Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
this division were isolated or buffered from faculty. Their interactions were
primarily with faculty secretaries and administrative assistants. This division
was rife with territories and factions. The division's most notable subcultures
were the old guard and the new guard. The old guard believed that the existing
system had worked for many years and wanted to maintain it. The new guard
expressed a desire to experiment with new systems, including computerizing
many functions. The faculty was not satisfied with this division's performance.
Faculty members with questions would have to know the right person to call
or make several calls to find the right person for the function. Moreover, the
warring factions often prevented any work from taking place because people
on various sides would not talk to each other.
Both divisions were aware of the merger potential. Because of a long-standing
animosity between the two divisions, neither wanted the merger. The client-
representative service group feared losing its tightly knit social organization.
This division's faculty members feared losing the group's excellent service.
Staff in the second division did not want a client-representative approach. They
were accustomed to working within a specific function without any knowledge
of their peers' activities. From their perspective, the functional approach was
as effective as the client-representative approach.
When the director and the dean asked me to comment on the proposed plan
to consolidate research administration, I explained that research administra-
tion stood at an organizational crossroads. Many organizational configurations
were possible to improve overall performance. Merging the two divisions,
however, was not a solution. Although the merger seemed logical, it would
not be productive. Combining the divisions would escalate existing culture
conflict and significantly reduce overall efficiency. Mixing the client-
representative group with the function-oriented division would rip the social
fabric of the groups apart and diminish their capacity to serve faculty.
Similarly, the imposition of the client-representative approach on the function-
oriented group would catalyze conflict. The function-oriented group would
interpret collaboration as territorial invasion, prying, or even spying.
My recommendation was not to merge the two units, regardless of the
short-term financial benefits. Instead, I suggested that the client-representative
division remain untouched. The function-oriented group needed to know that
its social organization was respected, but it also needed assistance in reducing
internal strife and developing smoother contact with clients. Both groups
agreed with my descriptions and recommendations. The overall ethnographic
description of research administration convinced the dean to make the coun-
terintuitive decision not to merge the divisions.
This counterintuitive conclusion or crystallization derived from a detailed
study of each culture and its various subcultures. The emic perspective helped
Search WWH ::




Custom Search