Marketing segmentation forms a critical element in marketing in most industrialized countries. According to (Wedel & Kamakura, 2000), among the mass production and marketing strategiesput was manufacture oriented production, focusing on reduction of production costs rather than satisfaction of consumers. Since production processes became more flexible with the diversification of demand due to consumer affluence, firms started producing appropriate offers for specific target group. In his influential book, Market segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations, the evolution of market-oriented thoughts led to the view of heterogeneous  markets to be a number of smaller homogenous markets responsible for differing consumer preferences.

(Wedel & Kamakura, 2000) further, describe new challenges and opportunities in the market environment to cause market segmentation. This segmentation becomes effective and efficiently manageable only if they have a different homogenous group of customers. This icon micro marketing and direct marketing approach. For this reason, identifiability, substantiality, accessibility, stability and responsiveness creates the criteria for determining profitable marketing strategies.

According to (Clarke, 2005) both internal and external factors affecting business are analyzed for clarity before engaging in the future business plans. Inthis case, a car entrepreneur will define the potential long-term customers, project growth, competitors with a realistic assessment of the business. This assessment involves a SWOT analysis in which strengths and weaknesses are externally analyzed while opportunities and strengths are derived from an external analysis (Lorette, para 2).Creation of goals, strategies and implementation practices forms an imperative decision making  protocol  for future planning and product evaluation of a SWOT profile.

(Richter & Pahl, 2009)identify strategic planning phase to be the most important phase in both market segmentation and situation analysis. Issues pertaining the project , that is, A car enterprises planis considered, with close emphasis on both positive and negative factors. Therefore, this section intends to  focus on the market segments and size, target market, recent trends and the competitive environment.

Market Segments and Size.

According to (Andre, 2011) the car rental industry is a global one where car rental agencies offer temporary use of automobiles andlight trucks to consumers, companies and business. Inorder to ensure its efficiency, technology use is considered. A number of variables are considered in setting up the market segments. This includes, geographic variables, socioeconomic variables, the household and firm sizes and the standard industrial classifications. Based on buying and consumption behavior, consumer perceptions of the car brand enterprise attribute depend on the market penetration.

The car Rental enterprise  Industry has its largest market segment in the UnitedStates, making over $17.4 billion in revenues in2004 (Rental, 2009). The Car enterprise located, its branchesclose to its customers that enabled it have many consumers. However, this convenience gives the Car Enterprise a competitive advantage over its rivals. Having many rental locations clustered over a large region such asa state  with many vehicles makes them available for renting purposes. America has over 17,000 rental locations with over 1.7 million vehicles available for rental(Rental, 2009).According to “PassengerCar Rental”, the leading company that had various branch locationsin the industry supplied almost 30.5 percent of all cars.With these segments, emphasis on customer welfare is created that relieves their burden and stress. Offering customer satisfaction strategies, proper communication strategies in the rental locations extensively put its services higher than other renting firms.

Target Market

The target group forms the most crucial part in the car enterprise cycle. Analyzing the target group in the market involves a series of steps, else the focus would be at the wrong target group. According to Passenger Car Rental, (2009, p2) the Enterprise’s primary focus usually is on the adjacent neighborhood markets. Basing on this, the enterprise forms a local network of individual customers in the neighborhood vicinity.

The description of the target market requirements involves highlighting the target people such as professionals, business individuals and vendors, students etecetra. The demographics such as age and gender, behaviors and need desires need greater emphasis. According to (Tanner, Jr, & Raymond, 2013), consumer behavior is influenced by many things, including environmental and marketing factors, the situation, personal and psychological factors, family, and culture. Though the personality factors create the considerable effect, gender and age concept bears more weight on the target market. Though many  businesses today are taking greater pains to figure out what a specific gender requires in the car enterprise, marketing strategies have dwelled on an all-round technique of targeting both genders.

Lifestyle activities including, how people spend their time and what their priorities are, values, opinions, and general outlooks on the world are put into consideration. Where do they go other than work? Who do they like to talk to and What do they talk about? Specifies an individual preferred product such as a car (Tanner, Jr, & Raymond, 2013).

The target social class is a great determinant in marketing strategies(Armstrong, Adam, Denize, & Kotler, 2011).Whereas,  income defines social class, the primary variable determining social class is occupation. To some degree, consumers in the same social class exhibit similar purchasing behavior.Basing all the above when identifying a target group, The car rent Enterprise will get the best market for its goods.

