feedback 4

According to Edmondson and McManus (2007), research questions are focused on the study and narrow the topics down to achievable and manageable size segments that are relevant. The research questions for the research "How to resolve the delay in project execution in the matrix structured Naval Base Kitsap Fleet and Family Readiness organization?" are narrowed down to a total of three meaningful topics. These three topics address the issues of hypothetical and practical significance. They are focused on a viable research project corresponding to Edmondson and McManus' (2007) recommendations displayed in their first key element of a field research project.

RQ1: How can the execution of special projects such as the development and opening of Navy Getaways, RV Storage, or similar revenue generating projects be improved within the NBK FFR organization?

RQ2: What changes can be made to address the challenges found?

RQ3: How does the decision-making process affect the outcome of objectives in the matrix organization.

This qualitative exploratory study will be developed on the hypothesis that NBK FFR managers have operated in a complex environment with too many tasks and therefore cannot execute projects and routine tasks successfully on time. Based on the development of theoretical concepts, this study is built upon a foundation of empirical data. The relevancy of this methodologies is founded on the intent of the researcher's ability to identify isolated interdependencies or theoretical fragments, which can be further differentiated or validated (Jackson et al., 2007).

The selection and the exact design of the research method were determined by the research question and contrast the study results. During the empirical part of the pre-work, the researcher decided that the qualitative approach would be the most appropriate method. This approach allows the research process to be designed very openly and provides for in-depth research for a subject area that has not yet been investigated. It is particularly important in qualitative research to document the procedure down to the last detail and make the research process comprehensible (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). That is why the procedure for this empirical study will be described in great detail.

Centered around Yin's (2018) ideas that a Case Study research focuses on current events and has no control over behavioral actions, the research questions for this study are designed to answer "why" or "how" questions. As an exploratory case study, the intent of the research is to explore the execution gap phenomenon in a government matrix organization setting and identify root causes enabling this problem set. Rogers (2021) and Yin (2018) characterize a case study as regardless of the person, event, or organization, the phenomenon represents an independent investigation unit. The foundation of selecting a case study as a research tradition for the chosen method is based on the hypothesis that professionals working for the federal government are not experienced working in a matrix organization. Therefore, the most appropriate research method for this complex problem set is the exploratory case study.

Edmondson and McManus (2007) further indicate that the research design is based on the type of data the researcher is collecting, data collection procedures and tools, and the type of analysis that is planned to be conducted. Another part of selecting the type of research design is based on the research site the data is collected from (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). The research site has never been subject to research in organizational effectiveness. The data collection tools for this research will be codified and consolidated into a database to ensure the data will be traceable. With a well-documented database, the researcher will be enabled to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon and contributes to the existing literature (Yin, 2018).

Execution Gap. The execution gap shows the discrepancy between the vision and reality (Leinwand & Mainardi, 2016).

FM. Frontline Managers are supervisors usually in the NF-03 or GS-07/09 level located at NBK (Cashman, 2021).

IPM. Installation Program Managers are upper management in the NF-04 or GS-12 level located at NBK (Cashman, 2021).

Leadership Style. The leadership styles are the behavior of managers and supervisors towards employees in subordinate positions (da Silva et al., 2019).

Matrix Organization. The matrix organization is a multidimensional organizational structure of an organization interfacing between administrative and operational areas (Kennedy, 2017).

PM. Program Managers are middle management in the NF-04 or GS11-12 level located at NBK (Cashman, 2021).

Organizational Culture. An organizational culture is a set of values and beliefs unique to the organization and are deeply rooted in the foundation of the establishment's culture (Wagstaff & Burton-Wylie, 2018).

Organizational Effectiveness. Organizational effectiveness is the ability for an organization to achieve envisioned results that benefit the organization (Cambridge English Dictionary, n.d.).

Other entries of this chapter included an introduction to the topic "How to resolve the delay in project execution in the matrix structured Naval Base Kitsap Fleet and Family Readiness organization?", an outline of the purpose statement, problem statement, and topic of this qualitative study was provided. An in-depth explanation of the background of the topic and research location was specified. The conceptional framework delineated potential theories associated with the problem statement.

Over the past century, there has been a dramatic increase in the need for high performance and acceleration of project and task execution. Task execution has received considerable critical attention as it has been deemed fundamental in an organization's overall success in today's knowledge worker age. High flexibility, cross-departmental work, and robust innovation evaluation are often needed to succeed (Farokhizadeh et al., 2019; Lansing et al., 2019). Despite technology, along with management methods, have achieved significant milestones regarding project execution, a vast majority of projects are never successfully completed. Farokhizadeh et al. (2019) found in the Standish report presented in 2007 that only 28% of projects were successfully executed, whereas 23% of projects actually failed, and 49% are ongoing. Farokhizadeh et al. further stated that a separate study conducted in Norway found that 25% of successfully executed projects achieved the allotted timeline and budget.

Several authors have reported analyses of trends in high performance and execution of projects that demonstrated the need for coupling with creativity in organizations across the globe is associated with organizational culture and leadership styles. Staff members embrace creativity; however, implementing them often fails in execution, and the organizations lack support (Biolos, 2017). Carucci (2017) found that 67% of strategic mistakes were estimated to fail due to poor process execution. Carucci's ten yearlong research suggests that 61% of senior leaders reported that the reason for such poor performance could be found in the lack of preparedness in leading at the executive level.

The contents of this chapter analyzed existing literature associated with organizational culture theory with an emphasis on organizations, a deeper understanding of the organizational structure and design specifications in the area of matrix structure within an organization, and the associations of organizational effectiveness theory with a focus on execution gap leadership within a matrix organization. The theoretical foundation of a matrix organization, execution gap, lack of execution of tasks, delay in project execution, operating in a culture diverse matrix organization, and matrix as an organizational structure addressed by this literature review displays the methodologies and compositions of conducted studies in this area.

