Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20



Organizational Analysis Paper

EDL 706

Jenn Islam

Setting the Case

Miami University is a large public institution. It is often referred to as the “public ivy.”

Miami has regional locations including: Oxford - main campus, Hamilton, Middletown, and

West Chester (all in Ohio) and the European campus in Luxembourg. On the main campus, there

are about 17,000 undergraduate students and about 2,300 graduate students (Miami University).

Miami is well known for its highly selective business program. Miami is also a predominantly

white institution, and this is depicted through the student, staff, and faculty populations.

The following is the mission of Miami University’s Office of Residence Life (ORL):

“Residence Life strives to provide a safe and supportive environment promoting academic

success, personal development, involvement in campus life, and understanding of intercultural

issues. We support the University's commitment to build citizen leaders for the future” (Office of

Residence Life). ORL covers the basis of all things related to housing, including but not limited

to: crisis management, building management, building programming/events, conflict

management and beyond. The staff of ORL consists of one director, three associate directors, six

assistant directors, 48 hall directors, including a mix of full-time personnel and graduate

students. There are three combinations of leaderships in buildings within ORL. Some are run by

a full-time Resident Director (RD), some are run by a Graduate RD, and some are run by both a

full-time RD and Assistant RD, who is also a graduate student. Graduate students are considered

professional staff. Compensation for all professional staff include an apartment within the

residence hall, a meal plan, and a paycheck.

On-campus living is mandatory for first-year and second year students. Some halls have

only first-year students, some have only second-year students, and some have a mixture. A huge

component of ORL is working with living learning communities, or LLCs. The purpose of these

clusters of students is to group students in the same residence hall with other students who have

similar interests in order to build community and promote a common goal (e.x. educational,

leadership, personal development, etc.). RA/Building programming is tailored to the LLC. Some

residence halls have multiple LLCs while others have only one.

Case Study

Though the department has a commitment to “understanding intercultural issues,” there

are still constant internal issues and microaggressions set towards employees with marginalized

identities, creating an exhausting experience for those that hold marginalized identities. Staff are

paired due to similar interests in LLCs as opposed to similar leadership styles or personalities.

Particularly between ARD and RD pairings, a mismatch in pairing can be problematic because

both will have to work together incessantly for the success of the building.

This case study will focus on my experience as a womxn of color ARD with a white

womxn supervisor who both have different leadership styles, and how that has affected the

department as an organization. This case study also uses pseudonyms throughout the paper as

opposed to real names to protect the privacy of those involved. I work in Hepburn Hall, which is

located in North Quad. The building serves 253 residents, about 70 of whom are sophomores.

The affiliated LLC is entrepreneurship. The department of entrepreneurship is housed within the

Farmer School of Business on the Oxford campus.

My supervisor’s name is Klementine. She identifies as a cisgendered, white, Jewish

womxn. Klementine works full-time and this is her first time working with a graduate student. I

identify as a cisgendered, Bengali-American, Muslim, womxn. This is my first time working in a

supervisory position. For the purposes of this case study, I will focus on these identities

mentioned as opposed to listing others that we both hold. In order to show how a lack of

understanding around various identities have lead to problems within the department ORL, I will

utilize a few personal anecdotes to set the stage.

In November, we had an LLC meeting with the faculty in the entrepreneurship

department at the business school. Klementine and I had been in communication via email with

the department and individuals that would be in this meeting. One of the administrators, a white

male, walked into the room and immediately shook Klementine’s hand and introduced himself as

Tommy. He then sat down quickly. I got up to shake his hand and introduced myself. When he

noticed me, he stared for a moment before he stood up to shake my hand and announce his name.

Being the only womxn of color at the table and having faced countless microaggressions already,

my initial thought was that that was a play on my identity as a womxn of color. He was not

expecting me to be at the table and was surprised that I was there, let alone one to stand up and

shake his hand. At the time, I saw Klementine as a mentor and looked to her for support and

guidance. When I brought up the situation with Klementine, she claimed that it was more so

probably because I was wearing jeans and looked like a student which could have caught him off

guard. She disregarded my interpretation of the situation.

In early February, returning RA selection took place. Professional staff gathered in a

single room. Each building was to call out the name of a returning RA that they would like to

have on their staff for the upcoming academic year. Klementine, myself, and a colleague,

Kristine, called out the same name of an individual. When this happens, both parties and a

mediator, which would be one of the Assistant Directors, would leave the room to talk about

which staff the RA should be in. Kristine is also a womxn of color. I mentioned that one of the

reasons that Klementine was interested in this particular RA was because because they shared a

marginalized identity that Klementine would like to mentor him through in the workplace.

