UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTING MANDATED REORGANIZATIONS 105 main driver for the reorganization at the onset. The provost met with the faculty of both colleges simultaneously to walk through her proposal and ensure they had the opportunity to hear the same message and answers to their questions. The merger went ahead with little concern voiced, and an external dean was hired following a search. The interim dean over the merged colleges was stunned and dissatisfied when he was not selected for the deanship post-merger. This individual holds political sway and continues to reside as a faculty member in the merged college [Political]. Although the initial reorganization into three A&S colleges included an attempt to modernize policies, there was not sufficient time or input to do so adequately, so some were not working well. The second reorganization was used as a “clean slate” opportunity for the faculty and new dean to make constructive revisions. The new dean proactively asked the provost for latitude to make administrative and policy changes in the college. This extra room to maneuver reduced political risk for the dean and led to visionary discussions between college leadership and faculty. Frustration with the administration escalated among faculty and staff, however, because this second reorganization, the merger, occurred so soon after the splitting of their college. Also, the proximity of time of these reorganizational changes was almost impossible to explain to the external (non-academic) community and alumni. What looked like pragmatic decisions internally looked like chaos from the outside, leading to significant time investment in repeatedly explaining and justifying these changes to the institution’s stakeholders [Political]. A merger following a splitting so quickly might seem unexpected. Yet reorga- nizing after a recent reorganization is not at all uncommon. We interviewed other deans about similar experiences and we researched other cases. Campus leadership changes and pressures on institutions evolves. There are no guidelines—research- based or rules of thumb—on the timing between college reshuffling events. We would hope that given the time investment needed to reorganize, campus leaders are doing this in this institution’s best interests and not their own. Additional cases The above cases show that splitting can occur from the desire to demonstrate that an institution values specific programs or to appear more like peer (or aspirational) institutions. However, other reasons for splitting exist (see Table 7.2.A at end of the chapter), a few of which are demonstrated in the brief cases below. University budget model. Just like the Department of Justice breaking up corporate monopolies, some presidents split colleges of Arts and Sciences to increase compe- tition for scarce resources. When a private research university divided A&S into three colleges, it also transitioned to a new budget model that distributed resources according to student credit-hour production. The university stated these new colleges would allow students to select from more core courses more efficiently delivered.