The primary search engines used for obtaining extant literature was the Trident University International online library. The proposed research topic's key terminology included matrix organization, organizational structure, organizational culture, execution gap, project execution delay, and leadership styles. These keywords were not exclusive, and other terminologies were used during the evolution of the research. Databases used to find relevant literature and data for this research were ProQuest Central, Sage Research Methods, and Business Source Complete (EBSCO).

The FFR organization located at NBK struggles in the execution of projects. The challenge can be associated with the number of stakeholders that are involved in the decision-making process. As a part of the NRNW, NBK FFR is structured as a matrix organization with multiple lateral and hieratical levels participating in the decision-making process, which leads to the confusion of responsibility levels for assignments especially for new staff members.

As a traditional Government driven organization with strong hieratical leadership trades, FFR leaders seem to cross the authority of a hieratical structured and matrix structured organization. Departments within FFR can see differentiation; it appears that specific departments are more successful in executing assignments than others. A significant difference in leadership styles can be seen in the senior leadership of the individual programs.

The FFR organization located at NBK is a part of a larger Government organization tiered in three levels, Headquarters (HQ), Regional, and Installation. FFR is a sub-department of the Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) (CNIC, n.d.-a), which according to OPNAVINST 5400.45 (2020), is an Echelon II command of the United States Navy organizational structure and is homed at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. (CNIC, n.d.-a; Coleen San Nicolas-Perez & Thesken, 2020; Morales, 2020). CNIC is responsible for the ashore operations, maintenance, and quality of life programs of 10 Regions and 70 Installations with the primary mission to support the United States Navy's Fleet, Fighter, and Family (CNIC, n.d.-a; Coleen San Nicolas-Perez & Thesken, 2020; Morales, 2020).

FFR primarily touches the Quality-of-Life column of CNIC's responsibility and is categorized in three pillars: Family Readiness, Fleet Readiness, and Navy Housing (CNIC, n.d.-b). Pillar 1, Family Readiness, acknowledges that Navy families play an essential part in the Navy Fighter's readiness. Therefore, FFR provides quality of life service to the family well-being through the Fleet and Family Services Program (FFSP) (CNIC, n.d.-c). Pillar 2, Fleet Readiness, focuses on retaining the Navy's service members and civilian workforce through high-quality installation services. Like Family Readiness, Fleet Readiness contributes directly to the Navy's readiness. It comprises Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR), Child Youth Program's (CYP), NAF Support Services, and the Navy Wounded Warrior Program. MWR includes Fitness, Sports and Deployed Forces Support; Recreation, Entertainment and Business, Navy Gateways Inns and Suites (NGIS), Navy Getaways, and Galley programs (CNIC, n.d.-d). Pillar 3, Navy Housing, provides services for servicemembers and their families to locate desirable homes and neighborhoods and assisting in the determination process when moving to a new installation. The Housing Services Center also serves as the liaison between the on-base provided Private Public Venture (PPV), the sole provider on base for family housing. Additionally, the Housing program oversees the Unaccompanied Housing (UH), also known as bachelor housing, to enlisted service members with the Rank E4 and below. The Navy Housing program plays an essential role in the Readiness of the U.S. Navy (CNIC, n.d.-e).

As an Echelon III Command, the NRNW (OPNAVINST 5400.45, 2020) is one of the 10 Regions managed by CNIC. With the Flag Officers Command Suite and staff located at the Pacific Northwest, the Regional Commander (REGCOM) NRNW's responsibility reaches from Alaska to Minnesota and Iowa and incorporates Washington, Oregon Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska in support to the Navy's mission (CNIC, n.d.-a). As the third-largest fleet concentration area, NRNW has its core mission centralized around the Puget Sound in Washington; the NRNW supports four core installations, NBK, Naval Air Station Whitby Island (NASWI). Naval Station Everett (NSE), and Naval Magazine Indian Island (NAVMAG II) (CNIC, n.d.-f).

In 2004 NRNW was reorganized to avoid closures of multiple bases located in the greater Seattle area. This reorganization was caused due to the high operational costs of various smaller bases and the geographical location in Seattle (Barron, 2004; Naval Sea Systems Command, n.d.; Naval Technology, 2021). The relocation of the NRNW from Seattle to the Kitsap peninsula also included a merger of five small individual bases into one megabase, NBK. Additionally, NRNW is the parent command to two more Naval installations, Naval Station Everett (NSE) and Naval Air Station Whidbey Island (NASWI). Both installations are geographically separated from NRNW (Commander, Navy Installation Command, 2019a, 2019c; Naval Technology, 2021).

NBK is an Echelon IV Command and considered the third-largest Naval Base. The installations area of responsibility (AOR) includes Naval Hospital Bremerton, Naval Station Bremerton, Naval Base Keyport, Fuel Depot Manchester, and Naval Submarine Base Bangor (Kitsap County et al., 2015; Naval Technology, 2021; NBK Economic Impact Assessment, 2019). NBK is the host of over 75 tenant commands, including the superior command to NBK, NRNW. The diverse responsibilities NBK is overseeing, making the base arguably the most complex in the Navy and is based on the numerous high priorities in the strategic missions contributing to the Nations security (Naval Technology, 2021; NBK Economic Impact Assessment, 2019). These strategic missions include a two Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier (CVN), the only drydock on the west coast with the ability to hold a CVN, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS), Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) contributing to enhancing the Navy's technological advantage. NBK is also the host to Manchester, the largest fuel depot in the Continental U.S. Additionally, Remote areas in Washington State and Alaska moreover fall into the AOR of NBK (NBK Economic Impact Assessment, 2019). NBK FFR's additional duties include the NAVMAG II base located approximately one hour north of NBK Bangor on the Olympic peninsula.

