Liu 1

Reorganizing Reframed

Tracy Liu

Michigan State University

EAD 805: Administration in Higher Education, Spring 2021

Professor Gabriel Ramon Serna

April 21, 2021

 Liu 2

The ability to analyze a problem from multiple perspectives has long been a well known

valuable skill in effectively seeking a resolution. Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal’s

discussion on reframing provides alternative lenses to look at an organization’s doings.

Additionally, Robert Birnbaum’s description of the generic “Flagship University” most similarly

represents the type of institution that I currently work for. The University of California, San

Diego (UCSD) is a large-scale research university that is part of the university system in

California with multiple campuses. However, like all other universities and colleges in the

nation, we were unexpectedly thrown the challenge of adjusting to COVID-19 and the financial

shortfalls it created. The main solution was to “reorganize” the staffing and operations across

campus as a way to save on costs. Through using 3 of Bolman & Deal’s (2017) frames including

human resource, symbolic, and political. I will review how the various perspectives influence the

way that individuals and groups understand the organization and administration in navigating

this reorganization.

To begin, it is worth outlining the situations that occurred more in detail from the

inception of the decision to ‘reorgnize” all the way down to the resolution before diving deeper

into the reframed analysis. In March 2020, we were ordered to start working from home in

accordance with California’s mandates. As the month of working from home went by, all staff

were alerted to the economic challenges that COVID-19 has had on our institution. The UC

Office of the President that oversees all of the University of California campuses alerted us in

April 2020 that they were contemplating options to address the budget shortfall while preserving

as many jobs as possible. In August 2020, an official Task Force at UCSD that was created

released a report projecting a $650M shortfall for our campus. The solution was for each major

Vice Chancellor area to have an 4% permanent reduction in core funds, cancelling numerous
 Liu 3

capital projects, and put in hiring controls (including temporary hiring freezes). Specifically, big

emphasis was placed on ways of “reimagining” or “reengineering” the staffing as this is what

usually is the most costly for any organization. Push for streamlining is in response to what

Bastedo et. al describe as a trend:

The traditional forms of academic governance are increasingly criticized for being

unwieldy, and in large bureaucratic institutions, inefficient, as the administration of

higher education increasingly becomes a profession, an “administrative estate” will be

established. Growing demands for accountability will cause academic institutions

considerable difficulty. And as academic budgets expand, there will be inevitable

demands to monitor and control expenditures. (Bastedo et al, 2016, Ch. 1 Para 38)

Our division was given a specific monetary amount to try and save. The way that our division

decided to address this was to create work groups across various administrative tasks (for

example, Finance, Academic Personnel, Digital Communications, etc.) composed of members

across various departments and roles. Faculty and staff were all mixed in to provide

representation of subject areas and multiple perspectives. Early on in our initial work group

creation, the whole division was committed to avoid a very particular administrative model of

centralization at all costs. Recently the various UC campuses, not just at UCSD, has been

witnessing an ongoing trend of this centralization; this is what Bolman & Deal (2017) reference

as “the battle of lean-and-mean versus invest-in-people” (pg. 131) where “beginning in the late

twentieth century, more and more organizations turned to downsizing, outsourcing, and using

part-time and temporary employees to cope with business fluctuations” (pg. 128-129).

Anecdotally, stories of burnout due to high volume, lack of genuine connection between

customer and transactors, and limited job opportunities plagued the image of centralized
 Liu 4

services. This call to action by our campus leadership spelled out what seemed to be kindling of

the feared centralization model that we were heading towards. Over the span of the few months

following the work group creation, we met biweekly discussing plans and arrangements, created

plans, and submitted our work progress to our Dean’s office. Ultimately no significant staffing

reorganization ended up happening that was mandated from outside of our division and most

work groups after 5 months stopped meeting altogether due to lack of attendees. We will now

consider the various frames in explaining this phenomenon and the significance from each of the

respective perspectives.

