Dashman Company Case Study Diagnosis Mr. Post, an executive at Dashman company that is responsible for purchasing, has tried to implement a new directive to centralise the company’s purchasing procedure. The directive seems to have been ignored by the executives that handle purchasing at each of the individual plants of the company despite the fact that the directive has been received and acknowledged by several of the plant executives. Potential Causes 1. Communication issue: The directive has not been explained well or has not been understood. The letter does not clarify the accountabilities towards the new process. It does not clearly state that the plant executives are expected to adhere to the new process and put measures of control into place. The received answer indicates that the plant executives are willing to cooperate but not that they will actually implement it by themselves. Also, the directive is very open-ended and does not provide any guidance on how to implement it in detail. The plant executives might not be sure on how to proceed with the implementation without any further guidance. 2. Delivery issue: The method of delivering the directive has been ineffective. Mr. Post does not know most of the plant executives personally. In this situation, a letter is a very impersonal way to dictate new rules and a change in processes to plant executives that are used to operating with considerable autonomy. This change could be received as a loss of autonomy and is therefore a rather delicate subject. The plant executives might have decided to just ignore the request silently and to see how it will play out. 3. Process issue: The directive could have been perceived as inefficient to successfully secure raw material supply. The change represents a drastic measure and adds additional lead times and complexity to potential purchases. Plant specific challenges were not understood in detail when the directive was issued. As a consequence, the plant executives might have decided to bypass the directive by splitting orders to remain below the $10,000 threshold or to fully refuse adherence. 4. Timing issue: Directive has not yet been implemented because the plant executives might need more time to work out the detailed plan and workflow. The directive has been sent without much notice when the prime purchasing season was rapidly approaching, even though implementation might require significant time due to the complexity of the request. 5. External influence: Plant managers have been influenced not to take the directive seriously by Mr. Larson, who might have advised the purchasing executives not to take this directive seriously. He could be upset because his communication suggestion was ignored by his newly appointed boss. Proposed Action Plan Since all plants reacted in a similar way, it is very likely that there has been some level of coordination. This is a delicate situation and requires careful leadership by Mr. Post. His authoritarian style might not be the right approach in a decentralised environment with lots of autonomy. Mr. Post must first focus on understanding the real causes leading to the directive being ignored. He should try to directly talk to the individual plant executives and build a personal relationship with them. Mr. Larson could act as a facilitator for those conversations, since Mr. Post’s reputation might have already been negatively affected by the actions taken. After understanding all the underlying causes, the directive needs to be revised with the necessary guidance to allow the plants to have the tools to adapt. The proposed action plan should include the following: 1. Talking to plant executives to understand the issue: Mr. Post should meet the plant executives personally and try to understand why there was no adherence to the new regulations. 2. Improving relationship with plant executives: Mr. Post should build long lasting relationships with each plant director to foster a more collaborative environment. 3. Clarifying the directive: Accountabilities should be clarified; it should be clear for the plant executives that they are accountable to put necessary measures in place. 4. Modifying directive to avoid bypassing: Potential loopholes should be removed by setting up a clear policy with the correct level of detail. 5. Redelivering message directive by the top executive in the company: Redeliver message to the plant executives with the stamp of approval of Mr. Manson. Implementation Plan Talking to the plant executives could be organised in various ways: Meeting with every plant executive on a 1-to-1 basis: this plan would be the most personal but also the most time consuming. Meeting in groups: Mr. Post and Mr. Larson could take advantage of grouping plants that are closer in proximity together so as to increase time efficiency. Organising one single meeting with all of the plant executives: one single meeting is more time efficient, but finding a slot that accommodates the agendas of all attendees can be tough. It would also be the least personal option, much like the initial letter. Improving relationship with plant executives is of utmost importance, as it seems that there is a lack of respect for Mr. Post’s authority. In order to do so, the preferred method of talking to plant executives to understand the issue would be on a 1-to-1 basis, with Mr. Post taking advantage of this close interaction to introduce himself, address the issue and explain the reason for the change in protocol, and to be present and available to clarify any doubts about the directive. As mentioned before, it is possible that the purchasing executives have simply modified their individual purchases so that they do not exceed the minimum threshold, meaning that technically they are still complying with the new directive. However, it is important that this loophole be addressed both in the physical meeting as well as in the official communication. It would be best for the official written communication of the directive to be signed by the top executive of the company, Mr. Manson, so that the executives are aware that the directive has been approved by the highest authority. Contingency Plan In the case that the plan is implemented as laid out above and the plant executives continue to ignore the directive, then further steps must be taken to ensure that the protocol is followed. One way to go about this would be to halt purchases that do not have the approval of Mr. Post or Mr. Larson. While this would imply a significant increase in the workload for both, it would give visibility to Mr. Post and his assistant about all purchases being made. Once they have an understanding of the purchases being made by each plant, it could be possible that they understand why the ‘one-size-fits-all’ directive is not being effective and from there they could devise a modified implementation plan that is more suitable for each plant.
