccessful in coordinating the activities. The company was having difficulties in producing a team concept within the 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 other teams with regard to product development 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 company visiting the same customers) may be partially responsible for the reduction in sales percentages 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 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. 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 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 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 boundaryless the departments would become more open, trusting, sharing of ideas (Brown et al, 2006). 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 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 met. IV. Alternatives Keep the organizational structure as status quo. Not an effective action as the companys sales is decreasing on a yearly basis and there is a major lack of communication 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. Re-examine the organizations hierarchy and redevelop departments. This action will allow for the reduction of competitiveness while motivating the employees to work in an open and trusting environment sharing the goals and objectives 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 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 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, 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 others 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 some standard actions that each division should follow. These guidelines should state how to deal with each division since there needs to be communication between them (Brown & Harvey, 2006). These guidelines, or operational elements, need to also

explain each divisions responsibilities to the next (Blanchard & Thacker, 2004). These elements will help coordinate communication activities between the management and the employees. There needs to be some sort of team building (Brown & Harvey, 2006). This particular situation is called a problem situation. This is where work is designed to be 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, 2006). 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 of the goal-setting, planning, and decision-making activities (Brown & Harvey, 2006). In order for employees 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 meetings about the status of the changes (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 manager 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.