An Analysis of the Re-Organization of a
Continuing Education
Program at a Major University
Organizational
Theory
EDA
6101
Dr. Lee
Jones
Stephen
Dillard
Joseph L.
Miller
Molly
Payne
Susan
Schumate
Kimberly
Smith
Table of
Contents
Management Style
of the Continuing Education
Organization
8
Survey Methodology
10
Quantitative Survey
Analysis
16
Regression
Analysis
24
Qualitative Survey
Analysis
25
Conclusion and
Recommendations
28
References
31
Appendices
32
The research team
examined the re-organization of a continuing education organization at a
major university, which shall be referred to throughout the paper as the
Organization or the CEO. The stated mission of the Organization is
“Learning for Life.” The
Organization’s stated goals are:
to increase real outcomes that we can measure/ accountability; to
make the organization more student-centered and less process –
centered.
“The Organization is designed and built specifically for conferences, workshops, meetings, and special events; it is open all year and is dedicated to the discriminating meeting planner who needs and expects the highest quality services and facilities. The Organization is operated by a major university.”
Now, that brief
consumer version of the Organization’s marquee statement is what you
would encounter once you enter into their world via the web page; however,
we all are aware that “its just what it is – propaganda consumer
jargon.” That statement
does not enlighten, inform or illustrate the importance of the
Organization. Furthermore, that
statement only informs the consumer about the tangible aspects of the
Organization; but, it doesn’t denote or purport the meaningful developments
– recent as well as earlier – in the evolution of CPD.
In our effort of evaluating and researching this Organization,
the research team utilized a broad typology of theories that have not changed
throughout the 20th century – only the content has
changed.
Since the former
subject mention is such a broad area of concern, allow us to narrow it to
the topic which is “Using the
structural frame to analyze the reorganization of the continuing education
organization reveals the influence of classical organizational behavioral
theories.”
This introduction
is composed to inform you of the findings we discovered in our first interview
with the Director of the Organization.
The methods that will be used to inform you of our findings from this
project are: comparison –
showing the resemblance between the theories of the classics and the
Organization’s director responses to the question asked, definitions,
illustration and application of one concept to another, description and
interpretation.
When we began our
study of the Organization, we recognized that the basic framework of “The
Structural Frame” was the appropriate theory with which to analyze the
organization. Also, we were
reminded again of the contributions of early
pioneers:
Frederick
Taylor - scientific
management
Henri Fayol –
administrative theory
Max Weber –
theory of bureaucracy
In the first interview with the Organization’s
Director, the research team asked him,
“Why reorganize the
Organization?” His
response was:
“To improve accountability. It’s why I tend to reorganize most things. You need to really link, to the extent that you can, learning to outcomes. You need to consider the cost of those outcomes both financially and what it takes to do it with human resources. We also want to make the organization more student-centered and less operationally centered. Most people tend to focus on the process rather than the deliverables. The last I checked, it was about learning. My goals are to:
(1)
Increase
real outcomes that we can
measure/accountability.
(2)
To
make organization more student-centered and less
process-centered.”
The second question we asked in the interview
was – What was the organizational
structure when [your Organization] was more process- oriented? His response
was:
“You can see in the first chart that the CPD was top-down and hierarchical before I arrived. It represented people in a process where the people on the top tell the people on the bottom what to do. The second chart (org chart that is shaped like a wheel or web) is more focused on customers.”
The responses to
those questions is a 21st century illustration and resemblance
of Frederick W. Taylor, Henri Fayol’s and Max
Weber. The claim that we are
making about our introduction
topic is that important consideration should be given for the resemblance
are scientific management, administrative theory and bureaucratic theory
. Having presented the three
criteria for the introduction and initial interview, the following paragraphs
elaborate on each criterion and conclude with a summary of our findings.
First, the Organization
used the first six months of their reorganization to collect the data to
determine where the efforts were
expended. While going through
this phase, they essentially emulated Taylor and his
followers. Taylor insisted that
it was possible to scientifically analyze tasks performed by individual workers
in order to discover those procedures that would produce the maximum output
with the minimum input of energies and
resources.
