Chelsea McGuire is the chairperson of a communica- tion department at a universi

Question

Chelsea McGuire is the chairperson of a communica- tion department at a university in the southeastern United States. She has been chair for more than five years and has built a successful department. But Chel- sea has worried for some time that the department is too successful. Over the last few years, the number of communication majors in the university has steadily increased. When Chelsea took over as chair, there were 500 communication majors. There are now more than 800 such majors, with no indication that this trend will change. Unfortunately, university sup- port for the department has not increased at the same pace, and with only fifteen department professors, Chelsea knows that some kind of action will soon need to be taken. A month ago, she appointed two separate groups to study the problem and formulate enrollment manage- ment plans. First, she formed an ad hoc enrollment management committee to investigate the problem. Second, she asked the standing undergraduate curricu- lum committee to consider avenues for handling the preponderance of communication majors. Chelsea now has e-mails from each of these committees on her desktop and has scheduled a meeting of the full faculty to discuss options and come to a decision about enrollment management. Let’s first take a look at the notes from the two committees:

To: Dr. Chelsea McGuire

From: Dr. Walter Staniszews

subject: Enrollement managment plan

The Ad Hoc Committee on Enrollment Management has met on three occasions in the last month and con- ducted extensive research into enrollment management systems around the campus. Our goal was to deter- mine the optimal system for stemming the flow of majors into the communication department. In order to reach our goal, we conducted a systematic survey of all other campus departments to determine if they too had experienced problems with over enrollment in the past ten years. If they had experienced this problem, we inquired about plans that had been instituted to deal with the problem and established how well these plans were working. We also carefully compared the charac- teristics of other campus departments with relevant attributes of the communication department in consid- ering options for dealing with our own enrollment management problems. After committee evaluation of possible solutions, we have determined that three options are worthy of further departmental consideration: • Many departments have instituted additional course requirements for majors. These have served to make the major less attractive to many students. Specifically, we might want to consider instituting a requirement of two years of a for- eign language or a requirement of math and computer science. • Some departments have instituted strict grade point requirements for entry into the major. Although the university does not encourage this type of plan, the departments believe it to have been highly successful. Specifically, we might want to consider instituting a 2.5 GPA requirement for entry into the major and continuation in the major. • A few departments have instituted an application process for admitting students to the major. Although this system would require additional paperwork on the part of the department, it would discourage students who were not truly interested in being communication majors from becoming majors. The Ad Hoc Committee on Enrollment Manage- ment is looking forward to a careful evaluation of these options at the upcoming faculty meeting.

To: Professor Chelsea McGuire

From: Professor Jerry Gluesing

Subject: Enrollment Management Issue

At its biweekly lum Committee agement. We had a lively discussion on the issue, and it quickly became clear that a number of perspectives were possible. The committee was particularly per- suaded by the position of Dr. Tanaka, who, as you know, has been with the department for more than thirty years. Dr. Tanaka pointed out that we have had these crises of too many majors (or too few majors) many times in the past and have often spent an inordinate amount of time looking for the proper solution to the problem. Dr. Tanaka argued convinc- ingly that enrollment ups and downs are part of the natural life cycle of an academic department and that we would be rash to institute major curricular or policy changes at this point. Indeed, as Dr. Tanaka pointed out, we have made few major changes to the program in the past twenty-five years, and over the long haul, enrollment has remained at a healthy but manageable level. Thus, although we would certainly enjoy discuss- ing alternative ideas, our committee would suggest that no action be taken at this point. If necessary, we can revisit the issue next year at this time. With these two memos in hand, Chelsea is now get- ting set to lead a faculty meeting where the sole agenda item is the discussion of an enrollment management system. Her leadership in the past has always been highly participative. She has generally gone along with the will of the faculty in making departmental decisions, and she has been pleased with the effect of this decision-making style on both the quality of deci- sions made and on faculty morale. However, she is now concerned that this style might not work for the enrollment management decision, and she is going into this meeting with a bit of trepidation.

CASE ANALYSIS QUESTIONS

1. How would you characterize the decision-making styles of the two committees that considered the enrollment management problem? Would you characterize either of these processes as more effective or appropriate to the decision under consideration?

2. What advice would you give to Chelsea McGuire for the upcoming faculty meeting? Should she retain her typically participative decision-making style? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of style in this type of decision- making situation?

