POLC Framework: Organizing, Leading, and Controlling Production
This paper applies the POLC (Planning, Organizing, Leading, and Controlling) management framework to a production floor scenario. Written from the perspective of manager Itza Yu, the paper examines five key organizing challenges—including staffing, shift coverage, 3D printer training, and budget constraints—and presents a hierarchical organizational chart for the production floor. The leading section addresses employee morale problems stemming from technological change and offers specific motivational strategies. The control section compares performance data across five company branches, identifies corrective actions for underperforming locations, and analyzes three long-term strategic concerns: employee turnover, inadequate training, and poor maintenance practices.
- Organizing the Production Floor: Manager's role and five key organizing challenges
- Organizational Chart and Decision-Making Authority: Hierarchical chart structure and authority flow
- Leading: Motivation and Managing Change: Morale problems caused by technology and change
- Motivating Employees and Building Morale: Specific strategies to boost employee motivation
- Control: Branch Performance Analysis and Corrective Action: Five-branch comparison and corrective action plan
- Long-Term Strategic Concerns and Recommendations: Turnover, training, and maintenance as strategic risks
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Consistently applies a named management framework (POLC) across all three sections, giving the paper coherent conceptual grounding throughout.
- Uses a realistic scenario with specific numerical data—cost per printer, budget figures, branch performance ratings—to ground abstract management concepts in concrete analysis.
- Connects the control section's findings to long-term strategic planning, demonstrating the ability to move from operational data to forward-looking recommendations.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied case analysis: it takes a business scenario and systematically works through it using a structured theoretical framework. Each section maps directly to a phase of the POLC model, and conclusions in later sections (control, long-term planning) draw on evidence introduced earlier, creating an integrated argument rather than isolated responses.
Structure breakdown
The paper is divided into three parts. Part One covers organizing—defining the manager's role, listing five staffing and resource issues, presenting an organizational chart, and justifying the hierarchical structure. Part Two addresses leading and motivation, first diagnosing morale problems caused by technological change, then offering specific strategies such as open communication and training. Part Three covers control, comparing five branch performance metrics against standards, recommending corrective actions for underperforming branches, and identifying three long-term strategic risks with planning-level recommendations.
Organizing the Production Floor
The role of a manager in the organizing phase of the POLC framework encompasses organizing the team and distributing resources and materials in accordance with the initial plan. Two significant elements in this phase include work assignment and granting authority. Therefore, Itza Yu must identify the various roles and ensure that the right number of employees are assigned to carry out the plan. In addition, Itza Yu will need to delegate authority, assign work, and provide direction to the team (Carpenter et al., 2009).
Itza Yu must address five major issues in organizing the production floor for both existing production and the new project. First, Itza Yu should consider the need for extra personnel—specifically, two additional machine operators for the day shift and two others for the night shift. Second, Itza Yu must account for establishing a full-time position within the IT production area on the night shift. Third, there is the need to train personnel on how to operate 3D printers, which require operators with specialized proficiency. Fourth, there is the cost of $6,100 per printer, which must be factored into the budget. Finally, Itza Yu must address the overall $300,000 budget, which may prove insufficient given the increased personnel, training requirements, and equipment costs associated with the 3D printers.
Organizational Chart and Decision-Making Authority
The following organizational chart illustrates how Yu would organize the people and jobs on the production floor:
Floor Supervisors
Operators | Maintenance | Packaging | Assembly | Shipping | Administration | Material Production | IT
(Subcategories: Forklift | Machine | Electronic Specialists)
This organizational chart outlines how people and jobs would be structured. It was created to increase efficiency and clarity within the production floor by taking into account all working positions and their relative levels of authority within the project.
The decision-making authority for the individuals on the chart rests with the floor supervisors, who are responsible for every aspect of work undertaken on the production floor. A hierarchical organizational structure was selected in order to maintain a functional operation within production. It is a clear and simple structure that delineates how different positions report upward to the floor supervisors (Morgan, 2015). This structure best serves the decision-making flow for the production floor and the company as a whole because it establishes clear lines of accountability and communication.
Leading: Motivation and Managing Change
Change is an unsettling experience for individuals at all levels within an organization. One of the primary reasons identified for the morale problem is that technology increasingly influences nearly every aspect of work. Although advancements in technology raise capacity and quality levels, they can also have an adverse effect on employee morale. Employees become concerned about workforce downsizing as companies pursue efficiency objectives, which in turn reduces team performance and can foster a hostile workplace environment.
