Social Science Faculty: Environment

Social Science Faculty

Part A

Environment

The social science faculty operates in a hierarchical environment. It is positioned within the university itself and has to follow the rules, regulations and guidance lines given by the university itself. A top-down approach is visible, also called a ‘vertical organization’. There is a well-defined chain of command and the dean has the most power within the faculty. Employees report to the person directly above them in the organizational structure. Each person is responsible for a specific area or set of duties.

In the case, the two dimensions ‘bureaucratic’ and ‘political’ overlap. This means that there exist rules, regulations and procedures which have to be followed. Not only the university itself

Referring to this point, the dean already contributes to the organization’s performance through his active manner of creating networks with external organizations. The more the dean engages in creating networks and consortia, the more information exchange happens and the more likely they get research funds which then enables the university to keep their research up-to-date and to ensure the university’s performance. The dean’s managerial activities which directly strengthen those contacts (attending meetings, expositions and international events) correspond to what the dean esteem as most important qualities of a

It is astonishing that it isn’t external red tape which restrict and constrain the dean and the organization itself, but that it is the internal application of the rules and thus an internal organizational problem. To explain that problem, one can apply the principal-agent model. The principal (dean) delegates tasks to its agent(s) - the faculty staff. Given that the agency executes the instructions of the principal and operates on a street-level base, it has an information advantage over the principal, so there is an information asymmetry. In the case study, the faculty staff executes the instructions of the dean and thus are familiar with the “reality” of implementation. They are street-level bureaucrats. The primary assumption according to the model, is that the principal (dean) is in conflict with its agent/s (faculty staff) due to diverse institutional backgrounds. The conflict in the case is that the staff applies the rules differently than originally intended following their own personal interests. Thus, the principal (dean) has to monitor its agent/s (faculty staff). However, complete monitoring is never possible. The question is then how a particular managerial strategy might meet those challenges. It is known, that institutions exert an influence on the principal-agent model. Institutions can provide solutions that facilitate the accomplishing of the goal pursued. Applied to the model of the rational self-maximizing