Newman Action Plan

President Newman’s plan for culling struggling students in order to improve the university’s retention rate received mixed responses: some backed his decision wholeheartedly, while others refused to submit to his demands. As the university president, Newman had the most positional power at Mount St. Mary’s. In setting an agenda and working toward its fruition, Newman was not only exercising this authority but actualizing his power within the institution (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The action plan proposed by Newman was, in short, a literal power move. This implies, however, that Newman was operating within a simple structure model of organizations and institutions. A simple structure entails a strategic apex consisting of senior leadership and

One of Newman’s first mistakes was in improperly aligning the physical, financial, and human assets of the university. The president prioritized the university’s financial needs, thereby offsetting the production/production capacity balance that is so crucial to organizational effectiveness (Covey, 2013). Newman also neglected to consider the human resource frame, which encourages leaders to align organizational and human needs, particularly in leading a college or university, which is, at its core, a “people-processing organization” (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Julius, Baldridge, & Pfeffer, 1999). Pfeffer (2007) elaborates on human resource management in underscoring the importance of information-sharing and decentralized, team-based decision-making, an approach that Newman shunned in favor of a simple structure model of authority. Covey (2013) might suggest that Newman collaborate with faculty, students, and the larger Mount St. Mary’s network to devise a Third Alternative, a solution to student retention that is beneficial for all and better than what one party proposed originally. This idea also falls in line with principles of adaptive leadership, which suggest mobilizing individuals and groups to tackle tough challenges and enact change that enables the university’s capacity to thrive (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009b). Finally, analyzing the debate over student retention through the lens of Kotter’s (1995) list of critical errors, it appears that Newman was unable to create a powerful guiding coalition, undercomunicated his vision, and failed to anchor his proposed changes in the university culture. It is for these reasons that president Newman’s retention strategy proved ineffective and, as a result, he was unable to catalyze organizational change at Mount St.