The Seven Letters Case: Management of Dispute

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction
The Background Information
The Findings and Data Analysis
Conclusion
References

Executive Summary

The Office of Budget and Allotment was responsible for all budget estimates and budgeting processes in the Municipal Government. The city Water Department had a responsibility to supply the city with water on time.

The water department had established a problem in the office. Its staff had to extend working hours to meet their job requirements. The team decided that it was time to request additional officers in the Purification Division. They needed four permanent water treatment operators, four maintenance laborers, and one laboratory technician.

The Office of Budget and Allotment needed more information/data and clarification that the Water Department was not able to supply. It was to enable them to make a decision and forward it to the city manager for approval.

Introduction

The seven letters exchanged between two government bureaucratic departments give us an overview of what transpired. It started off well with the Water Department analyzing its department. The officers in the department then agreed that they needed additional staff.

They sent a letter to the Office of Budget and Allotments. Due to the lack of some data in the message, the budget office responded outlining that they needed some more information to help them make a decision. The missing information sparked off arguments that later degenerated into personal attacks.

The Background Information

The first letter arrived on 5th February 1993 by Mark B. Mason, who was the Chief Engineer and Superintendent in the Water Section. He wrote to Paula A. Harper, who was the Chief of Office of the Budget and Allotment. The Water Department was asking the Office of Budget and Allotment for approval to employ additional personnel in the Purification Section of the Water Department. Mr. Mason also attached a 2^nd February 1993 memo sent by his Superintendent of Purification Mr. R.S. Herrington.

An Assistant in the Office of Budget and Allotment, Rodger Graham, who was assigned the Water Department Budget called Mark Mason to explain that the Budget office needed more information before confirming their request. He also called Herrington to explain the information they needed to which Herrington agreed to channel the same through Mason, his senior.

Herrington sent a letter to his boss Mason with the desired clarification on the 10^th of March 1993. Graham decided to make another phone call to Herrington. He asked him to clarify his information and listed the items he needed. Mason called Paula on 19^th March 1993 concerning the same and requesting that Paula puts the application for information in written form.

Paula Harper had to write to Mason on the same day copying the same to his senior Robertson, Director of Water Department. In the letter, Paula detailed the list of things the Budget office needed from the Water Department. The letter also contained an explanation of the previous communications and what they had requested.

On the 25^th of March 1983, Mason responded copying the letter to the City Manager and Water Department Director. He regretted why the Budget office was not able to solve their problem on time. He even stated that they had always had problems with the budget office. He also corrected the costs given by Paula for additional staff. He asked Harper to find an adequate number of qualified people to work with his department.

Harper wrote back to Mason copying the letter to the City Manager and Water Department Director on 13th April 1993. Harper agreed that they were unqualified to judge his request, and that was why they asked for clarifications. The letter also detailed the origin of the misunderstanding between the two agencies. Harper accepted the mistake on the figure given for the additional staff. The letter clarified that the Budget Office was still waiting for a response to the requests made in the memorandum of 19^th March 1993 to enable them to close down the matter.

Mark Mason responds to Harper in the letter dated 15^th April 1993. He says that the previous responses answered the requests made in the memo and did not have anything else to say. But he states the consequences of not adding the staff in the Purification Division.

Paula, out of frustration, does not want to respond directly to Mason. On 28^th April 1993, Paula writes to the Director of the Water Department and copies it to the City Manager. The letter details the development of the situation and asks the director to furnish the information required since Mason was not willing to cooperate. The letter also states the willingness of Paulas office to continue working together with the City Department rather than fighting each other.

The Findings and Data Analysis

The two agencies work under the City Manager to the Citys Municipal. According to Mason, the letter he had sent to Paula on 25^th March 1993 showed that there had been problems between the two departments.

Whenever the Water Department has had dealings with the Budget Office, they have been made to wait for a very long time. It is this frustration that makes him even charge at Paula. He thinks that the budget office does not have enough qualified personnel to deal with the issues.

In this case, there have been developing problems in communication. The matter had to reach the City Managers attention before it even got the approval of the Budget Office. Mark Mason feels the need to report the case to the higher office by copying his letter to the City Manager.

Another problem arises because of experience. Paula A. Harper has worked in the Budget Department for the last four years. Harper has been the Chief of Office of Budget and Allotments for a short time. Paula appointed Roger Graham as an Assistant in the Office of Budget and Allotments. Graham is less than a year in the office and under civil service probation.

However, there are consequences for not taking action on the program. According to Mason, if there are no additional staff to the Purification Division; the result will be a lack of water for the city dwellers. Both sides must respect each other and provide the information necessary for quick decision-making. Official matters must not include personal sentiments (Chandler, 2000).

Conclusion

The City Water Department may be right in their demands. They must understand that they are the most qualified people to give correct information about their department. There is a need to call a meeting whenever a problem arises. Face to face communication in a roundtable discussion can prevent a problem from escalating further.

The City Manager, who heads the two departments, must assign somebody to help solve the matters in the future. Whenever the Water Department has a requisition to make, it must be forwarded to that person for verification. The person must sit and discuss with the departments leaders to clearly understand the matter. Once the budget office takes up the issue, they can then get the staff to work on the budget. They can recommend and give their advice. Then the two agencies must be allowed to finalize the budget and allocations before jointly forwarding the resolution to the City Manager.

The requisition will cost the Municipal a lot of money on a monthly basis. It is truly a sizeable figure that requires enough deliberation. The cost data requested will help the Budget office to make a wise decision. The Water Department must state what each additional staff will do in terms of productivity and the cost attached to it. They must also explain the savings they have cut from the overtime.

At every workplace, disputes occur because of differing opinions. At other times, weaknesses in individuals cause inevitable mistakes to happen. It is advisable that the management provide mechanisms through which staff can address the problems they face. Interdepartmental problems occur when some departments and agencies want to prove their power over others.

The best way to avoid escalating problems is not to engage the subordinates in departmental arguments. There has to be a laid out mechanism on how to solve the problems amicably. It is also possible to avoid such disputes by having each department play its role fully.

References

Chandler, J. (2000). Comparative public administration. London: Routledge.

Click Here To Order Now!