Second, the Director and staff had to encounter Fayol’s
administrative theory (See Exhibit 1) once they assumed the leadership
position. Fayol’s
administrative theory developed concurrently with scientific management,
emphasized management functions and attempted to generate broad administrative
principles that would serve as guidelines for the rationalization of
organizational activities and with this Organization’s case it will
be reorganization activities.
Whereas Taylor and his followers proposed to rationalize the organization
from the “bottom up” – changes in the performance of individual
tasks affecting the larger structure of work relations – the administrative
management theorists worked to rationalize the organization from the “top
down.”
Finally, Max Weber,
the influential German sociologist/ political economist who contributed
“The Theory of Bureaucracy” to the field of organization behavior
was a contemporary of Taylor and Fayol, but worked along quite different
lines. Weber’s analysis
of administrative systems can be fully understood and appreciated only if
it is seen in a larger context --such as the major university at which the
continuing education organization is housed -- since his listing of the
structural frame of bureaucracy was generated in an attempt to differentiate
this more rational system from the natural and open
system. From our initial interview
with the Organization’s Director, we came away with the third criteria
which is Weber’s three types of
authority. The following types of authority were intrinsic with the
Director’s previous responses:
Moreover, the research
team could not help, but to be impressed by how much changed is only relative:
the perspectives being employed, the reversal of trends in organizational
structure in the form of size and form, the range of renew and old topics
being addressed.
When reorganizing
in organizations it may be helpful to begin with a model focusing on the
central features (Exhibit
3).
Social Structure refers to the patterned or
regularized aspects of the relationships existing among participants in an
organization. The following are the elements of an
organization:
Participants
Goals
Technology
Environment
Organizations are important objects of study and
concern for many reasons. They
are vital mechanism for pursuing collective goals in modern
societies. They are not neutral
tools because they affect what they produce; they function as collective
actor that independently possess certain rights and powers.
The Organization’s
Director predicted the outcomes of this study during the team’s initial
interview with him. He believed
that only a few employees would indicate an embracing of the Organization’s
vision to the degree that he has, and that only a few people would even get
it. However, the first year
was a data-gathering phase; the Director planned to “set the bar very
high,” find a few people who were early adopters of his vision and then
begin “preaching the gospel” according to the new
vision. The second year,
as the Director described it, is “tightening down all bolts, laying
down the very specific deliverables and accountability measures, and pushing
that middle group toward vision.”
The Organization is in the beginning its second year of
reorganizing. The third year,
in the Director’s words, is when “the foot-draggers leave while
the leader institutionalizes the vision into the corporate structure so that
when the leader leaves, there is a corporate blueprint to
follow.”
A few general
observations on the rational system approach can be made at this
time. From the rational system
perspective, structural arrangements within organizations are conceived as
tools deliberately designed for the efficient realization of ends or, from
Weber’s perspective, for the disciplined performance of participants.
Prior to the introduction of new management,
participants that were interviewed described their leadership as laissez-faire.
Author Bernard Bass defines laissez-fair leadership as “the autonomy
of ones followers is obtained by default. The leader avoids providing direction
and support. (Bass p. 138).”
Since new management started 18 months ago, they have focused a large
part of their leadership style on empowerment, by streamlining processes.
Instead of a mushroom effect “they empowered employees to become responsible
for their part in making the organization
successful.”
Superleadership is seen as the ultimate
vehicle for empowerment (Manz and
Sims, 1993). The
empowering superleader educates the followers so that each learns how to
act as a self-leader. “ (Bass, p. 140)
The director of this organization
has a reputation for being a superleader. He has lead larger organizations
through reorganization and has been very successful at restructuring
organizations so they are more efficient. His past credentials is the reason
Florida State University recruited him. “With so many new processes
being installed we wanted someone with the leadership ability to pull this
organization together so the Academic Affairs division as a whole could move
forward” according to the university’s assistant to the Vice President
Debra Fag.
