72 ORGANIZING ACADEMIC COLLEGES: A GUIDE FOR DEANS many colleges are adding “Community Engagement” to administrative faculty titles, internally and externally signifying the importance of such activities for their college [Political, Symbolic]. Again, except for the need to keep him or her in the loop, there is rarely reason to discuss or ask permission from the provost. Since a title change does not indicate a change in salary or exemption status for faculty, the change process tends to be an internal memo followed by simple updates to the title on the website and on email signatures. Titles chosen to indicate the structural or symbolic priorities for the col- lege should be the sole responsibility of the dean. Shifting between Functional and Divisional Associate Deans The most radical reorganization of the dean’s office occurs when moving between the functional versus divisional associate dean models. This type of reorganization involves the previously described office changes along with changing the reporting lines of subordinate units. From conversations with deans who have gone through such organizational changes, it appears the movement is more often in the direction of moving from functional to divisional deans. This is associated within the increas- ing size and complexity of a college, as growth has been the norm at many larger institutions. Here are two examples of change from functional to divisional models and another that moved from divisional to functional. At the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1996, a search for a new dean of the College of Arts and Sciences was initiated. At the same time, the vice chancellor of academic affairs charged an ad hoc faculty committee with reviewing the organiza- tional structure of the College, intending to allow the incoming dean to work with the committee’s findings to improve operations of the dean’s office. In its report to the vice chancellor, the committee outlined its findings after assessing the current organization and the organizational models used by six other research universities, and interviewing the college’s department chairs and faculty and other key university administrators. The report focused on differentiation between functional and divisional associate dean models, concluding that the current functional structure was not actually func- tional in practice as the associate deans did not have budgetary or decision-making authority. This reality required the dean to spend inordinate time with transactional activities. Furthermore, due to the size of the college, responses from the dean were not timely—creating problems for department chairs and faculty. The report included pros and cons of both models, specific to their institu- tion. This was a key part of their analysis, as faculty and administrators could see how each model would impact them individually and collectively [Human Re- source]. Since this report came from faculty and was presented from an academic (dispassionate) perspective, it largely addressed shared-governance expectations and the political aspects of the change. Therefore, any decision made by the incoming