Disclaimer: Names, dates have been changed to protect the guilty.

Faced with an extremely charismatic and popular predecessor, Dr. Emma Encarnacion – by most accounts a heretofore successful leader on the fast track – embarked on a mission to institute change at the College of St. John – Roxas. This case study is a look at what went wrong, and why.

Background

Dr. Encarnacion was faced with a difficult task: her predecessor was, by all accounts, extremely well liked by most of the students, staff and faculty of the College of St. John – Roxas, a De La Salle supervised school. Despite what was often termed a more-harmonious-than-normal state of affairs among the employees of the institution, a conflux of several factors – personality clashes with the Board, organizational inefficiency, and a lack of significant increase in enrollees (there may be others) – led the Board of Trustees to go a different direction, and Dr. Encarnacion was installed as the Chancellor of the school. It was an unprecedented move in the school’s short history, as it consolidated the powers of the chairman of the Academic Council and the Executive Vice-President of the Board of Trustees, guaranteeing almost absolute control over the school’s operations. Thus, armed with this mantle, and the mandate to improve the school’s performance, Dr. Encarnacion got to work.

The Chancellor – a leader on the fast track whose resume included being the Principal of De La Salle Greenhills – intended to get results and get them fast. At first, she seemed to do all the right things: despite their attachment to her predecessor, she established good, friendly relations with the faculty and staff. She re-organized some of the staff for specific tasks and established standards of excellence, and drafted a plan of action.

Because she replaced a beloved figure, she knew she needed to move quickly to achieve several things: to assert her role as the person in charge, and to significantly improve the school’s situation. She demanded an increased focus and commitment from employees, and placed a renewed focus on marketing. To this end, new faces were brought in to work on a comprehensive marketing campaign.

Within a matter of months, people were working longer hours and at breakneck speed, and the effects were starting to show.

One problem was that the current heads of several key departments were used to working autonomously, as was the practice of the previous administration. They were, after all, promoted because they had sound ideas, solid credentials, performed their duties well, and showed initiative; as such, they were used to having themselves heard when it comes to decisions regarding their departments. Unfortunately, this was seen by Dr. Encarnacion as a form of insubordination, and these department heads quickly fell out of favor (and eventually replaced).

Another problem was that some of the employees began to grate at the heavy demands upon them, particularly because the Chancellor herself was often not around: in a typical week, she would be around for only three days (or less) before going back to Manila. This was often met with resentment, particularly because of the tight and uncompromising deadlines imposed. She was often perceived to be slacking off and merely dictating, relegating the heavy lifting to the rank and file.

A third problem was the over-emphasis on protocol – or rather, the over-emphasis on who can break it. The once-open and direct line of communication between the faculty and staff to the administration was replaced by a layer of bureaucracy that was inviolable from below. Even minor decisions now had to be approved by the Chancellor (which proved difficult, as she was seldom around), and internal departmental and staffing decisions were overturned or made without consultation with the relevant heads of said departments. In one instance, a photo shoot involving the department heads (by the marketing department) was cancelled because she was in Manila at the time, and was not approved by her – despite the OIC’s go-signal.

A fourth problem, slightly related to the third, is the lack of a clear, focused direction on objectives, and an unwillingness to be contradicted or corrected. The members of the marketing team that were brought in to execute the new campaign chafed at being forced to work weekends and well past office hours on a regular basis because of the constantly changing short-term campaigns. One instance occurred when a certain objective was set during a meeting, but was subsequently disavowed a mere week after. When presented with the minutes of that prior meeting, the objection was dismissed anyway, with Dr. Encarnacion merely saying, “I am the Chancellor.” This, in fact, is a recurring theme and has become a joke of sorts among the employees, because whenever a decision is reversed, or unreasonable deadlines are set, any objection is answered similarly.

