1

Leadership Case Study

Valerie Fetzer

Leadership and Policy Studies in Higher Education, University of Washington

EDLPS 588: Leadership and Management in Higher Education

Felipe Martinez, Ed. D

3 February, 2022
2

Taylor has found themselves in an interesting situation with multiple dynamics and

tensions at play. An organizational shift towards centrality, an increase in direct reports, and two

underprepared staff members vying for a promotion can conjure itself to be anxiety inducing and

disorienting process for not just Taylor, but for their team as well. That is why understanding

Taylor’s current leadership style is critical to later developing an action plan to address said

changes.

According to Bolman and Deal’s (2017) text on Reframing Organizations: Artistry,

Choice, and Leadership, there are 4 frameworks that leaders take on in organizational settings.

That is the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frameworks. Given the

background we have on Taylor, they would mainly be described as a human resource-oriented

leader with aspects of the political and structuralist frameworks. The reason why Taylor

primarily embodies the human resources framework is due to their commitment in investing in

their employees as both people and professionals. Bolman and Deal (2017) state that as a human

resource-oriented leader, one should, “empower workers and give work more significance

through participation, job enrichment, teaching, egalitarianism, and diversity,” (p. 156).

Conversely, human resource-oriented leaders are more concerned and attuned to when situations

and environments may be negatively impacting their employees. In Taylor’s case, they sense that

the change is causing some staff members to have low office morale. Furthermore, in the spirit of

“hiring the right people”, (paras. p. 117-119) like Bolman and Deal (2017) note, Taylor is not yet

convinced that her long-time staff members, Jordan and Jaime, are ready for a management yet.

If Taylor weren’t so committed to professional growth, they might have an easier time filling in

the need to hire more people right away. By being more hesitant to hire someone, based on the
3

premise that they would like to see more development out of them, highlights Bolman and Deal’s

(2017) idea of investing in people for the success of one’s organization.

While the human resource frame is central to Taylor’s leadership philosophy, the ability

to foster strong relationships with an array of stakeholders across HU points that Taylor is a

skilled political leader. While the word political typically does not garner the best attention, the

best way to view this framework is as the bridge builder. Within the political framework,

Bolman and Deal (2017) establish that political leaders view organizations as coalitions.

Therefore, a successful political leader is someone who understands how to recruit allies that

share their vision, so that together they can maneuver the coalitions together. Throughout

Taylor’s tenure, they have understood that higher education as an industry is a coalition itself,

and not only have they fostered relationships with colleagues, but with senior leadership as well.

Therefore, they have a strong understanding of how power is distributed, and how to harness that

power so that they can further the needle towards their commitment to students and families.

Lastly, according to the case study description, Taylor embodies a bit of the structuralist

framework in that in order to be an effective manager, they believe that one must truly

understand the “details” to “speak intelligently about what the team is doing, has accomplished,

and to determine if individuals are on track to meet performance goals”. While Taylor adopts

much of the human resource frame when it comes to investing in people, they also believe in a

structuralist capacity that roles should be designated for the right people – which again, is why

they are unsure that management is the right fit in the case of Jordan and Jaime. This is

emphasized when Bolman and Deal (2017) notes, “Where the human resource approach

emphasizes dealing with issues by changing people, the structural perspective argues for putting

people in the right roles and relationships,” (p. 47-48). In an interesting dynamic, Taylor’s
4

management style adopts the human resource framework with aspects of the structural behind it.

When it comes to Taylor leading change, Taylor has proved themselves to have a strong political

perspective.

One of the leadership challenges that Taylor faces is that both Jordan and Jaime are

trying to advocate for themselves towards a promotion. Given that HU had some resignations in

result of the reorganization, this would seem like a self-correcting issue. However, Taylor is

experiencing the tension of not feeling as though Jordan and Jaime are ready for this next role.

To add to this challenge, they are still adjusting from previously managing 3 employees to now

9. Another layer to this issue is that, like mentioned earlier, while Taylor predominately has a

human resource leadership philosophy, they also have a bit of a structuralist perspective. Hence,

is why they are getting frustrated with having to spend so much one-on-one time with more

employees. It which takes away their attention on understanding the little details to their role.

Their other leadership challenge is that with so much organizational restructure, they are also

dealing with a team that is frustrated with their new generalist capacities, which in turn manifests

itself into anxiety over job security.

For these two challenges, Taylor will need to develop an action plan to mitigate any

further negative impacts. To address their first challenge, I would suggest that Taylor have an

honest conversation with Jordan and Jaime to express why they are hesitant on promoting them.

