Seneca University Case Study Analysis

Xia He

February 28 2013

Introduction

The Seneca University study is to examine the politics that exist in the English

Department at Seneca University and, based on available information, to propose possible

solutions to this case. This subject, in particular, was selected because it relates to many of the

organization theories on political frame that are touched upon within the textbook.

Seneca practices autonomy in its management to each academic department, which has a

“head” to oversee his/her own department’s operation. As the head of English Department

Dorsett, he devoted most of his time to trivial details instead of issues of real consequence. The

department under his leadership made few curricular changes and had little improvement in

faculty development.

In order to improve the image of the department, a group of senior professors took over

the operation with the Dean’s agreement, which left Dorsett with no real authority a few years

before his retirement. However, many younger professors became disappointed with this change

because they were constantly excluded from important decisions and not recognized for their

accomplishments.

Before Dorsett’s retirement, the English faculties were desperate to find a replacement,

who can restore the department’s standing at the university. Professor Matthews stood out among

the candidates due to his strong academic background with an impressive publication list.

Despite his lack of administrative experience, he was offered the job.

After Professor Matthews took over the managing of English department, he tried to host

a faculty meeting without consulting senior professors ahead of the time, which then

consequently triggered dissatisfaction among them. In response, they took actions to criticize

every single proposal and even the attempt by Matthews to have a subcommittee discussion

failed. In the end, the dissatisfaction prevailed to the whole department and resulted in a signed

request by all for Matthews’ resignation.

Discussion

Due to the lack of leadership during Dorsett’s management, senior professors took

control of the department without the input of Dorsett. During this time, senior professors abused

their power position which led to the divide between themselves and the junior professors.

Because junior professors were excluded from decision-making, they didn’t have any

relationship with the dean. In the wake of Dorsett’s retirement and the introduction of the new

head, Matthews, he made the effort to be involved as much as possible. He wanted to be fair to

junior professors as well as senior professors, which, essentially, changed the system they were

used to under Dorsett. Senior professors felt that their power was threatened and got defensive,

trying to hold on to the power. Junior professors, however, were excited and welcomed and

supported Matthews’ proposal. They saw this as a chance to attain the power that they were

longing for.

Even with the support of junior professors, Matthews still couldn’t get enough

compliance from senior professors, leading to a standstill with all decisions.

Key problems

The first outstanding issue I see in this case is that senior professors in the English

Department overstepped their boundaries. Under Seneca’s policy, “Faculties serve in an advisory

capacity only and function as a “committee of the whole” when reviewing areas of departmental

administration.” Senior professors suggested that Matthews consult with them first and then

present the decisions at the faculty meeting. First of all, senior professors failed to serve their

advisory role. They deemed themselves as the authority instead. When their authority was

challenged by Matthews, senior professors, in various ways, set hurdles during his efforts to

make changes. Instead of making joint decisions, they completely excluded junior professors

from participating in decision-making and completely opposed the idea of “committee of the

whole”.

Secondly, the conflicts between senior professors and junior professors were long

standing. The dissatisfaction towards senior professors existed years before Matthews started.

While senior professors didn’t recognize or appreciate accomplishments by junior professors,

junior professors didn’t agree with their “traditional approach to the discipline”. The attitude

towards Matthews’ proposals to make changes was another indication of the conflict. Junior

professors were open to his changes and extended their support and input to each proposal.

Senior professors, on the other hand, mocked at each of them. The conflicts worsened during the

standing committee meeting, which was comprised of two faculties from each rank, and the

conflicts became irreconcilable and led to the cancellation of the later appointed standing

committee.

Solution

I want to take three pronged approach to the identified problems. It would be too sudden

to first make changes when a new manager starts his/her position. When the search committee

looked for candidates, the most important criterion was candidates’ ability to improve the image

of the department, which includes publishing of articles or journals by its faculties and the

amount of grants for research. Since Matthews was hired for his strength in academics, he could

first use his connection and influence to help professors in his English Department, senior and

junior, publish journals. With his experiences with ivy league institutions, he could have the

ability to acquire grants for his department to allow his staff to do research.

By helping his staff publish and bringing in grants for the department, Matthews could

demonstrate his ability to do what he was hired for: to improve the image of the English

Department.

Bolman and Deal describe “Organizations are coalitions of assorted individuals and

interest groups. Coalition members have enduring differences in values, beliefs, information,

interests and perceptions of reality” (Bolman and Deal, P194). In order to manage these

differences, it is vital to understand what the differences are. Matthews’ next priority could be

building rapport with his staff. Now that he has shown his staff his abilities, he has won himself

respect, which would create closer relationships with his colleagues. With these relationships, the

senior professors would be more willing to follow his lead.

Now would be a good time for Matthews to remind senior professors of the policy of the

university that “faculty serve in an advisory capacity only and function as a “committee of the

whole” when reviewing areas of departmental administration”. He could gradually bring junior

professors during decision-making processes. At this point, senior professors would most likely

be less reluctant to listen to Matthews.

It is very true about Bolman and Deal’s statement that “The political frame stresses that

the combination of scarce sources and divergent interests produces conflict as surely as night

follows day (P206)”. With individuals of differences in many ways, it is impossible to avoid

conflicts in organizations. Sometimes conflicts cannot be solved in ways that can satisfy both

parties. Matthews could stress the common interest for junior professors and senior professors:

improve the status of the English Department within the university and ask them to put aside

their personal interests.

In reality, people tend to think that there should be solutions to all problems. While they

struggle with finding consensus, they often lose the opportunities to make progresses, which

could be achieved by finding common goals. This is especially true if managers like to use

authority to force people to accept decisions. However, managing should be about building

personal relationships, using the relationships to find common ground and eventually succeed in

influencing the subordinates.