There is no true one competitor to the FFR organization as the organization is not a for-profit business and is very diversified. FFR is a quality-of-life organization, contributing to providing services to the service members and their families on the installation (CNIC, n.d.-b). Adequately FFR is exploring opportunities to partner with outside agencies and businesses to enhance the installation residents' quality of life. Potential partners reach Outdoor recreation businesses such as REI, Child Development programs, such as Boys and Girls Club of America, or even NGIS and partnerships with local hotels. The Navy recently explored potential PPV opportunities in on-base lodging (Jowers, 2019; NAVFAC, 2019; Todd, 2019).

Wagstaff and Burton-Wylie (2018) and Thakur et al. (2018) describe organizational culture as a set of values and beliefs unique to the organization and are deeply rooted in the foundation of the establishment's culture. Wagstaff and Burton-Wylie (2018) elaborate that organizational culture is a generic term for the total values ​​and norms and basic assumptions of the members of an organization. Culture emerges as a social construction of organizational reality and acts as a system of meanings for the organization's members and working atmosphere (König, 2020).

Reddy and Scheepers' (2019) study "Influence of Organizational Culture on Strategy Execution in A South African Organization" identifies the nine dimensions of organizational culture practices and their effect on the organization's dimensions of strategy execution. The nine dimensions of organizational culture Reddy and Scheepers refer to are based on Hofstede's six dimensions of organizational culture "Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity, Long/Short Term Orientation, and Indulgence/Restraint" (Hofstede, 2011). These dimensions were later extended and elaborated on by (House et al., 2002) through the GLOBE study to reflect cultural practices.

Strategy Execution

Performance/Achievement

Future Orientation

Figure 2 displays the nine dimensions of organizational culture practices consist of performance (achievement) orientation, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, humane orientation, gender egalitarianism, future orientation, and assertiveness (Hechavarría & Brieger, 2020; House et al., 2002; Qiu, 2018; Scheepers & Reddy, 2019). In their research, Reddy and Scheepers (2019) found an association between organizational culture and the dimensions of strategy execution. The highest effect on execution had the dimension performance/achievement with future orientation as the second-highest effect. Reddy and Scheepers based the dimensions of strategy execution criteria on information sharing, employee commitment, employee coordination, leadership, performance, rewards, and structure.

Nine Dimensions of Organizational Culture Practices

The GLOBE study was initiated in the early 1990s by an international association of scientists (House et al., 2004). It is based on a survey of around 17,000 middle management managers from various companies and three different industries in 61 countries. The questionnaire's approximately 300 questions included organizational and national culture or leadership, whereby a distinction was made between values ​​and actual practices in the respective society (House et al., 2002). The following cultural dimensions have emerged:

· uncertainty avoidance describes the extent to which ambivalent and unsafe situations can be avoided by adhering to norms, standards, and rules;

· power distance describes the extent to which the unequal distribution of power is accepted in society;

· institutional collectivism describes loyalty or community orientation based on society as a whole;

· in-group collectivism describes loyalty or community orientation towards a specific group such as family or company;

· gender egalitarianism describes to what extent a collective strives for gender equality exists;

· assertiveness describes how assertive, aggressive, or dominant is acted inside a collective;

· future orientation describes to what extent planning and investments are practiced and valued in the future;

· performance orientation describes the extent to which performance and performance promotion are promoted and rewarded. This dimension also includes the extent to which innovative problem-solving approaches are recognized by society;

· human orientation describes the importance of principles such as friendliness, fairness, and altruism.

The U.S. Army changed their doctrine to reflect the 21st Century. As the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command commanding officer, General David Perkins presented the U.S. Army’s new operating notion of “Win in a Complex World” (U.S. Army, 2015). This concept is based on the idea that leaders in the information age have to operate in a very diverse complex world (U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 2014). To “accomplish objectives in unknown, unknowable and constantly changing environments” (U.S. Army, 2015) leaders have to adapt their leadership styles to situational based leadership, which may differ from traditional to contemporary leadership styles.

Da Silva et al. (2019) describe leadership style as to how superior authorities in an organization treat subordinates and lead the company. This approach can be very different depending on the manager's character but also depending on the type of company. Da Silva et al. (2019), Mohd Adnan and Valliappan (2019), and Shafique and Loo-See (2018) all reference the American psychologist Kurt Lewin's leadership style distinctions among three different leadership styles: the Authoritarian leadership style, the Democratic leadership style, and the Laissez-faire leadership style. Additionally, to these three traditional leadership styles, modifications emerged over time. Examples of contemporary leadership styles presented are Patriarchal leadership style, Charismatic leadership style, Autocratic leadership style, Transformational leadership style, Transactional leadership style, and Servant leadership style.

Rahbi et al. (2017) portray an authoritarian leader as demand-driven and ready to punish employees for enforcing rules and regulations. Shafique and Loo-See (2018) describe the authoritarian leader as leaders-centered. This type of leader is considered distanced from their employees and act as the single point of decision making without consulting others (Rahbi et al., 2017; Shafique & Loo-See, 2018), which is beneficial in situations where fast and often live-saving decisions have to be made. In the authoritarian leadership style, the instructions go from top to bottom and are therefore popular within the Military and Police (Rahbi et al., 2017). Feedback or criticism by subordinates is typically not accepted by this leadership style.

