STCO 372 Liberty University A Drop in the Bucket Case Study-assign.pdf

Unlike most of the case studies in this textbook, this one is a true story. It is a story that I first heard

through an academic paper written by Owen Lynch and Zach Schaefer (Lynch & Schaefer, 2012), and it

recounts the events of several years earlier when Owen was working as a teacher at a private

preparatory school while he was in his PhD program. Owen and Zach describe a series of tumultuous

meetings that occur over a several month period at the high school and relate them to the larger ideas of

this chapter—the interplay of conversation and text and how organizations are constituted through flows

of communication. In the space available here, I won’t be able to do justice to all the complexities of this

case and will just highlight a few crucial scenes. But let’s start with an understanding of the setting—a

place Lynch and Schaefer call “The Prep.”

comes from the small informal classes and the engaged learning philosophy but most of all the close

relationship between students and teachers. (Lynch & Schaeffer, 2012)

Sounds idyllic, right? Unfortunately, times change and The Prep changed, too. By the time Owen

worked there as a teacher, 70% of the students were day students, the city had grown up around the

school, and the economy and a series of bad investment decisions had led to a serious fiscal crisis. To

deal with these issues, The Prep brought in a new Headmaster, hired a new chief financial officer

(CFO), and convened a “benefits review committee” that included members of the Board of Trustees,

community members, school administrators, and one faculty representative—Owen. The committee met

a number of times, discussing topics including school history and culture, relationships to donors,

comparisons of The Prep with other high-quality preparatory schools, hiring practices, and benefits

maintain the tuition waiver. These individuals argued that the tuition waiver was part of the school’s

history and culture and that many faculty and staff chose to work at The Prep in part because they were

“investing in their children’s future.” During a meeting break, Owen asked the CFO, “Was not every

person here promised the dependent tuition waiver when they were hired? I know I was.” The head of

the high school produced letters from teachers pleading that the benefit not be cut and examples of job

offers teachers had turned down because they were counting on the tuition waiver at The Prep.

On the other side of this argument were members of the Board of Trustees and the CFO. One trustee

pointed out that the tuition waiver was not a “formal policy” and that sometimes difficult decisions

needed to be made in the name of fiscal responsibility. Another argued that “the policy is not equitable

to the faculty members who do not have dependents,” and the CFO brushed off concerns about faculty

a “productive meeting” and that “we will not reach a consensus on this topic in this room.” After

requesting further feedback from faculty, the meeting was adjourned.

reductions to the staff benefits package—including the elimination of the tuition benefit—using facts and

figures to demonstrate the scope of the crisis. He was making a clear argument that something needed

to be done if The Prep were to successfully weather the storm, and that the “something” needed to

include sacrifice on the part of the faculty. He also noted, however, that many faculty and staff children

would be eligible for financial aid and would hence still be able to attend The Prep as their parents

So we have examined two crucial scenes in the drama of The Prep and its fiscal crisis; one scene a

committee meeting, the other a faculty meeting. The final scenes of this case took place across a wide

swath of locations at The Prep, including the mail room, the parking lot, bathrooms, and offices. In these

scenes, the starring role was played by a photocopy of a bucket into which a single drop is about to fall.

The artist who created this rendering was a mystery, but its meaning was clear, and Owen recounts that

the image spread quickly: “It was posted in clever places all over the school, on the wall of the faculty

lounge, on the door of the stall in the men’s bathroom next to the CFO’s office. I personally observed a

teacher who, finding the bucket picture in his box, laughed, and then, as he walked past the new

headmaster’s car, put it under the wiper like a ticket.” In short, the bucket could not be avoided.

We could go further in recounting events at The Prep. There followed yet more discussion and another

concluding meeting of the benefits review committee. Eventually a compromise was reached in which

tuition benefits would be cut for future hires but maintained for current faculty and staff. In short, there

institutional positioning?

2. This case describes a number of specific interaction episodes. Can these episodes be

understood as conversation in the terminology of the Montreal School? What texts are drawn

on during these conversations? Do different participants draw on different texts? Do other

interactants in the conversation accept the authority of the texts that are drawn on?

3. What are the implications of the bucket drawing in terms of textual agency? Relatedly, how can

we understand events in this case using the concept of ventriloquism? Can we see either the

bucket drawing or Owen as a dummy who speaks for others in the organization? If so, whom is

being spoken for, and what are the implications of anonymous author in the case of the

bucket?

Case Study: A Drop in the Bucket

Student's Name

Case Study: A Drop in the Bucket

Question 1

place within the case study and have displayed specific flows such as self-structuring flow.

When the meetings were happening, the head of the benefits review committee delivered the

committee's concerns and consideration to remove the tuition waiver for the children of faculty.

Later on, after the discussion ensues, two sides of varying arguments emerge to defend their

opinions.

Additionally, the discussion took place in a hierarchical manner whereby the higher

leadership decided to get rid of the tuition waiver and expected their juniors to follow the

directives. God outlines authority structures that provide direction for the family, church,

workplace, and government in the Bible. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For

there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1). The flow

highlighted in this scenario is member negotiation; it is visible when the two opposing sides

defend what they believe is right. The faculty members wanted to maintain the tuition waiver and

CFO's text was intended to mean that the small effort is among other reforms that would

contribute to the eventual change of the institution's crisis. On the other hand, the faculty

compared the amount saved after cutting the tuition benefit as a drop in the bucket. They took the

meaning of this "text" as a loss of the tuition benefit for no significant contribution. Therefore, it

led to shock, indignation, and heated discussions among the faculty team, who hoped their

Question 3

The bucket drawing in this scenario has been used for emphatic purposes. It was

developed to support further the faculty's argument on why it was unreasonable for the

committee to get rid of the tuition waiver. Since no significant financial savings were gained

from the process, it was unreasonable to proceed with the implementation. The bucket drawing

clearly outlines the meaning of the phrase thus, create a clear picture. Ventriloquism refers to the

idea that one agent in an organization can do the speaking on behalf of others. In this case, the

transparent and was quickly spread across the institution without offending the management.

The bucket drawing and Owen may be seen as dummies that speak for others within the

institution. They speak on behalf of the faculty team, who are unhappy with the committee's