Abstract
This research study focuses on the vertical structure of organizations, particularly emphasizing the span of control, delegation, responsibility, authority, and accountability. Specifically, it explores the job of a technology director in relation to the previously stated concepts. The article discusses how these concepts might be utilized to define the function of a technology director, highlighting the importance of each in excellent management. Furthermore, the essay adjusts one or more of these principles in the job of the technology director, stating why the modification is required and how it will improve the performance of the position. Overall, this essay provides insights into the dynamics of the vertical organizational structure while emphasizing key concepts that drive effective management. It will also provide recommendations to increase the technology director’s performance.
Delegation, Responsibility, Authority, and Accountability
The vertical organizational structure is critical in influencing the efficacy and efficiency of activities. The vertical structure of an organization is governed by essential principles such as span of control, delegation, responsibility, authority, and accountability (Pérez-Lara et al., 2018). This study will investigate these ideas in the context of a technology director function, which is the most aspired position to be, and suggest a modification to increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness.
Technology Director
Role of a Technology Director
The Technology Director’s contribution to the success of any modern firm is critical. Businesses depend significantly on their technological infrastructure in today’s digital era, and it is the technological Director’s responsibility to ensure that infrastructure is robust. The Technology Director is also responsible for creating and implementing efforts to improve the company’s technology usage (Fogel et al., 2021). This article will look at the many aspects of an organization’s vertical structure and how they impact the function of the Technology Director. Will look at the concepts of control, delegation, responsibility, authority, and accountability. It will propose a change to the span of control to improve the Technology Director’s role.
Span of Control
Span of control refers to the number of employees a manager can effectively supervise. In the role of a Technology Director, the span of control can vary widely depending on the size and complexity of the organization. A Technology Director in a smaller organization may have a smaller span of control, while a Technology Director in a larger organization may have a larger span of control (Fogel et al., 2021). Regardless of the organization’s size, the Technology Director must be capable of managing and supervising the technical staff effectively.
Delegation
Delegation refers to the process of assigning tasks and responsibilities to employees. In the role of a Technology Director, delegation is critical to the team’s success. Delegation allows the Technology Director to focus on high-level tasks while empowering the technical staff to handle lower-level tasks (Bertrandias et al., 2021). Effective delegation involves identifying the right person for the task, communicating expectations, providing the necessary resources and support, and monitoring progress.
Responsibility
Responsibility refers to the obligation to perform a task or fulfill a duty. The Technology Director’s role is to ensure the organization’s technology infrastructure functions correctly. The Technology Director is responsible for identifying potential problems and implementing solutions to prevent them from occurring (Bertrandias et al., 2021). The Technology Director is also responsible for ensuring the technical staff is adequately trained and following best practices when working on the organization’s technology infrastructure.
Authority
Authority refers to the power to make decisions and take action. As a Technology Director, the Technology Director can make decisions related to the organization’s technology infrastructure (Bertrandias et al., 2021). This includes the authority to allocate resources, set priorities, and implement new technologies. The Technology Director must balance this authority with the need to collaborate with other departments to ensure that the organization’s technology infrastructure is aligned with the organization’s overall goals.
Accountability
Accountability refers to the obligation to accept responsibility for one’s actions. The Technology Director’s role is accountable for the performance of the technical staff and the organization’s technology infrastructure (Mac Donald et al., 2020). The Technology Director must ensure that the technical staff meets expectations and that the organization’s technology infrastructure operates effectively. The Technology Director must also be willing to accept responsibility if something goes wrong and take the necessary steps to address the issue.
Proposal for Change
Span of Control
One strategy to limit a Technology Director’s power is to put a management layer between them and the technical staff they supervise. The intermediate managers would report to the Technology Director and supervise smaller groups of technical staff. This transformation has far-reaching consequences. To begin with, it would free up the Technology Director’s time for more strategic activities such as long-term planning, financial forecasting, and interdepartmental communication (Pérez-Lara et al., 2018). With fewer direct reports, the Technology Director could focus more on these objectives without being overburdened by ordinary management chores.
Furthermore, it would provide technical personnel more significant opportunities to progress in their professions. Those looking to advance to more senior leadership roles may discover chances in the middle management tier. The firm would be better positioned to retain its finest employees if it gave them more opportunities to pursue leadership positions. The third advantage would be improved collaboration and information exchange between the technical team and management. Because middle managers serve as go-betweens, both technical employees and upper management would benefit from a more nuanced understanding of their separate roles.