The first frame we’ll explore is Bolman & Deal’s human resource frame. The authors

outlined questions the readers must ask to identify what are the best frames to analyze the

situation through to effectively address the issues. When the importance of “individual

commitment and motivation” are essential to success, then one of the frames that should be used

is the human resource frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 303). In this case, we were all working

through lots of uncertainty and there was a clear call from the president of the UC system to

harness our creative powers to find solutions. Therefore individual commitment and engaging

our peers was critical in leadership’s eyes to the success of this plan. Rather than making the

decision on the actual monetary movement for each of the departments, our division instead

engaged with all the staff and faculty to creatively come up with our own methods that would

demonstrate cost savings within our own terms. This decision empowered me as well as my

peers to feel like we were part of the solution and, in a way, felt like we had control in fighting to

keep our old ways. Bolman & Deal says that “empowerment includes keeping employees

informed [...] it also involves encouraging autonomy and participation, redesigning work,

fostering teams, promoting egalitarianism, and infusing work with meaning” (Bolman & Deal,
 Liu 5

2017, p. 144). Throughout every step of the pandemic, all news from the UC Office of President

was effectively dispersed throughout each campus down to every employee. While we were

living in ambiguity, I still felt a sense of community and motivation to not be discouraged and

continue to deliver good service. Bolman & Deal confirm my lived feelings when they point out

that “studies of participation show it to be a powerful tool to increase both morale and

productivity (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 147). The process for making these work groups and

coming together to collaboratively come up with solutions equally promoted egalitarianism and a

“democratic workplace where employees are an integral part of the decision-making process''

(Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 150). We now turn to Birnbaum’s description of the collegial system

which similarly has a description as “egalitarian and democratic [...] [where] members of the

administration and faculty consider each other as equals, all of whom have the right and

opportunity for discussion and influence as issues come up” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 88). This

representation in the university decision making process explains a previously held perception I

had of how utterly inefficient my workplace seemed to reach any resolution. In his discussion of

the dynamics of loose coupling in a college, Birnbaum says while it makes the school look

inefficient, in actuality the “collegium’s emphasis on thoroughness and deliberation makes it

likely that a greater number of approaches to a problem will be explored, and in greater depth,

than would be true if greater attention were paid to efficiency and precision. (Birnbaum, 1988,

p.99). Said in another way, in intentionally engaging in extended discussions that lead to longer

deliberations, we are almost certain to get an answer that all can be satisfied with knowing it has

been explored in depth. Indeed, Birnbaum says that “campus members can ensure that eventual

adoption of workable solutions rather than engaging only in idealistic and unachievable rhetoric”

(Birnbaum, 1988, p. 99).

 Liu 6

The second frame we’ll explore is Bolman & Deal’s symbolic frame. In revisiting the

importance of individual commitment and motivation as being essential to success as identified

for this staff reorganization, then one of the frames aside from Human Resource that should be

used is the symbolic frame (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 303). The authors say that “values

characterize what an organization stands for, qualities worthy of esteem or commitment [...]

[they] are intangible and define a unique character that helps people find meaning” (Bolman &

Deal, 2017, p. 243). A message that was consistently delivered by leadership in every single

newsletter update gave special attention to how valuable the people were in the organization.

From the President of the system, our school’s Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor, to our Dean,

there were always a sizable portion of their messages expressing their gratitude to everyone

working together throughout these uncertain times. While it felt over the top, it makes sense

from the symbolic standpoint on why it was important to reiterate this point. It allowed every

UCSD individual to still feel connected and recognized in the community even through remote

work and find meaning. Additionally, another important descriptor for my institution is what

Birnbaum references as “process culture” where “feedback on the effect of decisions is delayed,

sometimes for years. Participants give particular attention to how something is done because it is

difficult or impossible to obtain direct feedback on the effectiveness of their activities”

(Birnbaum, 1988, p. 80). I am cognizant of the fact that I may not see the result of a decision

made at the institution of my size for a very long time; in that sense I am almost “trusting the

process” assuming that the dedication to these work group projects will ultimately yield positive

results. In conclusion, because it is difficult to identify whether our individual efforts are actually

effective, the work is more symbolic and therefore carries far more weight than the results.
 Liu 7

Bolman & Deal (2017) outline this idea that the symbolic actions taken is similar to a drama and

every scene has a purpose because it:

assures spectators that an organization is responsible, serious, and well managed. It

shows that an organization takes goals seriously and cares about performance and

improvement. The evaluation process gives participants an opportunity to share opinions

and have them recognized publicly (p. 290).

