Below Are The Instructions With The Case Study Attached

Below Are The Instructions With The Case Study Attachedrefer To The F

Refer to the "Freeman-Brown Private School Case Study" document for details pertaining to this assignment. The board of directors at Freeman-Brown Private School (FBPS) has hired you as part of a consulting team to review the situation and present your findings and recommendations. Write a paper (1,250-1,500 words) that discusses the case. Complete this assignment from the perspective of the hired consultants. Respond to the following questions: Review how organizations interact with their external environment (as open systems and complex adaptive systems).

How effective was Freeman-Brown as an open system at the time of the closure? How effective was Freeman-Brown as a complex adaptive system at the time of the closure? Review your reading this week on the internal environment of organizations. What is your evaluation of the organizational culture and organizational climate at the time the decision to close two campuses was made? What is your evaluation of the decision made by Dr. Murphy and Caudill? What is your evaluation of the process of going about the closure? Was FBPS demonstrating social responsibility? Discuss the closure impact on three specific stakeholders. Provide an explanation, using appropriate management theories, for how the administration could have handled the closure effectively with stakeholders?

Include one theory from each of the following: the classical approach, the human relations approach, and the modern management approach. You have been asked to suggest two goals: one long-term and one short-term goal for the future direction of FBPS. Justify your decision. Present a concluding statement that integrates the 4 functions of management as a means to revamp management at FBPS and meets the recommended goals. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Freeman-Brown Private School (FBPS) presents a complex scenario where the interplay of organizational systems, culture, and management decisions culminated in the closure of two campuses. This paper critically examines the effectiveness of FBPS as an open system and a complex adaptive system during this period, evaluates the internal organizational environment, and discusses stakeholder implications. Drawing from management theories—classical, human relations, and modern—we explore how the closure was handled and propose strategic goals for FBPS’s future.

External Environment and Organizational Systems

Organizations like FBPS are inherently open systems, continuously interacting with their external environment. An open system effectively absorbs inputs—such as students, staff, resources, and community expectations—and transforms them into outputs like education and reputation (Katz & Kahn, 1966). During the closure, FBPS appeared to struggle as an open system, evidenced by declining enrollment, financial difficulties, and reduced community engagement. These external pressures overwhelmed its ability to adapt effectively, leading to a breakdown in organizational functioning.

As a complex adaptive system (CAS), FBPS was characterized by interconnected agents—administrators, teachers, students, and stakeholders—whose behaviors influence one another in nonlinear ways (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2008). For much of its history, FBPS demonstrated some adaptability; however, during the closure, it seemed to lack the agility required of a resilient CAS. The decision-making process appeared top-down, with limited stakeholder engagement, indicating poor system dynamics and insufficient feedback mechanisms to navigate complex challenges.

Internal Environment: Culture and Climate

The organizational culture at FBPS was predominantly traditional, emphasizing academic excellence and discipline yet lacking flexibility and openness to change. The climate appeared tense and uncertain around the time of closure, characterized by anxiety among staff and students (Schein, 2010). This environment hindered effective communication and collaborative problem-solving, which are crucial during organizational crises. An organizational culture resistant to change contributed to the negative reaction to the closure, reflecting a misalignment between cultural values and environmental demands.

Evaluation of Leadership Decisions

Dr. Murphy and Caudill’s decision to close two campuses, though possibly driven by financial necessity, raises questions regarding strategic foresight and stakeholder engagement. Their approach lacked transparency and insufficient consultation, which may have aggravated stakeholder resistance. According to Lewin’s Change Management Model (Lewin, 1947), successful change requires unfreezing existing mindsets, implementing transition, and refreezing new norms. FBPS’s leadership seemingly skipped comprehensive unfreezing and failed to involve stakeholders early, resulting in resistance and regret.

Social Responsibility and Closure Process

FBPS’s handling of closure did not exemplify strong social responsibility. Social responsibility entails considering the impact on community, employees, students, and other stakeholders (Carroll, 1999). The abrupt closure disregarded long-term community relationships and the well-being of affected stakeholders, highlighting a failure in ethical stewardship. Proper closure should have incorporated transparent communication, support programs for displaced students and staff, and community engagement to mitigate negative impacts.

The closure significantly impacted stakeholders—students losing access to education, employees facing job loss, and the local community experiencing economic effects. An ethical approach, based on stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), advocates for decisions that balance organizational goals with stakeholder interests. More inclusive planning and compassionate communication might have alleviated some adverse outcomes.

Management Theories and Stakeholder Handling

From the classical approach, Fayol’s Principles of Management suggest that planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling are essential to manage change systematically (Fayol, 1916). FBPS could have improved stakeholder management by establishing clear communication channels and participative planning.

The human relations approach emphasizes employee well-being and participative decision-making (Mayo, 1933). Applying this, FBPS leadership could have engaged teachers and staff in the decision process, fostering trust and reducing resistance.

Modern management theories, such as systems theory, highlight the importance of feedback and adaptability. Ensuring continuous stakeholder engagement and feedback mechanisms could have improved the responsiveness of management processes during the crisis (Checkland & Scholes, 1990).

Goals for FBPS's Future

A short-term goal should be to develop a comprehensive stakeholder engagement strategy that emphasizes transparency and communication during any organizational change. This will rebuild trust and prepare the community for upcoming changes.

A long-term goal should be to foster a culture of innovation and adaptability, enabling FBPS to respond proactively to environmental shifts, including demographic changes and technological advancements. This aligns with the modern management approach emphasizing agility and continuous improvement (Senge, 1990).

Conclusion

To revamp management at FBPS and meet these goals, the institution must effectively integrate the four functions of management—planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. Strategic planning should incorporate stakeholder insights; organizing should align resources with new strategic priorities; leadership must inspire openness and adaptability; and control mechanisms should monitor progress and ensure accountability (Bateman & Snell, 2013). By embedding these functions into a cohesive management framework, FBPS can rebuild resilience, enhance stakeholder trust, and position itself for sustainable future growth.

References

• Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. A. (2013). Management: Leading & Collaborating in a Competitive World. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.
• Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley.
• Fayol, H. (1916). General and Industrial Management. Translated by Constance Storrs (1949). Pitman.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.
• Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley.
• Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
• Mayo, E. (1933). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Macmillan.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Doubleday.
• Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2008). Complexity Leadership: Enabling People and Organizations for Adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 38(2), 109-118.