Recent Trends

According to (USA, 2013), trends in the United States market research include; analysis of key supply-side and demand trends, Detailed segmentation of the market, previous information volumes and values, company and brand market shares, five year forecast of market trends and market growth  and robust and transparent market research methodology, conducted in-country. Most firms use situation analysis of opportunities and risks. (Rental, 2009), identifies trends that impacts the consumer markets. The first trend is power purchasingconscious of the environment, second is economical smartness in the declining state of the economy. Most companiesuse these two trends to create opportunities to generate revenue and customer satisfaction.

According to various car cooperatives in the United States, several initiativeswere launched to ensure a user- friendly environment. Companies’need for cheap, environmentally safe and accessible vehicles invented the friendly option. Basing an enterprise in such an opportunity, a program designed to ease traffic congestion, decrease pollution, and make car rental convenient to downtown commuters. However, with this concern on environmental issueswiththe hybrid car sharing program, car enterprises collectively help their consumers’ budget efficiently in financial crisis. Like any other enterprise firm, producing most of its revenue in a country, services rendered by a car enterprise may be subject to economy fluctuation in a country.

Competitive Environment

There are many factors that drive competition within the car rental industry. Price competition may not be a factor; however, most companies focuse on implementing a value system and long term profitability. In addition, most companies are gradually lessening their focus on their airline operations and focusing on leisure rentals (Rental, 2009). The threat of potential entrants is low since the established car rental companies have continued to increase their market share

The competitive environment is majorly controlled by the customer needs and wants.Listening to the customers creates a platform for competitive advantage in a business approach. According to (Kiril, 2014)car rental owners and tourist consultants, actively monitored their competitors, marketing activities such as prices, new services introduced in the industry, sales promotional activities and new competitors. The business environment makes most of the competitive environment, since economic situations affect the macro-market environment.

In comparison to other competitors, varied competition that is a notch higher has led to the expansion of the Car enterprises. Numerous Car Enterprises have expanded their fleet. Although thisgoverned by the economy, scaling back by various car rental enterprises takes the course. For instance, (Rental, 2009) poor economy causes many car rentals companies fail to purchase fleets of cars from automakers.

According to (Rental, 2009), major elements that rank a car rental enterprise in a competitive environment are customer satisfaction cues such as pick up services and offering newer vehicles for use. Introduction of new services such as hybrid cars in the company, over the poor economy makes these enterprises outstanding when other companies cannot afford this service. Impressing technology like GPS devices in the cars helps client travelers avoid unnecessary hassles and guides them efficiently to get to their destinations quickly.

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW

Managing Organizations

MGT701, 2015
Assessment Task 3: Case Study Analysis
Goal:The goal of this assessment is to encourage the student to incorporate multiple course concepts in an applied way.
Product: Report.
Format: Case study analysis.
Length: 3000 words
Due Date: Monday week 14 (2 November) at 5:00 p.m.
This assignment can be completed individually or as part of a group (Max 4 members)
Criteria:
Possible Marks Grade
1. Analysis of behavioural and organisational issues exemplified in the case studies.
70

2. Application of appropriate conceptual frameworks/models/ theories/examples supported by scholarly references.
100

3. Quality of argument in support and development of recommendations.
100

4. Specific and actionable recommendations (minimum six) for changes that address the issues identified.
80

5. Quality of report presentation including clarity of expression, professionalism of layout and formatting, grammar and spelling.
50

Total
400

Case Study Overview
After a recent re-structure three business units that operate in a large government organisation have been merged. The departments previously operated independently and now will report to you (your team) replacing the previous Group Manager. The three areas merged are:
• Facilities Management (30 staff)
• Acquisitions (45 staff), and
• Transport services (22 staff) have been merged.

The new group (FAT) is structured as part of the Corporate Services Area of the organisation. The FAT group collectively has an important role in supporting the entire Organisation to achieve its strategic goals and vision.

You have recently reviewed a consultant’s report that was commissioned due to significant conflict that exists between the department managers. The conflict is particularly negative between the Facilities and Acquisitions managers. The conflict has become so significant these managers no longer speak to each other and both have received counselling and have made complaints about each other to Senior Management and Human Resources. The transport services manager is also challenging and there is no love-loss among this management team.

