Running head: SENACA UNIVERSITY

DeNeatria Robinson
Loyola University Chicago
ELPS 459: Case Study One

SENECA UNIVERSITY

Synopsis of Scenario
In this case study, Seneca University has recently hired Professor H.G. Matthews as the
new departmental head for the English Department (American Council in Education, 1989).
Under the previous administration of former head, Professor Adrian Dorsett, the department
began to fall apart and administratively and functionally lag behind its peer institutions. All
faculty were in agreeance that Dr. Matthews was hired to bring in some much need creativity and
new direction for the department. Upon his arrival, Dr. Matthews encountered specific social
norms that he was not aware of in the department. First, the previous department head, per the
Deans approval, had allowed a group of self-selected yet highly influential senior faculty the
ability to direct and carry out the operations of the department. Second, there was a noticeable
interpretation of role significance among the senior (full professors) and junior (associate and
assistant professors) faculty, which usually resulted in intense conflict. As a result, Dr.
Matthews carried out several formal actions that opposed the expectations senior faculty had set
forth for the bureaucratic maintenance of the department. Though several attempts were made to
lessen the degree of divergence, neither Dr. Matthews or senior faculty were willing to
completely cater to the other. A few months after he was fired, Dr. Matthews was asked, by
twenty-one out of the twenty-six senior faculty members, to resign as the Head of the English
Department of Seneca University.
Frameworks
The overall struggle within this case study is difference in expectations and minimum
interest in shifting ones position or realm of power. The two parties that seem to be the most
involved in the conflict are the senior faculty and Dr. Matthews. Junior faculty have their own
conflict with the senior faculty but are for the most part not in direct conflict with Dr. Matthews.

SENECA UNIVERSITY

From the interactions shared between the two main parties, there are two separate frameworks
surfacing under which each is operating separately. Senior faculty seem to operating from a
symbolic frame where the organizational system is primarily driven by meaning making as a
result of traditions, values, and symbolism (Bolman and Deal, 2013). Whereas, Dr. Matthews is
operating from a structural frame where the primary focus is on a top-down approach that
includes the delegation of tasks and cooperation. Both frameworks will be explored in more
depth.
Symbolic/Cultural Frame
The symbolic, sometimes known as cultural, framework is fundamentally the
composition of beliefs, ideology, rituals, and myths used within a social system (Masland, 1985).
These actions create meaning for members within these social systems. In an anthropological
approach to this frame, all members of the system play a role in shaping that culture and creating
meaning from a range of experiences (Manning, 2013). Dr. Dorsett played a strong role in
creating a specific culture. The case study describes Dr. Dorsett as a figurehead towards the end
of his appointment as department head. His passive approach initiated the transformation of the
departmental head position into functioning more as a symbol for the department versus the role
of an active leader. Thus, also set the tone for faculty to create their own meanings for their roles
within the department.
During the second faculty meeting, a senior professor stated (American Council in
Education, 1989):
The fundamental issue before this faculty is not the approval or rejection of the
committees recommendations, but whether we shall approve the violation of established

SENECA UNIVERSITY

traditions of this department and the circumvention of duly constituted arrangements for
the conduct of our business.
The primary concern was not what initiatives Dr. Matthews was supporting, but the
manner in which they were being carried out. Faculty had been operating under the culture that
Dr. Dorsett had set forth, or more so allowed to occur, for so long that procedures were now seen
as ceremonies and the functioning of them were now seen as traditions in the department.
Manning (2013) shares that one of the assumptions of the symbolic frame is that it, Explains
how organizational members make meaning within the day-to-day of organizational life (p.92).
Dr. Matthew not continuing the tradition of presenting information to the senior professors first,
before sharing it with the entire department threatened a tradition that affirmed the legitimacy of
the role of a senior faculty. This sheds light on the underlining motif of senior faculty when
consistently opposing Dr. Matthews or junior facultys innovative initiatives. Further
examination of the structural frame also offers some insight into why these two frames could not
coexist at this university.
Structural Frame
Having roots in the industrial field, the structural framework reflects a more managerial
style. It sees organizations as an organism that works best under rationality and the proper
division of roles in order to ultimately complete specific goals and objectives (Bolman and Deal,
2013). The unique challenge in this scenario is not that there is an absence of structure but that
there is miscommunication of what structure is supposed to resemble in the English Department.
According to the by-laws of Seneca University, the departmental head has the power to make the
final decision on matters that affect their department exclusively. The faculty do not have the

