Nathan Hintz Case Study: University Art Museum The problem with this organization is quite simply that

the campus does not know what the goals of the museum and its associated faculty are or should be. This is a fundamental flaw in the running of any organization, be it bureaucratic of collectivist. The museum s goals had rested with the curator, Miss Kirkhoff, who has been the most influential individual in the museum s history. Now that she has retired, and her successor was found to have very different goals for the museum, the university itself needs to take responsibility for the museum. The governing body, the search committee, may resemble a collectivist council, but they do not share a similar set of goals and values. This is evidenced by the presence of the economist within the council. The Dean, while it wasn t mentioned within the text, likely has final say over the results of any decisions made by the committee. It is also easy to conclude that the members of the committee do not get compensated equally. Based on title it would be apparent that the dean presiding over the council makes more money than other members who are just pulled from other departments within the university. With this in mind, and basic knowledge of how universities tend to work, this organization is a very weekly organized bureaucracy which is missing some very fundamental characteristics which are key to the structure. The most obvious and glaring characteristic of bureaucracy missing from this equation is formal written rules. The mission statement of the museum has not been written down, and has not even been conceived of in the first place. When the most recent director took over, he was not given any guidelines to follow while he ran the museum and simply set in motion his own personal goals. These guidelines and mission statement need to be formulated and written down for the committee to consider when choosing their next candidate. Fixed jurisdictional areas are also missing from this structure. It is clear that the committee is comprised of members who do not all have an art background. When making decisions based on who is qualified to run a museum, and in what direction the museum is to be taken, individuals with an appropriate background should be involved. In order to make this a smoothly running bureaucratic structure I would first implement the steps that the presiding dean has already begun. A mission statement needs to be formulated for the museum first and foremost. These goals and guidelines should perhaps be formulated by Miss Kirkhoff herself since the university seemed to be pleased with the way she ran the museum and art department. This accumulation of written goals and guidelines would be submitted to the appropriate authority for approval and then provided to the search committee. Secondly, I would gather the current faculty associated with the museum as the search committee rather than the appointed council of members from outside of the art department. This committee would be run by the appropriate dean, and would check candidates against listed criteria formulated to suit the mission statement. Once a candidate was hired, he would be made aware of his restrictions and the guidelines that he was to follow. This would keep him on the short leash that is customary within bureaucracies. This committee would only function as a committee when comparing individuals who fit all of the guidelines against

Nathan Hintz each other. Before one or more individuals are found, the committee would really only be a group of people in search of candidates. Discussion would not be necessary as individuals either fit the accumulated guidelines or they do not. In order to make this organization into a functioning collectivist structure I would first collect the professors within the art department as the search committee. I feel that the professors would have the most similar values and goals for the museum, which would likely be in line with Miss Kirkhoff s vision, assuming they were hired during her period of management. This council would convene to formulate the appropriate goals for the museum and the guidelines on how to achieve those goals while staying true to their beliefs. Once these rules and guidelines were created and a candidate found who demonstrated the same values and was able to follow these rules, he would be added to the committee and made an equal say in the running of the museum. While he might be a director in title, his job would really be just to enforce the rules set forth by the committee rather than to run the museum as his own. The museum would be governed by the council and they would meet regularly to discuss issues and agree upon the best course of action to deal with any problems that may fall upon the museum. The individual hired to fill the role of director is almost not required in the first place. The thing that he would really bring to the table is work experience rather than the ability to direct the museum. His history would be greatly beneficial to the committee when discussing how to deal with and problems that may arise, but as mentioned before, he would not really be the director of the museum.