After visiting the site
more than once and talking to employees, employees agree as part of streamlining
processes management has given more them responsibilities and has come to
them when making decisions. One example of empowering leadership at this
organization is a first-line manager approached management with a dilemma,
two of her people have worked for the organization 14 years and had never
been given a raise. Management’s response was “document the
employee’s achievements and submit the paperwork for a raise and if
you had any others deserving of a raise you ca do the same for
them”. New management
started holding open meetings where they would discuss their ideas and get
input form employees. The Associate
Director that was interviewed said, “the employees were so used to having
information withheld in the past it wasn’t easy to introduce an open
agenda policy.” Although the philosophically bright side of empowerment
is to increase productivity and efficiency, overcome resistance to change
and increase the sense of ownership and responsibility (Bass,
p.142).” In the interview with the director he said, “The
reason he was reorganizing was the organization needed more
accountability.”
Finally, The organization studied
is 50% through the re-organization. The smoothness of the reorganization
has been accredited to the director. One employee commented that, “it
was very wise for our director to wait six months before doing anything.”
In those first six months, the director assessed the area and during the
reorganization he matched people with jobs that allowed them to utilize their
skills to the fullest potential. He empowered them to do things that they
are good at and held them accountable for their
area.
Data were collected for the project using two methods—interviews and surveys. The survey was used to obtain quantifiable information about the perceptions of employees about the reorganization of the Continuing Education Organization (CEO). The interviews were designed to acquire more specific qualitative information about the managers and other employees within the organization. First, a general meeting was held with the Director and Associate Director of the CEO. During this meeting, the project group described the scope of the project and how data would be collected. The Director and the Associate Director approved the group’s plan and provided an overview of the organization and the efforts that had been undertaken to redesign the organizational structure. After one additional meeting with the Associate Director to obtain updated information about the restructuring, the group began collecting data from other CEO employees.
Surveys
First, a short survey was constructed to obtain information from employees. The survey consisted of seven questions—five questions related to the reorganization and mission and two additional questions to acquire demographic information from the respondents. Five responses were devised, and each was assigned a value, based on a five-point Likert scale.
The survey was not rigorously tested for validity and reliability. However, a cursory test was done to ensure that the questions would be easily understood by the respondents and would provide the type of information intended by the project group. To test for internal validity, the questions were evaluated by a person with extensive experience in developing surveys. This person confirmed that the questions were clear and described his impression of what information would be returned for each question. Then, the questions were given to two individuals who were asked to describe what types of answers they would provide for each question. Both people confirmed that they would interpret the questions in such a way that the results would be consistent with the intent of each question. There was no test done for external validity, since the intended use of the survey was to extract information specific to the Organization in question. However, the questions could be generalized to use in other organizations undergoing restructuring. In this situation, the external validity of the questions would have to be determined.
The reliability of the survey was also not determined, since it was only used within one organization in one instance. Possible future tests for reliability would include redistributing the same survey to the same people to ascertain if they would choose the same answer for each question. Then again, this would be difficult, considering the pace of change occurring in the organization. This reinforces the limitation that this survey provides only a snapshot of one day in the life of the organization, rather than a stable set of perceptions over time.
Following are the questions from the survey, as well as an explanation of the rationale for each question.
Question #1: “In your opinion, how has the reorganization affected the Continuing Education Organization (CEO)?” The possible responses for this question were “It has made things much better.” (5 points); “It has made things somewhat better.” (4 points); “It is about the same as before the reorganization.” (3 points); “It has made things somewhat worse.” (2 points); and “It has made things much worse.” (1 point). The managers’ perception was that the reorganization has been beneficial overall, so this question was designed to determine if this perception was shared by the general staff.
Question #2: “To what degree are you aware of the Continuing Education Organization’s current mission?” The possible responses for this question were “Very aware” (5 points); “Somewhat aware” (4 points); “About the same level of awareness as before the reorganization” (3 points); “Somewhat unaware” (2 points); and “Completely unaware” (1 point). Since it was a stated goal of the managers to make the employees aware of the current mission of the organization, we asked this question to measure their success so far. This question will be helpful to the managers in determining if more communication regarding the mission is necessary.
