1. What is the usual leadership situation in a university academic department (consider the nature of tasks, subordinates, and the environment)?

2. Describe the Acting Dean's leadership style and evaluate whether he used appropriate influence tactics in this situation to get promoted.

3. Once promoted, what power did the new Dean possess over the Business School faculty, and did he use it effectively?

4. What power bases and influence tactics were used to get the new Dean dismissed?

When the Dean of the Business School was recruited by another university, the Associate Dean was asked to serve as the Acting Dean until a new dean was selected. The Associate Dean had been doing staff work that included planning how to make good use of the new building already approved for the Business School. He told the Provost and University President that in order to be effective in obtaining additional funds for the new building, he needed more status and authority. They decided to appoint him as the new Dean of the Business School without consulting the faculty or conducting a regular dean search. The new Dean planned to use his power to support budget requests, faculty appointments, and decisions about tenure, promotion, and sabbaticals to change some things that he did not like.

The Business School had very successful masters degree programs with excellent placement of graduates in good jobs. One unique feature of the MBA program was the option for MBA students in three of the five departments in the Business School to do a field project instead of writing a masters thesis. The field projects involved a team of two or three students in the final year of the program who conducted a mini-consulting project in a local organization under faculty supervision. The field projects provided the students an opportunity to learn more skills relevant for their career, and many of the MBA graduates were hired for good jobs in the companies where they had conducted a field project. Except for nonprofit organizations, project clients were charged a fee that was used to cover project expenses and to support faculty research. The new Dean resented his lack of control over the use of funds generated by the field projects. In conversations with the Provost, who had responsibility for administration of academic programs, he falsely claimed that the field projects were improper, ineffective, and should be eliminated.

The new Dean also failed to appreciate the importance and benefits of the small doctoral program that was housed in the Business School. It was a low-cost program because much of the required coursework involved using some of the MBA courses and some doctoral courses in other parts of the university such as the School of Public Administration. The Business School only needed to provide a few doctoral courses, and members of the program faculty did not get workload credit for supervising doctoral research projects and dissertations. Because he lacked the publications and research skills needed to supervise doctoral research, the new Dean had never been invited to join the doctoral program faculty, and it was a source of resentment for him. In conversations with the Academic Vice President, the new Dean claimed that doctoral students funded by graduate assistantships made no worthwhile contribution to faculty research and were less effective than adjuncts for teaching undergraduate courses. Both claims were false. The research supported by doctoral students was being published and had even won best paper awards. The careful selection and training of doctoral students for teaching undergraduate courses yielded high student ratings for these courses. It was difficult to find qualified adjuncts, and adding more of them would reduce the chance that the upcoming accreditation review for the undergraduate programs would be successful. Without consulting the doctoral program director and faculty, the Dean made a decision to eliminate the funding of most assistantships for doctoral students. He figured that the members of the Business School faculty who did not participate in the doctoral program would not care if it was ended.

The new Dean made little effort to socialize with members of the Business School faculty or to keep informed about their activities and challenges. Unlike previous deans, he did not host an annual party for faculty at his house or a country club. When the Deans efforts to eliminate the doctoral program and MBA field projects were discovered, a secret meeting was held for full-time faculty and most of them voted to remove the Dean. The Provost was informed about the Deans lies, arbitrary bad decisions, and lack of faculty approval. Her initial resistance was overcome when she was reminded that his qualifications for the position were weak and there was no affirmative action search, which is a university requirement for selection of deans. A decision was soon made to dismiss the Dean and initiate a proper search for a replacement.