EASSAY-1 FOR ORGANISATIONAL ALALYSIS COURSE

(DISCLAIMER: This case is not based on researched facts. Case details are fictional and designed for discussion
purposes. The case is meant to highlight the lessons drawn from the course on Organisational Analysis, solely as
a basis for class discussion. Any resemblance to actual organisations, people or situations is incidental. It is not
intended to serve as endorsements, source of primary data, or illustration of effective or ineffective management.)

Case: A company that is a part of a family owned business group in an emerging economy
grew in the economic boom period (2000s) expanding rapidly. The management was appointed
by the family, which typically nurtured loyalty over merit and competence. The result was that
while the company had grown in size the larger part of the top management structure was old
school and internally grown. The family owners hired consultants during this period of growth,
which influenced some of the organisational and business decisions as well as the processes
concerning these. While the structure was tweaked every now and then, over time a minority of
the top management were people bought in from other group companies or global corporations
and fitted into various places in the organisational structure. The company also sponsored many
education programs for their top management in various business schools.
While the company had hired the consultants on multiple occasions, it did not quite reap
the rewards that were intended as a consequence of these engagements. A newly hired middle
manager in the company was going over a five year old report of a well-known consulting firm,
realised that the company was still grappling with the same issues and problems that the
engagement of the firm sought to resolve. Within moments of finishing this report, the manager
received an E-mail, announcing the engagement of arguably the worlds top most consulting
firm, with a view to transform the company and take it to a different level of success.
Meanwhile, people at the top of a business unit in the organisational structure often
struggled to maintain their authority, especially if they were outsiders, typically from
multinational corporations and the likes. Some of the home-grown leaders seemed to wield more
power than their official titles would allow them. Many organisational restructuring attempts were
made, but on this front as well as the business front, the company did not quite achieve the same
level of success as many of its peers. Over a period of time many of the management hired from
multinationals left the company after short stints. In a recent move the board of directors
approved the second extension of the CEO of the company after his retirement. This was with a
view that he oversees the transformation of the company, to be undertaken by the consultants.
In an open forum announcing the engagement of consultants to the employees, while
expounding the need for engaging them, the CEO commented In the last 25 years that I have
been with the company, I have found that the company hasnt changed much.
The company was structured in a way that would be typical of any regular corporate with
hierarchical business unit and functional reporting channels. The design of this structure was
meant to allow people at different places in the organisation, control over those reporting to them.
The organisation did have a number of processes in place to achieve high level decision making
which appeared Rational. The decision to hire renowned international consultants in the early
stages of the growth phase was one that was taken by the companys owners with the clear goal

EASSAY-1 FOR ORGANISATIONAL ALALYSIS COURSE

of improved business performance in mind. As the company had started expanding, it had
reached a stage where the owners felt that the existing pool of management talent in itself was
not capable of delivering the performance required for long term sustained growth. Another
option would have been to hire a CEO who would transformation the company. The owners felt
that such a person would have required a free hand in running the company and would have
made a lot of unsettling changes in the organisation, which was not what the owners were
comfortable with (this hypothesis is derived from history and cultural based assumptions).
Therefore, the owners chose to hire consultants, and depend on the existing team to implement
the suggestions given by the consultants. The desired outcome would have been a huge
increase in the profits of the company, a boost to its share price in the market and its emergence
as a market leader.
The decision to opt for the consultant was a considered decision taken probably based on the
advice of trusted experts- by the owners. They were clearly rational actors and made a choice
with the aim of trying to achieve growth in the business. The fact that the owners (and the board
of directors) were a very cohesive and integrated structure, they actually acted like a unitary
actor in this case. However, the consequences of this decision depended as much on the sound
advice rendered by consultants, as on the ability of the management of the company to
implement this advice. The internal dynamics of the organisation can better be explained by the
logic of appropriateness and the bureaucratic politics model.
When it came to implementing the plans that the consultants drew up and went away, the
rational theory falls short. The various business units were used to their own ways of working,
which they had developed over a period of time and they would not change even if, in cases,
there was pressure to do so by the unit leaders. There was the instance of a leader taking over
the reins of a rather large business unit, and pushing hard to change practices and processes
followed. He left after a stint of three years, and as soon as he did, indicators were that whatever
changes he did bring in were promptly reversed. Here, it is pertinent to link the logic of
appropriateness to organisational inertia. The standard operating procedures in this case were
the rent seeking behaviour developed by the people who were the old timers in the organisation
and were used to the old ways of working. This problem was exacerbated by the policy of the
owners to reward loyalty and promote those who had worked for a long time in the organisation
to positions higher than their level of competence. Here, we also see glimpses of natural systems
applied to the processes of decision making. The relationships formed informally among the
owners and the loyal but less competent senior managers at times forms an informal structure
which at times overrides the formal organisational structure. We can then extend the logic to link
the organisational process model to the bureaucratic politics model. The organisation resists the
changes in its long established process through forming coalitions within the organisations,
thwarting the attempts of externally appointed consultants or leaders.
The people opposed to change were trying to protect their fiefdoms as a change in processes
would lead to more centralization, one of the common remedies in crisis situations.