Question #3: “To what degree do you understand the mission of the Continuing Education Organization?” The possible responses for this question were “Understand the mission completely” (5 points); “Have a good understanding of the mission” (4 points); “Have a basic understanding of the mission” (3 points); “Have little understanding of the mission” (2 points); “Have no understanding of the mission” (1 point). The managers indicated it was important to them that the employees have a clear understanding of the CEO’s mission. Including this question allowed the project group (and the managers) to elicit feedback about how well the general staff understood the organizational mission. The managers will be able to use this feedback to determine how well the mission has been explained to employees, as well as if more attention to promulgating and explaining the mission is necessary.
Question #4: “Compared to before the reorganization, what is the level of customer focus at the Continuing Education Organization?” The possible responses for this question were “Much more customer-focused” (5 points); “Somewhat more customer-focused” (4 points); “About the same level of customer focus as before the reorganization” (3 points); “Somewhat less customer-focused” (2 points); “Much less customer-focused” (1 point). Another goal of the reorganization was to increase customer focus. This question was asked to determine the employees’ perception of how the reorganization has affected customer focus. This information will help the project group determine how the general employees perceive the affect of the reorganization on customer focus. The managers can use this information to determine whether they need to reinforce this goal within the organization or change their approach to better focus on customers.
Question #5: “What is your outlook for the Continuing Education Organization’s future, as a result of the organization?” The possible responses were “I think CEO’s future will be much brighter.” (5 points); “I think CEO’s future will be somewhat brighter.” (4 points); “I think CEO’s future will be about the same as it was before the reorganization.” (3 points); “I think CEO’s future will be somewhat less bright.” (2 points); “I think CEO’s future will be much less bright.” (1 point). Another goal of the Director and Associate Director was to increase the probably of future success of the CEO. This question was included to obtain employee perceptions of whether the reorganization will have a positive or negative effect the future of the CEO. The managers will be able to use this information to determine if they should provide employees with more information about future goals, as well as updates on the impact of the reorganization so far.
Question #6: “My level of management responsibility:” The possible responses were “I do not manage other employees.” (1 point); “I manage 1 or 2 other employees.” (2 points); “I manage 3 or 4 employees.” (3 points); “I manage 5 or 6 employees.” (4 points); and “I manage 7 or more employees.” (5 points). This question was added to gather basic demographic information about the responses. Knowing the demographic makeup of the respondents helps to determine how representative the sample was of the entire organization, assisting in the determination of skewness based on a lack of variety of respondents.
Question #7: “My tenure with the Continuing Education Organization:” The possible responses were “I have worked for CEO for 2 years or less.” (1 point); “I have worked for CEO for 3-5 years.” (2 points); “I have worked for CEO for 6-8 years.” (3 points); “I have worked for CEO for 9-11 years.” (4 points); and “I have worked for CEO for 12 years or more.” (5 points). This question gave the group an idea of how long the respondents have been at the CEO so that any skewness based on tenure could be identified.
The survey was sent to the Associate Director via e-mail for distribution to all of the Organization’s staff. The survey was distributed, along with instructions for completing and returning it to a specified box for collection. A member of the research team picked up the surveys and provided an analysis based on the results.
The overall goal of conducting the survey was to take a snapshot of how employees perceived the reorganization and how well they understood the mission and goals of the Organization on that day.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with the Director, Associate Director, and five employees selected by the project from the organizational chart. A cross-section of employees was selected, representing various departments and levels within the CEO.
For the managers’ interviews, members of the project group met in person with the Director to discuss his intentions for the reorganization. Present at that interview were the Associate Director and, briefly, a statistician who works for the Organization. During the second interview, the group met with the Associate Director to gain additional information on how the reorganization was progressing. In retrospect, the protocols for these interviews lacked consistency. They were based on casual conversation with the participants, which gave the group insights to guide the interviews with the general staff. There was no specific protocol for asking questions, and only a short list of questions agreed upon by the group. The results of these interviews are discussed in the Qualitative Results section.
For the general staff interviews, each member of the project team conducted an interview with one employee. Questions from the survey were used as the basis for the interviews. This qualitative information provided more explanation of the quantitative results, such as why people may have certain perceptions. In addition, the questions asked to the Director were asked to the employees. This was done to determine the degree of congruency between the perceptions of the managers and those of the other employees in the organization. Finally, the employees were asked if there were any other issues, concerns, or compliments they would like to add for inclusion in the study. There were two reasons for adding this question. First, this gave the employees an opportunity to provide information that would be passed on anonymously to the managers. Second, it gave the project group an additional opportunity to obtain important insights into the employees’ perceptions of the reorganization and the current environment at the Organization.