A fifth problem was that the belt-tightening measures implemented were seen as a shift from being mission-minded to being money-centered at best, and at worst, inequitable. Consider: students missed several key seminars (PAPJA, SIFE, PACSA among others) because the funding for the faculty advisers that were supposed to go with the students was not released; requests by faculty members to attend seminars for continuing education were denied as well; five-month contracts (renewed after a downtime of one month) for several full-time staff, preventing eligibility for regularization; delays on the upgrades for the computer laboratory; refusal of request for textbook purchases on specialized subjects (Public Relations, Entrepreneurship, Corporate Social Responsibility, up-to-date computer textbooks). All this, while the library received an aesthetic overhaul (the books remained dated), the road going into the school (1/3 km) was paved, certain offices received new, over-specs equipment, and the Chancellor was still going back and forth to Manila twice a week on the school’s budget.

Things began to take a turn for the worse as the following series of events took place: the popular then-head of Student Affairs was ignominiously relieved of his duties after several clashes with the Chancellor; a heretofore low-ranking but tenured faculty member was promoted to Dean of the newly created College of Arts, Science and Business; one of the aforementioned department heads was stripped of her rank and denied regular-employee status despite having served over three years as a full-time member of the faculty; another was similarly relieved of her department head duties and replaced by a significantly less qualified (only a semester into her MA, which is, incidentally, misaligned as well); several independent-minded part-time faculty members who were there for years were not given subject loads in the second semester without so much as a notice, verbal or otherwise; the entire marketing team that was originally tapped to turn things around left in disgust. A harsh message was sent: toe the line, be a good soldier, or pack your bags.

Less than a year after Dr. Encarnacion assumed office, at least twelve college faculty members from the College of Arts, Science and Business alone have left or were dismissed, as well as an undetermined number of staff and people from the Basic Education Unit, with more planning on leaving. Among those that left were department heads and several members of the marketing and operations staff. Morale is at a low point, and those that remain are afraid to exercise any initiative for fear of failing or being called out. There is constant grumbling, but despite the situation, operations continue because nobody knows what to do or how to affect change. Where once they felt empowered, they now merely cower.

Problem Statement

Under the last year and a half of Dr. Encarnacion’s leadership, a significant number (in relation to the previous administration) of key personnel – both in administrative, teaching, and rank-and-file positions – have left or were dismissed. It is interesting to note that most of these assumed their previous positions under the auspices of the previous administration and were known to have had close personal ties with Dr. Encarnacion’s predecessor.

While the turnover percentage may be low when viewed against the aggregate, consider that the College of St. John – Roxas has only two major college units: the College of Nursing and the College of Arts, Science and Business (CASB). The CASB has three departments: Business Administration (BSBA), Psychology (BSPsych), and Accountancy (BSA). The BSBA and BSPsych department heads were relieved of their duties in the middle of the school year, and their faculty lineups revamped – in one instance, during the semester. In fact, only one faculty member from each of these two departments from the previous administration was retained – both already being regular employees. The members of the marketing department, once credited by the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor herself for the increase in enrollees the previous year, to a man, left.

This instability and lack of continuity has led to chaos for the students academically. For graduating students, their thesis advisers and panelists were replaced, resulting in their having to re-draft their papers, and most of the undergrads have had to re-adjust to their new instructors and department heads. Lesson plans had to be re-written, and syllabi had to be re-examined, further confusing the students. The marketing campaign, which once showed much promise, has grinded to a halt, as the ones left were proven to be incapable of picking up the slack. And the status quo has generated a field of negativity among the remaining employees, as a result of several things: some were friends with those that left, while the newcomers are experiencing the pressure of being compared to their predecessors, often unfavorably.

Objective

The cost of employee turnover to for-profit organizations has been estimated to be up to 150% of the employees’ remuneration package when multiple factors (opportunity cost, training cost, loss of productivity, etc) are considered. As such, it is important for the organization to curb faculty turnover; dissatisfaction among the ranks of the faculty represents a disruptive influence to normal academic activities, and merely serves to undermine credibility.