The Management Team:
The general orientation of the leadership team is to have a tendency to emphasise task outcomes rather than people’s well-being. This can lead to stress and decisions based on status rather than expertise. There was evidence during the interviews that several Managers and Staff presented stress related symptoms and emotional reactions to the interview process. In general the team are described as:
• Dogmatic, rigid and abrupt
• Runs things by themselves instead of collaborating with others
• De-emphasis of team emotion
• Blaming others for mistakes
• Cynical
• Not allowing for mistakes

Also present in the leadership team was a style that described people who subordinate themselves to the organisation but in the process, end up creating stress for themselves and allowing the organisation to stagnate. The cost to the organisation and its teams is often the ability to learn and adapt to change. Specific behaviours that depict this orientation include:
• Evasive and leaving decisions to others
• Conforming; thinking rules are more important than ideas
• Agreeing with everyone
• Avoidance in dealing with difficult situations and conflict

Dave – Group Supervisor you are replacing (reported to Andrew the Area Supervisor who reports to the CEO of the organisation).
Dave is described as a manager known to start things and not follow them through. This manager does not deal with major issues in a timely fashion and he seems to be highly reactive to external clients to maintain “face”. An implication of this is a tendency to accept work and then pile that on to already potentially overworked department Managers.

It appears that this manager had limited “leadership” credibility, except in a few isolated cases, both inside the team and around the Organisation. It appears this has occurred due to a perception of a lack of substantive engagement with staff in the Group and a general politically orientated management style that involves subjectivity and personalities ahead of objectivity and performance. It was a common perception that this style has led to the Group Manager “playing favourites” and operates with “double standards”. It was suggesting that Dave may change his behaviours dependent on who he is working with. It was also a common perception that his decisions may lack objectivity.

Alana – Supervisor Facilities:
Evidence suggests that Alana has a range of positive leadership behaviours/qualities including a consistent focus on high standards. In general, the staff of the area was positive in their orientation towards this manager and felt that she had made significant positive impacts in the section. They described her as “a very focused person”, “very encouraging”, and having an “open door approach”. They said she “provides feedback in a diplomatic way”, “actively supported people” and “challenges people to do their best”. On the other hand, there was evidence to indicate that this Manager can be overly “aggressive” that can lead to an overemphasis on the task at the expense of people issues within the team. It was apparent that this manager has been impacted significantly by the breakdown of communication in the FAT leadership group is displaying high levels of stress.

Diana – Supervisor Acquisitions:
This manager was described as a “micromanager” who was “not consultative enough” on several occasions. It was identified that she has an overly autocratic leadership style and at times could be highly aggressive with staff, colleagues and internal customers. While she has high standards of delivery, it appears that she attempts to control the work flow too closely. It was felt that this manager does “too much firefighting” and there was evidence of a controlling style that may be frustrating for some members of her team. It was also suggested that many tasks given to staff are disjointed leading to a lack of understanding of the “big picture”. It is highly likely that this manager (or section) has too much responsibility or difficulties with delegation and staff motivation. It was suggested she is “extremely busy” and “being pulled in too many directions”. It was also regularly suggested that this manager is “challenging to deal with” and showed an “inflexible” style.

Peter – Supervisor Transport Services:
This manager has been promoted relatively quickly through the organisation and may not have been provided with appropriate training to support his continued promotion. He appears overtly stressed and there was evidence of ongoing emotional outbursts. He was described as “having good days and bad days”, and can “get pretty emotional”. It appears his passion for the role may be communicated inappropriately in some instances and that he experiences significant frustration with many areas of the position. This manager also is known as having an Aggressive Styles described as being in the high to very high range.

It appears as if this manager has few formal skills in managing people and received limited training in areas associated with leadership and performance management. He has received very little support or encouragement for him to do well from the previous group leader and this is likely to be extremely frustrating given that his area has been identified as having pockets of difficult staff behaviours which are non-responsive. It appears, like the other managers he has very limited power to performance manage under-performing staff.

The Culture
It was often suggested that that “the FAT group are heavily constrained by bureaucracy”, “red tape” and “poor group leadership”. Further, there was a general criticism of the area that a “one-size fits all” approach was detrimental to many operating areas. A further theme noted that communication from the group was often convoluted and could be a lot better.
In terms of service delivery the interviewees were highly critical of some areas due to poor processes and high levels of inefficiency. This criticism was directed predominately at Acquisitions. Transport was also criticised but to a lesser degree. Facilities were generally described in very positive terms regarding their service delivery.

