Kaplan's Managerial Politics and Tension and Strategic Decisions

Managerial Theory and Practice
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Managerial Theory and Practice
When individuals are working together, there would certainly be conflict and tension between groups and people now and then. Even if the work environments seem perfect, organizational tension is unavoidable. Tension and conflicts in an organization could be good for an organization, its staffs, and eventually the customer. It is notable that internal conflict could be an important source of finding new solutions and making critical business improvements (Kaur 2014). This report addresses two questions pertaining to the complex scenario at Kaplan’s. In particular, this report critically examines the nature of managerial politics and tensions in the case study and the way these have led to contested practices and priorities. Moreover, considering the strategic tensions in the case study, how to create the right conditions for one clear strategic direction for this company and its human resourcing is discussed.
Response to question 1: Managerial politics and tension in Kaplan’s
At Kaplan’s, managerial politics and tension has resulted in contested priorities and conflicts. In the case study, Sam Kaplan is the chairman of the corporate organization, Kaplan’s. Conflicts and tension in the company are evident between two factions in the board. One faction comprises the chairman Sam Kaplan and Hal Evans. The other faction consists of Juan Poort, Frank Angle, and Ivan Kelp. Jean Frear is neutral and Joan is against some of the company’s expansion strategies (Leopold & Harris 2009). Sam Kaplan’s daughter Joan, an environmentalist and an anti-globalization activist, but not involved actively with the business has raised her objections to how Kaplan’s is expanding mainly due to its use of chemical and industrial based production methods to food products and the increasing usage of cheap labour abroad at the cost of employment in the United Kingdom (Leopold & Harris 2009).
There is also tension between Sam Kaplan and Kaplan’s managing director, Juan Poort, who wants to routinize methods of production. In essence, routinizing production methods entails two things. First is the use of genetic manipulation of crops in order to maximize the production from crop harvests, and secondly is to treat meat products in a manner as close to possible to industrial raw materials (Leopold & Harris 2009). Juan Poort is also determined to decrease costs of labour to a minimum by employing and sacking employees throughout the world in a manner that he sees as most cost-effective and convenient. Juan Poort is supported by Kaplan’s Director of Operations, Frank Angle. The religious principles of Hal Evans make him to sympathize with the board chairman Sam Kaplan. Just like Sam, he is concerned about the strategy used by Kaplan’s human resource, which has become more and more ruthless. Both Sam Kaplan and Hal Evans are discontented about Kaplan’s shift to lower quality, higher volume output (Leopold & Harris 2009).
Additionally, Ivan Kelp, Kaplan’s Finance Director believes that the growing levels of profits that are currently being attained may be of help in preventing the company’s takeover bid by a big international food corporation. Kaplan’s human resource director, Jean Frear, prefers that Kaplan’s remains true to its wide range, high-quality, and premium product origins. She is neutral in this organizational conflict and tries to mediate between the 2 groups (Leopold & Harris 2009). If the conflict continues to grow, it will certainly harm the company. As Jean Frear noted, Kaplan’s cannot have it both ways strategically: it cannot be a mass producer and at the same time a supplier of excellent quality sausages and game to the discriminating classes.
Conflict is essentially understood as the clash of viewpoints, actions, directions, values, or interests. A conflict is started the moment the clash arises (Mayer 2009). At Kaplan’s, the conflict and tension has been increasing for a time between Sam Kaplan and Juan Poort given that Juan Poort wants to pursue a strategy of routinizing methods of production. In general, there are divergent viewpoints and different interests behind a conflict and these are disclosed when individuals look at a problem from only their view. At Kaplan’s for instance, Poort and Frank Angle reject Sam's belief in frequently producing new products to new recipes, particularly when these are made as a seasonal line and are intended to be on the marketplace for just a short period of time. Conflicts are outcomes of organizational complexities, disagreements, as well as interactions. They could be resolved through identifying the etiological factors and neutralizing them. As soon as conflicts are settled, they could provoke a positive change throughout the company (Bruk-Lee, Nixon & Spector 2013).
In any corporate organization, organizational politics involves actions by groups or by people to obtain, develop, and utilize power as well as other resources to achieve the preferred outcomes. The key approaches to power and conflict within the context of organizational politics are unitary, pluralist, and radical-political. Kaplan’s could be considered as a pluralist organization. This is largely because the firm appears to put emphasis on the diversity of group and individual interest. Bearing in mind the conflict and tension in Kaplan’s board, Kaplan’s could be regarded as a loose coalition with just a passing interest in formal goals. The company sees conflict as intrinsic and can actually play a positive role.
