Mission and Vision Statements
University Art Museum achieved greatness under the leadership of Miss Kirkoff, who governed it for almost half a century. Her success can be attributed to the vision she had for the University Art Museum. It was very clear in her mind what the museum had to achieve both in the short and long terms. She also had a way of communicating her vision verbally to her team that worked within this institution. However, the mission and vision statements were never put in writing to make them official and to guide its operations.
When Miss Kirkoff left, she left with her vision creating a scenario where this organization lacked a clear sense of direction. That is why, since her departure, major conflicts and a sense of dissatisfaction have been witnessed in the management of the museum. As one of the faculty members stated during the last meeting, as presented in the case study, the first step towards solving the current management problems at this institution is to come up with a clear mission and vision statements. This will help the board to understand the kind of person who can act as the museum’s director. The new director will know what is expected of him or her as soon as the appointment is made.
Vision statement
The mission statement will help in defining the desired optimal future state of what the University Art Museum intends to achieve. It will be a source of inspiration and guidance to all the stakeholders as they work as a unit to help the organization to achieve success. Below is the recommended vision statement that this museum should embrace.
To be the leading center of learning art and history for the entire university community
It is important to note that the vision statement has been defined to focus on specific issues other than generalizing on various aims and objectives. This narrowly defined aim helps in eliminating ambiguity about the focus of the museum, as witnessed in the case provided.
Mission statement
The mission statement helps to bring a sharp focus on the purpose of a given organization. It is apparent from the case provided that the University Art Museum has no clear purpose about what it seeks to do. Miss Kirkoff created a mission that everyone else respected, and it worked well. This mission can be summarized as follows.
To serve the university community by enhancing our understanding of history through exhibitions, educational, and publication programs
The University Art Museum was specifically meant to enhance the learning of history and art within this university. All that it did aim at benefitting the community within the university, especially the relevant faculty. This mission will clearly inform the next director about what is expected of him or her as the head of the institution.
How to Accommodate Conflicting Expectations in Mission and Vision Statements
The case shows that there are conflicting expectations in the mission and vision statement that should be developed. According to Schuttler and Burdick (2010), accommodating diversity is very important when developing strategic plans. Everyone should feel that his views and opinions were given serious consideration before drawing the final plans. However, it is important to note that in most of the cases, the decision-making unit may be forced to exclude some of the suggestions.
Inasmuch as it is desirable to be as inclusive as possible, the mission and vision statement must be clear and precise. It must state what is to be achieved and how it is going to be achieved without bringing in any contradictions. This is what the University Art Museum needs the most at this moment to address management problems witnessed within the past one year. At this stage, it will be necessary to identify the major expectations of the stakeholders, as presented in the case (Daft, Murphy, & Willmott, 2010).
The Dean, who presided over the committee meeting meant to select a new candidate for the position of the director of the University Art Museum made his view very clear when he started the meeting by stating that the previous director who held this position was a wrong candidate. The previous director has turned University Art Museum from a resource meant exclusively for the university community to a resource meant for the entire community.
In fact, the role of faculty members in this institution became insignificant in the major activities of the museum. What he meant, therefore, was that it was wrong for the University Art Museum to be turned into an institution that benefits the entire community more than it benefited the community within the university. What he believed was that this organization had to focus on meeting the interest of learners and educators within this institution in all its activities. His views closely compare with the idea of Miss Kirkoff who was the second director of the organization.
Inasmuch as she allowed a few members of the university’s external community to benefit from this major resource, the interest of the community within the university was always given precedence at all times. This view has been given precedence in the vision and mission statement. This is so because it clearly points at what he true purpose of this museum should be given that it is based within a learning institution. There should be a distinction between a university museum and a public museum. When a university museum is assigned roles that befit a public museum, then it will have misplaced priorities. Moreover, this Dean has been within this organization for a long time, and therefore, understands what the expectations of others are towards this organization. This idea was shared by one of the senate members from the faculty of art.