SENECA UNIVERSITY

power to make final decisions, but can work in an advisory capacity (American Council on
Education, 1998).
Birnbaum (1988) tells us that the rationality assumed in the structural model operates
with the understanding that the purpose of the decision making is to create outcomes that
maximize the values of the decision maker (p. 57). Both, Dr. Matthews and the senior faculty,
feel like they are the decision makers and want to maximize their values. Dr. Matthews has
shown he is capable of implementing administrative structure such as organizing meetings,
creating committees, and realistic objective setting. However, senior faculty expect Dr. Matthew
to carry out the same format of structure they have become accustomed too.
There are two issues within the structural frame; allocation of work and integration
(Bolman and Deal, 2013). When two forms of structure are attempting to remain present in the
same space, there is tension and inevitable collision. Thus a culture that does not yield results
nor accomplishes goals is created. This is seen when Dr. Matthew organizes a faculty meeting to
start discussion changes that will need to be implemented before the academic year. Due to push
pack and a non-cohesive department, he has to abandon hope of implementing major proposals
in the immediate future. This is problematic for the future of the department, as they were
already deteriorating. Recommendations using the lens of the structural frame and the previously
mentioned symbolic frame, were designed in hopes of shifting the organization on the
challenging path it is now on.
Recommendations
In consideration for both the symbolic framework and the structural framework,
recommendations have been listed as following:

SENECA UNIVERSITY

First, it is recommended that Dr. Matthews compromises with senior faculty while
instituting set expectations. Expectations of both faculty and the Dr. Matthews were never
explicitly laid out. It will go a long way if Matthews at least shows an effort to meet the faculty
halfway instead of expected that all of them will follow his lead. Matthews could propose
creating an elected committee comprised of senior faculty instead of the larger senior faculty
meeting that the group has traditionally utilized. This committee would take the nominations and
votes of both the senior and junior staff. The hope is that; some senior staff would work to
befriend the junior staff in order to secure votes. Within this structure he would solicit the input
of that elected committee first but also inform them of role in alignment with Seneca University
bylaws.
Second, it is recommended that Dr. Matthews works harder to acknowledge the people
within the department. This can be done through teambuilding such as: creating a retreat or
teambuilding experience that is not academically driven and allows faculty to meet outside their
university roles. There are two distinct incidents where Dr. Matthews did not recognize or
formally address the frustrations of the senior faculty. Once, when the senior faulty came to his
office and expressed their grievances. Instead of answering with annoyance, he could have
affirmed how they felt and then continued to tell them his vision for the department. The second
occurrence was during the second faculty meeting where he listened to the formal complaint of
his actions, ignored what was shared, and continued to carry on with the meeting. The
department as a whole will benefit from this cultural shift to a proactive and affirming
environment.
Last, Matthews can give staff more responsibility. The senior faculty want to be seen as
powerful or more elite than the junior staff. Dr. Matthews can use this to his advantage by giving

SENECA UNIVERSITY

them more responsibilities in areas that do not interfere with the functioning of his position. He
can make the senior faculty a stand-alone committee for an initiative or challenge/encourage
them to lead in the professional development of the junior faculty. Though he seeks approval of
the faculty for major changes in the department, as the head of the department he still reserves
the right to implement change as he sees fit since faculty are only to operate in an advisory
capacity. This recommendation would ideally alleviate some tension when it came to making
decisions.

SENECA UNIVERSITY

References
American Council on Education. (1998). Seneca university. Institute for College and University
Administrators Seneca University. Washington, DC
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(Fifth Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Manning, K. (2013). Organizational Theory in Higher Education. New York: Routledge.
Masland, A.T. (1985). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. In M. C. Brown II
(Ed.), Organization and Governance in Higher Education 5th Edition (pp. 145-152).
Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing