UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTING MANDATED REORGANIZATIONS 117 programs existed on both campuses (e.g., BA History), one of the deans had attempted to delegate the discussion of merging the curricula to the faculty of the two units being merged. These cultural differences bogged down conversations in departments. In retrospect, the dean says he would have helped oversee discussions on general education first and then established some principles for the departments to follow in negotiating changes in their majors prior to delegation [Structural]. Furthermore, he would have started visiting the other campus earlier in the process to begin to establish a presence there and get to know the other faculty and staff earlier in the negotiation process [Human Resource]. Case: Size matters Less than two weeks before a public announcement, the system chancellor told the presidents of a large regional comprehensive university and a medium-sized, science-focused university that their campuses were to be merged. The primary justifications were that the campuses were located less than a dozen miles apart and efficiencies could be achieved through consolidating administration and redundant science and mathematics programs (these programs were contained in a STEM college on the larger campus and Arts and Sciences at the smaller). The name of the larger institution and its president were to be retained in the consolidated institution [Structural & Symbolic]. The colleges and deans on the larger campus would remain largely unchanged in structure, but the number of colleges of the unified campus would grow by three. Two colleges would be added that represented concentrations of programs from the smaller campus (engineering and design), and one new college would be created that pulled some programs together from both campuses. Planning for the merger of all institutional functions began with over fourscore working groups established by the president. The president tasked the academical- ly-focused working groups with deciding how programs would be merged, including where courses, labs, and faculty offices would be located. Few guiding principles were provided to many of the working groups, and many of the recommendations concerning the overlapping STEM programs appeared biased in terms of shifting programs toward the larger campus as few faculty from the larger campus appeared to want to move to the smaller campus. When the sum of the academic recommendations were explored, if implemented, they would have grown the larger campus by many thousands of students and removed the same number from the already smaller campus. This shift of students and faculty was not practical because both campuses had been growing and were space-limited. Some programs needed to move to the smaller campus. The final deci- sions on which programs and faculty to move were placed onto the desk of the dean of the STEM college on the larger campus. The STEM college had five departments before the merger, but one of the