Analysis Of Organizational Behavior Issues In IT Implementat

Analysis of Organizational Behavior Issues in IT Implementation Project at Bremerton, Inc.

Analysis of Organizational Behavior Issues in IT Implementation Project at Bremerton, Inc. This paper examines the case study of Bremerton, Inc. (BI) to identify common organizational pitfalls encountered during IT project implementation, focusing on structure and leadership issues caused by power mismanagement and hierarchy inefficiencies. The analysis correlates specific organizational behaviors with the problems observed, supported by classic organizational behavioral theories. Key issues identified include power abrogation, excessive hierarchical layers, improper delegation of authority, and failure to utilize empirical data for decision-making.

BI is a global financial services firm employing over 1,000 individuals operating in a highly competitive environment where reputation, service quality, and operational flexibility are vital. The company's traditional management practices and unclear organizational structure have contributed to significant challenges in project execution, especially regarding accountability and transparency, which are essential for stakeholder trust.

Paper For Above instruction

Effective organizational behavior management is fundamental for the success of complex IT projects, particularly in multinational corporations like Bremerton, Inc. The issues faced in BI's IT implementation project highlight critical behavioral and structural shortcomings that compromised project effectiveness. This paper explores these challenges within the framework of organizational behavioral theory and proposes strategic solutions to foster better management practices.

Introduction and Context

The core problem at BI stems from a lack of clarity in authority, insufficient communication, and a hierarchical structure that inhibits agility. The case reveals that decision-making was fragmented, with conflicting interests among top management layers, leading to delays and inefficiencies. Such issues are typical of organizations with rigid hierarchies where power struggles and ambiguity undermine project success. This organizational inertia, combined with an environment of limited transparency, hampers swift decision-making and accountability.

Organizational Behavior Issues Identified

The primary organizational behavioral issues identified in the case include power abrogation, excessive hierarchy, improper delegation, and a deficiency in empirical data use. Power abrogation occurs when managerial roles and decision rights are not clearly defined, leading to overlaps and conflicts. Overly redundant organizational layers cause bureaucratic sluggishness, reducing responsiveness. Incorrect delegation of authority further exacerbates confusion and diminishes accountability. Additionally, ignoring empirical data hampers informed decision-making, resulting in reactive rather than proactive management.

Theoretical Foundations

These issues can be understood through the lens of classic organizational theories such as Argyris and Schön’s models of single and double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978). BI's management exhibited single-loop learning, addressing only surface issues without examining underlying causes. The absence of feedback loops and data-driven evaluation prevented learning from mistakes, thus entrenching dysfunctional behaviors. Moreover, Marx and Weber’s theories on bureaucracy highlight that excessive hierarchical structures can diminish organizational effectiveness and adaptability (Weber, 1947; Marx, 1867).

SWOT Analysis of Organizational Culture

A SWOT analysis reveals that BI’s internal environment has strengths like skilled personnel and adequate infrastructure but suffers from cultural weaknesses such as misaligned policies, unclear responsibilities, and poor communication. These weaknesses impede strategic alignment and operational efficiency. The lack of a culture emphasizing transparency and accountability fosters power struggles and strained interdepartmental relationships.

Key Organizational Behavioral Principles

Position power theory is relevant here; the CEO's centralized authority was undermined by ambiguous delegation, which led to power vacuums and conflict. Proper distribution of legitimate authority is critical in preventing chaos and promoting clarity. When authority is improperly assigned, it breeds distrust and inefficiency, which were evident in BI's project failures.

Recommendations for Organizational Change

Addressing these issues necessitates restructuring management roles to clarify responsibilities, decentralizing decision-making where appropriate, and establishing transparent communication channels. Specifically, the COO should not oversee critical functions like IT and HR; instead, these departments should report directly to the CEO to ensure independence and clarity of authority. The project charter must be explicitly outlined, including goals, timelines, resource allocations, and performance metrics, with active involvement from HR to support resource management and conflict resolution.

Implementation and Monitoring Strategies

The implementation plan should include specific tasks with deadlines, resource needs, documentation protocols, clear success criteria, and regular reviews. A phased approach involving stakeholder engagement, training, and feedback mechanisms ensures gradual improvement. Monitoring during and after the project is vital; regular milestone reviews allow early detection of issues, while post-implementation reviews help institutionalize lessons learned for future projects.

Conclusion

Organizational behavior significantly influences IT project outcomes, particularly in complex multinational environments. Mismanagement of power, hierarchical rigidity, and poor communication can derail projects, as seen in BI. Strategic restructuring, transparency, and data-driven decision-making are essential to mitigate these risks. When organizations align structural and behavioral elements, they enhance agility and resilience, turning organizational behavior into a strategic asset rather than a liability. The case underscores that effective leadership and organizational design are pivotal for successful IT implementations and should be prioritized in strategic planning.

References

• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory ofaction perspective. Addison Wesley.
• Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. Free Press.
• Marx, K. (1867). Capital: A critique of political economy. Penguin Classics.
• Hannis, S. (2013). Organizational Behavior: An Evidence Based Approach. Routledge.
• Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational Behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
• McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, R. (2015). Organizational Behavior (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2005). Organizational Behavior. Wiley.
• Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Prentice-Hall.
• Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.