Medical Supplies Ltd - Case Study Example

 Case Study: Medical Supplies Ltd Introduction Medical Supplies Ltd is currently facing a serious conflict in relation to political objectives from both a corporate level and an individual level. The company’s warehouse manager, Gordon Steele, is a rather rigid authoritarian with previous military experience and a significant lack of respect for subordinate employees. Mr. Steele tends to carry a pluralistic value system which does not necessarily consider the input of lower-level workers in the hierarchy. At the same time the warehouse division manager in charge of surgical stores, Harry Katama, shares many of the same pluralistic values as Steele, however the nature by which Harry runs his operation is one with more respect for subordinates in terms of recognizing their overall value to the firm. This paper will describe the scenarios which are causing trouble within Medical Supplies Ltd and will propose a potential solution for handling the crises. The Warehouse Environment The leadership hierarchy at Medical Supplies, Ltd is one that is highly mechanistic, which is categorised by decision-making that is made at the management level without considering the input of subordinate employees; in which employees are simply expected to conform to management directives (Landy & Conte, 2006). Gordon Steele recognises his absolute authority over the entire warehouse, including all of its divisional managers and he expects compliance to all corporate objectives and procedures from his subordinate management staff. Steele appears to have a considerable respect for the nature of the authoritarian hierarchy in which power is distributed from a centralised entity, in this case the corporate office. Many of Steele’s beliefs regarding politics are fundamentally pluralistic. Reynolds (1996) suggests that pluralistic leaders often believe that democratic systems, in which individuals are given the autonomy to vote and assist in decision-making, are both unworkable and undesirable. The author further implies that pluralistic leaders tend to believe that subordinates lack the tangible ability to intellectually contribute to policy-making and lack the rationale to provide assistance in all aspects of decision-making. Under this assumption, Steele can be categorised as pluralistic, sharing these values as he routinely cites the various character flaws of his subordinate manager Harry Katama to all levels of the business. When Steele is discussing the nature of employment under Katama, he consistently identifies that their associate workers will be both low-skilled and not generally intelligent. This would tend to illustrate that Steele is largely focused on having a somewhat centralised form of authority at the warehouse and defies anyone who is not at his level of management. Interesting to the case study is the notion discussed by Morgan (2005) who offers that many pluralist managers actually enjoy the game of political maneuvering, suggesting that such leaders tend to enjoy the thrill of reminding others that they are in control. Again, this assumption can be supported by Steele who consistently undermines the authority and value of his subordinate workers and managers, perhaps as a means to make his own position appear more competent and stable. Many of the temporary workers that Steele is advising in relation to being leery of Katama’s management style discovered, through practical experience, that these accusations were false which tends to support the notion that Steele is a pluralist by design. In opposite accord, Harry Katama tends to illustrate his dissatisfaction with Gordon Steele as he describes his superior as being somewhat unable (or unwilling) to provide adequate support for the lower levels of the warehouse medical storage division. Harry, whether knowingly or through inherent rigidity, also shares many of these same pluralistic values as Harry does not allow for a democratic debate or discussion when subordinates disagree with his policies. At the same time, fitting this same pluralistic viewpoint, Harry appears to reject the centralised mentality supported by Steele, desiring more autonomy as a competent divisional leader. Wilson (2000) supports this assumption as the author states that the core values of pluralism is total rejection of a unified and centralised form of authority. It would appear that each time a corporately-inspired change to procedures conflicts with Harry’s own self-interest, he becomes combative and ready to elicit argument to protect his position. The problem, with two managers at differing levels who share similar pluralistic values, is an inability to work compatibly with one another as each has their own unique agenda. Harry, who strives for autonomy from the centralised office and Steele, who genuinely seems to believe in the strength of his own position as a controller in the firm, create a situation in which the warehouse experiences both disruption and chaotic argumentation. Though from a governmental perspective, pluralism generally involves a collection of individuals who share common values working toward protecting or receiving various resources (Schlosberg, 1999), at this warehouse the fundamental beliefs which drive pluralism is the catalyst for their disagreements and lack of respect for one another. These include differing beliefs about the centralised hierarchy of leadership and its application. An interesting concept involving pluralistic values is the idea that power stems from the control of resources (Reynolds). In the surgical supplies division of the warehouse, Harry Katama controls these resources and has generally been left alone to his own structure and processes for many years. Suddenly, Steele is threatening the stability of these time-tested processes which Harry prides himself on maintaining and is threatening radical action against Steele for intrusion into his personal authoritarian domain. Schlosberg again suggests that some of the problems which arise in pluralistic systems are two groups who compete with one another for scarce (or various) resources. Gordon Steele attempts to illustrate that the centralised hierarchy is in control of these resources, but Harry suggests that his own competence as a leader is the foundation for the availability of these resources and cannot understand why Steele is so adamant on challenging this reality. Harry does not understand that Steele actually does maintain absolute authority in all matters pertaining to redesigning warehouse operations and changing the paperwork for the surgical supply processes, hence when Harry is challenged with no middle arbiter to manage the dispute, Harry takes radical action by pushing Steele into a rack of pallets. Interestingly, Steele suggests to Harry during their argument that Harry should be more focused on the needs of the business as a whole, suggesting a unitary belief with appropriate warehouse divisions working together to secure the needs of the centralised authority. Constitutional political systems are opposite the unitary political viewpoint where powers