A committee member, and economist, sharply disagreed with the Dean and stated that the problem with the immediate former director was the implementation strategy, not the vision. In fact, he felt that the only mistake of the former director was to engage media in his implementation strategies. According to this populist economist, the institution should remain open to the entire community other than just being restricted to the university community. He supported his point by stating that minorities such as African American and Puerto Ricans needed this facility to understand about historical past. His view will be excluded because it lacks a strong basis of argument. These minority groups, as well as the majority groups, can still learn about the country’s history by visiting numerous public museums in the country. The economist failed to articulate the differences in the role of public museum and a university museum.
One of the best opinions given during this acrimonious meeting came from an elder statesman from the faculty of art. After listening to the differing views from the members of the committee, he told them that the main problem ailing the University Art Museum was its lack of vision and mission statements. Without these two, the institution lacked a sense of direction. It would be practically impossible for one to achieve success when the aim is not defined in the first case. One first needs to be given a clear direction that should be taken, and an aim of what should be achieved. This was the main undoing of the immediate former director. This view was taken into consideration and that is why vision and mission statements have been developed.
It is clear from the case that there are also differing organizational cultures at play that may have to be taken into consideration when developing strategic plans. The faculty senates, the Art History Department, the graduate students in art history, the undergraduate students all have varying opinions on what the vision and mission of the University Art Museum should be based on their interest. Some feel that the facility should be left exclusively for the graduate students to enable them conduct research effectively and publish well-informed articles that can be used by the undergraduate students.
Others feel that this facility should be open to all the community members of the university. Another section also feels that the facility should be accessible even to the external stakeholders. These opinions are important, and may need to be put into consideration. However, priority will be given to a system that will promote the usage of the facility by all the members of the university. It will be necessary to create a culture where all the stakeholders understand their role and benefits to expect when using this facility. The undergraduate and graduate students should be properly integrated in a way that they can benefit from one another at this facility. For instance, sometimes a graduate student may need assistance of undergraduate student when conducting research. Creating a social barrier between these two groups of students will promote disharmony within the entire institution.
Organizational Change Process
Organizational change process is very complex and may sometimes be very disruptive hence fail to achieve the desired objectives. According to Flint (2012), change elicits different responses based on the level of preparedness of the stakeholders. One of the most common responses to change is resistance. People often fear change. The fear of the unknown can grip employees, making them unwilling to accept change process. Some may feel that change may bring about concepts that they cannot understand. Another group may fear that change introduce may force them out of their job, yet another group may just be opposed to the idea of changing a trend that has become universally accepted within an organization.
Resistance to change is common among the elderly who most often feel that managing the emerging trends is a challenge to them (Abinash & Gupta, 2005). Every time there is a need for change, such individuals feel that they are the target and that the outcome may not turn out to be in their favor. The management has a major role to play in ensuring that resistance to change is reduced as much as possible by preparing the stakeholders for the anticipated change. As Bass (2005) notes, when stakeholders appreciate the need for change and are adequately prepared for it, then cases of resistance are minimized.
The case presented about change process at the University Art Museum demonstrates clearly that most of the stakeholders were not prepared for change when Miss Kirkoff was replaced by a new director. He came up with radical shifts about how tasks were to be addressed within this institution, and how people were to benefit from the programs of the museum. One of the main weaknesses of his change process is that he did not engage all the stakeholders in debating about the way forward. This meant that many people did not understand his vision and mission for the firm. He also brought sudden changes that came as a surprise to many. These are some of the factors that led to the failure of his change process. Instead of earning the support of his team members, he met resistance.
Most of the people who celebrated his arrival at the firm as the director were happy when he finally left because they felt that he had failed in meeting their expectations. It is important to note that change is unavoidable. However, it should not be the source of disagreements within an organization. In fact, it may be necessary to use change process to attempt to resolve the cultural differences in expectations, needs, and desires of art museum members and stakeholders. This can be done using an appropriate model of change that will help in addressing fundamental issues raised in the case. Kurt Lewin Change Model can help in identify bringing harmony and a sense of satisfaction among all the stakeholders within this organization. The figure below shows model and how it should be used to bring sustainable change.