While there were relatively few commonalities between the areas of the FAT Group there was an overarching view that this organisation was a “good place to work”, with “good people”. It was suggested that there was appropriate “flexibility” and a generally positive “work life balance”. The participants described the Organisation as a “family aware” environment. It was also regularly noted that “it’s a good environment” that is “mostly flexible in terms of working hours” and there is “appropriate job security”. In general, it was thought that “there are lots of opportunities” and “training available to help you improve at your job”. In general, the members of each area spoke highly of other staff members in the Group and it was thought that most people “are doing the best they can”.

However, many participants suggested they “were under a significant amount of pressure from workload and poor resourcing” and that people were “under the pump”. Many staff indicated that they are “just keeping their heads above water” and they were often “in damage control”. Further, it appeared that many areas felt that they are under staffed and that “while the workload is growing, the manpower is shrinking” and “work just continues to build up”. Finally, it was felt that “things are regularly dropped on staff at the last minute” with no explanation of what is happening. This has led to a situation where staff feels they are “always on the defensive” and creates a “highly stressful environment”.

The apparent “hyper-busy” nature of some areas appears to be having important implications. It was a view of the participants that many problems are amplified because clients of their areas do not do the appropriate diligence or “always want it done now”. The staff of many areas felt that their clients are “too demanding” and “do not take responsibility”. There was also a theme that this is caused to a degree because Management at the Group-Level and above was overly “pampered” and they use their position to drive outcomes outside of the normal processes. This refers to some staff in organisation using their position in their hierarchy and personal connections to receive special treatment. Related to this was the view that the “rules of the game” were consistently changing and staff was not informed.

Other descriptions of the culture in the areas of FAT included “pretty negative”, “has been deteriorating”, “people often sulk”, and there is “no fun at work” from some participants.There are problems of motivation across all sections and a distinct lack of teamwork within and between departments. It was also suggested that many staff are “highly resistant to change”. In general staff appeared very busy and there was evidence of some staff being “highly stressed”, “defensive” and “emotional”. Claims of significant inequity in workloads and concerns about job security in some areas where staff are kept on month-to-month acquisitions for inappropriately long periods of time were also flagged. Finally, there was evidence of high levels of micro-management and a general lack of trust from the staff regarding management intentions.

There was a theme of defensiveness and high levels of caution from some members of the area. Staff appeared to be concerned about being identified in the review and the ramifications of saying the wrong thing. This may be a function of a wider Organisational culture and may not necessarily be specific to the FAT area.Finally, there is generally a relatively weak customer service culture across the FAT group.

Departmental Descriptions:
The following outlines views of external clients who use the services of the different areas of FAT.

Facilities:
Participants had few concerns regarding the service provided by Facilities. There were almost no criticisms of the area and the section received significant consistent praise from the interview participants. They were described as having “great service”, the “beacon of FAT”, “responsive”, “proactive”, and a “dream to deal with”.

Transport Services:
There were a range of views when describing the services provided by the Transport area. There were many positive examples of outstanding customer service in the area of help with car servicing and handling. It was suggested that “Transport Services works really well” and that it has “generally picked up a lot”, and “they are lifting their game”.On the other hand, there were suggestions that there is a “negative” culture in the area and that parts of the area are very frustrating to deal with. There were specific criticisms, from different participants, directed at some staff members in the area who were described as “nasty”, “rude”, “arrogant” and “unresponsive”. Some participants described areas of Transport Services as “terrible” and “highly inefficient”, and they described their experience with Transport Services as being “unwelcome” and a sense of being “attacked” over issues when equipment was returned. There was a view that some key people in the area were highly “defensive” and “avoided responsibility” and this led to a “lot of finger pointing” rather than focusing on fixing the problem.