Delegation
In the Technology Director position, implementing a more systematic approach to allocating tasks would be an improvement. As part of this method, technical staff’s responsibilities might be detailed in job descriptions (Bertrandias et al., 2021). Another option is to schedule frequent check-ins to discuss progress and provide recommendations. By creating a more systematic delegation method, the Technology Director can ensure that people are assigned to the right jobs and that everyone understands their responsibilities. Consequently, misconceptions would be reduced, and the team would perform more successfully.
Responsibility
Establishing a standardized approach for assessing and reporting on the performance of technical infrastructure is one way for the organization to increase the accountability component of the technology Director position. It may be beneficial to frequently examine system logs, network traffic, and user input to uncover issues and solutions. (Pérez-Lara et al., 2018) To avoid issues from turning catastrophic, the Technology Director should create a strict process for monitoring the operation of the IT infrastructure. This would help ensure that the company’s technology underpinning is operating at peak efficiency and contributing as much as feasible.
Authority
Establishing a more collaborative approach to making decisions might increase the authority of the Technology Director’s role. Major decisions concerning IT infrastructure may need interaction with other departments and interested parties (Pérez-Lara et al., 2018). If the technology Director involves other departments and stakeholders in the decision-making process, the organization’s technological infrastructure will follow the organization’s overall goals and objectives. This would also help in getting organizational support for new technology projects.
Accountability
One method for the organization to increase the Technology Director’s accountability is establishing a more formal framework for monitoring and reporting on technical staff performance. Technical staff may assess their performance and goals regularly as part of this practice. By introducing a more systematic approach to assessing and reporting on the technical team’s performance, the Technology Director can ensure that everyone knows what they are accountable for (Mac Donald et al., 2020). It would also be valuable for identifying and rewarding excellent performance and determining where more training or support is needed.
To summarize, a modern business must have someone in charge of the technology department to run correctly. By adjusting their systems of control, delegation, responsibility, and authority, organizations can improve the performance of their information technology (IT) departments. Businesses may improve the probability that their information technology systems will be safe, reliable, and aligned with their long-term goals if they make the improvements outlined below.
References
Bertrandias, L., Lowe, B., Sadik-Rozsnyai, O., & Carricano, M. (2021). Delegating decision-making to autonomous products: A value model emphasizing the role of well-being. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169, 120846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120846
Fogel, K., Ma, L., & Morck, R. (2021). Powerful independent directors. Financial Management, 50(4), 935–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/fima.12365
Mac Donald, K., Rezania, D., & Baker, R. (2020). A grounded theory examination of Project Managers’ accountability. International Journal of Project Management, 38(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.09.008
Pérez-Lara, M., Saucedo-Martínez, J. A., Marmolejo-Saucedo, J. A., Salais-Fierro, T. E., & Vasant, P. (2018). Vertical and horizontal integration systems in industry 4.0. Wireless Networks, 26(7), 4767–4775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11276-018-1873-2
Depiction Of The Narrator In Bartleby The Scrivener Writing Sample
Bartleby, The Scrivener is a short novel written by Herman Melvin. Set in Wall Street Law Office, the novel details the story of an unnamed narrator who hires a rebellious scrivener, Bartleby, to help relieve the excess workload in his law firm. At first, Scrivener seems to be a productive employee; however, as the story progresses, he becomes resistant and refuses to carry out tasks assigned to him. The lawyer continuously desires to understand humanity and retains Scrivener and the other employees for their significant contribution to the business. Although the narrator seems to be an active society member, his egotistical and materialistic character prevents him from being an eminently safe man as he confesses. Sometimes, the lawyer becomes extremely obsessive with his thoughts, turning all his efforts to his advantage. In Bartleby, the Scrivener, Melvin presents the narrator as a compassionate, materialistic, and self-satisfied boss.
The narrator’s sympathetic character is evidenced by his indisputable efforts to save Bartleby from life’s struggles. The novel shows that the lawyer has employed several scriveners in his law office despite knowing their weaknesses. This makes the readers question why the lawyer would make such a move knowing well that it would jeopardize his business. Even after the scriveners fail in their duties, he gives them the freedom to act as per their wishes to avoid entering into conflicting situations. Bartleby, in particular, who appears to be industrious in the past few following his employment, begins to display resistance towards the given orders. In one incident, the lawyer asks him to proofread the documents to check for errors, and Bartleby states, “I would prefer not to” (7). Even after requesting him to recheck the materials, the Scrivener once again declines the boss’s instructions. The narrator’s reluctance to take action against the Scrivener and the decision to keep the employee in the law firm demonstrates his compassionate attitude towards humankind. Although the narrator gets irritated by Bartleby’s strange behavior, he tries to resonate and states, “To befriend Bartleby; to humor him in his strange willfulness, will cost me little or nothing” (10). By doing so, the narrator proves compassionate and communicates his intentions to help people despite their adversities.