3. Are there specific decision-making strategies that would be helpful in making an effective decision regarding enrollment management? What com- munication behaviors would you watch for in the upcoming meeting to assess whether an effec- tive decision-making process is being used?

4. How does this case illustrate the various kinds of organizational knowledge and the knowledge management process? Given what you know of this department, do you believe it will be able to adapt to more changes in the organizational envi- ronment? How do you think this department would react, for instance, to a call for more online courses as a way to serve even more students?

Explanation / Answer

1. The decision taken by the two committees differ on a large scale. Starting with the Ad Hoc Committee, the decision taken was analytical. They have relied on direct observations, datas and facts to determine the best outcome. They have walked the extra mile to conduct surveys accross other departments and compared their problem with the problems faced by all other deparments and came up with the best strategy among the pool of solutions to tackle the problem at hand. What biweekly lum Committee has done is more of a directive style decision making. This is more of a rational and autocratic style.This form relies on a single person's knowledge, experience and insight, in this case  Dr. Tanaka. This type of rational thinking works good for a short run.

Given the fact that there are less department professor in comparision to communication majors, to be exact there is approx 1 prof for every 54 students. And looking at the rate of growth (exactly 60%), managing students and quality will surely degrade in the future. Solution provided by the Ad Hoc Committee is more effective in the long run. It will not only bring the matter under control but also will ensure that students who are interested in the major takes up the class and not those who look for an easy escape for their career. With a good Prof and student ratio, productivity will increase which will also result in the better performance grading of the deparment.

2. I would advice Chelsea McGuire to come up with a different style of decision making. Her past type typically participative decision-making style to include and to walk along the faculty decision will most probably fail as there are two decisions which are poles apart. She cannot make one happy without making the other sad. She should weigh down the conclusion provided by each committee and come to a consensus which will work for the greater good of the department. What is more important here is to retain the quality and reputation in the long run. She needs to bring two committee to a common forum , afterall the goal is for the betterment of the department.

Advantage: This will keep the faculty on high morale and encouragement. Any problem faced again, the faculty will be more energetic in solving the issue as they feel that they are being recognized and valued for their contribution.

Disadvantage: Not all times the decision made by the faculty is good for the deparment. This is where the management comes in. It needs to crosscheck all available solutions and come up with a more advanced and effective solution which may not be welcomed by the faculty but would be best for the department.

3.Yes, as a matter of fact, there are!!! The first and the most important criteria for the two committees and Ms Chelsea McGuire is to look at the discusion objectively. Infusion of emotion and biases will not take you anywhere and furthermore will leave everyone else discontent. Before going for a meeting, there should be strategic plannng of all the alternatives available with their briefed out pro and cons. Be open to crticism and always have a open mind to new ideas. Strip down the deciding factors.This strategy is useful when your decision is particularly difficult. Instead of trying to think of everything that could possibly be accounted for when making the decision, try to limit what you have to interpret. For Ms Chelsea McGuire this strategy goes an extra mile of making a SWOT analysis and a cost effective analysis. Also in this particular case, Chelsea McGuire has to work towards brining the two parities to a consensus. She needs to convince the committees of her final decision as they are the ones who would be carrying out the final strategy.

4. The knowledge management process is best depicted by the first committee who has gathered the facts and datas, processed the collected, organised and summarized the information and analysed it to bring out the best strategy.

The second committe just relied on the experience of a single person and arrived at a conclusion. While fishing out solution out of one's experience is considered good but this doesnt work all the times, spevcially when the world is moving fast and ever changing. One should explore all the alternatives to find the best solution.

In the report by the second committee, there are two distinct words mentioned :"persuaded" & "convincingly" which implies that Dr. Tanaka took extra effort to convince the committee that inclusion or change in the existing system will not make an impact much. She has further argued that this happens all the time and they had faced such problem in the past, which has consumed inordinate time and that this is a part of the cycle. The tone used in here is of indifferent to the problem. She has worked there for a long time and as the passage suggests has gone to great lengths to "convince" the committee not to bring any changes suggests that any change will nit be welcomed with open arms. If they are forced to do so is another story.

The department would neither overjoy nor would they complain. This is clear from the statements made by Dr. Tanaka who has worked for 30 years. Online class can be conducted in parallel to the classroom teachings. This would require a little extra effort which in my opinion the department would agree to. But for  Ms Chelsea McGuire, this would be another burden and she would definitely not agree to that.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.