The authoritarian leadership style demands specialized and general knowledge, self-confidence, and technical, analytical skills (Harms et al., 2018). Rahbi et al. (2017) further elaborate that creativity and individuals within the organization are often undermined by this leadership style, which often is the cause of lack of motivation. The ability for quick decision making and fast execution of these decisions is a significant advantage of the authoritarian leadership style. This means that it is possible to react remarkably quickly to changing circumstances (Shafique & Loo-See, 2018).

As a counterpart to the authoritarian leadership style, the democratic leader values ​​teamwork. The supervisor actively involves subordinates in the decision-making process (Rahbi et al., 2017). Decisions are based on discussions involving all managers and employees. Involving all levels in the decision-making process, it is understood that all team members are responsible for the consequences of the decision (Rahbi et al., 2017; Shafique & Loo-See, 2018). The strong motivation of staff is the democratic leadership style’s most significant advantage, according to Rahbi et al. (2017) and Shafique and Loo-See (2018).

Democratic leadership style promotes creativity and willingness to make decisions. Ultimately, this leadership style encourages the willingness to delegate and management's willingness to give up power and decision-making authority (Rahbi et al., 2017; Shafique & Loo-See, 2018). However, as Rahbi et al. (2017) discussed, the democratic leadership style faces never-ending discussions, escalating to potentially affecting the decision-making process. Additionally, Rahbi et al. elaborate that the democratic leadership style can lead to complications with the employees' discipline and can be very time-consuming. According to Caillier's (2020) research, democratic leadership positively impacts performance in an organization.

With the laissez-faire leadership style, the manager or the executive barely intervenes in the daily operations. Employees and subordinates decide entirely for themselves about the work organization, tasks, and goals (Rahbi et al., 2017). In the laissez-faire leadership style, the subordinates have complete freedom. This encourages and challenges their creativity and enables them to work independently (Rahbi et al., 2017). Complete lack of planning and control are disadvantages of the laissez-faire leadership style. According to Ågotnes et al. (2018), the laissez-faire leadership style can be categorized as absent leadership. It can easily lead to indiscipline and poor work ethic, potentially resulting in incompetence disputes, rank fights, and rivalries often seen among employees or even various departments. Ågotnes et al. elaborate that the risk of group formation and individuals' exclusion is very high with this leadership style. Bulling is more common in this type of leadership style than others, according to Ågotnes et al. Furthermore, Bligh et al. (2018) suggest that the laissez-faire leadership style contributes to more errors in organizational learning and organizational change.

Often found in small and medium-sized family businesses, the father figure is representing the organization as the classic company head as a patriarchal leader (Lan et al., 2019; Lau et al., 2019). He looks after the well-being of the employees and pays tribute without being asked. Lan et al. (2019) describe this particular style as similar to the authoritarian leadership style; the patriarchal leadership style is cultivated in decision-making. As a centralization of authority, the employees are not involved in the decision-making process. Lan et al. further portray the patriarchal leadership style as distanced from subordinates to maintain authority.

Leading through charisma and personality, the charismatic leader serves as a role model for the employees, earning their respect. The decision-making process is directive and, therefore, similar to the Authoritarian Leader Style. The term charisma stands for a positive aura of a personality (Reh et al., 2017) to predict the future, create miracles, and has the meaning "gift" in the Greek language (Ekmekcioglu et al., 2018).

Leaders who practice this leadership style often drive high-performing teams to give their best through motivating their staff. The manager convinces with optimistic views. Motivated employees are not the only positive result of charismatic leadership (Karim et al., 2020). Flexibility is the secret to success; leaders practicing this type of leadership react better to diverse situations occurring in the organization. Staff tends to be more engaged and perform work more responsibly due to the high degree of self-determination (Karim et al., 2020). Verma and Mehta (2020) suggest that this type of leader can be categorized by attributes aligning with characteristics that define entrepreneurs and are performance-oriented.

The disadvantages of this leadership style lie in its specificity. A charismatic leader has to have the charisma to succeed in this leadership style, which is hard to fully obtain through practice. Furthermore, a positive attitude is a requirement to keep the organization moving forward. According to Fragouli (2018) and Zhang et al. (2020), the charismatic leadership style is very much value-based, and its powers to persuade can easily switch to be used negatively.

Primary found in large companies; the autocratic leader passes on instructions through others and is therefore personally unknown to most staff members. The decision process goes through several levels (Murugesan et al., 2020). Important decisions affecting the organization are not granted to staff members, the autocratic leader reserves unrestricted autocracy (Chukwusa, 2018). Subordinates are expected to display obedient and disciplined working behavior. A strict hierarchy is followed in this management style. Similar to the autocratic leadership style, in the patriarchal type, superiors are in full control and sanction their subordinates (Chukwusa, 2018).

The workforce knowing what rules to obey by is an advantage of this leadership style. Furthermore, since employees are not empowered to make decisions, the decision-making time for imperative business assessments is concise. Short-term performance improvement by employees can be observed in many organizations utilizing this leadership style, as their work can be effortlessly monitored (Murugesan et al., 2020).

The disadvantages of this type of supervision outweigh the advantages of the autocratic leadership style. The creativity of the organization members and their motivation through their ideas to bring the company forward are completely prevented (Caillier, 2020). The diversity of professional staff members long term with lots of tacit knowledge as well as younger staff members recently graduated from college have lots to offer and contribute to the future development of an organization. Permitting decision-making exclusively to the line managers can also lead to wrong, close-minded results (Caillier, 2020). According to Caillier's (2020) research, autocratic leadership has a negative impact on performance in an organization.

