Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Personal Case Analysis: Structure
Personal Case Analysis: Structure
Christapher Cutting
Pro-Seminar I
PERSONAL CASE ANALYSIS: STRUCTURE
To recap, our organization was in need of an information technology (IT) systems refresh, as our
equipment had aged and our mission was exceeding the existing systems capabilities. Dell EMC was our
preferred vendor based on an existing relationship and facility access. However, due to poor
documentation and personnel departures, I was gifted this project with very little information on the
previous acquisition and processes. Eager to capitalize on this situation, the Dell representative sought
to garner a lucrative and inflated government contract. My role was to frame the organizational
requirements, garner the best solution for both the organization and the tax-payer, and do so in a
Being a Department of Defense (DoD) entity, this office was organized with a vertical hierarchy,
one with multiple layers of authority that created not just one line of authority and control but many. A
conglomeration of simple hierarchy and dual authority with crisscrossing lanes of responsibility and
reporting, created a complex interwoven bureaucracy. As a real-life reflection of the late 1990’s movie
Office Space, I reported to several different bosses, each with differing motivations, requirements, and
understandings of the project. Time was wasted reconfiguring requirements time and again due to
miscommunication and conflicting guidance. Rigid and stove-piped organizational functions created
further barriers to purse funding authorizations and even created barriers in regards to physical
infrastructure reviews. These contributing factors delayed the project so far that it spanned the tenure
of two Dell representatives, which further delayed the project as I had to essentially start from the
Dell’s structure was polar to ours, while the corporate structure was aligned along divisions with
specific focuses, their commercial consultation division was best described as an adhocracy, a loose and
flexible organic entity that can shift and adapt rapidly (Bolman & Deal, 2017, pg. 83). Representatives
PERSONAL CASE ANALYSIS: STRUCTURE
where assigned according to regional and commercial segment alignment, Washington D.C itself had
multiple Dell consultants detailed across the spectrum of commercial and governmental agencies. With
teams of specialized technicians who coordinated a vast scope of functions. A downfall in this model was
the rate of turnover and poor talent management, and on occasion generalists who were competent in
many fields but were not experts in any. The vast range of opportunities and limited number of field
representatives meant that they could cherry pick the most lucrative and lowest hanging fruit in order to
meet their contracting quotas. Here the availability and access to a Dell representative was limited at
best.
Our organization was misaligned with authorities and responsibilities, unneeded additional
layers of management and oversight created an unnavigable environment constrained by its own
inefficiencies. Inhibited by a tight structure, there was little ability to leverage agile decision making.
Similar to Ford Motor Company’s predicament in the mid-2000s, an organizational flattening needed to
happen in order to reduce progress drag (Bolman & Deal, 2017, pg. 90). From a structural perspective, I
would recommend that self-managed teams and streamlined lanes of authority be implemented across
the organization systematically. Only one division had the authority to self-manage, and they were the
most responsive and effective during this situation, the best practices they had developed needed to be
exported across the organization. Understanding these principles, I would have championed earlier for
clearer lanes of authority and management, as well as more organic inter-office collaboration.
PERSONAL CASE ANALYSIS: STRUCTURE
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (6th ed.).