University Art Museum

University Art Museum:
Case study: The problem with this organization is quite simply that the campus does not know what thegoals of the museum and its associated faculty are or should be. This is a fundamental flaw in therunning of any organization, be it bureaucratic of collectivist. The museums goals had rested with thecurator, Miss Kirkhoff, who has been the most influential individual in the museums history. Now thatshe has retired, and her successor was found to have very different goals for the museum, the universityitself needs to take responsibility for the museum.The governing body, the search committee, may resemble a collectivist council, but they do notshare a similar set of goals and values. This is evidenced by the presence of the economist within thecouncil. The Dean, while it wasnt mentioned within the text, likely has final say over the results of anydecisions made by the committee. It is also easy to conclude that the members of the committee do notget compensated equally. Based on title it would be apparent that the dean presiding over the councilmakes more money than other members who are just pulled from other departments within theuniversity. With this in mind, and basic knowledge of how universities tend to work, this organization isa very weekly organized bureaucracy which is missing some very fundamental characteristics which arekey to the structure.The most obvious and glaring characteristic of bureaucracy missing from this equation is formalwritten rules. The mission statement of the museum has not been written down, and has not even beenconceived of in the first place. When the most recent director took over, he was not given anyguidelines to follow while he ran the museum and simply set in motion his own personal goals. Theseguidelines and mission statement need to be formulated and written down for the committee toconsider when choosing their next candidate.Fixed jurisdictional areas are also missing from this structure. It is