Case Study Analysis – The Amazing World of Fun

Case Study Analysis This article consists of 6 pages and 1712 words. In order to have full access to this article, email us at thedocumentco@hotmail.co.uk 

Ref No: 1311

The Amazing World of Fun – Case Study Analysis

Introduction and Identification of Problems

The amazing world of fun is a theme entertainment park which is located at distance of approx. 300 miles from Orlando. This case analysis focuses on analysing the issues and problems faced by the Amazing World of Fun; there are two main issues faced by the Amazing World of Fun (AWF).Case Study Analysis.

Eric, who is the co-Vice President of Wildlife and Conservation (W&C), follows a management style of Bureaucratic Organization (Henry Mintzberg 1979). According to Gruening (2001), in a Bureaucratic Organization, the decision making is centralized and the employees have clearly defined work with no flexibility. As we can see, work in W&C is managed in an authoritarian manner and the species specialists are used to doing what they are told.

Case Study Analysis Amy Rockbridge, who is the Director of Estates, follows the management style of Professional Bureaucracy.  The maintenance crew has skilled and experienced craftsmen who require their own flexibility of work. But Amy believes that the maintenance crew should report directly to her and should attend the work which she considers important first and then the other. This is clearly a reflection of a Professional Bureaucracy according to the Organizational Theory (Jaffee, 2001).

George on the other hand, who is the co-Vice president of Commercial, follows a management style of Adhocracy according to the Organizational Theory. An adhocracy is where work is flexible, adaptable without bureaucratic policies. The hospitality and cast crew have flexible workspace and can even cross over to other departments when the need arises.

Case Study Analysis The first problem is with the different management styles. Since AWF is an organization which can function only with cross-functional teams. This is because there is overlapping of Span of Control and similar workplace. The 5 Habitat zones mirror the division of W&C, which literally means the workplace for the Habitat Zone Head Krista is the same Senior Scientist Dr Clark Hopper. Both having very different thinking and objectives working in AWF. The Maintenance Crew’s work requires them to work throughout the park, wherever they are required. Having these considerations in mind, we can say that AWF cannot work without cross-functional teams, and the problem lies in each department using a different management style.

But there is a limitation in applying his theory. As AWF had changed its strategy in 2001 following the footsteps of Sea World and the Animal Kingdom, was it not communicated how it would be done without these conflicts arising? Was a management style also finalized? Surely, the executive board must have discussed these issues before finalizing this strategy. How will the cross-functional teams work? How will they be managed? How can each department be working with its own management style, even though this strategy was finalized? If it is working for other amusement parks, it should also work in AWF.

The other critical issue faced by AWF is of misaligned goals. Which can be better explained by Realistic Conflict theory (Donald Campbell 1965). The theory explains how intergroup hostility may arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources.  Both the co-Vice presidents have different approaches. Eric is more for conservation and research, whereas George is more commercial minded. In this regard, we can say that Eric is more concerned with running a non-profit organization, whereas George wants to convert AWF into a profit making business. This also leads the employees thinking differently. The animal assistants think their work for conservation is more important as they are doing something for a greater good, and they tend to look down on commercial staff. Whereas the other staff have a more commercial thinking and tend to think they are the ones running the organization since their activities bring in the revenue. It is also very difficult to decide how much revenue is coming…