In terms of character study and analysis, the four characters depicted in the story including the narrator show different types of personalities and characters. For a start, Bartleby’s character is far different from that of the lawyer, Turkey, and Nippers. As for Nippers and Turkey, their behavior is similar and they follow the orders of their employer, the lawyer. However, Bartleby chooses to do things his way and does not follow the rules outlined by the lawyer who is his employer. Rishmawi notes that “we also feel that he is going to stand on the opposite side of the lawyer’s established office of the law, which is built on self-interest and nourished by the rationality of grabbing people’s emotions by satisfying their selfishness” (15). This shows that Bartleby is not portrayed as an obedient and keen employee in the story. By not following the instructions of his employer, he is seen as someone who is on the job to cause chaos and create a go-slow. For instance, when the lawyer expects all of his employees to follow his instructions and orders, Bartleby comes in and invalidates this rule. On the other hand, the lawyer is keen to see that his business thrives. In the process of doing that, he is portrayed as someone selfish and inhumane as far as employee welfare is concerned. Again, the lawyer’s character could also be termed as pretentious. When Bartleby starts to disobey his orders, the lawyer pretends that he is okay with it so long as his law firm is productive. This shows that he fakes his own emotions to stay on good terms with Bartleby. The readers of the story could even ask themselves why the lawyer does not take any action against Bartleby who is an employee.
In addition to being compassionate, Melville also presents the narrator as a materialistic boss concerned about his job instead of employees’ welfare. As an employer, the lawyer possesses a different perspective of the social world than his employees. In the short story, it is evident that the narrator has little interaction with people with middle-skilled jobs despite claiming to be a representative of humanity. Even after differing with Bartleby, he states that he will tolerate his resistance if it does not put his business at risk. This clearly shows that the lawyer does not care about his employee’s welfare but that of his firm. Arguably, the boss’s source of pity for Bartleby results after realizing the employee’s usefulness to his job and fear that a dismissal from the job would make him benefit another employer. The lawyer says, “Yes, Here I can cheaply purchase a delicious self-approval” (10). Even for the other scriveners, Turkey and Nipper, the lawyer acknowledges their low economic status and considers keeping them as workers because of the little effort they put to work each day. Even after Bartleby ceases working, the boss decides not to inform the police to evict him but keep him in the office as a valueless employee. Through Bartleby, the novel shows how the boss had become trapped by the capitalist economy to demand his employees dedicate considerable time in exchange for poor pay. This is also the case with many employers in many parts of the world where employees are exploited.
As mentioned the two characters, Bartleby and the lawyer come out as lacking communication skills. This case applies more on the side of Bartleby who cannot face his employer and talk things out. When both of them realize that they heading in the wrong direction, they do not talk about the situation. The lawyer, being the employer should have sat Bartleby down and given him guidelines on how to go about his work. Again, he should have given Bartleby the guidelines on the expectations of the job. On his part, Bartleby ought to have talked to his employer when he realized that he was falling short of expectations. As evident in the story, the two did not hold any talks when Bartleby started to underperform and fail to follow instructions. “In the following, I take up Bartleby as a figure upon which literature, science, and philosophy intersect on the question of human communication” (Pinchevski 28). In any workplace setting, the employer and the employee must be in constant communication. Lack of communication in the firm also leads to poor pay on the part of the employees. Since they are not in proper communication with their employer, the three employees are paid poorly for their services by their selfish boss.
Again looking at the story by Melville, one would realize that it is characterized by negative affirmation in both words and actions. Both Bartleby and his employer do not accept the things that happen in their lives and opt to lie to themselves. For instance, at first, Bartleby does not reveal who he is at decides to act like a diligent and hardworking employee. This makes his employer believe that he can trust him to move the firm to the next level. Later, Bartleby reveals his true self when he goes against his employer’s instructions and does not complete simple tasks assigned to him. “His enigmatic copyist, Bartleby, does little more than to appear forlorn and to perplexingly just say ‘I prefer not to” (Widmer 276). Deep down Bartleby convinces himself that he could achieve the job goals by acting nice and hardworking to his employer. However, this does not work as he is eventually exposed as someone who cannot work under supervision and follow instructions. On the other hand, the lawyer also seems to live under negative affirmation that Bartleby is a good employee. However, deep down, he knows that he cannot order Bartleby anything in the law firm. When he orders Bartleby to do something, he declines to state that he prefers not to do anything. Despite this, the lawyer still keeps him on the job lying to himself that he is a good employee and that he would get better. Generally, negative affirmation is quite evident in the story, especially through the two characters.
