Running Head: THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

The Director of Developments Dilemma: A Human Resource and Symbolic Analysis

Jennifer Migliozzi
Salem State University

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

Introduction to Organizational Dilemmas

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines an organization as, a company, business, club,
etc., that is formed for a particular purpose (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2015). Higher
education institutions are formed with the purpose to educate. While each higher education
institutions or universities look to serve this basic purpose, each university has a mission that it
also follows. The mission is more a detailed definition of the universitys purpose and acts as a
guide to the university employees in the work that they do. No matter the department an
employee works in, employees in the Admissions Office to the Wellness Center seek to
accomplish their work while striving towards meeting the goals set forth in the universitys
mission statement. If all employees are working towards the same goals, it only seems rational to
expect the university to consistently meet its goals, fulfill its mission and actualize its purpose.
Yet since people comprise a universitys staff and people do not always work or behave perfectly,
there can be obstacles in fulfilling a universitys mission.
The obstacles universities (and other organizations) encounter can be viewed through
four different frames: human resource, political, structural and symbolic. Lee G. BoWman and
Terrace E. Deal (2013) define the frames as a set of ideas and assumptions.[that] help you
understand and negotiate a particular territory, (p. 19). In other words, the frames work for
people the way a mission works for a university. A frame helps guide individuals thought
processes and decision-making. Frames can be utilized to identify problems within organizations,
as well as to help develop and execute the best solutions to these problems. This paper seeks to
utilize the human resource and symbolic frames to identify obstacles of the Westfield College
employees in the Puzzle Pieces Case Study and propose resolutions and recommendations to
overcome the identified obstacles.

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

Organizational Case Study of Westfield College

The higher education institution Westfield College is a selective womens college located
in the Southern region of the United States. Specifically, it is located in Summit, South Carolina,
a city with a population of 250,000 (Puzzle pieces case study, n.d.). It is a self-identified
independent college. Another term for independent would be private, as the college is not
associated with the state government of South Carolina. With about 3,500 full-time
undergraduates, the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education would define
Westfield College as a medium-sized institution. The major programs of instructions include
liberal arts, humanities, nursing and education (Puzzle pieces case study, n.d.). Its instructional
program would be defined as balanced arts and sciences/professions with some graduate
coexistence, as there is a small number of graduate and continuing education students studying
on campus. The school awards primarily undergraduate degrees with a small number of masters
degrees (New England Resource Center for Higher Education, 2010).
The head of leadership at Westfield College is the President. The President is the highest
level of authority. The next level of authority under the President is the Presidents Council. This
council is comprised of the top of deans and directors of different departments across the
university: Dean of Students, Dean of Faculty, Director of Alumnae Services and Director of
Development. These members of the council are considered senior-level administrators and
report directly to the President (Puzzle pieces case study, n.d., p. 162). Each member of the
Presidents Council is considered an equal; no one member has more authority over another
member (Puzzle pieces case study, n.d.).
The newest member of the Presidents Council is the Director of Development. This
position had recently been created, along with the Development Office. After working ten years

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

in planned and annual giving at a similar institution, the new Director accepted the position at
Westfield College because she felt she had the qualifications and felt ready to manage her own
development team. Upon accepting the position, the new Director was told that development was
crucial Westfield College and would be of high importance to the college for many years. The
importance of her department to the college also encouraged her in accepting the position
(Puzzle pieces case study, n.d.).
The Development Office is staffed by a small group of employees who report to the
Director of Development. There are two clerical positions and two administrative staff positions.
Prior to the new Director of Developments arrival at Westfield College, the clerical positions
were filled through transfers from the Office of Admissions and Alumnae Services. The
President reasoned that filling these positions with internal transfers rather than new hires from
outside the college would provide the Development Office with greater knowledge of these two
offices. Since the three offices would be working together to coordinate development activities,
understanding how both the Office of Admissions and Alumnae Services function would help
facilitate the work produced in the Development Office. The Director of Development hired the
new staff members. She hired two enthusiastic professionals, who were new the field (Puzzle
pieces case study, n.d.).
The Definition of the Director of Developments Dilemma
A most basic definition of the organizational dilemma at Westfield College is the
Development Office has not able to do any major development since its creation. Due to lack of
support from other offices, members of the President and the President himself, the Director of
Development is unable to do her job. The Director of Development sought to create development
opportunities through alumni events and admissions literature, but was denied permission to do

