No Controversy Left Behind

Harriet was suitably ready for her new duties as the manager of a District School. She qualified academically to be a company administrator, so she had the necessary expertise to manage her new responsibilities (Arends, 2014). She also had goals for the school, as seen by her determination to carry out a demographic research to guarantee that the school’s capacity was utilized to the fullest extent possible. Harriet had also educated herself on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which would have a big impact on how she carried out her duties.

The act of familiarizing with the policy guidelines reveals a person who was mentally ready to take on her new role as a District School Manager (Arends, 2014).

Question 2

Harriet could have done more to prepare for the cabinet meeting, and this would have improved the outcomes of the meeting significantly. To start with, she should have familiarized herself with the article on the benefits of coaching on student performance since this knowledge would have enabled her to rephrase the issue of laying off coaches without a lot of resentment from the executive members (Diliberto& Brewer,2014). Besides, Harriet should have sought support from several cabinet members before the meeting since this would illustrate to the other cabinet members that her suggestion was not that outrageous after all.

Question 3

Harriet should not have been more confrontational at the cabinet meeting since she had not thought through the issues that the executive members were raising (Haslam et al., 2015). For instance, she had not considered the suggestion from the teacher’s union president regarding the disutility of the NCLB.As well, she had not considered the chances of success or failure of a lawsuit. Therefore, without carefully considering these issues, Harriet would have looked tactless if she was confrontational and many would have questioned her competence in her new role (Diliberto& Brewer,2014).

Question 4

Instead of supporting and standing with his assistant, the Superintendent chose the easier path hence sabotaging Harriet’s efforts to restructure the organization with the reduction in the funds’ allocation. Therefore, the Superintendent should have done more to support his Assistant. This is because the superintendent was aware that the reduction in funds would affect the school’s management in one way or another; however, he refused to grapple with this reality and maintained that status quo should be maintained (Arends, 2014. If the superintendent had been more supportive to his Assistant, he would have illustrated to the cabinet members that as difficult as Harriet’s proposal sounded, its implementation would be inevitable in the end (Haslam et al., 2015).

Question 5

After the cabinet meeting, the Superintendent should have met with some cabinet members to lobby support for Harriet’s proposal since if given more information and the benefit of adopting it, they would be more receptive (Haslam et al., 2015). Besides, the Superintendent should have called for the board meeting and informed them on the rationale behind the proposal to lay off the coaches (Arends, 2014. Finally, the Superintendent should have organized a meeting with Harriet so that they plan how they will lobby support from the board since if the management spoke with one voice, they would stand a better chance in convincing the board to side with them (Diliberto& Brewer,2014).

Question 6

The NCLB is partially to blame for the situation at Wildwood since it creates provisions for higher academic standards, but then there are no sufficient funds to support this ambitious initiative (Finkler et al., 2016). For instance, the need for more coaches requires more money, but then the State Department of Education reduces the allocation by $ 400, 000 and hence putting Wildwood in financial woes. Also, the politicians who come up with policies without thinking through their implementation are to blame for the situation at Wildwood (Arends, 2014).

Question 7

By quitting, Harriet would illustrate that she was not qualified for the job (Arends, 2014). Therefore, her only option is to face her colleagues once again but this time with well-researched information. In the next cabinet meeting, Harriet would inform her colleagues on the merits and demerits of each of the proposals and then leave them to choose (Haslam et al., 2015). Besides, Harriet would emphasize the need for financial stability in the institution which would only be realized through implementing by laying off some coaches or any other cost-cutting alternative.

References

Arends, R. (2014). Learning to teach. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Diliberto, J. A., & Brewer, D. (2014). Six tips for successful IEP meetings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(2), 128-135.

Finkler, S. A., Smith, D. L., Calabrese, T. D., & Purtell, R. M. (2016). Financial management for public, health, and not-for-profit organizations. CQ Press.

Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M. J., & Ellemers, N. (Eds.). (2014). Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. Psychology Press.

Wallwork, A. (2014). PREPARING FOR A MEETING. In Meetings, Negotiations, and Socializing (pp. 7-8). Springer New York.