– Please use collegial frame to address the role of president, provost, and dean.- must be around 4 to 5 pages.- we call it collegial and also we call it human resource.-add the work to the previous work.please use proper citation. mention also page numbers.i will also provide you the previous work on collegial which you have done it before. so you can get an idea.after you finish this i will send next part




Unformatted Attachment Preview

Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Case Study “Hard Line on Social Groups”
Reflections: “Hard Line on Social Groups” by Jeremy Bauer-Wolf
Collegial systems are evident in most higher learning institutions (Manning, 2013).
This paper focuses on a case study of the Harvard University where a panel of faculty
members and administrators aim at eliminating Greek life and prevalent exclusive groups.
Accordingly, the paper is a consolidation of reflections centered on collegial frames in the
Background of the case
The Harvard University case involves the faculty committee’s decision to shut down
fraternities, sororities as well as other exclusive clubs, which are surprisingly not affiliated
with the university. The faculty also recommends that students should not be permitted to
join these fraternities and clubs during their study term in the university. These activities are
part of an exertion to eradicate aspects of discrimination among the campus groups.
Accordingly, the faculty committee seeks to completely bar students from final clubs and
Greek organizations and ultimately eliminate the organizations by 2022. These
recommendations by the faculty members are after a policy instituted last year by Harvard
University President Drew G. Faust which notes that students joining the final clubs and
Greek life would deter from assuming leadership positions in other on-campus clubs or other
athletic teams. These students would also not receive a recommendation for high-status
scholarships. This policy invited great backlash from students and supporters of Greet life
and final clubs. The Harvard President presented the argument that the policy was a result of
reports of women harassment in club events. The report issued by the university’s faculty
committee also comprises of an unsigned letter from a student who was once a member of the
final clubs, and in the letter, the student argues that the organizations foster inequity and
subsequently supports their abolishment. This stance is, however; opposed by a member of
the committee, David Haig, a professor of biology, who claims that the committee depended
on testimonies of students who fought such clubs. He proceeds to state that he receives
numerous comments from students on the positive contributions of the clubs as opposed to
their sanctioning. An impartial Harvard chapter noted that it was disappointed that the faculty
committee dismissed the interests of the Harvard students. The recommendations by the
faculty committee perceived as interfering with the students’ freedom of association and
speech, which are fundamental in their intellectual and spiritual growth (Bauer-Wolf, 2017).
Collegial systems in the Harvard Case
Establishment of collegial frames and related aspects in the Harvard case require
focusing on three key areas: the overall characteristics of the collegial system, the collegial
structure with emphasis on the faculty culture, and the human resource frame which is about
theory x and theory Y. Numerous aspects point towards the collegial structure of the
institution. To establish the collegial systems in the case, one has to emphasize the elements
of consensus and shared commitments between the students or else between the faculty
members. The presence of Harvard students in Greek life and final clubs shows that there is a
collegial system in the institution. The exclusive clubs are often founded and driven by likeminded people. Collegial systems, according to Birnbaum (1991) established through loops
of interaction where individuals have similar attitudes. Collegium members, influence one
another through a network of personal exchanges entrenched on value consensus and aspects
of reciprocity. However, there is also a predominant aspect that the collegial system is not
well structured in Harvard. According to Birnbaum (1991), sustenance of an overall
perception of a community that leads to a collegial organization requires the presence of
shared attitudes and values on matters within an organization. It is not the case in Harvard as
there is a vivid division between the position adopted by faculty members and the students. In
a similar vein, the collegial system in Harvard is not hierarchical, an aspect that is dominant
in the institution’s bureaucratic system. It ought to note that both systems co-exist in the
institution. Thus decision making relies on thoroughness, deliberation, and achievement of a
consensus. Even though the former part of the last statement is evident in Harvard, the latter
aspect involving an agreement is conflicted. Birnbaum (1991) argued that consensus in a
collegial structure does not seem like a necessary call for unanimity, however; it requires
open discussion where all “Participants have fair chance to state their position and to
influence the outcome” (p. 88). It directs to the aspect of egalitarianism which is also noted
by Bolman and Deal (2013) they argued that egalitarianism in collegial systems involves a
democracy where employees are engaged in decision making. It is not an aspect of sharing
authority but instead empowering the human resource. One deters from accepting the
presence of these particular aspects of the Harvard case, mainly due to the viewpoints of
David Haig. Haig, a professor of biology, notes that the faculty committee relied on
testimonies of students who opposed the Greek-life related clubs (Bauer-Wolf, 2017). In this
case, the collegial structure is conflicted as the students supporting the clubs were neither
involved in the deliberations nor comfortable with the alternative recommendations presented
(Birnbaum, 1991). Such a move requires in-depth scrutiny of the faculty culture within the
institution’s collegial structure.
Faculty Culture
Manning, (2013) noted that faculty culture is a formidable force within collegial
structures that significantly fashion higher education. Faculty primarily adheres to a collegial
model. The faculty structure in Harvard is non-hierarchical implying that there is greater
emphasis on peer rather than authority. The faculty members are self-ruling, an aspect
depicted by Professor David Haig. Manning (2013) supported this self-ruling aspect, which
states that ‘members of collegiums are autonomous and independent. Due to such faculty
cultures, the faculty members tasked with determinative roles. Owing to the autonomous
nature of the faculty, issues analyzed in the greater deal and most occasions, a somewhat
trivial matter may gain significant symbolic momentum during faculty meetings (Manning,
2013). It, therefore, explains why the aspects of Greek life and final clubs have been closely
associated with discrimination by the faculty despite the lack of affiliation between the clubs
and the university. However, conflict arises in the deliberations and recommendations offered
by the faculty members as a collective institutional decision cannot prove. Harvard as a
collegium offers the faculty the chance to determine policies and present inputs on the
institution’s matters. However, when presented with advisory or determinative tasks, the
faculty, according to Manning, (2013) necessitated to “liaise with the institute (and often
student and staff organizations) …to form a structure of shared governance tranquil of
processes, through which faculty, administrators, and other campus apparatuses make
communal institutional decisions” (p. 47). In this, case the input of students supporting the
clubs not under consideration. The contribution of the administration considered as the
recommendations by the faculty trail policies instituted by Harvard President Drew G. Faust.
It leads to the aspect of leadership, with focal focus on human resource frames in the collegial
Human Resource Frame, Theory X, and Theory Y
The Harvard president is seen as the collegial leader, an aspect evident by his actions
to institute policies the previous year without consultation with the faculty. In this case, there
is an inherent aspect of ‘first among equals’ where the collegial leader has greater command
than other peers. The recommendations presented by the faculty, which are in line with the
collegial leader’s (Harvard president) policies illuminate human resource frames linked to
philosophical models such as those in Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X and Theory Y were
constructed on the Maslow’s pyramid of needs theory (Bolman & Deal, 2013). The primary
premise of Theory X is that manager’s assumptions about people often turn out to be selffulfilling prophecies. Accordingly, most management practices based on either soft or hard
form of Theory X. The soft versions involve maintaining calm and keeping all parties happy
while the hard version of Theory X involves an emphasis on coercion, tight controls, threats,
and punishments. Bolman and Deal, (2013) noted that the hard version often results into
antagonism, an aspect that is also evident in the Harvard case where the president instituted
tight controls and punishments for students joining final clubs. On the other hand, the main
premise in Theory Y is that the fundamental role of the administration is to set up
circumstances so that individuals can realize identifiable objectives best by “directing efforts
toward organizational rewards” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 123). Accordingly, if Theory Y is
not fruitful, management inevitably adopts Theory X and other external controls. The
decision to allow the faculty to have a say in determinative tasks by Harvard president,
collegial leader, could be argued as one of the fundamental human resource strategies. It is in
line with the ideologies present in Theory X and Theory Y. Managers have to decide on
which assumptions to adopt, either those in Theory X or those in Theory Y. In the Harvard
case, there are aspects of directive management from the President as well as supportive
management from the faculty. Therefore, Theory Y is applicable but only in accompaniment
of approaches that are collegial and thus shifts power to the faculty. In this case, the faculty is
subordinate, but it establishes a reciprocal relation between itself and the president. It is a
central concept of Theory Y’s management approach.
In conclusion, the paper has attempted to scrutinize the collegial structure in the
Harvard case with emphasis on the overall characteristics of the structure, faculty culture, and
the human resource frame. The paper establishes that sustenance of a whole perception of a
community that leads to a collegial organization requires the presence of shared attitudes and
values on matters within an organization. In line with the faculty culture, the paper has
vividly established that the faculty primarily adheres to a collegial model. The faculty
structure in Harvard is non-hierarchical implying that there is greater emphasis on peer rather
than authority. Also, the recommendations presented by the Harvard faculty, which are in line
with the collegial leader’s (Harvard president) policies illuminate human resource frames
such as those in Theory X and Theory Y.
Bauer-Wolf, Jeremy. (2017, July 13). Hard Line on Social Groups. Retrieved September 28,
2017, from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/07/13/harvard-facultycommittee-recommends-greek-other-clubs-be-eliminated
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership
(5th Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Manning, K. (2013). Organizational Theory in Higher Education. New York: Routledge.

Purchase answer to see full