Transformational leadership is considered to be used in dynamic work environments. Lan et al. (2019) suggest that executives must motivate, inspire, intellectually stimulate, provide individual support, and act as role models. Hendrikz and Engelbrecht (2019) describe transformational leaders as individuals who influence the behavior of staff members through delivering self-discipline, loyalty, and commitment. In other words, this leadership style makes the workforces more autonomous and inspires them to confront challenging tasks independently and on their initiative (Hendrikz & Engelbrecht, 2019; Lan et al., 2019). Open and clear communication is the prerequisite for this leadership style and presents a constant foundation of trust. The development of individuals is at the forefront of transformational leaders. Individual strengths, cohesion, and teamwork with a self-confident, creative approach to problem-solving are the secret to transformational leadership's success and ultimately leads to innovation (Jia et al., 2018).

Alrowwad et al. (2020) describe Transactional leadership as characterized by clear communicated rules, solid structures, and specific goals. Execution of work is based on idea exchange meant while staff follows the supervisors’ expectations. The supervisor-subordinate relationship is based on the give and take principle. Staff members act as rational decision-makers following the goal-oriented path, according to Lan et al. (2019). Furthermore, Lan et al. elaborate that transactional managed staff members are remunerated extrinsically. Which can be through fair compensation, but also through advancement opportunities in the organization. According to Jia et al. (2018), Transactional leadership, similarly to Transformational leadership, contributes to innovation. Lan et al. (2019) elaborate that Bernard M. Bass expanded the transformational leadership theory to transformative leadership by observing the fundamental psychological mechanism in more detail. Bass differentiates amongst three forms of transactional leadership:

1. Performance-oriented reward: Management sets clear expectations, goals and offers commensurate compensation.

2. Management through active control: Management constantly regulates the processes and interferes in the event of deviations.

3. Leadership by intervening when necessary: ​​Management intervenes when problems occur and when absolutely necessary.

Hendrikz and Engelbrecht (2019) explain Servant leaders to uncompromisingly align their leadership with the interests of those being led and their self-development. The short-term focus of serving the needs of the staff results in long-term transcendent strategic goals naturally. Unlike the classic understanding of leaders being superior to the workforce, the Servant leader appreciates leadership as a service (Hendrikz & Engelbrecht, 2019). Ethical and moral responsibility is one of the highest standards the servant leaders have to follow when developing their staff as they are the organizational stewards. The need to contribute to society and the organization in a positive manner is just as crucial to servant leaders as it is for them to hold their staff accountable to the same standards (Hendrikz & Engelbrecht, 2019; Lumpkin & Achen, 2018).

Chapman (2018) describes situational leadership as a theory with no best leadership style, based on the concept presented by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard who published their theory of situational leadership in 1977. In this theory the authors distinguished between a more personal and a task-based leadership approach and is based on the maturity level of a staff member. According to Kundu and Mondal (2019) the situational leadership style can be traced back to the organizational psychologist Fred Edward Fiedler. The contingency theory Fiedler created was a thinking model in which the effectiveness of leadership was described as the optimal relationship between leadership style and the respective leadership situation. Fundamentally, the conditions surrounding managers and employees are the framework for situational leadership (Kundu & Mondal, 2019).

Kundu and Mondal (2019) outline Fiedler’s leadership framework based on three aspects. The personal relationship between the manager and staff, the task structure based on diversity, complexity, and autonomy in implementation, and the positional power of the superior. According to Fiedler’s theory, leaders should behave depending on characteristics. In his book “The Situational Leader”, Hersey (2008), elaborated on Fiedler’s theory.

Hersey’s and Blanchard’s concept is based on relationships, especially between leaders and their staff. Interpersonal skills are essential for situational leadership. The staff members maturity levels indicate how far they are in bot development, professionally and psychologically. The manager praises, supports, encourages and maintains personal contact based on the development level of the staff member (Chapman, 2018). The maturity levels are measured on factors such as experience, independent development, and responsibility level. Furthermore, measurements include on how motivated and commitment the staff member is along with their strive for responsibility and their ability to deal with feedback or deal with conflict (Chapman, 2018).

Telling

Selling

Participating

Delegating

Figure 3 displays the situational leadership theory, a leadership approach in which the manager leads their employees depending on the framework conditions as well as their individual psychological and professional level of maturity (Chapman, 2018). . The situational leadership style is based on four leadership types, telling, selling, participating, and delegating. Leadership style telling is based on employees who have still a low level of maturity, a high degree of task orientation, and a low management relationship orientation (Papworth et al., 2009). Examples are leading new, inexperienced employees mainly through clear instructions, targets, and goals. This leadership style is in need of high directive and low supportive guidance (Papworth et al., 2009).

Leadership style selling is based on the staff members ability to show a slightly more advanced maturity level. In this section, leaders should influence these staff members to achieve a higher level of performance and motivation (Papworth et al., 2009). This can be achieved through relationships and task-oriented leadership. The leadership style selling is in need of high directive and high supportive guidance (Papworth et al., 2009).

Leadership style participating is grounded on staff members who have reached their upper level of maturity. Leaders are advised to allow these staff members a significant higher level of freedom and a say in their tasks (Papworth et al., 2009). They should be more employee-related and relationship-oriented. Furthermore, the staff member should be actively involved in the decision-making process. The leadership style participating is in need of playing a low directive and high supportive role (Papworth et al., 2009).

The leadership style delegating is for staff members who have reached the highest maturity level. These staff members should not be led in a relationship-oriented nor task-oriented manner (Papworth et al., 2009). In this level of leadership responsibilities should be delegated to themselves. The leadership style delegating is in need of a low directive and low supportive guidance (Papworth et al., 2009).