Acquisitions:
Acquisitions received a great deal of criticism from internal clients. In general, people described many of their processes as problematic. Interviewees described the group as “pedantic”, “highly risk adverse” and that it was often “exhausting dealing with Acquisitions”. One of the main concerns of the participants was associated with a lack of clarity around operating processes employed by Acquisitions. It was suggested that poor communication about the progress of requests was a significant issue. Claims that Acquisitions were not responsive and that their service is generally very poor were common. Specific comments included “left in the dark”, “the process is long and highly bureaucratic”, “the area is highly ineffective”, “there is a lot of confusion” and they are “too detailed with the documentation”.It was felt that Acquisitions are very poor at communicating with their clients and “they are trying to tell us what to do”. It is felt that clients have to “jump through hoops” and there is very little appreciation for the need (of other areas) to be responsive to the Organisation’s external customers.

The Assignment:
Drawings on concepts (particularly Module 3, 4, and 5) from Managing Organisations (MGT701) develop a report that outlines a strategy to turn the FAT group around in 12 to 18 months. The two KPIs you will be measured against in 12 months are staff engagement and customer satisfaction – currently both are below internal and external benchmarks. To improve the group you will need to address issues of staff motivation, teamwork as well as change management.
Managing Organizations Task 3

Plan:

1. Background on Case Study– 200 words

2. Analysis of Managerial Team

Alana – Supervisor Facilities–200
Good and bad about each

Organizational Culture– 200
3. Theory

Relate back to the analysis
Provide a theory and then use peter as the example for instance

Team work–approx. 250

Staff engagement – approx. 250
(zone of engagement)

Inter-department communication– approx. 250

4. Recommendations

Alana and Organizational Culture – 2 recommendations each – 200
Reference List

Managing Organizations

MGT701, 2015
Assessment Task 3: Case Study Analysis
Goal:The goal of this assessment is to encourage the student to incorporate multiple course concepts in an applied way.
Product: Report.
Format: Case study analysis.
Length: 3000 words
Due Date: Monday week 14 (2 November) at 5:00 p.m.
This assignment can be completed individually or as part of a group (Max 4 members)
Criteria:
Possible Marks Grade
1. Analysis of behavioural and organisational issues exemplified in the case studies.
70

2. Application of appropriate conceptual frameworks/models/ theories/examples supported by scholarly references.
100

3. Quality of argument in support and development of recommendations.
100

4. Specific and actionable recommendations (minimum six) for changes that address the issues identified.
80

5. Quality of report presentation including clarity of expression, professionalism of layout and formatting, grammar and spelling.
50

Total
400

Case Study Overview
After a recent re-structure three business units that operate in a large government organisation have been merged. The departments previously operated independently and now will report to you (your team) replacing the previous Group Manager. The three areas merged are:
• Facilities Management (30 staff)
• Acquisitions (45 staff), and
• Transport services (22 staff) have been merged.

The new group (FAT) is structured as part of the Corporate Services Area of the organisation. The FAT group collectively has an important role in supporting the entire Organisation to achieve its strategic goals and vision.

You have recently reviewed a consultant’s report that was commissioned due to significant conflict that exists between the department managers. The conflict is particularly negative between the Facilities and Acquisitions managers. The conflict has become so significant these managers no longer speak to each other and both have received counselling and have made complaints about each other to Senior Management and Human Resources. The transport services manager is also challenging and there is no love-loss among this management team.

The Management Team:
The general orientation of the leadership team is to have a tendency to emphasise task outcomes rather than people’s well-being. This can lead to stress and decisions based on status rather than expertise. There was evidence during the interviews that several Managers and Staff presented stress related symptoms and emotional reactions to the interview process. In general the team are described as:
• Dogmatic, rigid and abrupt
• Runs things by themselves instead of collaborating with others
• De-emphasis of team emotion
• Blaming others for mistakes
• Cynical
• Not allowing for mistakes

Also present in the leadership team was a style that described people who subordinate themselves to the organisation but in the process, end up creating stress for themselves and allowing the organisation to stagnate. The cost to the organisation and its teams is often the ability to learn and adapt to change. Specific behaviours that depict this orientation include:
• Evasive and leaving decisions to others
• Conforming; thinking rules are more important than ideas
• Agreeing with everyone
• Avoidance in dealing with difficult situations and conflict

Dave – Group Supervisor you are replacing (reported to Andrew the Area Supervisor who reports to the CEO of the organisation).
Dave is described as a manager known to start things and not follow them through. This manager does not deal with major issues in a timely fashion and he seems to be highly reactive to external clients to maintain “face”. An implication of this is a tendency to accept work and then pile that on to already potentially overworked department Managers.

