Reference no: EM132885989

In 1993, Emily Levine graduated at the top of her class at the University of Southern California, completing a degree in political science, majoring in international relations. After several years in support-roles with various government departments, she joined a large New York-based pharmaceutical company as a trainee sales representative. After 18 months, following a sudden vacancy, she was appointed interim head of her sales team, and achieved outstanding results.

Three years later, in 2003, Emily became Director of Sales for the eastern states region. Throughout the company, she was known for her positive attitude and her clear focus. Deeply committed to achieving results through people, and just ten years after graduating, Emily had earned tremendous respect from all who knew and worked with her.

In 2004, Emily moved to Sydney, Australia to take up a new position with a rival pharmaceutical company, heading their Asia-Pacific sales division. Working closely with the HR Director, she oversaw an extensive restructure of the company's operations in Sydney, South Korea and Singapore. This reconfiguration process demanded an enormous amount of Emily's time, particularly in the planning and negotiation stages. This was something that Emily excelled at. She had a good eye for detail and was both meticulous and diplomatic in her dealings with others. She was able to gain consensus and win commitment where others had failed to do so. At the same time, Emily completed a double Masters degree, graduating with her MBA and Master of Commercial Law in 2007.

In 2008, Emily was headhunted by a Melbourne-based executive search firm to join a medium-size Geotechnical Engineering firm, with operations spanning much of Australia's east coast. Her role at GeoTech Engineering Solutions was to streamline and standardize operations across the company's many localized offices. By the middle of 2010, the reconfiguration process had shown some spectacular results without the loss of a single job. Productivity had increased by just over 27% and the engineering and sales teams were working together seamlessly to win contracts and deliver on deadlines.

In September 2010, GeoTech Engineering Solutions was acquired by a French firm whose management brought in a team of London-based consultants to reconfigure the company's reporting structure from a divisionalised form to a matrix structure. Emily had expected to be made redundant - but was instead promoted to the position of Head of HR and Operational Support, following the outplacement of the previous HR Director.

Emily took this as a signal to become an active participant in the company's restructure but soon realized that her input was neither valued nor sought. After just 5 months in her new role, Emily received a directive from the President of the French parent company instructing her to attend to administrative matters only, and to provide full support to the consultants in their change initiative.

Three years later, it was apparent to everyone that the restructuring initiative had been a dismal and expensive failure. Between 2010-13, the company's operating profit had almost halved despite widespread industry growth in the sector and no new competition from rival firms. Employee turnover had increased dramatically over this time and employee morale was at an all-time low. Reporting relationships were complex and dual accountability levels made it difficult to pinpoint inefficiencies with any real clarity.

In January 2014, at very short notice, Emily was summoned to Paris to meet with the parent company's President and Board. She anticipated being asked to step down from her position as Head of HR, and decided on her final initiative - to present the board with a comprehensive blueprint for the revival of Geotech Engineering Solutions.

Over the next two days, Emily prepared a 38-page document which presented a detailed depiction of the company's existing structure, along with a six-step plan to move to a new streamlined divisional configuration over a 6-month period. Clear reporting lines and sharp distinctions between profit and cost centres were mapped out. Emily's plan included the closure of three of the firm's smaller testing labs and two of its mid-sized regional offices, along with the creation of a large, centralised testing facility located close to its corporate headquarters. Seventeen unnecessary procedural formalities were highlighted with recommendations for their eradication. Structurally, the plan represented a move away from formalization and towards a clearer, more centralized form.

Knowing that the French board would probably hesitate at the proposal to dismantle formal procedures, Emily realized that she would need to incorporate other aspects into her blueprint for change at GeoTech Engineering Solutions.

CASE QUESTIONS

1. Identify the main issue or problem in this case. Provide a clear justification with relevant evidence for your answer.

2. Outline the important sub-issues evident in this case. You need to identify at least four (4) sub-issues, and explain why each one is relevant to this case.

3. Outline at least four (4) relevant theories from the field of organisational behaviour and design which can be applied to this case. Explain how each theory helps us understand a particular issue in this case.

4. Outline your preferred solution to this case. Provide a brief implementation plan to explain how your preferred solution could be executed.