To sum up, Bartleby, The Scrivener is a story that depicts the narrator as a compassionate, materialistic, and self-satisfied boss. At the novel’s beginning, the narrator’s empathy makes him employ the scriveners as his workers despite their numerous flaws hindering productivity. However, despite the generous offers, his obsession with his work and numerous references to his employees as inferior beings make him appear a materialistic boss who is also individualistic.
Work Cited
Melville, Herman. “Bartleby the Scrivener.” Great Short Works of Herman Melville (1969): 39-74.
Pinchevski, Amit. “Bartleby’s Autism: Wandering along Incommunicability.” Cultural Critique, vol. 78. 2011. pp. 27-59. JSTOR.
Widmer, Kingsley. “THE NEGATIVE AFFIRMATION: MELVILLE’S ‘BARTLEBY.’” Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 8. 1962. pp. 276-286. JSTOR.
Rishmawi, George. “BARTLEBY THE SCRIVENER- A Character Study.” Bethlehem University Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, 1981, pp. 15-18. JSTOR.
Essay On Education Leadership Free Writing Sample
1.0 Introduction
This chapter covers the relevant theories covering crisis management and leadership, the theory behind education leadership, the role and significance of education leadership on learning and development, prominent challenges faced by educational leaders when faced with uncertain situations, and approaches (policies, framework, adaptation) to support educational leadership and learning during a crisis.
1.1 Education Leadership and Crisis Management
Educational leadership involves a particular form of leadership and process that occurs in groups in a long-term approach to learning and development. The particular goals depend on the context, with the main goal based on learning and thus ensuring academic success through material training and process improvements (Ibrahim & Al-Mashhadany, 2012). This purpose is accomplished mainly through collaboration with parents, educators, public policymakers, students, and the public.
Crisis management involves a process of three stages, as developed by Coombs. The pre-crisis stage involves the detection of the crisis, reducing the risks that the crisis may create, and preparing tactically and strategically to deal with it. The crisis stage involves the organization’s response to the situation, communicating with stakeholders, and dealing with the crisis by implementing a management plan. The post-crisis stage occurs once there is a resolution with an evaluation of how the organization dealt with the crisis, focusing on better preparation strategies for a potential future crisis.
1.2 Role of Education Leadership on Learning and Development of Pupils during Crisis
The features of educational leadership are based on the sensitivity towards those engaged in the process where such conditions indicate the work’s complexity, authenticity, and interdisciplinarity, focus on learning, the need for participation, time or reflection, and respect for diversity. In education systems, leadership is significant, especially in disruptive times and going over ways of navigating new pathways. This requires education leaders to be best equipped to respond to crises and create equitable and resilient education systems. In a study by Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), it is indicated that the impact of leadership on learning is important where about a third of the changes occurring in learning was attributed to leadership, second only to classroom teaching and its effects on educational outcomes. A consistent element of crisis leadership is based on sensemaking in times of uncertainty (Boin et al., 2013). This is because, during a crisis, challenges quickly occur, and information is scarce and known solutions. This was notable during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, where educational leaders faced challenges because of the lack of experience in such a crisis, the uncertainty, and the rapid timeline of the crisis, which hindered effective responses. Joint sensemaking is significant for effective crisis management because, without a shared and accurate outlook of the situation, there cannot be effective communication and informed decisions with other stakeholders (Boin & Renaud, 2013). It becomes essential for education leaders to consider making decisions together with policymakers, sharing their knowledge, and focusing on effective leadership responses and partnerships.
1.3 Challenges Faced by Educational Leaders while Managing Uncertain Situations
According to research, it is important to maintain trust during a crisis (Duckers et al., 2017). However, most top executive educational leaders go through non-consultative decision-making, eroding the ability of the school to effectively communicate and thus hindering trust within the larger community (Sutherland, 2017). As such, there is a struggle to balance the conflicted expectations of educators and parents during a crisis like the pandemic. Another challenge for educational leaders is focusing on immediate issues instead of the larger issue. The study by Mahfouz et al. (2019) found that when faced with the international Syrian refugee crisis, as the influx of refugee families increased, principals focussed their time on resolving the urgent issues, putting out fires, and attending to the basic needs that most of the times are taken for granted. It became challenging because of the gigantic nature of the crisis capturing their lived experiences.
