Even her critics admitted that Fran Loughlin was an innovator. In the three years that she served as City Manager of the City of the city of Barnbridge, Ohio, Fran orchestrated a stunning shift in the way the city did business.  Under Fran’s direction, the city  put indebtedness and regulatory problems behind it and was well on its way toward operating like a coolly efficient organization. She concentrated decision making with her department heads and streamlined the channels through which the various departments worked. To her friends and admirers,  Fran’s tenure as  City Manager  wasn’t merely successful. It was historic.  Then why was the City Council preparing to vote on whether Fran should be asked to resign as City Manager ? As the members looked around the conference table, they realized that few of Fran’s friends were  in attendance. Indeed, no council members could say they really knew their city manager. And, in truth, none admitted to liking her. Maybe it was her commandeering style , her “I’m -in- charge” mentality  that left little room for compromise or debate. Maybe it was the fact that, even after three years at the helm, Fran still seemed like an outs ider. She had embraced the city’ s mission, but not its ethos. True, Fran helped transform the city into a well-oiled machine. But in the process, did she rid the city of its identity?  Too often, her critics claimed, she projected a heartless face to the public. The council knew they were being tough on her. Certainly, they would never have hired her if they felt she was compassionless. But the same blunt style that once seemed an endearing quality now grated on them  —  and the department managers as well.  Some council members defended Fran and her a ccomplishments. They recalled Fran’s interview three  years ago. At the time, the city was in poor financial straits. Revenues were down. Debts were threatening to engulf them. Veteran department heads often seemed to put good deeds ahead of good business practices. Three years ago, the council  was looking for someone to clean house. And isn’t that  exactly what Fran did? Some council members defended Fran and her a ccomplishments. They recalled Fran’s interview three  years ago. At the time, the city was in poor financial straits. Revenues were down. Debts were threatening to engulf them. Veteran department heads often seemed to put good deeds ahead of good business practices. Three years ago, the council  was looking for someone to clean house. And isn’t that exactly what Fran did? “Our bottom line isn’t money,” one council member said. “It’s  service, protection, and  compassion.” The members mulled their decision before the vote. Had they given too much power to Fran, power that belonged in the council ’s hands or with  department heads? Or, by firing her, were they sending the message that the City Manager was little more than a figurehead? Wer e they using Fran’s style as an excuse to scapegoat her, to pin the organizati.

1. Even her critics admitted that Fran Loughlin was an innovator.
In the three years that she served as City Manager of the City of
the city of Barnbridge, Ohio, Fran orchestrated a stunning shift
in the way the city did business.
Under Fran’s direction, the city
put indebtedness and regulatory problems behind it and was
well on its way toward operating like a coolly efficient
organization. She concentrated decision making with her
department heads and streamlined the channels through which
the various departments worked. To her friends and admirers,
Fran’s tenure as
City Manager
wasn’t merely successful. It was historic.
Then why was the City Council preparing to vote on whether
Fran should be asked to resign as City Manager
? As the members looked around the conference table, they
realized that few of Fran’s friends were
in attendance. Indeed, no council members could say they really
knew their city manager. And, in truth, none admitted to liking
her. Maybe it was her commandeering style
, her “I’m
-in-
charge” mentality
that left little room for compromise or debate. Maybe it was the
fact that, even after three years at the helm, Fran still seemed
like an outs
ider. She had embraced the city’
s mission, but not its ethos. True, Fran helped transform the city
into a well-oiled machine. But in the process, did she rid the
city of its identity?
Too often, her critics claimed, she projected a heartless face to
the public. The council knew they were being tough on her.
Certainly, they would never have hired her if they felt she was
compassionless. But the same blunt style that once seemed an
endearing quality now grated on them

2. —
and the department managers as well.
Some council members defended Fran and her a
ccomplishments. They recalled Fran’s interview three
years ago. At the time, the city was in poor financial straits.
Revenues were down. Debts were threatening to engulf them.
Veteran department heads often seemed to put good deeds ahead
of good business practices. Three years ago, the council
was looking for someone to clean house. And isn’t that
exactly what Fran did?
Some council members defended Fran and her a
ccomplishments. They recalled Fran’s interview three
years ago. At the time, the city was in poor financial straits.
Revenues were down. Debts were threatening to engulf them.
Veteran department heads often seemed to put good deeds ahead
of good business practices. Three years ago, the council
was looking for someone to clean house. And isn’t that exactly
what Fran did?
“Our bottom line isn’t money,” one council member said. “It’s
service, protection, and
compassion.”
The members mulled their decision before the vote. Had they
given too much power to Fran, power that belonged in the
council
’s hands or with
department heads? Or, by firing her, were they sending the
message that the City Manager was little more than a
figurehead? Wer
e they using Fran’s style as an excuse to scapegoat her, to pin
the organization’s shortcomings on her?
Or was thi
s really a battle for the city’s
soul?

3. How would
you
solve the dilemma described in this case?
Now that you’ve read the case, answer the
6 questions below to see how you would react.
Answers for each question should be 1-3 paragraphs in length.
Be sure to cite references from course textbooks properly and
include a references list at the end of your response (APA style
is preferred, but just be consistent with your references if you
choose another style).
1. What is the most important issue in this case? Explain why.
2. What do you think should be done first to address this issue?
3.
Any other steps you’d take on that issue?
4. In addition to the primary issue you listed above, are there
others that need attention? 5. What steps do you recommend for
addressing those issues?
6. What could have been done differently by the people in the
case to avoid the situation entirely?