Everybody experiences conflict in their life and it should therefore not be surprising that it also happens in the place of work. Nonetheless, organizational conflict theory states that there are a number of conflicts in a corporate organization, one of them being interpersonal conflicts. Different departments have conflicts with each other. A company’s top managers can have power struggles and groups can have conflicts and disagreements with other groups (Thomas 2012). Interpersonal conflict – a lot of people simply do not get on with each other, or are just not on the same page. It might be that if they were not compelled to work with each other they might have more friendly and polite conversations as colleagues and associates. However, when they are obliged to work together in order to accomplish goals or to consistently share a workspace, friction might occur. In situations such as these, managers of the corporate organization would normally have to assume the roles of counsellors and/or mediators to help diffuse the situation and find solution, or to make a hard decision to remove or transfer a person basing upon incapability to function in a team (Kaur 2014).
Role conflict – some conflicts between people have little to do with personalities. They are instead brought about by circumstances that relate to their tasks and/or roles they were to take on. In most cases, this occurs due to status issues – that is, the comparative capacity of one individual to tell another person what or what not to do – or overlapping responsibilities (Taylor 2014). An example from the Kaplan’s case study is when Juan Poort, the managing director and Frank Angle the director of operations support the shift to lower quality and higher volume; something that Sam Kaplan and Hal Evans are actually not happy with. In addition, Angle and Poort want to shut down the experimental organic farm that produces foods for the firm’s organic foods that Hal Evans has been striving so hard to establish with 2 of UK’s leading supermarkets. Angle and Poort also want to close 3 chicken production centres currently located within the town and then replace them with plants in China and Thailand (Leopold & Harris 2009). These people have dissimilar objectives and they easily run into conflict due to their dissimilar goals and roles, although in a different set of circumstances on another day they may actually find themselves having no such disagreements and conflicts and be able to work together in a very productive way. Inter-group – even though this is the same as role conflict, Taylor (2014) stated that inter-group conflict usually arises since the goals or objectives of entire teams are not totally obvious or there is overlap or duplication functions resulting in disputation.
At Kaplan’s, the two main sources of conflict are (i) incompatible goals between the two factions – Sam Kaplan and Hal Evans are against Poort’s plan to shift the company to lower quality, higher volume output. They also do not like the ruthless human resourcing strategy which is associated with this. (ii) Contrasting perceptions and expectations – at Kaplan’s, there has been an increase in tension between Juan Poort and Sam Kaplan because Juan Poort wants to pursue a strategy that entails routinizing methods of production, which Sam is against due do difference in viewpoint. Poort is also determined to decrease labour costs to a minimum by employing and sacking staffs across the world in a manner that he believes to be the most cost-effectives and convenient – Sam also disagrees with him on this issue. If this conflict is not resolved, a number of Kaplan’s best food scientists and chefs are likely to leave the company and this loss would certainly threaten a number of new products which were currently being produced (Leopold & Harris 2009). Nonetheless, according to Frank Angle’s viewpoint, such employees are trouble for the company and he would rather hire few simple food engineers and chemists that would push the rationalization as well as technological control of all aspects of the firm. Frank Angle would also not try to appeal either to the few customers of food faddists or to the ethically over-sensitive clientele. At the present time, Jean Frear is worried that no employee really knows where they stand and whether or not they would be replaced by lower wage employees (Leopold & Harris 2009). These differing perceptions and expectations are significant sources of conflict at Kaplan’s and serve to increase managerial conflict and tension at the firm.
Corporate culture is understood as the shared beliefs, standards, attitudes, and values which typify an organization’s employees and define the nature of the organization (McGee 2012). At Kaplan’s, corporate culture is entrenched in the company’s structure, strategies, as well as approaches to investors, customers, labour, and the wider community. It is therefore a major element in the failure or success of the firm. The corporate culture at Kaplan affects the operations of the firm and it was an institutional habit. In particular, this corporate culture entailed the production of higher quality, broad range and premium products. The firm also used to employ more of the local people whose families offered the expertise as well as labour which assisted the company to expand over the year. However, this corporate culture is waning thanks to the organizational conflict that is going on. The faction led by Frank Angle would certainly change this corporate culture if they get their way since they wish to use cheap labour from Thailand or China. As the human resources director, Jean Frear, noted that she was attracted to work at Kaplan’s because of her taste for gourmet food; put simply, Kaplan’s used to produce one of the best gourmet but due to the changing corporate culture, the quality of this food may decline.
Conclusion for question 1
To conclude, the response to question 1 is that there is conflict and tension in Kaplan’s between two opposing factions in the board. One group includes the chairman Sam Kaplan and Hal Evans, whereas the other faction consists of Juan Poort, Frank Angle, and Ivan Kelp. On the whole, ...