Kristine asked what the identity was, and Klementine went on to explain. A few days later,

Klementine told me that she did not appreciate Kristine’s question and told Kristine’s AD so that

her AD would talk to Kristine, as opposed to respecting Kristine enough to have the conversation

with her. The issue was not the fact that Klementine felt bothered by the question and felt that

her voice needed to be heard, but rather her reaction and how she went about maneuvering

through the situation.

Earlier in the semester, I did not sleep in my apartment Hepburn for several days out of

the week. Klementine brought up to me that is not appropriate. However, the professional staff,

manual provided by ORL, merely states that time away from campus should be requested; the

manual does not state anything about spending time away from one’s building. Klementine was

not willing to accept this fact or understand the other interpretations that this vague policy may

hold. She asked me what I would do if one of my RAs was not sleeping in the building every

night of the week. My immediate thought was to ask the RA if there is anything in the building

that is making them uncomfortable in living there. To that, Klementine shook her head as I

finished my thought. It wasn’t the first time that I had experienced this, and every time hurt

because I felt silenced. I felt as if there was no point in me talking because I won’t be heard. She

claimed that I need to request to be away from the building, when I was told that I need to only

do so when leaving campus. In fact, that is also what the professional staff manual states:

focusing on off-campus as opposed to on-campus time away. She also wrote a letter about this

situation in my employment file. On the other hand my partner, who lives in another residence

hall named Elliott Hall, did not receive the same treatment as I did. When I asked my partner’s

supervisor on why this is so, he said that it was because this deserved a conversation and nothing

more. There is inconsistency in implementation of protocol within the department, extremely

dependent upon which supervisory line one is under, which is unfair but my reality.


The case I will analyze through this paper is the work relationship between Klementine

and I going awry because of differences in leadership approaches and personalities. I will

examine this case using three different lenses: political, feminist, and domination. The political

lens will focus on conflict of interest and the use of formal authority. The feminist lens will

discuss the differences in gendered leadership styles, specifically between collaboration and

competition. The domination lens will reintroduce the idea of formal authority and the

exploitation of those lower in the hierarchy in order to gain results.

Political Lens

The first lens I will examine this case through is the Political Systems Lens. The

definition of this lens is: “loose networks of people with divergent interests who gather together

for the sake of expediency (e.g. making a living, developing a career, pursuing a desired goal).

Organizations are coalitions and coalition building is a key part of organizational life” (Morgan,

2006, p. 161). This means that every individual in an organization has different motives for what

they do and why they do what they do in the organization. People have interdependent systems

of task, career and extramural interests which they use to position themselves in organizations.

There are three main attributes to this frame: interest, conflict, and power. Interest is

comprised of career, task and extramural interests. Klementine’s interests include making sure

that the building is intact and that all students are following the rules. There have been many

times that Klementine has expressed her disappointment in students to students themselves when

they break a rule like smoke on campus or park their car in a no-parking area. I am more people-

oriented. The brief aforementioned examples do not bother me nearly as much as other issues

like bullying, acts of microaggressions or racism. When President Trump was elected,

Klementine took the time to practice self-care and grieve in her apartment. However, I utilized

this time to reach out to students that I knew held a marginalized identity and listened to their

voices as they grieved.

Conflict occurs when various interests collide. I also value my self-care over my job,

where as Klementine is the opposite, and this is another instance in which we differ. Klementine

identifies as an extrovert whereas I identify as an ambivert, but one who leans closer to the

introvert side of the spectrum. When Klementine is bored, she roams the halls to chat with

students and check for building damages. However, when I am bored, I need time to myself so I

will knit or watch a movie in my apartment. Our interests greatly differ, which is why we run

into many conflicts. I am under the impression that Klementine is a workaholic and does not see

the value of self-care. Contrarily, Klementine is under the impression that I do not care about my

job or work hard enough. In reality, we have different ways of going about our jobs and we are

unable to acknowledge the other’s method.