A survey was conducted to examine the employee perceptions of the
reorganization. Employees were
presented the survey and instructed to fold and staple the survey and place
it in a collection box. Forty-six
employees completed the survey that was prepared by the research
group. The following paragraphs
describe the results as examined through descriptive statistics as well as
regression analysis.
Descriptive
Analysis
Question 1 asked the employees how the reorganization has affected the institution. Of the forty-four respondents seven stated that the reorganization has made things much better (16%), ten stated that it has made things somewhat better (23%), fourteen thought that things were about the same as before the reorganization (32%), eight respondents thought it made things somewhat worse (18%), and five stated that the reorganization had made things much worse (11%). Figure 1 gives a graphical depiction of the data.
Question 2 asked the participants to describe their awareness of organization’s current mission. Eight respondents stated being very aware (17%), eight stated being somewhat aware (17%), eight are at the same level of awareness as before the reorganization (17%), twelve are somewhat unaware (26%), and ten are completely unaware (22%). Figure 2 offers a graphical depiction of the data.
Question 3 was posed to determine the degree to which the participants understand the mission of the organization. Six participants stated that they understand the mission completely (13%), seven have a good understanding of the mission (16%), thirteen have a basic understanding of the mission (29%), twelve have little understanding of the mission (27%), and seven have no understanding of the mission (16%). Figure 3 shows the data graphically.
Question 4 asked the employees if the new organization was more or
less customer focused. Nine
employees view the organization as much more customer focused (20%), four
see the organization as somewhat more customer focused (9%), nineteen stated
that the organization is at about the same level of customer focus (42%),
five employees see the organization as being somewhat less customer focused
(11%), and eight believe the new organization is much less customer focused
(18%).
Figure 4 graphically depicts the data.
Question 5 asked the participants if they view the future for the
organization brighter or not bright at all as a result of the
reorganization. Thirteen employees think the future will be much brighter
(29%), eight employees believe the organization’s future will be somewhat
brighter (18%), fourteen think the future of the organization will be about
the same as it was before the reorganization (31%), five think the future
will be somewhat less bright (11%), and five think the future will be much
less bright as a result of the reorganization
(11%).
Figure 5 depicts the data graphically.
Question 6 asked the employees how many other employees report to
them. Twenty employees do not
manage any other employees (56%), eight manage one or two employees (22%),
three manage three or four employees (8%), one employee reported managing
five or six employees (3%), and four participants in the survey manage more
than six employees (11%). Figure 6 graphically depicts
the survey results.
Question 7 asked the employees how many years they have been employed at the center. Fifteen employees responding to the survey have been employed at the organization two years or less (43%), eleven have worked there from three to five years (31%), four employees reported working at the center from six to eight years (11%), two employees have worked at the center from nine to eleven years (6%), and three have worked at organization for more than 11 years. Figure 7 graphically depicts the survey results.
Regression Analysis
The descriptive analysis allows the researcher to describe the results. However, descriptive analysis does not allow comparisons or correlation. Regression analysis was performed to determine if any questions correlate and possibly explain any of the results. Multiple regression was performed on each question.
Question 1 correlated to question 4 with a p-value of 0.0061 and question 5 with a p-value of 0.0001 indicating significant statistical correlation. The R-squared statistic indicates that the model as fitted explains 77.9869% of the variability in question 1. The analysis reveals that employees who thought situations were worse also believe the center is less customer focused. Employees who thought the situations were better also saw the center as having a brighter future.
Question 2 correlated to questions 3 and 4. The analysis indicates that those employees who are unaware of the current mission also do not understand the mission. Those employees who are unaware of the mission also see the center as being less customer-focused. The R-squared statistic indicates that the model as fitted explains 81.2983% of the variability in question 2.
Question 3 correlated to question 2 as already stated. In addition, question 3 correlated to question 5. The R-squared statistic indicates that the model as fitted explains 79.0951% of the variability in question 3. The analysis indicates that those employees unaware of the current mission also see the future of the center as being less bright.