It appears that this manager had limited “leadership” credibility, except in a few isolated cases, both inside the team and around the Organisation. It appears this has occurred due to a perception of a lack of substantive engagement with staff in the Group and a general politically orientated management style that involves subjectivity and personalities ahead of objectivity and performance. It was a common perception that this style has led to the Group Manager “playing favourites” and operates with “double standards”. It was suggesting that Dave may change his behaviours dependent on who he is working with. It was also a common perception that his decisions may lack objectivity.

Alana – Supervisor Facilities:
Evidence suggests that Alana has a range of positive leadership behaviours/qualities including a consistent focus on high standards. In general, the staff of the area was positive in their orientation towards this manager and felt that she had made significant positive impacts in the section. They described her as “a very focused person”, “very encouraging”, and having an “open door approach”. They said she “provides feedback in a diplomatic way”, “actively supported people” and “challenges people to do their best”. On the other hand, there was evidence to indicate that this Manager can be overly “aggressive” that can lead to an overemphasis on the task at the expense of people issues within the team. It was apparent that this manager has been impacted significantly by the breakdown of communication in the FAT leadership group is displaying high levels of stress.

Diana – Supervisor Acquisitions:
This manager was described as a “micromanager” who was “not consultative enough” on several occasions. It was identified that she has an overly autocratic leadership style and at times could be highly aggressive with staff, colleagues and internal customers. While she has high standards of delivery, it appears that she attempts to control the work flow too closely. It was felt that this manager does “too much firefighting” and there was evidence of a controlling style that may be frustrating for some members of her team. It was also suggested that many tasks given to staff are disjointed leading to a lack of understanding of the “big picture”. It is highly likely that this manager (or section) has too much responsibility or difficulties with delegation and staff motivation. It was suggested she is “extremely busy” and “being pulled in too many directions”. It was also regularly suggested that this manager is “challenging to deal with” and showed an “inflexible” style.

Peter – Supervisor Transport Services:
This manager has been promoted relatively quickly through the organisation and may not have been provided with appropriate training to support his continued promotion. He appears overtly stressed and there was evidence of ongoing emotional outbursts. He was described as “having good days and bad days”, and can “get pretty emotional”. It appears his passion for the role may be communicated inappropriately in some instances and that he experiences significant frustration with many areas of the position. This manager also is known as having an Aggressive Styles described as being in the high to very high range.

It appears as if this manager has few formal skills in managing people and received limited training in areas associated with leadership and performance management. He has received very little support or encouragement for him to do well from the previous group leader and this is likely to be extremely frustrating given that his area has been identified as having pockets of difficult staff behaviours which are non-responsive. It appears, like the other managers he has very limited power to performance manage under-performing staff.

The Culture
It was often suggested that that “the FAT group are heavily constrained by bureaucracy”, “red tape” and “poor group leadership”. Further, there was a general criticism of the area that a “one-size fits all” approach was detrimental to many operating areas. A further theme noted that communication from the group was often convoluted and could be a lot better.
In terms of service delivery the interviewees were highly critical of some areas due to poor processes and high levels of inefficiency. This criticism was directed predominately at Acquisitions. Transport was also criticised but to a lesser degree. Facilities were generally described in very positive terms regarding their service delivery.

While there were relatively few commonalities between the areas of the FAT Group there was an overarching view that this organisation was a “good place to work”, with “good people”. It was suggested that there was appropriate “flexibility” and a generally positive “work life balance”. The participants described the Organisation as a “family aware” environment. It was also regularly noted that “it’s a good environment” that is “mostly flexible in terms of working hours” and there is “appropriate job security”. In general, it was thought that “there are lots of opportunities” and “training available to help you improve at your job”. In general, the members of each area spoke highly of other staff members in the Group and it was thought that most people “are doing the best they can”.

However, many participants suggested they “were under a significant amount of pressure from workload and poor resourcing” and that people were “under the pump”. Many staff indicated that they are “just keeping their heads above water” and they were often “in damage control”. Further, it appeared that many areas felt that they are under staffed and that “while the workload is growing, the manpower is shrinking” and “work just continues to build up”. Finally, it was felt that “things are regularly dropped on staff at the last minute” with no explanation of what is happening. This has led to a situation where staff feels they are “always on the defensive” and creates a “highly stressful environment”.