Additionally, there is the challenge of tensions faced by the school leaders, as seen during the pandemic, where they had to lead both slow and fast, balancing excellence and accountability with equity and considering human and organizational needs simultaneously (Netolicky, 2020). This is because such a crisis rapidly redefined leadership and schooling, advocating for the leaders to adaptively lead, build individual and organizational resilience and create distributed structures of leadership for the optimal response of institutions (Bagwell, 2020). The uncertainty of the crisis also creates challenges as educators get concerned with the unpredictability of educational discontinuity, damaging their students’ progress, increasing their workload, leading to poor job insecurity and loss of income, and affecting their abilities to provide quality learning and their coping mechanisms.
1.4 Approaches/Practices to Support Education Leadership and Learning in Schools during Uncertain Situations (decision-making, top management support, school culture)
In their efforts to achieve learning and development, educational leaders redirect the school through changes in the sense and context of the purpose of learning and instruction, where they indirectly influence members in promoting the engagement of people in a common vision (Mazurkiewicz, 2021). They also increase their commitment to work, develop processes or shared decision-making, and create a context fostering learning and risk-taking. Therefore, through educational leadership. A learning community is formed that involves the mind and emotions, sensitivity towards operational conditions and other people, previous experiences, and simultaneous appeal to the accepted community values.
During a crisis, having a strong organizational vision based on clear values and culture ensures educational leaders have intentional and effective ways of responding. This is because the underlying vision and values that form the school culture provide the clarity and strength of responsive decisions facilitating the decisions made by the educational leaders when faced with uncertain conditions, guiding their critical decisions, helping them to engage with others, and enabling coherent communication (Boin et al., 2013). Moreover, the crisis response process depends on the significant relationships that frame their decision-making and planning processes based on collective wisdom, adaptation, collaboration, connectivity, risk-taking, and empathy. Thus, the support of the top management in connecting with the community and building relationships ensures that the educational institutions have a strong network that can help each other make decisions and access best practices for crisis response, meeting the emotional and social concerns that occur.
1.5 Summary
The literature has indicated that educational leaders must focus on developing a collaborative and connective approach to crisis response and management, especially in decision-making. It is paramount that the leaders adequately and effectively respond to the crisis while also focusing on meeting the goal of providing instruction and learning to their students.
References
Bagwell, J. (2020). Leading through a pandemic: adaptive leadership and purposeful action. J. School Adm. Res. Dev. 5, 30–34. doi 10.32674/jsard.v5iS1.2781
Boin, A., Kuipers, S., and Overdijk, W. (2013). Leadership in times of crisis: a framework for assessment. Int. Rev. Public Adm. 18, 79–91. doi: 10.1080/12294659.2013.10805241
Boin, A., and Renaud, C. (2013). Orchestrating joint sensemaking across government levels: challenges and requirements for crisis leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7, 41–46. doi 10.1002/jls.21296
Coombs, W. T. (2020). Conceptualizing crisis communication. In Handbook of risk and crisis communication (pp. 99–118). Routledge.
Dückers, M. L., Yzermans, C. J., Jong, W., and Boin, A. (2017). Psychosocial crisis management: the unexplored intersection of crisis leadership and psychosocial support. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy, 8, 94–112. doi: 10.1002/rhc3.12113
Ibrahim, A. M. M., & Al-Mashhadany, A. A. (2012). Roles of educational leaders in inducing a change in public schools: Al Ain as a case study. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 5(5), 455.
Leithwood, K. & D. Jantzi. (2006). Linking leadership to student learning: the contribution of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (4): 496–528.
Mahfouz, J., El-Mehtar, N., Osman, E., and Kotok, S. (2019). Challenges and agency: Principals responding to the Syrian refugee crisis in Lebanese public schools. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 23, 24–40. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2019.1613570
Mazurkiewicz, G. (2021). Educational leadership in times of crisis. Risks, 9(5), 90.
Netolicky, D. M. (2020). School leadership during a pandemic: navigating tensions. J. Prof. Capacity Commun. 5, 391–395. doi: 10.1108/JPCC-05-2020-0017
Sutherland, I. E. (2017). Learning and growing: Trust leadership, and response to the crisis. J. Educ. Adm. 55, 2–17. doi: 10.1108/JEA-10-2015-0097