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.