Case Study Part 2: Defining Your General Organizational Realities for the Case Study John Sitka III
Liberty University, Lynchburg Virginia
Abstract
This portion of the case study assignment will require you to apply the four lenses (groups of organizational theories) to your organization. This enables you to make sense of the organization in a general way before turning to the specific problem within the organization which you
identified in Part 1.
Case Study Part 2: Defining Your General Organizational Realities for the Case Study Morgan (2006) suggested that the bureaucratic, mechanized, or machine style
organization was initially modeled from Fredrick the Great of Prussia’s concepts of warfare. The concept is based upon a military battlefield style of hierarchical command and control, with specialized divisions of labor, and a need for discipline and esprit-de-corps. This paper will focus on the bureaucratic organization and hierarchical structure, of a successful east coast maritime education facility.
The maritime school is a Limited Liability Company with has a board of directors and a chairperson. Each member of the board is an investor with the chairperson who is also the Chief Executive Officer of the school. The CEO has overall final decision authority on the financial policy, growth, and direction of the school. Under the CEO is President with the responsibility of controlling the day-to-day operations of the school and serve as the public face of the school. Bothe the CEO and the President has the economic, legal, and contractual authority. The President does have control of the daily financial responsibilities of the school. Six people that report to the President: the Vice President of Academics, Chief Administrator, Accounting, Marketing, Information Technology, and both Deck and Engineering instructor and schedule coordinators.
The school splits into staff and line personnel. The staff includes; the Accountant, Chief Administrator, Marketing, and the Vice President of Academics. Two positions report to the Chief Administrator: student services and the office administrator. The Chief Administrator coordinates with the both the Deck and Engineering instructor and schedule coordinator.
school’s representative to the accrediting authority, the United States Coast Guard. The Vice President of Academics ensures compliance with international, federal, and state regulations. The Vice President of Academics creates and implements all curriculums and ensures that any course that is coming due for renewal has been submitted in a timely manner. In addition, the Vice President of Academics serves as a line member, as well as an instructor, instructor certifier, continuing instructor educator, course compliance and instructor evaluation and quality control.
The schools primary function and financial resource is teaching students. Therefore, the instructors are line personnel. Line personnel are split into two departments, Deck and
Engineering. The Deck department has an instructor and schedule coordinator as lead manager that has four people that report to this person. The next lower level includes the senior simulator instructor, and the lead instructors for electronic systems, firefighting, and support level. The next lower level includes other supporting instructors and part time instructors. The determining factor of seniority is based upon experience and level of professional certification. Deck
Department has a total of eight full-time and ten part-time instructors.
The medical instructor is considered under the Deck department, but does not report to the Deck instructor and schedule coordinator. The medical instructors are part-time instructor and are scheduled as needed by the Chief Administrator.
professional certification. Engineering Department has a total of five full-time instructors and eight part-time instructors.
The school is a rapidly evolving organism and the organizational chart will be a bit deceiving. It would appear from the above description that most decision are make in a hierarchical fashion, this has not always been the case. Some decisions and collaborations are made at the lower levels between different instructors from different departments or between staff and line to meet school goals or student needs. Nelson, Pasternack, and Van Nuys, (2008) discussed that some organizations are not tied to a hierarchy, that some decisions are done in unexpected places. “Ironically, the organizational chart rarely conveys much information about how work actually gets done in these firms because decisions rights are unclear or often reside in unexpected places” (Nelson, Pasternack, & Van Nuys, 2008, p. 229).
On a centralized/decentralized continuum, the school could be considered halfway in between. Major decisions and policies are made at the top. While the majority of general operations and collaborations, are decided by the members of the organization. The school is a relatively small organization with less than 50 people. The CEO views the organization as an organism rather than a machine. The CEO sees the value of the human component and feels that a bureaucracy would slow down the growth process and innovation. Razik, and Swanson, (2010) suggest the same idea:
References
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nelson, G. L., Pasternack, B. A., & Van Nuys, K. E. (2008). The passive-aggressive
organization. In J. H. Munro (Eds.), Roundtable viewpoints: Educational leadership. (4th ed.) (pp. 223-236). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