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

so by the Director of Alumnae Services, the Director of Admissions and the President. While the
Director of Development was repeatedly told that development was crucial the present and the
future of Westfield College, she found she was unable to execute any major development
projects at Westfield (Puzzle pieces case study, n.d.).
In her first effort to progress development, the Director of Development approached the
Director of Alumnae Services to add a development reception to the annual Homecoming event
and was denied the chance to do such a reception or even co-sponsor a luncheon. The Director of
Alumnae Services explained that the Homecoming event was one of celebration and
goodwill. (Puzzle pieces case study, n.d., p. 164) He feared asking for donations during
Homecoming would dismiss these positive connotations of the event and potentially hurt the
strong relationships he had forged with the Westfield College alumni. When the Director of
Development approached the President with her idea for development activities at Homecoming,
the President expressed concerns similar to those of the Director of Alumnae Services. The
Director of Development was denied the opportunity for development at homecoming, but the
President did reassure her importance of development to Westfield College (Puzzle pieces case
study, n.d.).
In a second effort, the Director of Development now approached the Director of
Admissions, who was responsible for all of the colleges publications. The Director of
Development wanted to place something in these publications that portrayed current students as
contributors to Westfield College. The Director of Admissions denied her this request. She said
that adding such an idea to the colleges publication could tarnish its reputation and image and
potentially make the college appear to be in financial trouble. She was therefore unable to
accomplish another development venture and again unable to advance Westfield Colleges

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

development efforts. Because of her previous experience with the President, the Director of
Development did not approach the President about this development project. Coming into six
months of working at Westfield College, the Director of Development felt discouraged that the
goals of her office were in conflict with other offices, the Presidents Council and the President
(Puzzle pieces case study, n.d.).
The Human Resource Frame
The organizational dilemma the Director of Development is experiencing can be viewed
through the human resource frame. The human resource frame is based on how organizations and
people react to each other (Bowman & Deal, 2013). The Director of Developments dilemma is
one that involves conflict between the goals of the organization of which she works and her coworkers at the organization. But the dilemma cannot just be simply explained as a conflict of
interests. The factors of motivation and empowerment are two main influencing variables that
contribute to this conflict (Bowman & Deal, 2013). The Directors motivators are not being met
in her new position and she is not feeling empowered within her organization, both of which are
affecting her work.
The first variable that can be identified is the new Director of Developments original
motivation for accepting the position. Theorists Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman identified
five intrinsic motivators that of things that people want to attain in their daily work. The five
motivators are: achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement and pay
(Bowman & Deal, 2013, p. 120). These motivators also function as satisfiers. When an employee
does obtain one of these that employee becomes satisfy at his accomplishment. The more of the
motivators that the employee is able to obtain the more satisfied with her job the employee is
(Bowman & Deal, 2013).

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

When the Director accepted her new position at Westfield College at least four out of the
five motivators can be identified as her personal motivators. After working in the specific area of
giving and development for ten years, the Director was looking to progress in her career, which
can be identified as advancement. She wanted an opportunity where she would have increased
responsibility as a department leader, which could be identified as responsibility. The motivators
of responsibility and advancement can also be found in being a member of the Presidents
Council. Her third motivator is achievement, which is the fulfillment of something. She is
experiencing this fulfillment in obtaining this new, advanced director position. Additionally, with
this position she was working in area that was both familiar to her and suited to her skillset.
Working in such a position, she is motivated by the work itself. Finally, being promoted into a
leadership position, which is one level below the President of the college, can be a form of
recognition for all the work she has accomplished over the last ten years. The motivator of
recognition can also be found in Westfield Colleges expressed support and significance of her
department. Finally, while pay is never explicitly mentioned or referred to, one can conclude
when accepting a higher position than the one they hold, one is receiving an increase in pay. For
this reason the motivator of pay can also be added as motivator for the new Director of
Development (Bowman & Deal, 2013).
Upon accepting the position of Director of Development at Westfield College, the
Director was experiencing five of the five Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman motivators
(Bowman & Deal, 2013). Yet working in the position, it does not appear that the Director of
Development is experiencing these all motivators as satisfiers. While she does have the title of
Director of Development and oversees a staff of four, she has not completed any major projects
with her staff. Because of lac of project completion, she has only managed her staff in a limited