According to this change model, introducing change within an organization is a systematic process that should follow three main steps. The first step is to unfreeze, which simply means being ready for the change. It involves identifying issues that makes it necessary to change various aspects within an organization. This stage is the most important because the stakeholders will be expected to have a different perspective towards the University Art Museum. At unfreezing stage, some of the old concepts and popular beliefs may need to be changed as the organization prepares for a new system. It is at this stage that an attempt will be made to resolve the cultural differences in expectations, needs, and desires of art museum members and stakeholders. They will be expected to come together, share their different views, and appreciate the need to follow a new path.
The second stage is the actual change process. After the stakeholders have accepted that indeed there is need for change towards a given system or pattern, then the change factor will be introduced. Care will have to be taken to ensure that the process is not disruptive at all. It must be gradual and any concerns from the stakeholders should be addressed accordingly. Everyone should be part of the change process, including those who had a conflicting opinion. They should feel part of the new system. The final stage is refreezing. After embracing change, the stakeholders will now have to develop and embrace cultures that reflect the new system. All the community members of the university must understand and embrace the new concepts among the direction that this museum will take.
Recommended Management Structure for the Museum
It is important to come up with an effective management structure that would address the need to accommodate widely varying expectations. It is important to note that this leadership structure will only be effective after developing the mission and vision statements. The management structure will define the role of various stakeholders in the management process of this organization. The figure below shows the proposed management structure that can be used in running this museum.
The director will be the head of this organization. He will act as the chief executive officer with the powers to develop policies on behalf of all other stakeholders based on the guidelines provided in the mission statement. According to Bakacsi (2008), some organization always try to curb powers of the chief executive officers as a way of ensuring that varying expectations of the stakeholders can be met, especially in cases where the officer is viewed to be leaning towards a given belief.
However, Adetule (2011) warns that curbing the powers of chief executive officer may have negative impact on the operations of a firm. It is not easy to achieve success when one creates two centers of power within a firm. Instead of working as a unit to achieve organizational success, chances are high that the two centers of power would lead to wrangles and constant disagreements. That is why it is necessary to ensure that there is one center of power. Once nominated, the new director will be given the mandate of achieving the set objectives in the best way possible.
The senate will be responsible for the selection of the candidate to fill the position of the director. As soon as the candidate is selected, the role of the senate will change to that of advisory. That is why it occupies a special position in this hierarchy of leadership. It is important to note that the senate has not been assigned the role of supervisors to the chief executive. However, they will take active role in various activities taking place within this institution. This is so because most of the senate members are academic staffs that use the facilities of this museum on a regular basis.
Therefore, they get to understand the needs as they emerge. They are supposed to share these emerging needs with the chief executive and give their opinion on how they should be managed. The chief executive officer will have to determine how to implement such suggestions. The senate will ensure that varying expectations of the stakeholders are met by regularly discussing with the director some of the concerns from various members of this community.
The director will be assisted in his role by three management officers. These officers include the finance, research and extension, and human resource officers. These officers will be responsible for specific departments within the organization. They will help the director to come up with better ideas that can be implemented in these three areas to make the museum more efficient in meeting the needs of the community members.
References
Abinash, A., & Gupta, R. (2005). Measuring Organisational Culture through Peer-induced Cognitive Pressure: An Empirical Study. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(1), 1-28.
Adetule, J. (2011). Handbook on management theories. Bloomington: Author House.
Aquinas, P. (2006). Organisational behaviour: Concepts realities applications and challenges. New Delhi: Excel Books.
Bakacsi, G. (2008). Acquisitions and organisational change. Journal for East European Management Studies, 3(2), 189-191.
Bass, B. (2005). Transformational Leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Daft, R., Murphy, J., & Willmott, H. (2010). Organization theory and design. Andover: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Flint, B. (2012). The journey to competitive advantage through servant leadership. Bloomington: West Bow Press.
Schuttler, R., & Burdick, J. (2010). Laws of communication: The intersection where leadership meets employee performance. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.