Case Study on the Detrimental Effects of Major Internal Decision

719 Words2 Pages

The problem in this case is that John Bramante came into his new position and started making major internal decisions. From these decisions came a negative impact on the city’s government plans that were already in place before he came into his position. The causes of this problem were that John Bramante made decisions without consulting with the city council. John started spending unnecessary amounts of money, changed the city’s purchasing process, and changing people’s positions within the city government. With that being said John also changed employee’s positions and there were no interviews conducted for people who were hired to new positions. All of these new decisions were implemented without any type of transitional period in between the old and new. John’s unwillingness to cooperate with the city council members as well as a poor decision making process leads to three recommendations. The first recommendation will be to have the city council members hold a meeting to vote on the suspension of the city manger. The advantages of this recommendation are to maintain order within the city government and give ensure the rights state employees are enforced. The disadvantage of this is that the council members will have to start the search for a new city manger all over again. That process will be time consuming and take time away from other tasks that need to be completed. My second recommendation is that in order for city manger John Bramante to make any decisions moving forward he must have majority of the city council members approve the choice. This recommendation comes from the fact the city manger not only fails to communicate, but makes big decisions and implements them without allowing time to transition into ... ... middle of paper ... ...ke a minimum of two days and a maximum of five days to complete. The third phase is the “contingency plan” this phase is here in the event that the council and city manger come together during the hiring in the second phase and agree that having a majority vote on all major decisions will not work. If this were to happen there should be another meeting schedule within 24-48 of that hiring to decide how to move forward. The meeting will take as long as needed to get a 2/3 majority. A simple majority will not work in this case; reason being that the city government as well as the public need to be sure that all or more than fifty percent of the government will all be on one accord moving forward. This will both gain the confidence of the public of whom they serve and each other as well. This phase should take a minimum of three days and a maximum of seven days. '

Open Document