Week 02- Application Assignment- Lauren Y. Walker

For this week’s application assignment, I spoke with my supervisor Wayne Combs, Associate Dean of Operations and Administrative Services for the Dornsife College, Office of Advancement.  

To offer some background…the department over the course of the last 5.5 years that I have been working there, has had three Sr. Associate Deans, under the leadership of two College Deans.  For several professionals who during those six years, have since transferred to other departments on campus, the “message” communicated in having to adjust to several Sr. Associate Deans, in that time frame was a message of uncertainty and an absence of direction.  Our current Sr. Associate Dean, had the wherewithal to realize that success as a principal gifts officer and Dean would depend upon management in the area of administration for our department.   Wayne has been with the department for about 16 months.   

After joining the department, he interviewed all of the administrative staff to learn what each of their role in the department were, what their aspirations were, their frustrations and their vision for the department and how they thought they may be more integrally involved in reaching department goals.  He explained (personal communication, February 2, 2012) that when taking into account the Star Model framework (Galbraith, 2002), and the points of stress on the star for our department, people and structure were the two areas that needed the most attention right away.  He knew that the apathy and the disappointment he heard expressed by several, needed swift healing (Combs, 2012). As a manager, he has communicated through interaction with staff, action with regard to personnel changes and ‘counseling’ and the implementation of expected office practices, the kind of civility and culture that was expected from Sr. leadership. He explained that joining a department where there were waned expectations, some issues of personnel conflicts, and personnel “mis-cast” in positions that they were overqualified for, would summon all his skills as a manager, to act and show results right away.  If not, the staff would have no respect for him.  Wayne also recalled that one such seminal moment where he gained “traction” in the area of respect from the staff, was an ALL staff email sent with regard to office civility.  There had never been egregious unprofessional behavior on the part of anyone, but he noticed it needed to improve.  That memo did change the attitudes and behavior of several people (Combs, 2012).

Wayne believes that his organization design decisions have influenced subordinates’ behavior in a positive way and that he has created an environment where he can encourage, inspire and influence people to do their job; open the doors of collaborative spirit in the office; and enhance our technical resources in a cost effective manner (Combs, 2012; Lorsch, 1975).   I concur.  He has encouraged some staff to move on to other departments, while re-classifying myself and others in more suitable roles.  As well, he has worked to hire more development officers and administrative staff…no easy feats to justify to the College business office.  

Structure in terms of  SHORT regularly scheduled meetings, with the administrative staff, apart from the development officers, has communicated that he, as a manager, is concerned with our success in the office and uses that forum to discuss concerns, successes and suggestions from which all can benefit.   He recalled that in terms of structure and processes, he took the lead as manager to communicate the needs of our office for more financial and equipment resources to the business office (Combs, 2012).  In so doing, our requests were recognized and needs in many ways have been met and in a cost effective manner.  

While it is evident that Wayne embraces and works under the guise of the “contingency theory” (Lorsch, 1975), I have also noticed that Wayne manages better within a bureaucracy.  The expectations that people will be working AT 8:30, dressed in a particular manner, will take lunch during a certain time frame are all structural procedures he has enforced.  These systems have brought a degree of order to the operations of the office in terms of  phone coverage, when to count on people to be around for assistance, etc.  For me, I am stifled by this type of structure. I am not above conforming to the extent that I have to, to “fit” (Lorsch, 1975) within the expectation of management, but it is annoying, nonetheless.      

Ours is a department of reconfigurability (Galbraith, 2002), in my estimation. When asked, how he felt about a dynamic office that is fluid, he was optimistic and quite certain that he could navigate and manage the bureaucratic “waters” of the College business office to secure necessary financial, technical and human resources needed to fill our goal.  

I am cautiously optimistic in this regard.  It seems that decentralization of departments on campus put offices like ours in a position where we “serve two masters;”  the university bureaucracy of precise procedures and division of labor, hierarchy and career orientation (Wren & Bedeian, 2009) and the organizational design we are going to have to adapt to if the department is to be successful in raising nearly $1 billion.  When I review integration and how it relates to our department, we operate under a pooled integration system (Lorsch, 1975).  His management style and personality is very much one that thrives in a bureaucracy, however. Particularly for the position that I am in; to disseminate Dornsife’s needs and priorities to an external audience, pooled integration (Lorsch, 1975) within a bureaucratic system does not fare well.  Development officers are under tremendous pressure to meet their metric.  They will have to develop innovative approaches to encourage donors to give.  One way certainly is with the use of media—video, web, e-pub, etc.  These messages will have to change often, as will the development officers’ other approaches used to cultivate relationships.  The ever changing dynamic in this scenario, is people. I believe that Wayne has strengthened and improved company culture, gotten staff units defined (Lorsch, 1975) and running well, but I don’t know that he has a grasp or even a priority in the area of rewards.  Compensation is still inequitable and will remain as other staff are hired at increased rates.  Personalities of new people and attitudes of those still not compensated fairly will prove stressful within the Star Model (Galbraith, 2002) again in the people area and further stressed in the rewards area.  His weak area in my estimation is in under appreciating people.  He appreciates and respects the entire staff…no question, but appreciation for them as viable assets to the organization, not so much.  In this area, he is very much of the Taylor theory, that they are expendable.  This will prove problematic in the long term in the area of rewards and people as current staff grow weary and new staff come to understand his attitude in that area. 

Ours is a department that needs to be as fluid as the people are with whom we develop relationships.  In a bureaucratic system where there needs to be reciprocal integration (Lorsch, 1975) it will be interesting to see if Wayne is successful as the “middle man” in effectively managing the needs of the office and satisfying the demands of central bureaucracy.  

Galbraith, J. R. 2002.  Designing a reconfigurable organization.  (New & revised Ed.),  Designing      

     

     organizations: An executive guide to strategy, structure and process (pp. 73-90).  San Francisco,    

      

     CA:Jossey-Bass.

Lorsch, J. (1975).  Note on organization design.  (Report No. 9-476-094).  Retrieved from Harvard 

     Business School website: http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu

Wren, D. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (2009).  Bureaucracy: Max Weber.  (6th Ed.), The evolution of 

      management thought (pp. 228-234).  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.