Successful development should not only encompass the growth of productivity, but should also ensure that the adopted pattern of growth is broad-based. This way, the management ends up with a variety of policy options that can be evaluated to select the best development strategy.
The selected strategy must tailor those policies to the objectives of growth and development (Kind, 2013). However, since the world is rapidly changing, the long-term development needs of institutions are often overlooked.
Instead, prompt and drastic measures are taken so that the institution remains competitive and relevant to stakeholders (Borman & Hewes, 2002). In the long run, organizations find themselves in complex situations that sometimes call for an entire system overhaul.
However, it is important to point out that at times, the complex situations in which organizations find themselves result from external factors. Mt. Rossmoor Community College’s case is a typical example an externally instigated complexity.
Unfortunately, the college’s management has to bear the burden of navigating it out of the delicate circumstance. This paper examines MRCC’s condition and outlines policy options that can be explored to move it forward.
For Mt. Rossmoor Community College (MRCC) to be the fifth among the fastest growing community colleges in the nation, the management must have implemented some prudent policies.
Therefore, the 24% growth is not only due to the housing boom as claimed, but also as a result of proper strategy formulation and implementation. Unfortunately, MRCC did not escape the tide of the national economic crisis that prompted the government to reduce its budgetary allocation to public institutions.
Consequently, MRCC’s faces a 15% reduction in the financial support it gets from the government reduced by 15%. This adjustment is likely to affect the well being of all the stakeholders of the college. As such, the management must act swiftly to formulate new strategies and come up with a lean mode of operation.
MRCC needs a new budget that will guide its new mode of operation. The new budget should outline how much the program will cost, give a forecast of its sustainability, and align the program’s implementation costs with MRCC’s fiscal strength.
The stakeholders that are likely to be affected directly by such drastic measures would include the local community, the management, students, employees, the government, and suppliers. Students expect value in the form of proper service delivery since they pay fees.
They gauge the level of service delivered based on the quality of accommodation facilities, catering services, and most importantly, academic services.
The management for its part expects the college to run smoothly while the community expects transformed individuals who can successfully take up societal roles after training. For employees, the most important concern is that their jobs should be satisfying and rewarding.
The jobs should avail opportunities for career growth and advancement. Suppliers, like all other stakeholders, also have their expectations. They expect their merchandise to be ordered and paid for in time.
Finally, the government, despite reducing its financial support, expects the college to produce responsible and productive workers. To meet all these expectations in the face of financial scarcity, MRCC has to take some drastic measures to reduce its expenditure.
According to Konzelmann (2012), austerity measures become handy when there is little money to spend. In other words, they are measures associated with cutting costs. MRCC will employ some austerity measures to help it go through the tough financial situation that it is in.
Therefore, it will reduce spending on stationery, staff development activities, property maintenance, and student welfare. These measures are drastic and will undermine the interests of students, suppliers, and the staff, but for the sustainability of the college, they are necessary.
The saved funds will facilitate the construction of new tuition blocks for new students besides cushioning the college from the adverse effects of the 15% reduction in the government’s financial support.
Arguably, money in its own respect cannot improve the situation of an institution. This assertion is inspired by the idea that in the presence of abundant financial resources, poor planning and misappropriation of funds can still result in poor school quality.
Nonetheless, evidence suggests that sufficient financial resources are a necessary prerequisite for providing quality education (Baker, 2012). In view of this assertion, a small fee increment will be plausible.
This increment will be factored in after lengthy deliberations with the concerned stakeholders because many students stand the risk of being locked out of the system if rush decisions are made concerning this issue.
As a policy option, fee increment is considered plausible because it will bring in significant amounts of additional income for MRCC.
According to Cascio (2010), an organization that decides to eliminate redundant workers can do so using four strategies viz. attrition, voluntary termination, early retirement incentives, and compulsory termination. These four options are also at the disposal of MRCC if the above options prove inadequate.
Attrition, in which firms do not replace the people who leave, is the most alluring since it does not directly interfere with the interests of the remaining workers.
However, the management usually has limited control over the process. Therefore, it is not a viable option for MRCC because there is need for prompt budget reduction.
Voluntary termination is another option that has the advantage of allowing the staff to opt out or stay. However, this approach may also be inappropriate for MRCC since no one may be willing to leave voluntarily.
Early retirement in which an organization offers a generous retirement package to an employee who chooses to leave, is the third policy option for downsizing the MRCC workforce. Its attractiveness is, however, reduced by the considerable amounts of money will be lost in the form of send-off packages.
Compulsory termination, therefore, becomes the most appropriate policy option for MRCC because it gives the management direct control over the downsizing process. The management will objectively audit the needs of MRCC to ensure that only redundant workers are laid off.
Weinstein (2008) notes that such audits are necessary to ensure that managers stay focused on the objectives of downsizing instead of personal preferences.
This policy option will have an effect on the economic circumstances of the affected employees and the economic strength of the local community, but it is justifiable since it will protect the interests of MRCC.
The challenge of navigating MRCC through this financial tide seems insurmountable. However, running the institution on a lean budget under the auspices of the proposed policy options can see it through the difficult time.
Human dignity will be taken into consideration during downsizing because there will be proper communication with the affected individuals before the exercise is executed. Criticism and resistance are factors to consider during the implementation of the policies.
Nonetheless, proper communication between the management and the stakeholders will ensure that a consensus is reached. The support of all stakeholders is crucial to the success of the whole process. As such, it is important that all the stakeholders reach a consensus before the proposed policies are implemented.
References
Baker, B. (2012). Revisiting the age-old question: Does money matter in education? Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Borman, G., & Hewes, G. (2002). The long term effects and cost-effectiveness of success for all. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (4), 243-266.
Cascio, F. (2010). Employment downsizing and its alternatives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kind, P. (2013). Disruptive challenges: Financial implications and strategic responses. Washington, DC: Edison Electric Institute.
Konzelmann, S. (2012). The economics of austerity (Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge Working Paper No. 434). Web.
Weinstein, B. (2008). Downsizing 101. Web.