Comparative Analysis:

Non-Educational and Educational Organizations (Flowserve)

Christine Anne McGrath
May 5, 2019

William Paterson University

EDLP 6050:
UNDERSTANDING GROUP PROCESS AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS Dr.
Samuel Fancera
For the purpose of this paper, I have chosen to compare Flowserve, an independent
military contractor, that manufactures, assembles, repairs, and maintains pumps for
Submarines, oil refineries, water works, and most liquid based chemical companies to an
educational setting. The company’s biggest contracts are with military contractors and
worldwide oil companies. These contracts include some projects that are considered top
secret and cannot be discussed with those outside of the organization.

The company’s corporate offices are in Irving, Texas. The name of their current CEO and
President is R. Scott Rowe. He was appointed to serve as CEO and President early last
year, when the previous president resigned from the company. Most of the board
members have been with the company for less than three years and have prior
experiences with other manufacturing firms.

The site that I visited is in Fairfield, New Jersey. The primary purpose of this shop is the
repair of pumps. A part of the repair process includes the diagnosis of repairs needed,
the manufacturing of any needed replacement parts, the assembly and disassembly of
pumps, and the final inspection, and testing, of the repaired pumps. All pumps in need
of repair are shipped into the company, most of the serviced pumps are from the United
States, but on occasion pumps from other parts of the world are received. I was limited
in the times that I could visit the company. I would not be allowed to visit during the
week, their peak times, as the site manager Mark Shumberis, would not be available for
conversation. It was decided that I would visit on February 15, a Saturday. I was there
from 9 am until 12 pm. Saturdays are voluntary days and are paid as overtime. The shop
is open on most Saturdays. At this time the office staff would not be working, but most of
the shop staff would be in attendance, as would John Dechert, the shop floor manager.
For safety reasons I would be allowed on the shop floor, but Mr. Dechert would have to
escort me around the premises. I would also have to wear safety goggles in the areas
where equipment was being used. The noise level on the shop floor did not allow for
conversation, and I could sit in the break room to talk with the employees. Due to the
nature of the work, conversations with the employees do not happen when they were
working. There is very l little interaction amongst the employees, and most tasks are
performed alone. The equipment being used is dangerous and can cause traumatic
injuries if they are not focused on the job. There are safety protocols that must be
followed. An on the job injury is a serious issue and will result in mandatory safety
training for all employees, if there is such an event. The shop keeps track of days without
injury. During my visit they tally was in the single digits as someone had injured his
finger, and it required emergency medical intervention. The only time the employees
interact with each other is in the break room. They are a very solitary bunch. For this
paper, I would be interviewing Mark Shumberis, John Dechert, and Paul Migliori: a
machinist with the company.

Mission and Vision: Shared Understanding and Alignment:

