Royce Consulting, a global consulting firm with a clientele base in manufacturing, service business and utility industries, is faced with organizational restructuring dilemma. The institution wants to embrace a hoteling office system that can be availed to the managers on the basis of reservation. This also implies that managers will lack permanent offices; all the necessary tools of trade are made available in the office and removed after the manager is done with the office. The problem presented in this institution concerns size, technological, strategy and structural changes. This paper, therefore, will delve into issues impacting positively and negatively on the organizational structure of the Royce firm in the light of relevant theories and propose any solutions to the status quo.
As aforementioned, the principle issue in Royce concerns the revamping of the status quo in the organizational structure in order to accommodate the recommended hoteling office system. Seemingly, the partners have given this proposition a full backing. Some of the reasons for their subscription to this infrastructural change included the rising financial costs, improving productivity of the managers and utilization of office space and incorporating a state-of-the art electronic technology in the offices. Results from the feasibility study conducted later to substantiate poor space utilization showed that there was a 60% occupancy rate. The technological upgrade was given support even by the managers; however, the shift to a hoteling system was censured by virtually all the managers. This was because the network system that existed did not allow the managers and the administrative staff to communicate electronically.
As opposed to the partners, the managers expressed strong views against the proposed paradigm shift- views that are majorly attributable to the status acquired courtesy of owning a private office. The managers voiced several other reasons for their not being in consensus with the proposed changes. From the case study, out of the ten managers present during the feasibility study, eight argued that a private office accorded them some status and a measure of convenience which emerged as the key reason for their dissenting views. Moreover, most of them were of the idea that their productivity would be curtailed if the firm effected the new changes. Another issue that did not seem to have dropped a bomb shell was concerning the contingency plan for sharing of offices. Most of the managers preferred this alternative as a compromise to the hoteling system which, however, was considered to infringe on the privacy; lacked enough filing system; and posed the problem of directing phone calls.