Through the political metaphor, conflicts of interests are resolved through the use of

power. Power holds great influence because others are dependent on it. The source of power

influences who gets what, when, and how. For our situation, we relied on Susan as our source of

power. Susan holds formal authority, which is the first and most obvious source of power,

because she is an Assistant Director and Klementine’s direct supervisor. One who holds formal

authority also holds legitimized power, which is highly respected from a societal view, and this

power is acknowledged by those who interact with them. Because Susan holds formal authority,

Susan can control decision processes because she has the ability to influence outcomes. Also,

because of her position, Susan is also in control of more knowledge and information than both

Klementine and I, and those with more knowledge and information also hold more power. The

leader in the political model assesses individual interests and maintains power dynamics to

maintain organizational harmony. They view conflict as normal and seek to create and maintain

coalitions. The leader negotiates between dissenting groups to find common ground. They are a

realist who sees “mediated progress” as the appropriate outcome, and one who “serves” rather

than rules (Birnbaum, 1988). Susan usually tries to fit this definition of a leader within the

political lens by understanding different sides to a situation and placing judgement from there.

However, this definition was not practiced fairly in this scenario. Susan and Klementine share

leadership styles, and are also good friends outside of work. Because of their similar mindset and

personal relationship, Susan supported Klementine in her remarks regarding the nights I spent

away from Hepburn Hall as well as her decision to leave a letter in my file. In fact, Susan also

stated that if I did not change my behavior, then she will not continue to give me a position in


Of the five styles of conflict management, Susan used competitive this time. The five

styles of conflict management are collaboration, compromising, accommodating, avoiding, and

competing (Manning, 2013). I usually alternate between collaborating, compromising, and

accommodating, depending on the situation. Collaborating is when both parties learn from the

situation and the outcome is a win-win, leading to integration of resolutions and relationship-

building. Compromising is a give and take from both parties. Accommodating is when one

submits or complies to a request. Klementine tends to lean towards competing, where there is a

win-lose scenario and the conflict should be either avoided or judicially solved. As

aforementioned, Susan used competition as the resolution in this scenario. She listed scenarios

and instances that Klementine had provided her with regarding my work performance, and

utilized that and the professional staff manual to threaten my assistantship position.

I knew that racism, among other systems of oppression, was normal and expected in

many systems, including within higher education (Manning 2013). However, I didn’t believe it

until I experienced it myself. At this point, I did not have an assistantship lined up for next year.

Therefore, I accommodated her request and did my job on both Susan’s and Klementine’s terms.

I knew that an experience in ORL is completely subjective and highly dependent on one’s direct

supervisor and overall supervisory chain. I knew that in order to keep my job, I had to comply to

their requests, especially since it was not possible for me to change my supervisory chain at that

time. However, I also resisted and advocated for myself by utilizing a system that wasn’t meant

for me. I went to the Office of Ethics and Equal Opportunity, or OEEO, to report instances of

racial discrimination that I faced from my supervisor during my time in my assistantship.

Basically, though unofficial, I actually made a compromise. I consented to how my supervisory

chain would rather I do my job, but I also resisted Susan and Klementine by supporting myself in

going to OEEO to report the injustice I had been facing.

Some strengths of this case includes that it helps to overcome limitations of the idea that

organizations are functionally integrated systems. The political lens helps us recognize different

kinds of organizations & roles they play in society. It politicizes our understanding of human

behavior in organizations. This lens ideally describes a means of allowing individuals to

reconcile their differences through consultation and negotiation in order to secure goals.

Unfortunately, this was not well practiced in this case. However, there are also limitations to our

case. Seeing cases through the political lens is difficult because politics of the general distaste

people have towards politics. Additionally, an increased understanding of this lens allows us to

see an increased politicization of any or all organizations. Reacting to situations, in which we see

politics, in a rationally political manner may create more politics.

Another part of this lens that I could not find within my case is the concept of coalitions.

“Organizations are coalitions and are made up of coalitions, and coalition building is an

important dimension of almost all organizational life” (Morgan, 2006, p. 162). Coalitions are

groups of people with similar interests or goals. Dominant coalition or power elites are the group

with the power to influence organizational goals and direction. In this case, parties involved were

individuals as opposed to groups.

Feminist Lens

The second lens I will examine this case through is the Feminist Lens. It is also known as

connective or relational style leadership. Structural and procedural interconnectedness of

communication and leadership mark this approach. I believe that gender is socially constructed.

