C&C Grocery
CASE 1: C & C GROCERY STORES, INC.
1. In general, how did C&C’s first organizational structure contribute to the store managers’ dissatisfaction?
The role of the district store supervisor in relation to the store manager was the primary cause of store manager dissatisfaction. Employee development wasn’t a top priority and it showed. Store managers wanted to learn management skills so they could develop promotion potential for the district and regional corporate positions. Unfortunately, the operational activities of their job prevented this and they actually learned very little about such skills or about the requirements to run each of the departments in their store much less general merchandising skills.
The district store supervisor perpetuated this by concentrating on operational details and inspecting for adherence to operating standards rather than the development, training and coordination the store managers also needed to effectively run their store.
2. What effect did it have for meat and produce managers to report to district specialists?
The original organizational structure had a negative effect on cooperation within individual stores. Meat and produce department managers did not fall under the span of control of the Store manager. They instead reported to district department specialist and were not stakeholders in overall store success, but only the success of their department.
Additionally, the store managers weren’t knowledgeable in the operations of all areas of the store to be able to fully communicate with staff. This lack of knowledge coupled with the store manager’s lack of span of control over all departments within the store resulted in reduced cooperation between the meat and produce department managers and the store manager and had a negative effect on employee morale.
3. What structural problems contributed to the chain being slow to adapt to change?
The first problem that
1. In general, how did C&C’s first organizational structure contribute to the store managers’ dissatisfaction?
The role of the district store supervisor in relation to the store manager was the primary cause of store manager dissatisfaction. Employee development wasn’t a top priority and it showed. Store managers wanted to learn management skills so they could develop promotion potential for the district and regional corporate positions. Unfortunately, the operational activities of their job prevented this and they actually learned very little about such skills or about the requirements to run each of the departments in their store much less general merchandising skills.
The district store supervisor perpetuated this by concentrating on operational details and inspecting for adherence to operating standards rather than the development, training and coordination the store managers also needed to effectively run their store.
2. What effect did it have for meat and produce managers to report to district specialists?
The original organizational structure had a negative effect on cooperation within individual stores. Meat and produce department managers did not fall under the span of control of the Store manager. They instead reported to district department specialist and were not stakeholders in overall store success, but only the success of their department.
Additionally, the store managers weren’t knowledgeable in the operations of all areas of the store to be able to fully communicate with staff. This lack of knowledge coupled with the store manager’s lack of span of control over all departments within the store resulted in reduced cooperation between the meat and produce department managers and the store manager and had a negative effect on employee morale.
3. What structural problems contributed to the chain being slow to adapt to change?
The first problem that