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

way and has not experience the responsibility she thought she would. Additionally, she felt she
was obtaining responsibility as a member of the Presidents Council. Yet two other members of
the Council, the Director of Alumnae Services and the Director of Admissions, acted as having
authority over the Director of Development and therefore taken away some of her responsibility.
They have denied collaborations and stop development projects. It is as if the Director of
Development reports to them, rather than them all being equals. This notion of the Director of
Development being inferior to the Director of Alumnae Services and the Director of Admissions
also contributes to the motivator/satisfier of recognition. The Director of Development is not
being recognized as an equal member of the Presidents Council. Since the other mentioned
Directors and the President have stopped all her major projects, the Director has not been able to
do or complete the work she is capable of doing. She is not doing the work itself of her job. This
lack of work and lack of authority means she has achieved little since she took her position six
months ago. And though she holds an advanced title prior to her former positions, she is not
doing any advanced work. As described, she is unsatisfied in her limited responsibility, her lack
of recognition, the minimal work she is completing, her deficit in achievements and her
advancement in title only. These four motivators have not become satisfiers and little progress
has been made in such an evolution. Overall the Director of Development is unsatisfied with her
lack of authority in her position and the minimal work her department has accomplished due to
this lack of authority (Bowman & Deal, 2013).
One reason why the Director of Development is feeling so unsatisfied in her job is she
not empowered in it. Empowering employees is one of Bowman and Deals Six Basic Human
Resource Strategies. To empower an employee means one is utilizing the strategies of
encouraging autonomy and participation, redesigning work, fostering teams, promoting

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

egalitarianism (Bowman & Deal, 2013, p.147). Empowering employees seeks to bestow with
authority over and value in their work. Currently, Westfield College is either barely utilizing
these strategies or poorly executing these strategies in regards to the Director of Development
(Bowman & Deal, 2013).
From day one of the Director of Developments, she was not given the autonomy to
complete her job. The two clerical positions on her staff were transfers from other departments of
the college, Alumnae Services and the Office of Admission. The reason for these transfers was
the President and college assumed the Director of Development would be coordinating with
these offices for development opportunities. Having previous of staff members of these offices
was thought to be helpful in providing an understanding of how these offices function. While
these notions may be true, the assumption that the Development Office would be working with
these two offices took away much of the Director of Developments autonomy. From her first
day on the job, the Director knew she would be working closely with the other two offices. She
did not have the opportunity to establish her office without the influence of Alumnae Services
and the Admissions Office. While encouraging collaboration is often supported in higher
education, colleges must first empower their employees in their individual work before asking
them to collaborate. The Director of Development was told to collaborate before she could
develop her own working identity and sense of autonomy (Bowman & Deal, 2013).
With the addition of a new office, it appears that work would have to be redesign within
the offices of Westfield College. Yet the college and other offices, specifically Alumnae Services
and the Admissions Office and their respective directors, all continue to work as they did prior to
the creation of the Development Office. Westfield College needs to redesign the work of the
college, so that the Director of Development cam have the opportunity to complete the goals of

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

10

her office. As previously discussed, the Director of Development is also unsatisfied in her work,
so a redesign would also provide an opportunity to increase her satisfaction with her position.
While it is certainly easier to hire people that do not additionally training, as the two clerical staff
members did not, and continue to have all functions as they did prior to the addition of the
Development Office, it is not always best for employee empowerment, especially regarding
those working in new office (Bowman & Deal, 2013).
When the Director of Development was told that she would be working on a team of the
Presidents Council when she accepted the position. The Presidents Council is not acting like a
team, though. Two other members of the Presidents Council, the Director of Alumnae Services
and the Director of Admissions have both acted as superior team members to her. Both have
denied the Director of Developments project ideas rather than working with her on them.
Instead of looking at ways that they can collaborate with the Director of Development, they have
simply said no to her ideas. As a member of the team, the Director of Development is being
viewed and acted towards as a lesser team member because she does not have the same authority
over projects that the other members of the Presidents Council do. The promised team work is
not acting as team work. Instead the team is acting as two supervisors expressing their authority
over an inferior colleague (Bowman & Deal, 2013).
Bowman and Deal define egalitarianism as a democratic workplace where employees
participate in making decisions (Bowman & Deal, 2013, p. 153). Egalitarianism is being
actively involved in making decisions. Currently, the Director of Development is not being
allowed to make any decision. Any decision she makes about major projects, someone has
usurped her authority and did not let her decision stand. For example, when she had the idea to
have a development reception at the Westfield College Homecoming, the Director of Alumnae

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

11

Services and the President of Westfield College both said that the reception could not occur
because of fears that it would threaten relationships with alumni and change the perception of the
event. The Director of Development was not able to express her viewpoints on the reception or
argue for why she thought the reception would be a positive aspect of the Homecoming event.
She was not involved in the decision making process for the denial of the reception. Instead, she
was told what the decision of the Director of Alumnae Services and the President was.
Additionally, she was not provided any opportunity to dispute the decision. While the Director of
Development might have assumed that her workplace would be democratic when she was
informed that she would be a member of the Presidents Council with other senior-level
administrators, it has been shown to be more of a monarchy The Director of Alumnae Services,
the Director of Admissions, and the Westfield College President are all acting as heads of state
with authority over the Director of Development. In actuality, as the way that the management is
structured at Westfield College, the Director of Development, the Director of Alumnae Services
and the Director of Admissions should have equal, democratic authority and should all be
reporting to the President (Bowman & