CMGT 500 Week 01; Assignment 01: I recognized all organizational theories at one job!

After reading this week about the various organization theories, I immediately thought of my time working in the non-profit The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Team In Training (TNT).  In a nutshell, my position was to recruit participants to complete endurance events and fundraise for our mission, plus engage the volunteers to help run and support future teams. 

TIME STUDY FOR EMPLOYEES: 
EFFECTIVE:  We ran 4 overlapping fundraising campaigns that occupied the whole year.  Based on history, in line with Frederick W. Taylor’s ideas for time study, management had figured out just how much time each task takes, and the ideal position and length of time for when and how long it should occur during or before the campaign. Additionally they’d identified the best tasks to delegate to volunteers who also were ranked in mentor or captain roles to either be helping the participants, or helping run the team. We also knew ideally based on our area and our resources, just how many people we’d be able to recruit and how much we’d be expected to raise. 
In theory, it was really simple to back out the dates from the start of our campaign and just follow the timeline.  The goal was once the team was engaged to divvy up remaining campaign duties to the volunteers we’d recruited and trained earlier (if we followed the timeline,) then pretty soon the team runs itself as we gear up to start the next season. 
There were rewards if we performed above our expected number, beat last year’s performance, and if we met the goal overall as a chapter.

LESS EFFECTIVE:  There were so many factors that affected our ability to recruit volunteers or participants that often the timeline overflowed as we scrambled to find one more volunteer, one more participant. The hours of the work day would be extended as we threw one more happy hour, or one more informational meeting.  Especially when one was new to a territory, the hours to research the territory, forming the relationship with volunteers and find participants (as well as forming relationships with local businesses) quickly became a round-the-clock job.  Plus the incentives don’t measure up to the time spent and the furious pace so manager and volunteer burnout was a common problem with the average employee lasting 2 years, less if they had a family.

MANAGEMENT SKILLS OVER JOB KNOWLEDGE: 

EFFECTIVE: Consistent with Fayol’s findings that managerial ability outweighs knowledge, I offer my own experience with being a manager.  The 3 things we looked for above all else when hiring Campaign Managers like myself were 1) They’d experienced TNT as a participant, 2) They had marketing experience, 3) Very organized and driven.  Before starting the position, I’d been involved with the Teams in various volunteer roles, including helping recruit people, helping mentor participants, and being Fundraising captain.  On my own I’d raised about $8,000, plus I’d thrown events that had raised even more.  I had a background in marketing production and job trafficking, including guest services and marketing. Because of my experience, I was excelling at the job and encouraged to apply to be a Director within a month after I arrived. 

LESS EFFECTIVE: While I have the ability to manage people through the campaign, because on some level they already want to be successful, and if they forget why, I reminded them. When I was suddenly managing 5 of my peers who’d been there longer than I had before I even had a grasp of how a full campaign would take place, and they were disillusioned or unmotivated, I didn’t know where to start to help them.  I knew how to manage jobs, but not necessarily people.  While I set a good example for my employees and we conducted periodic audits, I was forced to become engrossed in every detail of their efforts, to find out why “the timeline” wasn’t working for them.  We also tried to form unity with the employees, but realistically, we were all competing against each other, including myself (because for a long time, I still had my old job as a Team manager in addition to my new Director role. Likewise, there were campaign managers who’d never participated in the Team (so lacked certain “experience”), but who had better managerial skills and when they were promoted to a new level, they thrived.

WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY:

EFFECTIVE:  There was a clear division of Labor that existed within the office. Each territory had a campaign manager, each campaign manager reported to one of 3 directors (divided up by sport or region – for example one director may have the West/North LA marathon Teams, the South/East LA marathon Teams, while the third had the smaller sports of cycle, hike and triathlon), and the directors reported to a senior director who oversaw everything. They reported to a national director, and so on up the ranks.
LESS EFFECTIVE:  We constantly redefined the way Teams were split up when we had the luxury of 3 directors. At one point though, we were down to 1 director and ½ the teams reported to me and the other ½ reported to the senior director. Because of this, it created a false superiority in that they felt they had the “pipeline” to the boss whereas the others still had to get through a layer to get to the boss.  We often had no choice but to hire employees that we thought could probably do the job (to fill an immediate need), only to have them not perform as hoped – partially due to a bad fit, partially due to incomplete training. Also the lines blurred as far as overlap with areas vs. sports – (should the marketing on the Westside be handled by the West Marathon Team or the West Cycle Team?).

Still, I’ll say one great thing about the non-profit is we’re resourceful, quick on our feet to adapt to new directions and outside circumstances effecting our campaigns, but perhaps if we just stuck with something a little bit longer! Go Team!