128 ORGANIZING ACADEMIC COLLEGES: A GUIDE FOR DEANS Everyone would report directly to the dean, resulting in flawless communication. With all faculty members reporting directly to the dean, the dean would have all the knowledge necessary to make fully informed decisions based in shared-gov- ernance. The dean would handle everything in the office from answering calls to processing paperwork to devising and enacting a strategy for change using shared governance. In such a scenario, administrative costs are at their lowest. No one can match this ideal, but it is similar to Model II as discussed in Chapter 2 when there is a very small dean’s office. Yet, as actual workloads are distributed relative to cost, different models of office and college organization emerge. From a dean’s viewpoint, time is limited, so the dean wants to spend less time on transactional processes and more on formulating and acting upon strategic de- cision-making. Additional staff are thus needed to complete the transactional work of the office and more staff are added as the num- ber of transactions increase. Some of the questions that arise are: Should these staff be centralized or decentralized? When should a supervisor and other sup- port staff be added (towards Model V)? As the higher-level strategy demands of the college grow, the dean adds assis- tant deans and associate deans to assist with strategizing and managing some office functions (Model I). As more faculty are added, additional supervision and staff support may be needed. The dean may push towards forming schools (a Model I variant). When the responsibilities and tasks become overwhelming, creating a divisional dean model (IVA) or even an executive dean model (IVB) to assist with overseeing large sections of the college may be the best opportunity for the dean to remain focused on leading, rather than on managing, his or her college. As complexity in the college increases, the dean’s ability to be aware of all infor- mation decreases. This leads to the need for establishing formal communication processes along with enumerating additional policies and procedures. In short, to optimize the functioning of the dean as the college grows, the cost and bureaucra- cy associated with the dean’s office increases. Understandably, faculty will push back against what they view as unnecessary increases in administrative staffing and processes. This opposition complicates the structural, HR, and political frames that support the dean’s desire to expand. With every staff member or chair position added, faculty can point out that their workloads have increased and that money could have been used to hire more faculty. When administrative positions such as associate department chairs or di- visional deans are added, the faculty often feel a step further removed from the dean’s office, as there is one more layer to the communication process to reach the dean (or the provost or the president) who can make decisions. It is reasonable from this viewpoint that faculty members prefer administrative costs be kept low To optimize the functioning of the dean as the college grows, the cost and bureaucracy associated with the dean’s office increases.