Walk, Case 11 -- 1
Michael J. Walk
APPL 647: Training and Organization Development
7 November 2007
Case 11: The Exley Chemical Company
Exley chemical is currently experiencing several problems. Over the last two years, there has been a slowing of the yearly increase in sales. Secondly, with these marketing concerns, the divisions and groups within Exley are not adequately working together to complete organizational goals. There is a large amount of inter-departmental conflict taking place all across the organizational structure.
While the decline in sales could be caused by several factors (e.g., changing market conditions, decreased productivity, etc.), the inability for the organization to adapt and improve itself is the biggest concern. That is, the fact the departments are not functioning well together is the root problem. Why are the departments not collaborating correctly?
There are several causes for this. One is that suboptimization (or when a single group focuses more on achieving its own subgoals rather than the organization’s goals) is taking place in the Product Development (PD) group. This is noticed by the other departments who feel slighted by PD’s self-perceived superiority. This self-perception is not completely self-wrought, however. A great deal of the inter-group disagreement is also a result of role conflict and role ambiguity. That is, the PD group is a self-contained department that completes all of the functions of the rest of the departments that are singularly designed for

Walk, Case 11 -- 2 specific functions. For example, the PD group conducts its own marketing research—even though a marketing department already exists.
In short, PD needs to be better integrated into the already extant organizational structure so that all departments are working together, sharing information, and not stepping on each other’s toes while carrying out departmental operations.
There are several possible ways to achieve this change. First, PD could be eliminated all together and alternative methods used to bring about savvier and quicker product development and sales. While this method might help to reduce inter-departmental conflict, it would by no means help the organization as a whole, which is already feeling the profit pinch and anxious to breakout of its regression.
A second option is to clarify the organizational goals and objectives and how each department is a part of these larger goals. This should help reduce the role ambiguity within the departments, but, I would argue that the whole structure is fundamentally flawed, and while PD appears to be a helpful development to deal with the rapidly changing market, its actual benefit as currently positioned is specious.
In fact, my final recommendation is multi-faceted. First, I would recommend that PD not be a separate entity all to its own, but that it would be composed of individual representatives from all of the major departments. This would allow PD to be a communications hub rather than a source of

Walk, Case 11 -- 3 miscommunication. Also, all parties would be involved in the decision making and information sharing present at PD.
Secondly, I would recommend that the specific roles and functions of PD
(as well as the other departments) are once again established, clarified, and disseminated to all. Methods of market research, product development, etc. should be discussed and agreed upon by all departments.
Lastly, I would recommend that some form of collective reward system be put in place in such a way that, when organizational objectives are met, the entire departmental structure receives positive feedback and some form of bonus/reward. This would encourage a greater degree of cooperation between the departments and less suboptimization.