An example of the situational leadership style is a trainee who is given a very detailed explanation of all tasks, especially in the initial phase. However, the staff member is not given responsibility for tasks. In the contrary, highly trained and experienced employees are only given the task with no instructions and are then given the responsibility to master it completely independently. In both cases, the manager would not micromanage.

In order for companies to function, they have to put themselves in order in some way. Most often, they use hierarchical structures. A hierarchy defines components that are superordinate to one another. It is understood that directions given in hierarchical corporate structures are not to be questioned. They have the advantage that there is always someone there who is responsible (Schwetje & Vaseghi, 2007). Conflicts between peers are to be resolved through social interactions; however, if unsuccessful, the previously established hierarchy takes control and enables the decision-making through giving authorization to one party. Hierarchies are often associated with particularly framed functions in larger organizations. These specifically distinguished functions, performed by employees, are defined in job profiles, containing the description of the responsibility and authorizations of the function holder (Gibson, 2011).

According to Gibson (2011) and Schwetje and Vaseghi (2007), a divisional organization is a one-line or bar-line system that is not subdivided according to functions but according to "objects" (products, countries, projects, customer groups). Schwetje and Vaseghi (2007) further discuss that the individual business areas are often managed as profit centers with their own profit responsibility. The divisions are responsible for the operative business themselves and therefore relatively independent almost as a company within the company. The organization’s management is managing strategic decisions and the synchronization of individual divisions. Organizations with sizeable diversified product portfolios are often structured as divisional organizational (Schwetje & Vaseghi, 2007).

Advantages identified by Schwetje and Vaseghi (2007) include the management's relief through the heads of the divisions, high flexibility and adaptability, and more transparent as well as more comfortable to control a large organization large company is another benefit to this type of structure. Furthermore, wrong appointments only affect the division, while fostering profit responsibility of the divisions is possible leading great motivation for the division heads and therefore the team. Disadvantages identified by Schwetje and Vaseghi (2007) are potential development of divisional thinking and competitive battles between the individual sectors, and through the creation of divisions, synergy cross-departmental becomes challenging. Other disadvantages of the divisional organization have meant that many important functions are not delegated to the divisions in many companies. Instead, central departments, for example, finance, human resources, controlling, are set up as service units for the individual divisions following the internal customer principle (Schwetje & Vaseghi, 2007). These central areas are subordinate to the company management and support them in their strategic decisions, but without being authorized to make decisions themselves. In addition, they do coordination work when the divisions stray too far from the corporate goals (Schwetje & Vaseghi, 2007).

Cummings and Worley (2009) describe the functional organization structure as the most broadly used structure and reflects an organization's top level of distribution of tasks. The task of the business management is to coordinate these diverse areas. This approach is essential for small and medium-sized companies, as the company management no longer has a complete overview when there are more tasks (Cummings & Worley, 2009). According to Schwetje and Vaseghi (2007), a functional organization's feature is the allocation of actually separate task fields, created through own management levels to ensure the functionality of areas. Examples of classifications of these areas can be product, functional aspects, or customer aspects. Instructions are given to staff members by one individual. The functional organization endorses specialization and labor division, suitable for organizations that do not regularly change qualitatively and have a standardized product range tasks (Cummings & Worley, 2009).

Cummings and Worley (2009) outline the advantages of a functional organization as promoting specialization in skills while utilizing the skills in their capacity and reducing duplication of resources. This type of organizational structure enhances staff members' development through a diverse workload within large departments and collaboration among professionals of similar careers. Due to direct leadership and contact with the superior functional organizations, they are ideally structured for a healthy communication flow (Cummings & Worley, 2009). On the other hand, it fosters departmentalization, limiting experiences of the workforce to their professions, which raises interdepartmental dependency. Due to the possible large amount of departments, accountability for the overall organizational results can be obstructed (Cummings & Worley, 2009).

Kennedy (2017) explains the matrix organization as an interface between an organization's functional and productional areas. The organizational structure of a company is distributed horizontally and vertically, often categorized into a project or product-related categories and functional work areas, forming the matrix (Azevedo, 2018). Whereas in traditional structures, managers are responsible for the respective functional areas, in the matrix organization, managers are also responsible for the individual business division as well. The matrix organization's goal is to combine the advantages of the divisional organization and the functional organization of a company (Azevedo, 2018; Kennedy, 2017; Sytch et al., 2018). It is similar to project management and is a multi-line system of the organizational structure. The matrix organization places high demands on senior managers and individual employees due to dual authority relations (Azevedo, 2018; Joseph et al., 2019).

According to Azevedo (2018), the matrix organization's advantages are the significantly shorter communication paths through no hierarchy and specialized management staff. It shows a better balance between managers with more vital teamwork trades. Azevedo addresses the disadvantages of the matrix organization with the need for more managerial staff. Moreover, he suggests that the decision-making processes can be somewhat blurred with more conflicts and competition within the team. The longer and cumbersome decision-making process show an increased need for communication. The possible excessive demands on employees can lead to burnout syndrome, and competence conflicts due to power struggles between employees are more likely (Azevedo, 2018).

According to Cambridge English Dictionary (n.d.), the term effectiveness has the meaning of "the ability to be successful and produce the intended results" or, in other words, benefits or degree of goal achievement. Organizational comes from organizing, designing, setting up, or building according to plan. The term organization, according to Cambridge English Dictionary (n.d.), is "a group of people who work together in an organized way for a shared purpose," it is understood accordingly to be the formal and informal set of rules of a system based on the division of labor. If the terms organizational and effectiveness are combined, it can be understood that organizational effectiveness measures the degree to which a company achieves the set goals through its organization.