This lens states that all social processes, including power relations, are gendered. The lens also

distinguishes the difference between sex and gender, by clarifying that the sex of a person does

not signify what kind of leadership style they may uphold, though it may also be closely related

as it has been in most cases throughout history (Manning, 2013). Some characteristics of the

feminist lens include being adaptable, open, responsive, inclusive, collaborative, connected,

sharing of power, and utilizing the value of communication. Traditionally masculine traits

include emphasis on power & control, individual based action, and competition (Manning 2013).

Another aspect of the feminist style of leadership is that of the web. The metaphor of the

web fits womxn-centered, feminist oriented organizations. The web model varies greatly from

that of a hierarchy. Authority flows from the center of the web (Manning, 2013). There is an

emphasis on the connection between the authority and the people around it as opposed to the

traditional top-down approach. “The strategy of the web concentrates on drawing closer to that

center by drawing others closer, and by strengthening the lines and orbs that knit the fabric

together” (Manning, 2013). The web model emphasizes interrelationships and works to tighten

them. Group affiliation is placed in a higher regard than individual achievement. Communication

in webs of inclusion emanates from all directions and across all levels. Web leadership is

collaborative, consultative and non-elitist, aiming to have everyone included and active, which is

what I strive for.

I identify greatly with the feminist lens of leadership. I am drawn to the collaborative

form of leadership style. For instance, with my RAs, I often ask them for their feedback on my

supervision style. However, Klementine does not do the same. At the end of the year, we were

expected to give the RAs our final evaluation letter of them and have a meeting with them

discussing their performance. In these meetings, I also requested the RAs to give me feedback on

my performance and how I had improved from last semester to now, and the year overall. I find

it important to receive critique from those who I supervise about my supervisory skills. I am

more interested in receiving input and reaching a consensus than in issuing orders, unlike

Klementine. Needless to say, Klementine did not do the same. Klementine does not value input

from those below her in the hierarchy. Klementine gains appraisal through observances and

results of her own actions.

Additionally, when hiring RAs for the upcoming school year, I took a collaborative

approach and greatly took into account everyone’s feedback, including whichever RA I did the

interview with in the interviews I conducted myself along with the input that other ORL

professional staff members and RAs provided on other applicants in the online system. If there

was an RA that was enthused by an applicant but the professional staff member was not, based

on their words on the interview form in the online system, then I took both voices into great

consideration. I recognize that a professional staff member will be assembling the team of RAs

and has experience of what is necessary for a team because of their experience in supervising a

staff of RAs throughout the year. However, I also recognize that an RA may know what they

need in a team member more so than the supervisor because the RA will be the one directly

working with that individual, the RA applicant, in various projects. Additionally, the RA

understands the role of an RA in a more comprehensive manner than a supervisor because the

RA is living that experience currently. I value what needs to be done over who has the authority

to do so.

Klementine only paid attention to what the professional staff member had to say in the

applicant’s records because she did not give as much value to what the RAs had to say since they

are students and lower in the hierarchy of the ORL staff pyramid. Klementine reinforced the

hierarchy within ORL by not paying heed to what the RAs have to say. Klementine did not even

take my input into account. Her individual-based action and interest in power & control over the

process led her to select half of the RAs on her own.

Another aspect of the feminist style of leadership that is not applicable to my case is the

concept of thinking roles. (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). Though both Klementine & I took

diversity of experiences into account in selecting the RA staff, we did not take into account

diversity of thought. For myself, I was not aware of the concept of thinking roles at the time. For

Klementine, I suspect the same. Teams make up an organization. Teams perform and think

together. Team thinking involves different contributions of individual members of a team. A

thinking role is when one is playing out one specific type of thinking with one specific result.

There are eight types of thinking roles. The five core roles include the definer, who views reality

and originates the issue; the analyst, who examines, takes apart, and views reality, and probes the

issue; the interpreter, who looks at reality and does not question it, but explains the issue in

different ways so that different people will understand; the critic, who provides counter

arguments and raises issues others take for granted or prefer not to acknowledge so that the team

can recognize differences; and the synthesizer, who listens to and participates in processes,

builds summative picture as reality, and encourages team to recognize differences. The three

supporting core roles include the disparity monitor, which is similar to the interpreter in that they

help work through scenarios in what one might do and what might be best, and seeks

perspectives; the task monitor who works with what the definer gave brings attention to group

work processes while also reminding the team of their goal; and the emotional monitor who

relates teamwork to human feeling and emotions, and adheres work to relational issues

(Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). An individual could inhibit a multiple of these roles at once,

which is normal and expected.

