112 ORGANIZING ACADEMIC COLLEGES: A GUIDE FOR DEANS new administrative model [Structural]. Although the tenure and promotion guide- lines did need updating, this concurrent request exacerbated faculty fears. Added on top of the reorganization, faculty interpreted the changing policies for tenure and promotion as: “He is trying to get rid of me!” [Human Resource]. Subsequent discus- sions between the president and the faculty were strained. During the reorganization, campus leadership changed at a dizzying rate. The provost did not like the new organizational model, so she stepped back to faculty. A search resulted in the hiring of a new provost. Within a few months of her arrival, the president stepped down and left the institution. Despite the presi- dent’s unexpected departure, the new provost focused on the reorganization and she indicated that the campus was not turning back this far into the process, so the faculty should help her figure out how to do better with this new organiza- tion structure. The provost was shortly appointed as president, and another new provost was hired. To establish the leadership of the new departments, the faculty in each depart- ment were asked to nominate their “founding” chairs. In departments where a large majority of faculty were against the merger, the faculty tried more passive approaches to disrupting the reorganization process. Some would not recommend anyone to be chair, others recommended an adjunct or otherwise unviable candidate. The dean indicated that if they would not recommend anyone appropriate for the position then she would be their chair, and “you won’t like me as chair.” The recalcitrant depart- ments capitulated. The new president intended to conduct an external search for an A&S dean, but faculty felt it was too daunting of a job given the recent merger of their five colleges into one and the associated unresolved problems. The president agreed to allow the interim dean and provost to split the new Arts and Sciences college into three colleges, with the interim being appointed dean of one of the resulting colleges. Merging the five liberal arts colleges was unpopular, while the splitting of the merged college into three colleges was received favorably among the faculty. The splitting was largely cost-neutral as the merged A&S college had three decanal positions (a dean and two associate deans) so the two associate dean positions were moved to establish a dean’s position in each of the new colleges. From the initial announcement to merge colleges to their subsequent splitting occurred in just three years. Although the president’s original goals for the merger were met, the implementation of departments was costlier than the campus commu- nity was led to believe. Removing five decanal offices did not cover the costs of estab- lishing 25 departments and decentralized staffing within those units. This led some to mistrust the judgement of the president who initially announced the merger and added to faculty angst. Yet the merger and creation of departments did have benefi- cial outcomes for the campus as it allowed deans to step into true leadership roles for their colleges and their colleges began to flourish.