Question 4 was correlated to question 1 and 2 as already indicated. The correlation of question 5 to question 1 has been explained previously. No other questions correlated to question 6 or question 7.
The correlation may seem obvious. However, a common theme emerges throughout the examination. Communication and understanding of the mission are key to employee perception of corporate image, vision, and future. When employees are unsure of the mission, they may perceive the environment as chaotic and uncertain. These same employees may see the company as lacking direction and purpose.
Limitations
Some basic inferences are made is this analysis. However, these are subject to known limitations. The test instrument was not subjected to rigorous assessment of validity or reliability. Some employees did not answer question 6 concerning the length of employment in the organization. These employees felt that they may be linked to the survey. There is also a concern that the survey was distributed among the employees without their knowledge of the source of the document. Some employees believed that the survey was part of the organizational management activities. For these reasons, the results of this study could be biased.
Qualitative Analysis
The research team undertook one-on-one interviews with five Organization employees for two reasons: to obtain external validation for the quantitative survey results; and to gain a richer perspective of employee reactions to the re-organization.
The five informants held varying positions within the organization and had worked at the organization for varying amounts of time. Two informants are middle managers who report directly to the Associate Director; one had worked at the organization for 13 years and one for 12. One informant is a supervisor two levels beneath middle management; she has worked at the Organization for 14 years. One employee is a program manager who reports to a middle manager but also has the autonomy to report directly to the Director; she has worked at the Organization for six months. The fifth informant is the Organization’s receptionist and has worked at the Organization for four years.
Three qualitative interviews provided external validity for the quantitative survey analysis which indicated that employees who perceived their situation under the Organization’s new administration as better also saw the Organization as having a brighter future. In a similar vein, three informants indicated an awareness of the Organization’s mission and also indicated a perception that the Organization’s future was bright.
The qualitative survey’s second purpose – to gain a richer understanding of employee reactions to re-organization – was more fully realized. Four of the five employees interviewed showed a positive reaction to the less-hierarchical structure that has resulted from the re-organization. They indicate that staff at lower-levels of the organization are now being recognized for their contributions. They indicate an appreciation of the autonomy and acceptance of new ideas brought on by the re-structuring. Three of the five informants also indicate that the less-hierarchical structure has streamlined their work processes.
One informant who worked in the lower-levels of the organization and reported through a chain of middle managers noted the equality brought about by the less-hierarchical structure, “I think [the new administration] realized the support staff were not being recognized, [that] a lot of [my] co-workers who do the real leg work wer not being recognized. The new management came in and saw that, that was when [they re-organized.”
The five informants negative perceptions of the re-organization focus on understanding of the mission and communication. Examining each informant’s relationships to the Organization’s senior management reveals a pattern in which those with greater and continuous access to senior management have a greater understanding of the mission and vision of the organization. These informants with access to the senior administration also perceive the Organization’s future as brighter.
There was a general understanding among all five informants that technology is at the center of the Organization’s Director vision for the Organization. All of the informants see the merit of this vision, although two are concerned about one of the Organization’s traditional set of customers and a traditional service delivery method. The Organization’s traditional customer base for educational programming are adults living in the Big Bend who are seeking continuing education credits. The traditional method of service delivery is classroom style teaching. One informant pointed out that the Organization’s educational course offerings are only available on-line; this technology-driven change has inhibited older customers, without web access, from obtaining course offering information.
Four of the five informants indicated that poor communication is the most important problem associated with the re-organization. Two of the informants referred to “all staff” meetings that were open to all Organization staff and provided them with an update of activities. These informants indicate a desire to resume these meetings. Another informant indicated that the Organization’s Directors meetings would be good forums in which to disseminate re-organization updates to the Organization’s Director to the various program directors, tasking the program directors with carrying this information to their managers. One informant, however, identified the difficulty in balancing broad-based communication with the confidentiality required to participate in the state bidding process, which the Organization engages in frequently as a means of creating a statewide image for itself.
Informants also identified specific communication messages that senior
administrators could circulate to lessen employee anxiety about the
reorganization. Two informants
expressed a desire to learn the “why” behind certain changes resulting
from the re-organization.