Domination Lens

The final lens I will examine this case through is the Domination Lens. Through this

model, organizations are seen as a tool of domination where the elite exploit those who work for

them. The outcome through this model is to achieve organizational goals at whatever cost.

People in organizations are expendable and/or need to be controlled to further the selfish

interests of the elites who benefit from the organization’s success (Morgan, 2006). Individuals

and groups find ways of imposing their will on others. In this case, I am who is being controlled

at the whim of Klementine, who is representing the elite. Organizations are often instruments of

domination and there is an element of domination in all organizations. Modes of domination vary

but include bureaucracy as a social mode of domination; industrialization that develops and

extends the class system; occupational hazards including pollutants that cause illnesses and

workaholism; multinational organizations that create/contribute to world poverty. A leader in the

domination metaphor is the ultimate command and control leader who puts the needs of the

organization above the needs of people impacted by the organization in order to achieve success.

Max Weber describes two ways that domination occurs: (a) people are coerced by force

or threat, or (b) the ruler is perceived as having the right to impose will on others (Morgan,

2006). The ruler may be perceived this way because of patterns of formal authority, where the

ruler is viewed as having the right to rule and the subjects have the duty to obey. When

discussing occupational hazards, there is a discussion on whether or not graduate students are

considered to be exploited because they are in need of an assistantship, both for the purpose of

making a living as well as building their resumes as they enter the workforce after receiving their

Master’s Degree. With that mentality, it is possible for graduate students to be used and

exploited for the benefit of their employer. In order for the system of domination to be in play,

someone always has to be unemployed. Otherwise, there is no exploitation or competition.

Klementine was used to working independently. She had never had a leadership position

to share with anyone prior to. Additionally, She also hadn’t had a roommate since her first year

of undergraduate study, which was about ten years ago. She does not have much experience

working with people. With that said, the addition of an ARD, and the concept of working with a

graduate student, who would be a co-supervisor, definitely threw Klementine off guard as she

was unprepared for this situation. She did not know how to separate the concept between

working with someone on a co-supervisory level and supervising someone. Though ORL claims

that all professional staff members are treated as such, including graduate staff, this is not always

the case, especially in ARD & RD pairings. Instead, especially in my scenario, the “assistant” in

“Assistant Resident Director” was heavily emphasized as Klementine took the lead in many

situations, regardless of my consent or input.

In ORL, the director, Jeremy prefers a top-down approach in leadership. If an RA were to

have a question about protocol and asked Jeremy, then Jeremy would redirect them to their

supervisor. When asked why he prefers this approach, Jeremy stated that he didn’t want to take

the responsibility away from another’s job. Klementine also follows the top-down approach. For

instance, Klementine will often ask for updates from me, but will not always communicate

updates to me unless I ask her. She reinforces the hierarchy between us by showing that she has

more formal authority because she holds more knowledge than I do. Therefore, she is asserting

her dominance over me.

One of the aspects of our job is to handle upperclassmen room selection. I was not aware

of this. I thought that that would be completed between students and an online system, because

this was the case at my undergraduate institution. However, instead, I later realized that the hall

director of each building is in charge of handling the initial swoop of room selection for

upperclassmen. I did not know this until a few days before room selection because I did not have

anything communicated to me regarding such. Klementine did not involve me in the process.

Additionally, because she expects me to update her on everything but does not reciprocate this

act, she is reinforcing the hierarchy between an RD and an ARD while reinforcing her formal

authority and dominance. She achieved the goal of a successful room selection process for

upperclassmen at the cost of preventing me from learning about this process.

When Klementine put the letter in my file, she also wrote a list of tasks for me to follow

and if I did not comply, then I would be at the risk of losing my assistantship for both the

remainder of the year as well as for next year. She listed items such as hold office hours in the

evening, spend at least three office hours a day every day in the hall, among other duties

assigned. She knew that I was in need of this assistantship and exploited me and my time,

especially when she knew that my schedule was hectic. She controlled my work performance

and schedule by putting my job at risk because she wanted what she deemed as success of the

hall, by ensuring that there is incessant visibility from both myself and her.

One aspect of this theory that did not apply to my case is the idea of primary and

secondary labor markets. The primary and secondary labor markets preserve the status quo in

regards to race, class and gender in society. Another aspect is Multicultural Leadership.

Multicultural Leadership, with the emphasis on equity and structural and procedural openness to

all voices in the organization, is a counteraction to exploitation and domination in the

organization. The Multicultural Organization Development, or MCOD, transforms organizations

to socially just & diverse systems through questioning and assessing every day beliefs, values, &

practices. The process includes an assessment plan, an intervention plan, implementation, and


One limitation of this lens is that some might see this as crude conspiracy theory, looking

for domination where none exists – at least intentionally. There is danger in equating domination

with all organizations because we blind ourselves to the idea that non-dominating orgs are

possible. Some of the strengths of this lens include that it draws attentions to double edged

nature of rational action. This model helps us appreciate issues that fuel this radical frame. The

domination metaphor also helps us recognize & deal with perceived & actual exploitation in the

workplace, rather than merely dismiss it as a radical distortion (Morgan, 2006).

Storyline Analysis

Given the information in this case and the respective lenses through which it was viewed,

the most prominent lens that this case relates to is the feminist lens. If Klementine and I had the

same leadership style and approach in accordance with the feminist lens, then the political lens

and domination lens would not have complimented the feminist lens. I feel like the political lens

and domination lens are more closely associated with traditionally masculine traits, such as

competition. I also believe that if Klementine and I both took collaborative approaches in our

leadership styles, then a lot of our issues would not have surfaced. The following resolutions are

in accordance with the feminist lens.

Particularly between ARD & RD pairings, though this can be applicable for any type of

supervisory or co-supervisory pairing, the two parties should discuss their leadership styles.

There is no right or wrong way to lead, but there are different methods of leading that can lead to

conflict because of unexpected clashing ideals. They should discuss what values they hold and

which are most salient to them, when they prefer getting work done, how they choose to go

about their work, how they prioritize tasks, how they like to be communicated with, and other

ideas that may be of use.

Through the feminist style of leadership, transformation & social justice are always goals

for the organization and system (Manning, 2013). In order to achieve these goals, we need to

uphold the values of diversity that we preach. All staff need to learn and practice listening and

hearing skills. Workshops would be helpful with this, especially during training for all staff

during their respective training schedules.

Additionally, in accordance with the domination lens, we can implement the MCOD. The

MCOD seeks to alter organizations to promote and implement a more socially just mindset by

questioning and assessing underlying beliefs and traditions. The first step would be to create an

internal change team who would be responsible for all aspects of the MCOD process. The second

step is to assess the situation and formulate an intervention plan in order to increase awareness

and openness to multicultural change within the organization. The third step is to implement the

intervention proposal. The fourth step is to evaluate how effective the team, plan, proposal, and

process as a whole was. The MCOD would be helpful with assessment, strategic planning, and

curricular transformation. THE MCOD aims to educate the people within an organization in

multicultural perspectives.

In order to increase the success of an organization, we need to greatly take into account

Bensimon & Neumann’s concept of the eight thinking roles and what to consider when hiring

someone and shaping a team. As a reminder, the eight roles include: definer, analyst, interpreter,

critic, synthesizer, disparity monitor, task monitor, and emotional monitor. The use of these eight

roles will assist in making a better team and organization because this will help employers be

aware of team’s roles, notice patterns within the team, and select different people who have

different skillsets and thought processes (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). Different people who

are good at different types of specialties are great together for an excellent team.


I was in an ARD & RD pairing with Klementine. Our relationship went awry due to a

difference in leadership styles. A difference of understanding in cultural competency, in which I

had suffered, also played a part. The three lens that I viewed this case through were the political,

feminist, and domination metaphors. Of the three, the feminist lens was most aligned with the

case. Klementine identified with the more traditionally masculine traits, such as competition,

whereas I identified with the more feminine traits, such as collaboration. This was the foundation

of many of our issues, as we did not understand the other’s perspective. A number of solutions

were suggested, the most important of which is to listen to one another and hear the other’s

perspective. Communication is truly the key to success, meaning that it is important to advocate

for oneself, but also equally important to understand the other perspective.

Works Cited

Bensimon, E. & Neumann, A. (l993). Redesigning collegiate leadership. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press. Pp. 23-31; Chapters 4 and 6.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 145-150.

Manning, K. (2013). Organizational theory in higher education. New York: Routledge.

Miami University (2017). Quick Facts. Retrieved from http://miamioh.edu/about-miami/quick-


Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Office of Residence Life (n.d.). About the Office of Residence Life. Retrieved from