RAHUL
DYNACORP CASE STUDY
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSSETTS BOSTON

Introduction Dyna corporation, also famously recognized as Dynacorp, is a global information systems and communication company. Historically considered an industry leader, Dynacorp had a faithful clientele comprising tech-savvy consumers. However, since the 90s’ it found itself slowing down due to inefficiencies generated due to time lags caused by manufacturing and engineering departments. To address this issue, the company CEO shifted the organization structure from ‘functional’ to a ‘front/back’ organization design. This transformation however was not smooth and caused a ripple effect of problems. To iron out the problems, it was quintessential that Dynacorp identify the problem at the core. This paper is an investigative attempt to deduce what the root cause of the problems was. I shall use the theory of ‘Political lens’ in my analysis of the organization. Hypothesis: My hypothesis is that there is a conflict of collective interests happening at critical levels. I shall begin this paper by first defining the problem, defining political lens and then use it to elaborate upon power constructs and lastly use them to make recommendations. The systemic factor in this case is ‘Blockers’. Blockers are defined as “ those whose opposition could delay or derail what you are trying to do”(Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen and Westney, M2-42,2005). In this case, Dynacorp is trying to incorporate a new structure, ‘front/back’ design, which integrates the products and provides customers customized solutions. However, it has been found that there are individuals within the company whose motives and ‘interests’ are in disagreement with that of the senior management as suggested by Mr Walker. Political lens It is defined as that which sees the organization as an arena for competition and conflict among individuals, groups and other organizations whose interests and goals differ and even clash dramatically. Power and interests, coalition building and negotiation, conflict and conflict resolution are essential aspects of organizational life (Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen and Westney,M2-33,2005). This theory means that just like in governments, the root cause of a conflict can be due to an issue of conflicting interests and that such discourses require a political solution that involves negotiation, coercion, coalition, exercising power and influence. To understand the politics at a work place, I need to define interest and power and their respective attributes. Interests and power are derived from position and strength. Interests are defined as what people want-what’s at stake for them in a decision or course of action (Pfeffer,30). Interests are of two kinds: a. Individual interests- a common economic currency that allows the individual to compare the relative value or ‘utility’ of meeting each interest and b. collective interests- interests that are shared by others who belong to the same group or category and center on the welfare and maintenance of the group (Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen and Westney,M2-34,2005). Power is defined as “the potential ability to influence behavior, to change course of events, to overcome resistance, and to get people to do things that they would not otherwise do” (Pfeffer, 1992). The three attributes of power are- influence, authority and coercion. Using the aforementioned definitions of interests and power, our analysis of Dynacorp begins with the structural changes and their impact on employees. As a part of the transition, members of the engineering and manufacturing departments were put together into ‘business units’, each of which was targeted to a specific product category. In addition, some members of the marketing department were then asked to join these business units. The new structure meant that support services, technical support and a new industry solutions development group all worked together and reported directly to the Carl Greystone, the executive vice president. This group was referred to as ‘U.S customer operations group’ and represented the ‘front end’ of the company. The engineering and manufacturing departments represented the ‘back end’. This transition when looked through political lens highlights the conflict due to overlooked collective interests of the members of the three departments (manufacturing, engineering and marketing). Here in I noticed the first possible obstacle to Dynacorp’s business model. The business unit now comprised members that had never before worked together in the same team. The shuffle could have most easily resulted in resistance possibly reflected in the dissatisfactory results shown by these teams. The disgruntled employees could as a result be looked upon as potential stakeholders. Stakeholders are defined as “those who will be affected by what you are trying to do” (Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen and Westney,M2-42, 2005). Stakeholders play a critical role in establishing a culture that is congruent and compliant with the expectations of the company. From the Political lens readings, I gather that people could have multiple interests at an individual level and still belong to stakeholder groups that might have contrasting interests. It is believed that “individuals will support, be indifferent to, or try to block organizational actions based on how those actions affect their interests” (Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen and Westney, M2-34,2005). Next, I shall discuss the expectations of the senior and mid management in charge of Dynacorp operations. By going over their expectations, I hope to establish the political chains of power and influence in the organization. Carl Greyston, executive vice president appears authoritative, honest, and optimistic. From his approach I gather that he uses both his influence and authority with ease. However, his inability to ‘coerce’ the disgruntled staff does raise questions on that front. He gives an account of how the new organizational structure has enabled the company to streamline its services and products. This is achieved through assigning account teams to specific industries rather than making them flexible across multiple industries. This strategy allows the account team to focus its attention within one genre of products rather than expecting it to be compatible across multiple industries. Mr Greystone admits that the ‘Operations group’ has not met its revenue and profit targets. Mr Greyston also admits that the business unit presidents have expressed their displeasure with the performance of his group. Hence he does hint a discourse on the issue of performance between his subordinates and himself. He reiterates the importance of having a more inclusive and value added system that provides more options to their customers just as their competitors. Lastly and most importantly Mr Greystone indicates that his sales force is trying to integrate their products and not sell fancy hardware. Mr Greystone’s ideas seem to resonate with Mr Ben Walker (Vice president Northeast region). He is more critical in his opinion of his managers and subordinates. Mr Walker suggests that the people in the company know how to sell goods however some of them are inept at providing solutions to customers. He exemplifies this by describing how branch managers are more concerned about the performance measurement system and less attentive to customer needs. Mr Walker’s suggestion directly establishes his negative outlook toward branch managers. Mr Walker also seems to have a straightforward ‘perform or get fired’ policy toward his subordinates. He seems keen on downsizing the company so as to accommodate only those employees who have customers’ interests at heart. Mr Walker does not believe in coercion either and is a strong advocate of reprimanding and discharging those individuals found guilty of opposing the senior management directives. He looks to use more authority and less influence to bring about results. Martha Pauley, branch manager at Dynacorp gives her account of the state of affairs. She describes that her team comprises people with diverse roles. She offers apologies on multiple occasions to elucidate the shortcomings of her team and their lack of a holistic sales plan. She illustrates that since the prices of their products are high and support services slow in deliverance, Dynacorp is losing business to its customers. Lastly, a sales team member breaks the news that a rival company, National Systems has won the bid that Dynacorp was competing with it for. Martha seems to be lost in the proceedings and does not know who is in charge of ‘sales’. In my opinion, she lacks all three constructs of power- influence, authority and coercion. To conclude, my recommendations are as follows: First, the senior management should replicate sales models of their competitors. It was mentioned by a sales team member, that the competitors were selling their products at lower prices and partnering with a software applications company. Dynacorp could try this approach if their current plans do not fall in place. Second, senior staff namely Mr Greystone and Mr Walker could use the “Buy-In” approach. It can be achieved by convincing people that your initiative will help further their own goals (Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen and Westney, M2-42,2005). Third, by using the concept of “escalation of commitment”. This concept works by getting people to make a commitment. It in turn makes the same people more likely to pursue the original cause and even further it (Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen and Westney,M2-43, 2005). Lastly, senior staff at Dynacorp could provide stakeholders with a platform to provide their feedback and ideas on how to work up on an initiative. This gives the stakeholders a sense of ownership on the intended plan of action (Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen and Westney, M2-43, 2005).

Reference 1. Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen and Westney, M2-34,2005 2. Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen and Westney,M2-42, 2005 3. Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen and Westney, M2-43, 2005