Areas of consideration

Reforms were instituted that went against the grain of prevailing and long-standing organizational culture, resulting in alienation and emasculation.

Work load and administrative pressure were increased without corresponding increase in rank or pay, leading to widespread resentment, particularly upon assumptions that the leadership was merely being dictatorial and not putting in the same effort as the rank-and-file.

The cost cutting moves implemented were seen as a shift from being mission-minded to being money-centered at best, and inequitable, at worst.

Key faculty members and staff were dismissed or replaced in what was seen to be an organizational purge; most of them were close to the previous administration or were perceived to be independent thinkers.

Alternative Courses of Action

Open Forum

Pros —

addresses the issue directly and brings the problems out into the open, and elicits an immediate reaction from the parties involved.

Cons —

subordinates are unlikely to speak up, as it has been established that doing so entails a very real risk to job security. Acquiring permission to conduct such may also be a problem.

Conduct a Quantivative Research to support the assertions of this Qualitative case study

Pros —

since it is quantitative in nature, actual, unbiased figures can be presented and analyzed.

Cons —

sampling and research methods of the researchers may be an issue. Any quantitative study must be conducted by outsiders to guarantee validity. Acquiring permission to conduct such may also be a problem.

Comparative review of other, similar institutions

Pros —

a clear view on how the system is run by more successful but similar schools can be acquired.

Cons —

since most likely, such studies are qualitative rather than quantitative, the most thorough method is ethnography, which is problematic, and whatever data gathered may still be suspect. Acquiring permission to conduct such may also be a problem.

Conclusion

While the previous paragraphs outlined problems in their own right, I believe them to be mere symptoms of a deeper rooted set of problems, ones that begin at the very top.

One problem was simply that Dr. Encarnacion entered a vastly different environment from the ones she was used to, and failed to adjust or even consider the situation accordingly. The “right moves” she may have done in the past that may have worked just fine backfired in the new, more complex context.

For one, there was a pre-existing, close-knit, widely-shared culture that thrived on autonomy and exercised initiative. Most of the employees were also enamored of her predecessor, which she perceived as a challenge to her authority (hero envy?). By coming in and instituting autocratic reforms, she sent a signal as to who was in charge and brooked no deviation, emasculating and alienating some. This resulted in hurt feelings and loss of trust, and fostered discord. When some department heads and other members of the operations council offered a contrarian view or idea on certain things, it was taken as another challenge, and the offending personalities were soon replaced. Another instance, in a discussion with the marketing team regarding the new school color, Dr. Encarnacion mentioned that she preferred “phantom green”, noting that it was dark. But when the marketing team pointed out that, according to the PANTONE specifications (an internationally acknowledged standard color chart), phantom green was actually of a pale hue, she admonished the team for speaking out of turn by clarifying matters. This defensive behavior – reacting adversely at every perceived challenge in expertise or authority – would indicate the existence of an “impostor syndrome” , developing superficial bravado and over-the-top self-confidence, and avoiding putting strong people who might show them up on their teams and try constantly to get everyone to pay attention to how fabulous they are, effectively building a wall.

In dog behaviorist Cesar Millan’s TV show, the Dog Whisperer, his main method for controlling aggressive behavior is the use of what animal trainers call “aversives” (leash jerks, kicks, snaps of the hand against the neck, and restraint, among others) applied non-contingently. The aversives are non contingent because they are so frequent that they’re not connected to any particular behavior on the part of the dog — the dog gets popped pretty much constantly. This results in a state called learned helplessness, which means the animal hunkers down and tries to do as little as possible.

This is, in effect, precisely what is happening to the faculty and staff of the College of St. John – Roxas: by instilling an autocratic environment in what was once a laissez-faire culture and reprimanding every perceived slight to her authority, Dr. Encarnacion has effectively reduced the initiative and drive of her employees to the level of a trained dog’s.

And for the faculty and staff being, for the most part, human , this presented a problem, as employees were now left with little in the way of empowerment and initiative actually discouraged.

