Littleton Manufacturing Case Study group paper Term

Littleton Manufacturing Case Study group - Term Paper Example These transformations alongside growing rivalry in the market had crucial impact on Littleton manufacturing via Brooks industries declining financial performance. In order to articulate the issue, the management of Littleton manufacturing was worried with articulating the underlying challenges that affected the corporation. The corporation after a series of boardroom talks reached a decision that was aimed at computing a human resources process improvement team-PIT, to underline the issues and second a curative course of action (Whiteside, 1994). Problems identified and their symptoms Grievances at distinct levels of the corporations firm surfaced over the concern of bad institutional communication at the company. With this as a manifestation of the institutional bottlenecks at the corporation, the management of the company sought help from students at an adjacent institution to examine the institutional communication at Littleton. The PIT panel gathered the outcome from the students and carried out an in-house scrutiny that established six essential problem areas that the corporation was to deal with. The first problem established was the deficiency of institutional concord at Littleton. The evident deficiency of institutional concord was perceived through the anxiety displayed by the employee who held to the fact that the production side got ignored over the newer ingredients side. The components side had newer technology and machines whilst the production side had obsolete and redundant machines that needed regular servicing even they never got replaced. The employees also cited the strict working environment in the production side of the firm in contrast to the ingredients side. The employees perceived the management of the components side as overly strict where that of the components side seems elastic and at ease. The employees cited the fact that the two sides of the firm seemed to have distinct management techniques (Whiteside, 1994). The second problem was pitiable view of the monitor’s duty. All levels of the plant got worried about the duty of the supervisors. The directors felt tangential, underappreciated and overworked. The directors had an incredible amount of paperwork, and this restricted the amount of time they had to cover up their levels. This, they supposed, amounted to laxity amid various employees who understood when the directors would come to the level to monitor them. The directors felt nonessential when it came to decision making. They supposed they just got from their seniors when it came to the process of decision making and got criticized when such decisions failed to deliver their expectations. The controllers were as well on morale because of the little support and resources they received from the senior managers. They supposed the senior directors never would support then if they embarked on their own decisions (Whiteside, 1994). The deficiency of uniformity in the enforcement of policies and measur es inside the distinct sides of the plant also got mentioned as a problem at Littleton. Grievances came up from the employees about the disparities inside the department and sides at the firm when imposing policies and measures. Proof of this occurred when the employees protested that various managers in the components side offered longer breaks in contrast to other managers in other departments. In the