4. Span of Control.

In keeping with many LTOs, the span of control is much narrower on the administrative side of the company. The National Admissions Manager, for example, has a span of control of four, yet the EM in Sydney has a team of at least 25 teachers to manage. This structure certainly encourages autonomy; indeed independence is necessary as ‘overly tight supervision’ (Robbins, 2013, p. 519) is completely impractical for the EM with such a wide span of control. Fortunately, the LTO has an experienced and self-motivated teaching team.

5. Centralisation and Decentralisation

Decisions are made at every level, but in regard to strategy the structure is in keeping with Robbins’ statement (2013; p.518) that, in most LTOs, there is the perception of an ‘imaginary line’ above which all major strategic decisions are made. At XX, those immediately below this line are consulted, and sometimes key ideas will come from the rank-and-file, but final decisions on strategy are made almost exclusively made by the International Strategy Manager.

Immediate solutions to problems (rather than visionary strategies) can largely be led by the EM, allowing the LTO to react quickly to its needs in most instances. The administrative side is more closely tied to the MEGT culture, with power being more centralized and reactions being slower.

6. Formalisation

The Education-Administration divide is apparent here too. Typical administrative duties involve set (normally computer-based) procedures in which staff are trained and expected to replicate thereafter. While the EM also follows a number of standardized processes, teachers have a great amount of autonomy in class and creativity is encouraged. Certain courses⁵ require a higher degree of formalisation than others.

Part 1b: Limitations and alternative models.

While useful, Robbins’ categories infer that the organisation being analysed likely has a defined, mechanistic, hierarchical structure, and it is assumed that this structure is the primary determinant in organizational behavior. These categories are more relevant to large chain schools or LTOs attached to tertiary institutions, rather than more organic, small-scale institutions. Even within an LTO, they seem to have more relevance to an organisation’s administrative side.

Robbins’ work pays scant attention to the extent to which these imposed structures actually function in reality. Informal communication within an organisation has a strong influence over the way this structure operates, and the individuals filling roles within the structure greatly distort the ‘shape’ and territory of each role in practice, especially with leadership in the organization. Or as Senge et al. put it “At its essence, every organisation is a product of how its members think and interact.” (1994, p.48)

There is also no reference to professional development of the type discussed by Pickering (1999, p.5) in his analysis of ‘The Learning Organisation’⁶. Also, the flow of feedback, which greatly affects the culture and can ‘soften’ the hierarchy of an organization, cannot really be gleaned from Robbins’ model. In any analysis of a contemporary organisation, these factors must be considered

A communicative organigram like that contained in White et al. (2008, p. 27) would hopefully reveal the way in which knowledge and information (and even feedback) flows formally and informally within a company. In terms of XX, knowing these connections between people could be useful at times when using informal channels of communication might be preferable.

Charles’ ‘Fronted Organigram’ (in Boswood et al, 1993, p. 220), later reinterpreted by Garratt (2000, p.48), challenges the very nature of status within an organisation⁷. This leads to a shift from notions of ‘reporting to’ a superior to those of ‘being supported by’ backstage staff. This model has value in its alternative presentation of the organisation and could serve to motivate staff at all levels if not perceived merely as ‘hype’.

One limitation of the work of Charles and by extension Garratt is their inability to explain the salary scale relating to these diagrams; why are customer-facing staff, who White et al. describe as ‘the most important members of an organisation’ (2008, p.28), paid significantly less than many of those ‘offstage’?

I would argue that Goffee and Jones’ ‘Sociability vs. Solidarity’ model (1996, p.134) is much more useful than Robbins’ in terms of understanding the culture of an organisation and the motivations of those who work there. All 4 of their categories (Networked, Fragmented, Mercenary and Communal) represent potentially functional cultures for an organisation but each comes with its own pitfalls, and an understanding of these could definitely inform remedial action, including restructuring. As an education department, XX has transitioned through the ‘Networked’ section of the model during what McNamara would term as the ‘youth’ phase (in White et al., 2008, p. 32) and now sits at the centre of the ‘Communal’ box, with medium-to-high levels of both solidarity and sociability, having attained ‘maturity’. As Goffee and Jones note (in White et al., 2008, p. 39), ‘this state is difficult to sustain’ due to the possibility of internal conflict as the organization continues to evolve.

In contrast, I feel the administrative side of XX is already in the Mercenary section, perhaps because sales staff are driven by targets and admin staff perform duties which do not lend themselves to informal interaction with their colleagues.

Part 1c: Factors which have influenced organisational design

History and size: The takeover of XX by MEGT resulted in the merging of administrative departments which became more formalized in line with the latter’s culture, size and maturity. Prior to this, XX could no longer support it’s size with the informal structure that had grown since its inception.

Budget/economic climate: Recently the company has adopted an opportunistic downsizing policy by simply not replacing departing staff. This has led certain positions to become obsolete and an increased workload for those who remain.

Capability: Tasks are often divided up by workload, but individual skills also play a role in who is assigned certain duties. In combination with budget restraints, there is a tendency to ‘squeeze’ administrative staff and managers until they prove incapable of coping with additional duties.

Purpose: The very nature of the organization has an obvious effect on the form it takes. A typically flat education department and a more hierarchical administration department are typical features of an LTO, but are not so common in other industries.

Environment: The fact the company is divided across two cities also impacts its structure and the working relationships within it. HR is based solely in Melbourne, while Admissions and Marketing are largely based in Sydney.

Part II

Strengths of organisational structure

Dimension	Benefit
Medium size (LTO itself)	An element of financial security, ability to respond fairly quickly to a changing environment.
Few tiers in Education, broad span of control.	Encourages autonomy, reduces spending on management.
Low formality, ‘Communal’ state in Education.	Results in high retention of teachers and a positive culture in the staffroom that carries over to the classroom.
Internal promotions	Continuity within Education department, preservation of positive aspects of ‘organic’ culture in spite of takeover by more mechanistic ‘parent’.
Specialisation in Admin	Tasks completed by ‘experts’ with minimum of interference.
Less specialisation in Management	Can be motivating for managers to work across a range of tasks (professional development and variety)
Investment in staff	Regular PD for teaching staff and a company-wide performance appraisal process are recognised as beneficial.

Weaknesses of organisational structure

Dimension	Drawback
Physically and philosophically remote upper management	MEGT decision makers largely removed from LTO, its culture, and even industry. An older company in a ‘steady state’ (Handy, 1999, p.201). Certain policies, especially administrative procedures, reflect this8.
Low formality, ‘Communal’ state in Education.	Difficult to sustain in volatile economic climate. Maturing teaching staff may move away from ‘social’ focus of work towards ‘solidarity’ with organization in pursuit of job security.
Teacher retention	Increased costs as teachers’ steps rise without much space for less-experienced, cheaper replacements.
Internal promotions	An assumption that our way of doing things is the right way, with resistance to or even without access to other ways of thinking, could be dangerous.
Specialisation in Admin	‘Siloisation’: individuals become isolated and should they become sick or leave (especially suddenly) there is a knowledge vacuum.
Few tiers in Education	Risk of ‘burnout’ for managers, inability to properly monitor and mentor teachers due to wide span of control. Dependency on certain key experienced teachers to hold things together.
Understaffing in Admin & Management	Spending on renovations and current climate (i.e. low numbers) have resulted in the LTO operating on a skeleton staff, meaning everyone is pushed to the limit. Can stress relationships and increase number of errors committed by staff.