The employees I interviewed were familiar with the mission and vision of the company,
but their perspectives were very different. On the management end the concern was
with making money. Mark Shumberis was keenly aware of shareholder value. He
stressed that his purpose in the mission statement was to “get the jobs in and out in a
timely manner.” Priority jobs are charged at a higher rate. John Dechert understood the
mission statement, but his understanding included safety: “ We need to move the jobs in
and out as quickly as possible, but I also need to make sure that they guys I work with
are safe.” The machinists were concerned with quality: Paul Migliori stated “ I
understand they want parts in a timely manner, but somethings cannot be rushed. We
make parts by hand and this takes time. Pressuring me to move faster is not going to get
the job done.” Employees are awarded with Spirit of Flowserve awards if they work
overtime or complete a job that falls within the company’s mission and vision
parameters. But most employees, other than management, do not equate their job
within these parameters. The organizational culture does not support successful
implementation of any strategies needed to fulfill the mission and vision of the company.
Communication is an issue. Management may know the status of a job, but this priority
status is not communicated to the machinists completing the job.
Climate and Culture:
The climate of this shop is very disengaged. The employees do not interact with each
other, even in the breakroom. There seems to be very little camaraderie amongst the
employees. The only interactions I noticed were between the shop manager and the floor
manager and the the floor manager with the shop employees. The climate and the
cultural was very clinical and cold. Communication was strictly job related. Site
Management is concerned with making money. The shop manager is concerned with
safety and the employees are concerned with quality. All three are listed as core values
on the company website: Safety, Customer Service, Reliability and Accountability; but
the values embraced vary depending on your employment status. The employees seem
to be self motivated and enthuasitic about their job responsibilities- due to their yearly
bonuses and the incentives offered for customer satisfaction.
Governance:
The goverance of the company is heirarchical in nature. The employees report to the
floor manager, the floor manager reports to the shop manager, who reports to the
district managers who report to corporate. The interaction does not go beyond these
levels. The policies and procedures of the company seem to support the goals of the
company without excessive bureaucracy. If something is needed, one simply reports to
his immediate supervisor, most times the request is granted. The communication policy
amongst the employees is on a need to know basis. The employees are given the
information they need to complete their job. No more. No less. All employees have a
company email but only management is required to check and respond to email. All shop
communication is done verbally. Most messages communicated are in reference to a job
or a new policy. In the shop, I visited leadership was evident and active in the daily
operations.
Capacity for Change:
The change process seems to be an issue for Flowserve. Most of the changes come from
the Corporate Level, from the people unfamiliar with the day to day shop processes. It is
a “trickle down change process”according to John Dechert. “The people in the trenches
are not consulted. Ideas are implemented without any consultation with other
employees.” As a result most employees are not supportive of the change process. Paul
Migliori stated that “Some of the rules implemented are ridiculous. Because of one
mistake ineffective changes are made.” Mark Shumberis pointed to Flowserve 2.0 as a
successful change. “With the implementation of this training program, any training that
needs to be done is done on a computer. It is a self paced program that has replaced
one on one training and is very effective in addressing training issues.” Mr. Shumberis
did not see any challenges that the company faces. “Everything is good.” Mr. Dechert
sees the current challenge as “acquiring and keeping talented people. The personnal
acquistion is our biggest issue. People are not interested in these jobs. So how do we
peak interest? This is the biggest challenge for any manufacturing business. We need to
realize that we are in the people business and not the pump business. When we focus on
people, interested may be gained.”

Comparative Analysis:
I am surprised at how similar the corporate environment at Flowserve is to my school
and district. Many of the problems faced by this publicly owned company are also faced
by my school and district. It seems that the educational world is not that different from
the business world.

Mission and Vision:

It seems that when it comes to mission and vision statements, they may be understood
but the interpretations depend on your position within the organization. Upper
management (including principals) are focused on the results they must report to their
shareholders. In the business world the results that need to report are sales results. In an
educational setting they are test scores.(only one facet) For the floor manager,(Vice
Principals) he was concerned with the sales figures, but he was also concerned with the
safety of his employees. He believed that part of the mission and vision was to ensure
that sales goals were met, and also included employee safety. The vice principals also
oversee the day to day, and their interpretation of the mission and vision is closely
aligned with the principal. They too are responsible for student performance. Unlike the
employees at the company who do not see a clear connection between what they do and
the mission statement of the organization, the teachers at the school are closely
connected. Whatever the mission statement is they are to incorporate it into their
professional capacity every day of the school year. Just as the administration must
uphold the statement, leading by example, the teachers must uphold this statement.
They only difference between administrators and the teaching staff at the school are the
supervisors to whom they report. While, in an education field sales figures may not be
the goal, test results are the goal, it is similar in that both organizations are focused on
performance goals. These goals are clearly stated in their mission statements.

Climate and Culture:

While, the climate and culture at Flowserve was disengaged; the climate at my school is
engaged. Whereas in the corporate level the there was very little interaction, and
camaraderie amongst the employees; there is a sense of a shared purpose in my school.
We want our students to succeed. This message is shared amongst the staff and the
interactions between the staff are open and supportive. There are some people who
work well with others. There are a few who do not work well with anyone. But we all
understand our purpose. The communication is open amongst all levels and is just as
easy for a staff member to communicate with the principal as it is for them to
communicate with a fellow teacher. Most employees are self-motivated and work hard to
be successful. We may not be working for a yearly bonus, but we are working to make
sure our students achieve predetermined goals, and we reach our yearly SGP. The
mission is the same for everyone and we all try to embrace those common goals in our
day to day performance.