In a way, creating these work groups was almost like a drama where we toyed with different

ideas of how to best standardize, different setups, implications it could have, who would work

best with one another, etc. Through acting out this performance, Bolman & Deal (2017) points

out that we were also encouraged to “play” as it “ relaxes rules to explore alternatives,

encouraging experimentation, flexibility, and creativity” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 257).

Another aspect that is explained through the symbolic lens is the importance of stories driving

our motivation. A common fear plagued us all of the thought of centralization because of the

negative stories surrounding this type of organization. This fueled our “rationalized myth” that

we as a division cannot ever go in that same direction. Our motivations were “rationalized

because they are defined as necessary to meet the technical requirements [...] they are myths

because they are generally accepted as legitimate social constructions that need no proof”

(Birnbaum, 1988, p. 76). Specifically, even though it may make more sense efficiency wise from

a business standpoint to centralize our staffing to save on costs and pool resources, our

rationalized myth is that we can create a deep enough collaborative spirit as our own solution so

we would still maintain our decentralized independence. We understood that if we chose to

become centralized and move out of our own individual departments, we would be

unequivocally altering the culture that we value. While in the end the work groups abruptly
 Liu 8

stopped, the whole process for going through these symbolic actions were necessary. They

“provide internal glue. They help participants cope, believe, find meaning, and play their roles

[...] they provide a basis for confidence and support” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 292). If we

consider the reality that we are socialized to be part of a “process culture” where we merely trust

that the actions we do now will yield a desired outcome down the line, then it makes why

“definitions of effectiveness reflect subjective biases and values, the criterion of effectiveness

does not offer much guidance for institutional behavior” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 63). What I would

consider effective in this situation may not be my colleagues' same definition of effectiveness.

Regardless, my team and my division still felt compelled to write out our own processes that we

felt were “efficient” because of our commitment to preserving our culture. This was what

Birnbaum would call our “organizational saga,” or “the collective understandings of uniqueness

and accomplishment held by participants in a small number of distinctive institutions”

(Birnbaum, 1988, p. 72). Therefore while processes mostly stayed the same, intangible value was

gained in the name of symbolic gain.

The final frame we’ll explore is Bolman & Deal’s political frame. According to Bolman

& Deal (2017)’s guidelines for choosing the right frame, due to there being a high level of

“ambiguity and uncertainty”, then aside from the symbolic frame the political frame should also

be used (p. 303). The authors say that in the political perspective, conflict is not “necessarily a

problem or a sign that something is amiss [...] conflict is normal and inevitable. It’s a natural

byproduct of collective life” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 196). They go on further to say that

“organizations and coalitions are composed of individuals and groups with enduring differences

who live in a world of scarce resources” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 197). When we cross

consider this with Birnbaum’s perspective of a college as a political system, he says that it
 Liu 9

represents “a supercoalition of subcoalitions with diverse interests, preferences, and goals”

(Birnbaum, 1988, p. 132). In these workgroups, we had members initially moving between

different workgroups that focused on different tasks. While I was on the work group that was

tasked to address the academic personnel administration within our division, there were members

that also participated in the human resources/finance group or the digital communications group.

This in and out movement of members is what Birnbaum highlights as a main characteristic of

my type of university as an anarchical system. This is how “people tend to move in and out of

various parts of the organization, and their involvement in any issue depends to a great extent on

what other opportunities for their attention happen to be available at the time” (Birnbaum, 1988,

p. 156). Something that became evident to me at the time was the perceived lack of coordination

on which groups people ultimately ended up on. While the division had handseleted and assigned

individuals to different groups initially, there was still fluidity in movement and ultimate

assignments anyway. It begs the question on whether anybody was accurately keeping track of

our work. Birnbaum describes this phenomenon happening because my type of university “is

driven not by comprehensive rationality but by the autonomous actions of many individuals and

