UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTING MANDATED REORGANIZATIONS 123 affairs to see if all the options are technically viable before progressing further (e.g., campus software may limit options available, as can collective bargaining of staff or faculty) • If you are undergoing a reorganization due to financial or other critical chal- lenges, don’t just “rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic” and do what is neces- sary to fix the underlying problems • Expect it to take 3-7 years post-reorganization to settle into a “normal” dean’s routine Re: The Dean • Do not pretend the problem identified by campus leadership does not exist • Individuals stepping into an interim dean role during a reorganization process should make it clear to the provost if they are interested in the position as dean of the reorganized college • College-level reorganizations can rapidly drive down the popularity of a dean; have a ‘Plan B’ for your career Summaries of Justifications for Mandated Reorganizations We hope this chapter provides some insight into the processes used during mandated organizational change of colleges and how deans were involved. To summarize how leaders of universities have stated their case for reorganization, we have outlined those as identified by interviewees under the categories of splitting colleges, merging colleges, and merging campuses in Table 7.2 (p 124). One common thread among the cases is that most—and sometimes all—of the stated goals of the person driving the reorganization were met following the reorga- nization. Any politician would be thrilled to have such a track record–and provosts, presidents, and regents are certainly in political positions and are similarly driven toward ensuring positive outcomes. But the bar to demonstrate success is often set so low that the reorganization is virtually guaranteed to be a success by such measures. The questions that really should be asked are ones that relate to whether the bene- fits of the reorganization outweigh the costs of morale, lost time on mission related items (instruction, research, and service/extension), and student success. In Table 7.2, it is notable that some of the justifications for splitting and merging colleges are the exact same, and others are quite similar. For example, campus leaders have split colleges to look more like their peers while others have merged them for the same reason. Does looking more like a peer really advantage the institution in any measureable way? Given the institution’s history, programs, and context, there may in fact be great reasons why it is good to be organized differently. Splitting a college has been argued as a mechanism to save funds, either by intro- ducing competition or by purposefully isolating growing programs to spur their further growth. However, letting colleges “fight” over general education credits