The rise and fall of camelot: designing, implementing, and dismantling  (Page 10/16)

Idealism runs into pragmatism. One part of the redesign required by DPI was the development of six electronic evidences (EEs) showing program effectiveness in preparing participants for the leadership standards. Participants would complete the EEs and DPI would review them to assure compliance. Each MSA faculty was responsible for writing one EE After DPI approval, we found ourselves faced with a messy group of duplicitous projects that had to be layered onto or into our courses. Throughout the year we struggled to add the EEs to our program in some coherent way. What we thought was an effective way to complete the DPI requirement, consistent with our collaborative approach of dividing work equally, had created a very challenging and frustrating situation.

Changes in leadership and culture. Year two also began with significant personnel changes. The long time Dean1 had retired and was replaced with Dean2. DH1 also left the department head position and returned to faculty as a member of our MSA team. Both Dean2 and DH2 were hired from outside the university. These personnel changes impacted dynamics within the MSA team but also resulted in a change in both college and departmental culture.

As referenced earlier, the leadership styles of both Dean 2 and DH2 were significantly different from what we were accustomed to. The decrease in sharing information, and the implementation of a more rigid hierarchical management style left some of us feeling isolated and vulnerable. We worried that the program we had built would not receive the support we needed. The management styles also led to changes in MSA faculty roles, adding to concerns.

Changing norms and internal conflict. As the school and departmental cultures changed, so did the climate of our PLC. With the conclusion of the intense redesign phase, faculty became engaged in other projects that limited the time members were able to invest. Concurrently, honest differences in assumptions made at the outset of the program began to emerge in important areas. We began to disagree about co-teaching, admissions standards, and faculty prerogative in the core courses. Complicating all of this were continual shifts in program leadership. I had resigned as program director at the end of 2008 and FME had taken my place. Late in the fall 2009 we received an email fro DH2 informing us that “Effective immediately she (FME) will no longer serve as the director in order for her to focus on scholarship, teaching and service.  (FMC3) will continue to serve as program director for the MSA program and manage both old and new programs until further notice.” There was virtually no discussion about the change. By the spring semester, our core faculty consisted of a former department head (who had coordinated the MSA program before becoming department head), two former program directors, a current program director, and FMC2. The changes in makeup and in positions led to a re-norming phase that included the inevitable “storming” (Tuckman, 1965).