1) The English Department at Seneca University was facing political issues related to power dynamics between senior and junior professors. Senior professors excluded junior professors from decision-making. 2) A new department head, Professor Matthews, was hired to improve the department's standing. However, his attempts to involve both senior and junior professors threatened the senior professors' power. 3) The conflicts between senior and junior professors stemmed from the senior professors' abuse of power and exclusion of junior professors from decisions. Professor Matthews proposed solutions to build relationships and find common goals to improve the department.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.