Freeman Brown Private System

For this particular case study review, we will be analysing the Freeman-Brown Private School (FBPS) Case. The paper will answer questions related to different aspects and decisions made through the school's operational time. To be more precise, the paper will analyse FBPS and its organizational decisions/processes during its closure process.

Usually when an organization has a direct and interactive relationship with its external environment, it is termed as an open system. This entails the organization being co-dependent on the surroundings which could include culture, market, corporate world, industries as well as the end consumers amongst other external structures. Hence feedback and open communication to and from the organization is imperative for its success, in an open system (Griffin, n.d.). The opposite stands true for a closed system however, which is primarily an isolated structure that is not in any way dependent upon the skeleton of its external environment. This simply means that the output for closed systems is completely independent and can stand on its own; these systems are only known internally (businessdictionary.com). FBPS seemed to be a closed system for most of its operations with some cultural factors playing a role in community building aspects across campuses. Despite being a closed system, FBPS seemed to have managed the weaknesses of such a system very well and was meeting its vision of an exemplary educational institution across all of it campuses from the point of view of the studnets' families. This simply means that FBPS, while being a closed system primarily, was still successful in satisfying its end consumer.

The circumstances of the closure as well as the short notice of its announcement does now paint a pretty picture of the nature of the organizational culture and climate of the organization. The organizational climate, which defines the qualities of its culture, was not supportive or compromising towards the needs of the faculty, the staff or the families. The culture, which is the unique social contribution to the community, was extremely stringent and unwelcoming (Uhl-Bien, Schermerhorn and Osborn, 2014.). All of the families who had previously been satisfied with the institutes performance were left out in the cold a with limited to no viable options.

I believe the decision made was necessary yet harsh. Demographics being the sole reason represented for closure was a bit immature and thus came across as blindsiding. The method of communicating the reasons for closure however was better as the organization chose to answer directly to its stakeholders without any intermediary and thus eradicated possible misinterpretations or related misinformation.

In my opinion, FBPS did display an ethical standard of social responsibility. If the financial analysis are in fact correct, then the closures were an obvious reality for some time and the way that it was handled thus, as a last minute announcement, was not only unethical bus also crippling for all parties involved. The three stakeholders that had to face the brunt of the impact were: the students and their families who were facing uncertainty with regards to completion of the academic year and were not reimbursed for the fees paid for the academic year; the faculty and the staff who were left with prospects of looming unemployment ; and, the organization’s reputation that took a major hit due to the way that the closure was announced and handled.

The classical approach to management is dependent upon four features: a, the leaders of the company have to implement a strict regiment and structure for each function; b, employees are chose on merit and skills; c, all functions must be devoid of foreseeable interruptions ; and d, financial security and growth is use a factor of employee motivation and employee retention (Terry, 2017). Keeping this approach in mind we can analyse FBPS and how it handled its relationship with the stakeholders during closure as one that didn’t follow this management approach as neither the employees were timely informed of the closure nor was financial security or growth a factor of motivation for the employees during closure.

For the human relations theory of management, productivity is the key factor for decision making – and people are the resources to ensure good quality of production (Perry, 2017). Hence, according to this theory, people want to be part of a system that is encouraging, participatory, supportive, allows development and showcases value for good work (Schermerhorn, 2014). Good quality or productivity is dependent upon high morale of employees. Keeping this approach in mind we can analyse FBPS and how it handled its relationship with the stakeholders during closure as one that did not implement this approach either as human input or quality of work by staff and faculty was not a determining factor for closure.

The Modern management theory sees a balance of the stronger aspects of the other theories. In this we see, that is a balanced reliance on people and artificial intelligence to produce good quality of work (Schermerhorn, 2014). We also see that the organizations that apply this theory are both open systems (i.e. are interactive with their customers and stakeholders) and are closed systems (i.e. use classical methods to complete internal affairs). We also see that this systems separate the owners from the managers within the organizational unit (Chand, n.d.). Keeping this approach in mind we can analyse FBPS and how it handled its relationship with the stakeholders during closure as one that was far from the application of this theory as there was little balance in the impact that the closure would have on all aprties involved.

Short-term goals: the primary goal would be for all remaining campuses to establish their future with the board of directors before making any promises for the future to any of its stakeholders. This will be important as this was an integral mistake made in the case of the two closures – i.e. assurances were made by the new principal while being completely unaware of the ground reality. This was why the closures came across as major curve balls for everyone.

The second short term goal would be to keep communication open with all stakeholders about what the ground reality is. This will ensure that those involved in the institution are aware of its circumstances and can make contributions for its betterment and/or make backup arrangements when need be.

Long-term goals: the primary long term goals would be to analyse the demographics and finances that can work within the current economic and cultural structures of the campuses. This entails understanding the effects of eternal factors on the School System as well as a thorough internal review.
The second ling term goal would be to re-establish its vision as an exemplary educational outfit as an open system. This will ensure that all external changes are given their due importance and thus are regularly analysed and adjusted with.

The paper allowed us to overview FPBS as a modern organization and we were able to analyse its management at the time of closure. We kept our analysis based on four primary management functions which included: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. If we think about these functional aspects as a ladder where each rung allows us to move one step forward or up – and fulfils all of the recommended short and long term goals aforementioned, then we can come up with the following concluding statement for the FBPS case: FBPS must re-establish as an open system and manage open and clear communication with all its stakeholders who value its exemplary contribution in the field of education.