are distributed rather than centralised (Bealy & Johnson, 1999). When it comes to Steele, Harry appears to prefer a more constitutional system where his own voice maintains authority and importance, whilst Steele clearly indicates that subordinate input is neither required nor desired. As Reynolds points out, pluralistic managers and leaders believe subordinates are ill-equipped to challenge centralised authority. Colfer & Capistrano (2005) suggest that in unitary systems, the balance of authority and control amongst different layers of leadership are not static and are often renegotiated. When speaking of the relationship between Harry and Gordon, it would appear that this is the style of politics that Harry would prefer. Gordon, however, will not renegotiate anything, suggesting that he is driven solely by his belief in rigid authoritarianism and expects nothing but absolute compliance without introducing democratic discussion. This creates an inability to see eye-to-eye in this particular division of the warehouse where Harry, due to Steele’s absolute authority, will likely be the losing party in the argument regarding change practices. In this system at the warehouse, the employees act more like innocent bystanders to the political struggles occurring between their management superiors, another fundamental element of pluralistic beliefs (Reynolds). The difference between Harry and his relationship with his subordinates and that of Steele’s relationship with underlings is that Harry refuses to develop their capabilities to assist in the method by which business is conducted. In essence, Harry allows for no democracy from those who are at lower levels. This would suggest that Gordon Steele and Harry Katama are much more alike than they realise, only that Steele maintains the ability to act on his absolute authority to drive compliance where Harry can only beg for it and create arguments to try to justify his own unique position. One notable political researcher states, “The flow in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent” (Ball & Peters, 1999: 84). This suggests that only those who are elite or protected by genuine authority actually maintain the ability to make decisions that affect everyone and this is abundantly evident as the norm within the surgical storage division as Harry is ultimately helpless to defend his position without taking radical action to be heard. Again, in support of the pluralistic values shared by both men, when Gordon Steele is thrust into the pallets by an angry Harry, Steele immediately suggests that he will appeal to the centralised hierarchy so as to remove Harry from his position as a challenging subordinate manager. Again, this would tend to illustrate that Steele is firmly driven by the centralised mentality and will appeal to higher level leadership to promote change rather than even considering a negotiation of principles or policies. Both of these men are rigidly concerned about securing their own position within the company and appear to be willing to defend their right to autonomy and area leadership until no agreement can be reached and radical steps must be taken to undermine the other. Steele relies on his own mandated authority in the company to force compliance but Harry relies on violence and audible protest to accomplish it. This is the main problem at the warehouse is an inflexible mentality and a lack of personal willingness to consider the viewpoints of the other or the subordinates. Harry is somewhat of a flip-flopper (hypocrisy) in terms of wanting his own unique autonomy from Steele, however he becomes a strict authoritarian with a pluralist belief in the incompetence of his own subordinate team when it suits his interest. Hence, if the centralised corporate authority demands high productivity as a strategic goal, the similar pluralistic values leading to strong opposition against democratic operations will likely cause continued problems in this division until one of them is removed from power. Harry will likely be this individual who is expunged from the company simply based on the tangible powers held by Steele. Harry’s removal would make this warehouse division largely centralised, with pluralistic divisions ruling over subordinates as a mandate for low-level staff compliance. Harry appears to be the only obstacle blocking Steele’s belief in a unified, central authority. Conclusion There is no general solution for these conflicting values and self-serving political objectives stemming from both leaders as it is clear that both Steele and Katama are rigidly opposed to democracy in the warehouse hierarchy. Harry controls various resources (the storage area and its consignment product locations), thus he believes that he has a certain amount of authority to challenge centralised systems, a fundamental belief of the pluralist manager. However, Harry will not allow himself to be placated by his superior who is demanding strict compliance to higher-level mandates regarding process. Gordon Steele maintains a quality argument: Despite Harry’s competence at his position, his inflexibility is driving down the effectiveness of this particular division. Harry may have valid points and should, in all reality, be heard and recognised, however his quick-temper and willingness to take radical political action suggests that Harry should be removed as the only stumbling block to sustaining the corporate viewpoint of centralised command. The most logical conclusion to this case study would be the full removal of Harry from his position, using corporately-granted authority given to Gordon Steele. If the situation was reversed, and Harry was the superior, because of their stubborn beliefs in self-superiority, Steele would be the manager most effectively removed from the warehouse. Since no agreements can be reached or negotiation considered, radical political action is required to remove the least powerful. Bibliography Ball, A. R. & Peters, B. G. (1999). Modern Politics and Government. New York, Chatham House: 84. Bealy, F. & Johnson, A. (1999). The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science: A User’s Guide to its Terms. Oxford, United Kingdom, Blackwell Publishers. Colfer, C.J. & Capistrano, D. (2005). The Politics of Decentralization: Forests, People and Power. London, VA Earthscan Publications Ltd. Landy, F. & Conte, J. (2006). Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organisational Psychology. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing. Morgan, R. (2005). ‘Reading Report: Images of organizations by Morgan’. Retrieved 3 January 2008 from www.ismi.net/kats/Misc/mtu/morgan.htm. Reynolds, H.T. (1996). ‘Pluralism’. Retrieved 3 January 2008 from www.socialstudieshelp.com/ APGOV_pluralism.htm. Schlosberg, David. (1999). Environmental Justice and the New Pluralism: The Challenge of Difference for Environmentalism. New York, Oxford University Press. Wilson, Arthur L. (2000). Power in Practice: Adult Education and the Struggles for Knowledge and Power in Society. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series, Jossey Bass. Read More