Also, since it was a small school, most decisions were made and executed informally, as it was often more expedient to simply walk to another person’s office and discuss matters rather than draft memos and set up meetings. No clear organizational lines and boundaries existed, yet Dr. Encarnacion came in as if there were clear hierarchies (and instituted new ones). The former ways of doing things were dismissed as “provincial”.
She came in with her eyes closed and determined to prove that her ways and knowledge were the best (despite repeated evidence to the contrary), totally missing the emotional reality of the community and organization. She was under a lot of pressure to get results and did not see that relationships were the currency and the vehicle for change in this setting. As the pressures mounted and the complexity of the situation increased, her intense focus on outcomes as opposed to relationships became more and more ineffective.

Despite her highly touted reforms, enrollment remains stagnant (certain departments in the CASB in particular, actually suffered from a decrease in new students), and for the first time in the school’s history, failed to win a single gold medal in the cultural portion of the provincial meet, its traditional bailiwick – after all, the trainers were among those that left. The College of Nursing, whose graduates under the previous administration achieved a province-high 69% passing rate in the board exams, underperformed significantly. The exam takers whose 4th year of schooling coincided with her administration’s implementation of reforms fell to a province-low 37% passing rate.

Recommendation

Executives’ emotional intelligence — their self-awareness, empathy, rapport with others — has clear inks to their own performance. But new research shows that a leader’s emotional style also drives everyone else’s moods and behaviors — through a neurological process called mood contagion.

Dr. Encarnacion’s attitude and perception towards the faculty and staff were highly confrontational, creating a dissonant working environment. By approaching the faculty and staff from the point of view that there was something wrong with them and thus needed to be changed or disciplined, she set in motion a series of events that would alienate the very people that made the institution function in the past, without even considering other causes for the school’s nagging problems.

In short, Dr. Encarnacion’s approach was all wrong for the situation; instead of creating a cohesive team, she spawned dissonance, conflict, and mistrust through the injudicious use of power. Instead of motivating and inspiring, she commanded and instilled fear. In an institution as reliant on free, independent thought as a school, this has been, predictably, counter-productive.

Bill George, Professor of Management Practice at the Harvard Business School, talking in front of the Stanford Faculty Club: “Your first job as a leader is to bring people together. Your last job is to say, ‘Thank you.’ And in between a leader is a servant and a debtor.” George also laid out four key tasks for any leader: Align, Empower, Serve, and Collaborate:

Align: The toughest job is to align people around a mission and a set of values… You can’t just put out a mission statement and a list of values–well, you can do that, but it won’t get the job done. You have to talk about it all the time.

Empower: We need to disavow ourselves of the notion that leadership is power over other people. Leadership capacity is the ability to empower other people to step up and lead.

Serve: The notion of maximizing shareholder value has degenerated into maximizing short-term shareholder value, and it’s going to destroy our economy… Business has to serve society, and we can do that by serving customers, but we need to take a longer view.

Collaborate: No one organization can do it alone. Leaders must be able to work across organizational boundaries.

It is thus the opinion of this writer that a quantitative study to ascertain the validity of this paper’s conclusions, so as to provide hard, evidentiary data, and hopefully institute corrective, positive changes.

References

1. Goleman, Daniel, Boyzatis, Richard, and McKee, Annie. Primal Leadership
2. Schlesinger, Leonard A.; James L. Heskett, Breaking the Cycle of Failure in Services
3. Boyzatis, Richard, and McKee, Annie, Resonant Leadership
4. Woolfe, Lorin, The Bible on Leadership
5. Robbins, Stephen, and Judge, Timothy, An Introduction to Organizational Behavior
6. Schermerhorn, John, Hunt, James, and Osborn, Richard, Organizational Behavior, 7th Edition
7. Gladwell, Malcolm, The Tipping Point
8. Topping, Peter, Managerial Leadership

This post is tagged College of St. John - Roxas, Dr. Emma Encarnacion, Leadership, management