The apparent “hyper-busy” nature of some areas appears to be having important implications. It was a view of the participants that many problems are amplified because clients of their areas do not do the appropriate diligence or “always want it done now”. The staff of many areas felt that their clients are “too demanding” and “do not take responsibility”. There was also a theme that this is caused to a degree because Management at the Group-Level and above was overly “pampered” and they use their position to drive outcomes outside of the normal processes. This refers to some staff in organisation using their position in their hierarchy and personal connections to receive special treatment. Related to this was the view that the “rules of the game” were consistently changing and staff was not informed.

Other descriptions of the culture in the areas of FAT included “pretty negative”, “has been deteriorating”, “people often sulk”, and there is “no fun at work” from some participants.There are problems of motivation across all sections and a distinct lack of teamwork within and between departments. It was also suggested that many staff are “highly resistant to change”. In general staff appeared very busy and there was evidence of some staff being “highly stressed”, “defensive” and “emotional”. Claims of significant inequity in workloads and concerns about job security in some areas where staff are kept on month-to-month acquisitions for inappropriately long periods of time were also flagged. Finally, there was evidence of high levels of micro-management and a general lack of trust from the staff regarding management intentions.

There was a theme of defensiveness and high levels of caution from some members of the area. Staff appeared to be concerned about being identified in the review and the ramifications of saying the wrong thing. This may be a function of a wider Organisational culture and may not necessarily be specific to the FAT area.Finally, there is generally a relatively weak customer service culture across the FAT group.

Departmental Descriptions:
The following outlines views of external clients who use the services of the different areas of FAT.

Facilities:
Participants had few concerns regarding the service provided by Facilities. There were almost no criticisms of the area and the section received significant consistent praise from the interview participants. They were described as having “great service”, the “beacon of FAT”, “responsive”, “proactive”, and a “dream to deal with”.

Transport Services:
There were a range of views when describing the services provided by the Transport area. There were many positive examples of outstanding customer service in the area of help with car servicing and handling. It was suggested that “Transport Services works really well” and that it has “generally picked up a lot”, and “they are lifting their game”.On the other hand, there were suggestions that there is a “negative” culture in the area and that parts of the area are very frustrating to deal with. There were specific criticisms, from different participants, directed at some staff members in the area who were described as “nasty”, “rude”, “arrogant” and “unresponsive”. Some participants described areas of Transport Services as “terrible” and “highly inefficient”, and they described their experience with Transport Services as being “unwelcome” and a sense of being “attacked” over issues when equipment was returned. There was a view that some key people in the area were highly “defensive” and “avoided responsibility” and this led to a “lot of finger pointing” rather than focusing on fixing the problem.

Acquisitions:
Acquisitions received a great deal of criticism from internal clients. In general, people described many of their processes as problematic. Interviewees described the group as “pedantic”, “highly risk adverse” and that it was often “exhausting dealing with Acquisitions”. One of the main concerns of the participants was associated with a lack of clarity around operating processes employed by Acquisitions. It was suggested that poor communication about the progress of requests was a significant issue. Claims that Acquisitions were not responsive and that their service is generally very poor were common. Specific comments included “left in the dark”, “the process is long and highly bureaucratic”, “the area is highly ineffective”, “there is a lot of confusion” and they are “too detailed with the documentation”.It was felt that Acquisitions are very poor at communicating with their clients and “they are trying to tell us what to do”. It is felt that clients have to “jump through hoops” and there is very little appreciation for the need (of other areas) to be responsive to the Organisation’s external customers.

The Assignment:
Drawings on concepts (particularly Module 3, 4, and 5) from Managing Organisations (MGT701) develop a report that outlines a strategy to turn the FAT group around in 12 to 18 months. The two KPIs you will be measured against in 12 months are staff engagement and customer satisfaction – currently both are below internal and external benchmarks. To improve the group you will need to address issues of staff motivation, teamwork as well as change management.
Managing Organizations Task 3

Plan:

1. Background on Case Study– 200 words

2. Analysis of Managerial Team

Alana – Supervisor Facilities–200
Good and bad about each

Organizational Culture– 200
3. Theory

Relate back to the analysis
Provide a theory and then use peter as the example for instance

Team work–approx. 250

Staff engagement – approx. 250
(zone of engagement)

Inter-department communication– approx. 250

4. Recommendations

Alana and Organizational Culture – 2 recommendations each – 200
Reference List