Bustinza et al. (2019) imply that companies are very interested in consistently increasing the achievement of their goals through targeted organizational measures. In particular, they suggest that the higher market or customer-driven volatility and the higher risk for companies require dealing with organizational effectiveness. According to Bustinza et al., organizational effectiveness is impacted by technological change through resiliency capabilities. In particular, Human Resource Practices are resilience-enhancing and can be configured in specific collections to produce measurements to overcome uncertainty. The researchers found a direct link between resilience capabilities and organizational effectiveness. The explanation for this phenomenon can be drawn from responding fast to challenges due to open communication and information flow.

Additionally, Kareem (2019) argues that Human Resource developmental programs such as organizational-, career-, training-, and talent- development contribute heavily to the organizational effectiveness of an organization. In a similar study, Shet et al. (2019) found that performance management created discouragement, loss of trust, and confidence in performance-based evaluation in organizations. Therefore, Shet et al. (2019) offered an alternative, competency-based performance practices and found that this theory can boost organizational effectiveness. At the forefront of this research is organizational effectiveness through learning and development opportunities given to staff members building upon their competencies.

Babalola and Nwanzu (2020) conducted a study together evaluating if organizational strategy plays a predicting role in organizational effectiveness. The researchers found that organizational strategy does contribute positively to organizational effectiveness in a predictive manner. The explanation for this phenomenon is that organizations embrace a combination of strategies that fit the workspace's operational environment, which leads to clear communication in goal setting and objective articulation. Similarly, Minciullo and Pedrini (2020) suggest that organizational effectiveness strives for clear communication and information flow. For managers in the execution level to be successful, well-defined objectives have to be set. Furthermore, Minciullo and Pedrini suggest that for the board of directors to fulfill their primary obligation of supporting and monitoring the decision-making of managers, a fundamental understanding of stakeholder's expectations is needed. The research revealed that clear communication ultimately resulted in better information flow, which enabled the board of directors to execute in the intent of both organizations and therefore foster organizational effectiveness.

In another research, Nwanzu and Babalola (2019) determined that organizational effectiveness can be influenced through the relationship among organizational practices, organizational identification, and organizational self-esteem. Furthermore, Nwanzu and Babalola found that the right amount of organizational self-esteem and organizational identification facilitates a more substantial organizational effectiveness. On the contrary, Jovanović (2019) found that the impact of utilizing individual political behavior to advance careers can ultimately influence organizational effectiveness positively. The right organizational culture contributes to the overall effectiveness as well. According to Ali et al. (2020), transformational leadership can affect the individual behavior of staff members by influencing the value system through supervisor and subordinate-social network. Ali et al. found that the good indentations through interchanged relationships manifest in the form of stronger commitment and job satisfaction in organizations. Their findings revealed that organizational effectiveness was enhanced in organizations in which supervisor-subordinate social network was used. The social network builds a bridge between transformational leadership and organizational commitment and ties into employee job satisfaction.

For organizational effectiveness to thrive, internal motivation can be very effective. However, in today’s social awareness, more and more companies focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a driver to invoke organizational effectiveness. Baughen et al. suggest that the direction of organizational development in the traditional sense has been personal, divisive, and provocative and for establishments to accomplish organizational effectiveness truly, an organization has the responsibility and obligation to engage in CSR. Organizational health has to be focused on the organization and not on a societal or individual level, according to Baughen et al. The researcher argues that if change management emphasizes both organizational health and CSR, benefits will be offered to both society and the organization and contribute to organizational effectiveness.

Understanding the organizational structure, organizational culture, and the leadership styles used by the NBK managers may determine the lack of organizational effectiveness in this organization. Many researchers regarding organizational effectiveness have conducted numerous studies concerning these three core theories. Individual studies have proven that leadership styles affect organizational culture, others how culture positively influences the effectiveness in an organization (Babalola & Nwanzu, 2020; Minciullo & Pedrini, 2020).

Research conducted by Bustinza et al. (2019), Kareem (2019), and Shet et al. (2019) show the influence of organizational structure on organizational effectiveness. For example, Bustinza et al. (2019) sampled 205 firms that offered a broad number of organizations in the manufacturing industry, finding a direct link between organizational structure, resiliency capabilities, and organizational effectiveness. NBK FFR shows an unusually high turnover rate, which could be explained due to the many local opportunities in individual growth and the workload balance, which may be too challenging, causing a low resiliency within the organization.

In the literature reviewed, very little qualitative research has been conducted of organizational effectiveness in relations to matrix organization in a Government setting. Most research on organizational effectiveness and organizational structure is based on quantitative or qualitative research with action research as design. No literature has been found using a case study approach. Most studies were based on secondary data and not on interviews or surveys in a qualitative manner.

The CNIC FFR organization has multiple organizational structures. For example, CNIC operates in a divisional structure; the NRNW FFR organization is operating in a matrix structure. Simultaneously, individual programs at NRNW and NBK appear to be used in a functional structure. The literature elaborating on a different kind of organizational structure and what leadership styles would work best for these structures will allow more profound understanding of the execution gap at NBK FFR.

According to Shet et al. (2019), organizational effectiveness is an undefined complex theory that is often measured in goal and objectives execution with stakeholder satisfaction. Jha et al. (2019) suggest that organizations' actions should always contribute to the organization's effectiveness. They further advocate that success ineffectiveness only can sustain long-term through a committed workforce. Jha et al. documented that there is a relationship between strategy and organizational effectiveness but leadership styles, organizational culture also play a significant role in the effective execution of goals. Moreover, Jha et al. reported in related studies; they found that knowledge management also played into an organization's effectiveness.