In this conversation, point out what their strengths are, as well as their opportunities. From there,

give them markers on what changes they’d like to see in their performance so that they can have

direction in how to grow. Additionally, I would say to give them more responsibility so that they

can adjust, and prove themselves, up to managerial tasks. Example of this would be taking on

more lead in team meetings or providing peer mentorship to their colleagues. However, this is a
5

fine line to tow, as you don’t want to overwhelm them with too many new responsibilities that

they are questioning why they are not getting paid or compensating like a manager. To mitigate

those negative feelings, I would have regular check ins with them so that they can share with

Taylor what they are learning, as well as expressing their comfortability around their bandwidth.

In this way, Taylor is both challenging and supporting Jordan and Jaime in their professional

development.

While the root of this issue is an adjustment to managing more people, another thing to

be addressed within this challenge is that Taylor will need to set aside intentional time for them

to learn the fine details to their role, on their own. Conversely, I would challenge them to view

their ample one-on-one time with employees as an opportunity to know the little details of their

employees’ job and how it relates to their department’s structure. Therefore, in this tension they

can find equilibrium between a human resource, by helping assess if their employees are on track

to meet their professional goals, and a structuralist perspective, by being able to speak on the

nuances of their employees’ jobs.

To address the anxiety surrounding the organizational shift to a centralized model, I

would suggest that Taylor utilize their political ties around campus. Taylor is described as having

strong relationships with university stakeholders, including senior leadership. Because much

anxiety revolves how the centralized model has forced employees to take on a more generalist

approach to their work, Taylor should ask those who they have built ties with if they can insert

some presence with their team when introducing employees to new functional areas. This can be

in the form of office drop ins, workshops, or cross functional meetings with key university

leaders. Moreover, doing this on a regular cadence, like quarterly, would help communicate to

employees that this effort is intentional in not only developing them professionally, but also in
6

articulating the overall goal of creating a better experience for students and families.

Additionally, to the point that Bolman and Deal (2017) make on work and motivation, rewarding

employees shows that not only are they doing a good job, but that you appreciate the work they

are doing. Bolman and Deal (2017) employ an old formula by psychologist Maier that states,

“Performance = Ability x Motivation,” (p. 120). Furthermore, Bolman and Deal (2017) bring in

another psychologist’s idea, Herzberg, on their idea called the “two factor theory”, (p.120) which

argues, “…that the things that motivate are intrinsic to the work itself – things like achievement,

responsibility, and recognition for work well done,” (p.120). Bolman and Deal (2017) use these

theories and explain how they tie into Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which is the idea that our

needs are prioritized, beginning from basic survival to self-actualization (p.120). That said, given

HU’s new cost-effective model, Taylor should lean on her financial aid experience in creating a

systematic budget that prioritizes salary increases and professional development. While money is

not everything, Taylor’s new budget can not only increase the basic needs of their employees,

but they can also use it as a tool to increase capabilities and recognition on their team. In doing

so, the hope would be that not only could employees feel as if though there is better

compensation for this change, but it is also an investment in their retention – thus combatting

anxiety over job security. Moreover, a budget that can support team bonding activities can help

build morale and improve office culture over time.

While organizational shifts can be a tumultuous time for employees, and Taylor is going

through their own change of managing more people, their embodiment of the human resource,

political, and structural frameworks proves them to be a leader ready to persevere through this

challenge. Despite having the two major challenges of managing more people, some who are not

ready for promotion, and addressing office anxiety, Taylor has an action plan that they can
7

leverage. In the case of Jordan and Jaime, Taylor should give them guidance on where they’d

like to see them grow as they hand them more responsibility. Furthermore, when it comes to

managing more people, Taylor should be intentional about setting time aside for themselves to

learn the nuts and bolts of their job. However, they should also challenge themselves to view the

ample one-on-one time with their employees as an opportunity to better understand the details of

their jobs, hence appealing to the structuralist framework. For the second challenge, addressing

office anxiety, Taylor should employ their strong political ties to help create more learning and

engagement around the new generalist roles. Additionally, they should manage their new budget

in a way that prioritizes higher compensation and professional development. As Bolman and

Deal (2017) have noted regarding the human resource frame, Maier, Herzberg, and Maslow have

created theories in which converge upon each other to be foundational in balancing work and

motivation. By implementing this on a day-to-day basis, hopefully Taylor’s employees can feel

as though there is an investment in them as both professionals and as people as well.

8

References

Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership. Jossey-Bass, 2021.