Reference no: EM132696657

Assignment: The in-Group and Out Group

XYZ University enjoys a good reputation for a regional university. Several members of its core faculty have published articles in reputed journals, and some are active in pursuing government- and industry-sponsored consulting and research. Teaching effectiveness is the one of the very important among several criteria for the promotion of faculty members at the university.

In recent years, the management department has become increasingly extreme in out-look and rather militant and active in pressing economic, environmental, and political viewpoints. This has resulted in some criticism of the department by out-side groups, local businesspeople, and so on. Many of the older members of the faculty (representing about half the total), who are more moderate in outlook, feel that the younger faculty members have extreme viewpoints and that students are given too much say in programme administration.

A student representative group has also become very active, submitting surveys of student opinion, pushing for a grade review board and pressing for voting representation on all departmental committees. At the outset, the chairman of the management department, Professor Abhinav Rana, had been willing to cooperate, because he felt that increased student participation would be beneficial for students as well as the university. However, lately, faculty members have become increasingly critical of student requests.

One of the younger professors, Assistant Professor Karan Joshi, shares a close relationship with several members of the student union and had actively lobbied for meeting student demands. The situation worsened as he and Professor Abhinav Rana sharply disagreed on many issues. They were constantly waging verbal battles-at first in faculty meetings and later at student-faculty conferences. The disagreements between the two became sharper and more polarized. Professor S. S. Kothari, the dean of the School of Management and Commerce, became concerned over the charges that the faculty members of the management department were growing too militant and that standards were being overlooked.

The first incident emerged when it was announced that the administration, upon recommendation of the department, had notified Joshi that his appointment was not being renewed for the following year. The reasons given were lack of research, no publication, little scholarly activity and unprofessional performance. Professor Joshi, interviewed by the university newsletter, suggested that his political leanings and conflicts with the chairman of the department had led to his dismissal. He produced student evaluation ratings, which indicated outstanding teaching effectiveness and pointed out the general low level of publishing in the department as a whole.

A week after the notification of non-reappointment, student representatives presented a set of demands to Professor Kothari, including:

• The reappointment of Professor Karan Joshi

• The elimination of surprise tests

• Student representation in all committees

• A credit granted for any 20-hour course

There were several other demands related to a less-structured academic program with increased students' participation in all administrative matters. A boycott of classes was threatened unless these demands were met.

Note: Each question carries equal (10) marks:

1. Identify various types of conflicts evident in the case.

2. Analyze the situation in the light of attribution theory

3. Identify the link between conflict, power politics, and Leadership style in the case?

4. What would you do, if you were Professor Kothari, Dean of the School of Management and Commerce?