Question: Final assignment on case study of Pluto Telecommunications 1. INTRODUCTION
Pluto started losing business because of there is no common strategic level business communications between directors and managing directors within organisation. The integrations of departments are causing further problems, because some employees are benefiting more than others are. Therefore, it is easy to envisage the conflict of interest from different individuals, which has created three sub-cultures within a single organisational culture. However, with the right measure of processes, management and leaderships, Pluto can bring both organisation and business on track. 2. STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS
Within the departments' communications and integrations dropped, because the strategic direction to tackle the rapid growth was either lacking or missing from top management. Moreover, the differences became highly evident at work motivation, time orientation and work culture within department levels. 3. ANALYSIS
(3.1) Managing director (Veronica) stayed away from regular operational matters because company was growing until recently when she realised that Pluto started losing new orders and received number of complaints from customers.
Organisational (3.2) External consultant (Andrew) assessed that Pluto communications is lacking with communication and integration within departments.
Group (3.3) Four executives have four different types of personalities and interests, which created conflicts.
Table-1: SOGI Analysis with brief descriptions
Customer Service Department
Table-2: A matrix dimensions of problems associated with specific departments 3.1 Organisation
Pluto is a telecommunications company, which means company's core business idea is to make communication possible for others; however, there is a disconnection in communication between and within Veronica and her direct reports: Matthew, Tim and John. Veronica did not realise there is a need for adjustment of new operation and management strategies in line with its growth strategy. Therefore, we can argue that there is a poor relationship with her direct reports and no one confronted before this meeting. This explains, Pluto did not have a common mission and vision set by Veronica. One reason could be that Pluto grew rapidly in size and department heads' became busier to cope with the growth. Therefore, it is likely that including Veronica, rest of her direct reports did not feel that importunacy of understanding Pluto's strategy; where the company is, where is it going, and how is it planning to get there? We do not have information on HR and its involvement within the organisation. However, one point is clear that HR is not in dialogue with the department heads and can be observed that overall job responsibilities are ill defined for individuals. There is not enough information about the responsibilities of three department heads. In addition, there are different bonus levels set for different departments. The marketing staff gets bonus based on overall company performance, customer services staff gets bonus maximum of £1000 pounds per year, whereas for sales staff bonus is based on sales. Within a single organisation, applying with multiple strategic rules for different departments is not well-defined strategy. There are two effects on this; firstly, this drives away from achieving common organisational objectives; secondly, giving a wrong image message to the customers. According to Martin Corbett, Pugh et el. (1969) stated that size of an organisation is the single most important factor influencing its structure; as size increases, organisation structure is predicted to become more complicated. Furthermore, according to Martin Corbett, Minzberg (1989) continues that, if organisation grows in size but remains simple in...
References: 1. Corbett M. (2012), Attributes of individuals, Organisational Behaviour (IB8020), Warwick Business School, Warwick, p-5.
2. Corbett M. (2012), Motivation and Psychological Contact, Organizational Behaviour (IB8020), Warwick Business School, Warwick, p. 6, 8, 15
3. Corbett M. (2012), Group Decision Making, Organizational Behaviour (IB8020), Warwick Business School, Warwick, pp. 3-7
4. Corbett M. (2012), Leadership, Organizational Behaviour (IB8020), Warwick Business School, Warwick, pp. 3-8
5. Corbett M. (2012), Attributes of Organisation, Organizational Behaviour (IB8020), Warwick Business School, Warwick, pp. 10-18
6. Corbett M. (2012), Strategy, Structure and Environment, Organizational Behaviour (IB8020), Warwick Business School, Warwick, pp. 4-9
7. Corbett M. (2012), Power and the Political Context of Organisations, Structure and Environment, Organizational Behaviour (IB8020), Warwick Business School, Warwick, pp. 3-9
8. Buchanan D. A., and Huczynski A. A., 2010, Organizational Behaviour, Pearson Education ltd., Harlow, Essex, (7th edn), p. 140, 289, 423
9. Handy, C. (1999), Understanding Organisations, Penguin Books ltd., London, England, (4t edn) p. 159
Please join StudyMode to read the full document