This literature review suggests that successful project execution is interconnected among the following theories: organizational culture theory, organizational effectiveness theory, organizational structures, and leadership styles. However, the literature lacked information on how much these individual theories weigh into the project execution and processes on managing within specific organizational structures utilizing individual leadership styles effectively. As an alternative structure, the matrix organization has a tremendous need for strong leadership and culture.

In a 2017 study, Reynolds and Lewis found that 76% of staff interviewed cited that staff interaction is the cause of execution gaps. There is significant literature addressing leadership styles and theories suited for matrix organizations, as well as the literature of reasons for lack of execution of assignments. A study linking these theories with the existing organizational culture is needed to evaluate the execution gap. The goal of this research is to identify the core roots of the NBK FFR execution gap and closing these gaps by implementing proper business processes suited for matrix organizations.

It is not known how execution of special projects can be successful completed such as the development and opening of Navy Getaways, RV Storage, or similar revenue generating projects. The purpose of this qualitative case study is to determine how the execution of these projects can be improved within the NBK FFR organization. The chosen research site to evaluate the phenomenon of "How to resolve the delay in project execution in the matrix structured Naval Base Kitsap Fleet and Family Readiness organization?" will be the NBK FFR organization located at NRNW. Departments within FFR can see differentiation; it appears that specific departments are more successful in executing assignments than others.

RQ1: How can the execution of special projects such as the development and opening of Navy Getaways, RV Storage, or similar revenue generating projects be improved within the NBK FFR organization?

RQ2: What changes can be made to address the challenges found?

RQ3: How does the decision-making process affect the outcome of objectives in the matrix organization.

The chosen research methodology is qualitative research, as this study is based on the development of theoretical theories with a foundation of empirical data. Therefore, this qualitative study will identify isolated interdependencies or theoretical fragments, which can be further differentiated or validated (Jackson et al., 2007). Yin (2018) described the Case Study research design format as questions surrounding "why" or "how." Yin elaborates that case studies focus on current events and have no control over behavioral actions.

In order to examine the awareness of the problem with regard to organizational effectiveness in the NBK FFR matrix organization, the lines of communication, the willingness to implement new strategies, the perception, and decision-making processes within the organization must be traced. No recent qualitative case studies have been conducted researching the execution gap phenomenon in a federal government matrix structured organization. Qualitative research on the basis of organizational effectiveness in matrix organizations, as presented in Chapter II, is only suitable to a limited extent due to the lack of operational setting in the federal government.

The assumption based on selecting a case study as a research tradition for the chosen method is that most government professionals are not used to work in a matrix organization. Therefore, they are potentially experiencing change from what they know and believe of a traditional government organizational structure. This change has to be managed to allow the organization to be more effective. Therefore, the most suitable analysis approach for this complex phenomenon is the exploratory case study. A case study is characterized by the fact that the phenomenon represents an independent investigation unit, regardless of whether a person, an event or an organization (Rogers, 2021; Yin, 2018). The individual analysis object cannot be broken down into logical sub-units and embedded design, in which logical sub-units of the examination object are formed (Yin, 2018).

This qualitative research will examine Installation Program Manager's and Program Managers' perspectives on the matrix organization and the used performance management processes and how these affect project objectives. The phenomenon has to be first understood in-depth to be able to explore potential solutions. Therefore, this research method is exploratory (Yin, 2018). Exploratory research focuses on the how and why, while the goal is to define questions and hypotheses for a subsequent study or to conclude the viability of the desired research procedure (Yin, 2018). This qualitative exploratory case study is focused on organizational effectiveness in a government-driven matrix organization.

The population for this qualitative study is the NBK IPM's (upper-management), PM's (mid-management), and FM supervisors. The paygrade of these three groups ranges from NF03-NF04 and GS09 to GS12 for all individual NBK FFR departments: Fleet and Family Services (FFSP), Morale Welfare and Recreation (MWR), Food, Navy Gateways Inns and Suites (NGIS), Child Youth Program (CYP), Galley Services, Housing services. FFSP population consists of one NF04 IPM, one NF04 PM, and two GS12 PMs. MWR consists of one GS12 IPM, three NF04 PMs, and a total of 17 FM, a mixture of GS09-11 and NF03-04. NGIS consists of one NF04 IPM, one NF04 PM, and two NF03 FM. As one of the most extensive programs, CYP consists of one NF04 IPM, six NF04 PMs, and a total of eight FM, a mixture of GS09-11 and NF03-04. Galley Services consists of one CW3 IPM, one E07 PM, one GS-11 PM. Housing Services consist of one GS12 IPM, two GS11 PMs. They are making the population a total of 49 managers.

This qualitative research will use non-probability sampling since not all individuals will be given the chance of becoming a sample. There is no probability of population unity with this method as the selection is based on the subjective judgment of the researcher. The findings cannot be drawn from the sample for the entire population (Yeager et al., 2011). Non-probability sampling methods include convenience sampling, consecutive sampling, purposive sampling, snowball sampling, or quota sampling (Lavrakas, 2008).

The selected technique for this research is quota sampling, which is a unique systematic sample not chosen randomly. Certain quotas affect the range of participants instead (Bomela, 2020; Robinson, 2014; Schloderer et al., 2014). For the research, 12% of the population are upper management, 51% middle management, and 37% frontline management; therefore, the sample should show the same ratio. The desired outcome is to obtain more meaningful results as the ratios of the sample population corresponds with the entire population. This research will interview and survey a minimum total of 15 samples of the population. Therefore, two samples are from the upper management, eight from the middle management, and five from the frontline management level are needed as a minimum.