Similarly, another informant indicated that the change has been too
rapid and that an understanding of the reasons decisions were made would
have been helpful. Three informants
identified job security as their colleagues’ main
concern.
During the
research team’s initial interview with the Organization Director, he
contrasted his current and former approach to communicating a vision for
agency re-organization. Prior
to joining the continuing education organization, the Director successfully
lead a large state agency through a multi-year
reorganization. When asked what
he had learned from that experience and how he has proceeded differently
at the continuing education organization, the Director said that he has changed
the forum in which he communicates his vision and mission regarding a
re-organization.
The Director told
the team that as a state agency head embarking on a major re-organization
he held quarterly meetings to discuss the vision, purpose and progress of
the re-organization; through these quarterly meetings he carried his message
to the agency’s several-thousand
employees. His retrospective
observation is that he inundated people with information by attempting to
communicate every aspect of an extensive reorganization to a diverse employee
base. These extensive and broad-based communications did not enlighten the
majority of the employees on the dynamics of ther re-organization nor did
they assuage employee fears related to impending changes.
The Director indicated
that for his re-organization of the continuing education organization, he
planned to explain his vision to employees broadly and then wait to see which
employees (managers or otherwise) sought him
out. In this instance, the Director
indicated, he would not act on the same responsibility to carry his message
to each Organization employee, as he had tried to do previously when
re-organizing a state agency. Rather, he would build his buy-in base through
employees who had not only heard his vision but understood it and elected
to seek him out as a show of their support.
Given that five
informants expressed concerns with organizational communication, it is
recommended that the Director reconsider this
approach. The continuing education
organization has fewer than 150 employees whereas the state agency that he
re-organized had more than 2,000.
It is a much more manageable task to set in place communication forums
for less than 150 employees than for 2,000
employees.
Given that the
Organization has several traditional roles such as conference planning and
educational programming as well as new and emerging roles, it is possible
that messages changes resulting from the re-organization need to be tailored
to individual departments.
Engaging department heads in crafting the message that articulates
their department’s role in the re-organization may increase their buy-in
as well. In addition, it is recommended that department heads institute
a regular pattern of briefing their employees on the re-organization and
responding to their employees concerns.
It is recommended that these briefings be
face-to-face.
Where possible,
the communication regarding job security could center around the standards
for exceptional performance under the re-organized continuing education
organization so that employees would better understand what is expected of
them.
It is clear, also,
that the Organization has a mandate from the University President to engage
in this re-organization and to fulfill a new vision and mission in which
the president has extensive faith.
It may be easy for the interpersonal communication with the Organization
employees to fall by the wayside as senior managers work to meet the expectations
of the university’s top administration. This research team concludes
that this interpersonal communication is, in fact, paramount to fulfilling
the president’s expectations and should not become a casualty of the
re-organization. It is successful
interpersonal communications that will keep Organization employees motivated
to work toward the new vision, as set forth by the Director and the University
President.
References
Bass, Bernard M.
(1998). Transformational Leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:
London.
Behn, Robert (1995).
“ The Big Question of Public Management”, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 55, No. 4, 313-323
DiMaggio,
Paul J. (1991). “Introduction,
in the New Institionalism in Organizational Analysis” pp. 1-38, ed.
Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, Chicago: University Of Chicago
Press.
Matterson, Michael
T. and Ivancevich, John M., Management & Organizational Behavior, 102-104,
Irwin/McGraw –Hill.
Northcraft, Grefory
B. and Neale, Margaret A., Organizational Behavior, 29-39 Dryden
Press
Perrow, Charles.
(1986). Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay (3d.ed.) Glenview , IL: Scott
Foresman.
Scott, Richard
W., Organizations Fourth Edition,
129-131, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Sims, H.P. (1993).
Leadership: The Cutting Edge. Southern Illinois University Press:
Carbondale.
Taylor Frederick
W. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. New York:
Harper.
The Continuing Education
Organization’s Revised Organizational Chart
Quantitative Analysis
Figures
Interview
Transcript:
Organization Director
Interview Transcript:
Organization Associate
Director
Interview
Transcript:
Employees A through E