The advice that the instructor should give to Yu is that his primary concern as a manager should be to limit the negative impact that innovation has on workers' motivation and to maintain the trust relationships that exist between employees and management. In addition, Yu should be attentive to the concerns of his personnel and address them in an effective manner (Manson, 2014).
Change within an organization can generate both positive and negative reactions from employees. Workers may view change either as a necessary development or as a disruption to established workflows. It is essential that employees are properly informed about any changes being implemented so that all personnel can embrace those changes and the organization can continue to progress (Manson, 2014).
Control: Branch Performance Analysis and Corrective Action
Comparing Branch Results Against Standard Specifications
With respect to cost, White Plains is considered the most efficient branch, incurring the lowest cost relative to the total number of pieces produced. Juarez and Dayton are the least cost-effective branches, at $8.01 and $7.87 per unit, respectively. The same pattern holds for time: Juarez and Dayton consume the most production time, while Huntsville and White Plains are the most time-efficient, producing a higher number of pieces than the standard branch in less time.
Regarding quality control issues, White Plains and Huntsville report the fewest problems. Juarez, by contrast, has the most significant quality control difficulties, with a rating of 8.75 per 500 units. Dayton follows with a ranking of 4. For training time, White Plains and Huntsville dedicate 45 and 48 minutes per hour, respectively, compared to Juarez's 25 minutes—well below the standard. Regarding shipping problems and damage per 10,000 units, all branches outperform the standard; however, Juarez remains the weakest performer with a rate of 0.4, followed by Toledo at 0.333, while White Plains is the best performer at 0.133. In terms of 3D printer problems, Juarez again faces the greatest difficulties, while Huntsville performs better than the standard with a rate of 0.1.
Interpreting the New Product Production Chart
The primary conclusion drawn from the new product production chart is that Juarez is the lowest-performing branch among the five. It produces the fewest pieces per year and performs poorly across multiple specifications, including cost, time, quality control, shipping, and 3D printer reliability. On the positive side, branches such as White Plains and Huntsville demonstrate strong performance across several metrics. Their shipping problem rates of 0.1333 and 0.178, respectively, and 3D problem rates of 0.111 and 0.1, respectively, are better than or comparable to the standard. Furthermore, these branches produce significantly higher volumes—650,000 and 700,000 pieces respectively—which represents a meaningful positive outcome.
Corrective Action in the Control Function
Corrective action is a fundamental component of the control process. In essence, it involves adjusting and improving company standards and practices in order to meet organizational objectives when current performance falls short of established benchmarks (Boundless, 2016).
Corrective action is recommended for this report. A key element of corrective action is problem solving: Keith must first understand the contributing factors of each problem and how they affect key processes, then identify and implement a workable solution (Boundless, 2016). One corrective action Keith should take is to improve performance at the Juarez and Dayton branches. For Juarez, this includes increasing per-hour training time to build employee skill and confidence. Additionally, improvements in maintenance are needed across branches, particularly regarding shipping handling and 3D printer upkeep, as multiple branches are experiencing damage in both areas.
References
Amo, T. (2016). The negative effects of a lack of training in the workplace. Chron. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/negative-effects-lack-training-workplace-45171.html
Boundless. (2016). Boundless management. Retrieved from
Carpenter, M. A., Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2009). Principles of management. Washington, DC: Flat World Knowledge.
Enofe, O. M., & Aimienrovbiye, G. (2010). Maintenance impact on production profitability—A case study.
Jick, T., & Peiperl, M. (2003). Managing change: Cases and concepts. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Manson, B. J. (2014). Downsizing issues: The impact on employee morale and productivity. New York: Routledge.
Morgan, J. (2015). The 5 types of organizational structures: Part 1, the hierarchy. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2015/07/06/the-5-types-of-organizational-structures-part-1-the-hierarchy/
Salonen, A., & Deleryd, M. (2011). Cost of poor maintenance: A concept for maintenance performance improvement. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 17(1), 63–73.
Ukandu, N. E., & Ukpere, W. I. (2013). Effects of poor training and development on the work performance of fast food employees in Cape Town. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(14), 571.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.