University Behaviour

First of all, it is clear from the USIN case study that the university runs on a tall, mechanistic hierarchical structure (see Exhibit 1). Each layer as stated in the case is directly managed by the person above it as they have the final say on critical matters. USIN’s organizational structure can directly affect the culture of USIN . This includes how research and supporting staff are hired, how they perform and how department rules and regulations are made. This came into the forefront of the business studies department after the maiden head of department was stood down by the faculty pro-vice chancellor.

USIN also has a centralized decision making structure. This is apparent with the sudden relieving of duties of the head of department by the Pro-VP who has no relationship or has any interaction with the department even though he is head of the whole faculty.

In the case text, it mentioned that the first Head of Department had devolved power. He was also someone who found it difficult to trust people in general. These traits are similar to the Sensation-thinking mechanism that is in Jung’s personality type matrix . The maiden head of department could also be said to have various ‘Type A’ personality characteristics (see Exhibit 2) which included having clear ideas which demonstrates a high need for achievement, distant and formal with other members which would have tense facial muscles when interacting with such members of department.

In contrast, the next head of department is more of a ‘Type B’ personality with his casual outlook, outgoing personality as well as sociable. Friedman and Rosenman seemed to imply that Type A was worse than Type B and even stated that Type A can change into Type B with awareness and training. However, the major difference between the two was the management functions which a credible manager should perform. These include planning and budgeting, controlling and problem solving and producing order and consistency . The latest HoD...