Governance:
Just as in the Flowserve setting the governance at my school is hierarchical in nature.
Everyone has an immediate supervisor to which they report. The teachers are overseen
by a Vice principal, who are overseen by the principal, who is overseen by the district
superintendent of schools. The principals control their schools, making sure that the
policies and procedures are aligned to the district policy and procedures, and the VP’s
make sure that the policies and procedures within the classrooms align with the school.
But unlike Flowserve, a teacher can meet with the principal, or even the district
superintendent. It is very easy for you to meet with the principal at my school. If her door
is open, she is available to meet with you. In Flowserve, such communication is
discouraged. Any problems are given to your immediate supervisor, who then reports it
to his supervisor. It is unusual for someone to meet with someone higher up the
governance chain of command. In the school setting, all members of the community
communicate via email. We are expected to check our email and respond to most emails
immediately. Email is an essential tool for all members of the school community. Most
information is freely share, except in the case of confidentiality laws, so we are all clear
on the mission, vision and objectives of the school. In my school leadership is evident on
all levels from the main office to the classrooms.

Capacity for Change:

The change process at my school is also an issue. Just as in Flowserve there are people
unwilling to change, do not understand it and cannot embrace change. There are also
plans, ideas, and initiatives that “trickle down from the top” and have no place in a
school setting or in the classroom. Just as in Flowserve, some on the board comes up
with an idea, and implements that idea in all classrooms in the district, having never
been in a classroom. We the teachers are left to deal with this new plan however inane
or out of place it me be. Just at the employees at Flowserve are not consulted the
teachers are not consulted. In the same way, the employees are not supportive of
change, most teachers are not supportive of many of the changes the school board
implements. There are some policies that are just ridiculous and have no place in a
school. Most will try to support some changes, but there are some who blatantly ignore
all changes proposed. As in the corporate setting, the higher ups may be more
successful with the change process if they spent more time investigating if the proposed
change is suitable, meaningful, and realistic.

A common problem in both settings is “acquiring and keeping talented people. Personnal
acquistion is our biggest issue. People are not interested in these jobs. So how do we
peak interest?” (John Dechert) How do we peak interest in the teaching field with all of
the negative press? How do we get people to become interested in a field where the
employees are vilified on a daily basis? How do get the young people to see what a great
career teaching can be? Just like the manufactoring business, getting talented people to
be interested in teaching is a challenge. Once we have these people how do we retain
them? More people are interested in the technology fields, how do we regain their
interest in teaching? John Dechert stated “in order to get more people interested in the
manufactoring or machinist’s fields, we need to make sure that our current employees
are happy. When they speak favorably about what they do; people will be interested. A
high level of job satsifaction is how interest is peaked.” John Dechert said that his
company needed to be in “the people business, not the pump business.” The same can
be said for education; we need to make sure that our current employees have a high
level of job satisfaction. If schools realize that they are in the “people business and not
the education business,” the acquistion and retainment of talented people will be a
reality.

It is interesting to note that Mark Shumbris was terminated from Flowserve in March. The
reason for his termination is not known. As a result, of his termination the retired shop
manager was asked to step out of retirement and assist in the hiring of a new shop
manager. They have been unsuccessful in their search. Mr. Dechert was offered the job
but turned it down citing “work/life balance issues.”
The company’s attorneys asked to review my notes before this paper was written. I
complied with the request. They have asked to read my final paper, if I was willing to
share. I have decided to ignore the request.
Mission Statement:
Move, control and protect the flow of materials in critical industries around the world as a nosiness that exceeds
customer expectations, attracts talented employees and delivers superior long-term shareholder value. *

Vision Statement:

Become the world’s most respected company in flow managements through our industry expertise, innovative solutions
and community commitment. *

*(2019: Flowserve website)