organizational subgroups responding to their own perceived interests or the pressure of the

market” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 167). In addition to each player looking out for their own interests,

they “can perceive only a small portion of the environment and can pay attention to only a

limited set of elements that can be perceived” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 167). Therefore, because of

the very human limitation that one cannot be all knowing of all the complexities that go into

running a large scale research university, it makes sense that those that made up the task group

freely moved in between topics and groups that interested them and where they could better

provide their support. An interesting thought presented by Birnbaum is the fact that “a major
 Liu 10

advantage of political systems, therefore, is that they permit decisions to be made even in the

absence of clear goals [...] it need not involve the active participation of everyone in the

organization but only their representatives” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 137). One sample of this

immediate pressure facing many of our peer departments in the division was sudden staffing

shortages with no ability to hire due to leadership’s decision to freeze all hires. A quick solution

was for someone else with a similar role in a different divisional department to volunteer to step

in to help temporarily stabilize the work. This required that they negotiated a reduction in time in

their home department (say reduction from 100% to 80%) in order to provide a dedicated 20%

support to the department in need. This solution bypassed the need to “hire” a new person into

the struggling department, however other repercussions arose such as work-life balance for the

individual juggling essentially two jobs with double the workload and deadline responsibilities.

Our pursuance of this solution matches Birnbaum’s descriptor of garbage can decision making

where “decision making by flight assumes that while problems attached to choices make

decisions difficult, coupling between them is loose and the linkage is not permanent” (Birnbaum,

1988, pg. 164). This arrangement wouldn’t be a sustainable solution without further exploration

of whether the issues that came up as a result of this setup could be managed. In this specific

scenario, the same person ended up permanently being assigned to continue servicing for the two

smaller departments after more support was dedicated to them and duties were clarified. This

example was just one of a few staffing arrangements that were created to help reduce costs; we

had specific academic personnel tasks reassigned, created standard operating procedures to be

shared centrally, and many of us individually took the time to provide work support for one

another when difficulties arose in work on a volunteer basis. Over the span of the following 3

months after the groups were created, we had weekly check-ins, requirements to report up our
 Liu 11

progress, and even conducted a couple of presentations to the division, and then suddenly all

activities ceased. There was no check in from the Chancellor’s leadership office or our dean.

While this was frustrating because of the enormous amount of effort put into the work groups,

this happening is apparently common according to Birnbaum. Due to the fact that “no one knows

the totality of what is happening [...] their activities often resemble random movements that

cancel each other out and provide stability” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 139). This is what seemed to

happen in this case when our work group stopped meeting after 3 months. Even the sense of

urgency regarding the financial shortfalls seemed to have vanished over time. This is perhaps

because “political institutions have another great advantage: their inefficiency provides

institutional stability” (Birnbaum, 1988, p.138). It is also perhaps the case that the university

realized other cost savings that are unknown at the division level and through other natural

means such as attrition of many individuals deciding to retire early in the midst of the pandemic.

Reorganizing reframed from 3 different perspectives tell different intended outcomes.

While on the face value, no “major” staff reorganizing actually seemed to occur, there was still

much ground that was covered according to Bolman & Deal. The human resource frame would

say that reorganizing our teams within the division allowed for our departments to address the

human needs of preserving our culture while still working within the purview of the formal roles

as outlined by our organization. The symbolic frame would say reorganizing was necessary to

keep up the image that the organization was staying accountable and was responsive to the

obvious external pressures impacting the university. Furthermore, we were able to demonstrate

creativity in finding solutions within our division, sending a message that we could manage our

own social order rather than have external higher authorities reorganize on our behalf.. Finally,

the political frame would say reorganizing was necessary to redistribute the power and create
 Liu 12

new partnerships within our division. Ultimately there were new bonds and coalitions created

and access to fellow staff members within my division that would not have been created had it

not been for this push.

 Liu 13

References

Bastedo, M., N., Altbach, P. G., and Gumport, P. J. (Eds.). (2016). American Higher Education in

the Twenty-first Century, 4th edition. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work: The Cyvernetics of Academic Organization and

Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and

Leadership, 6th Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.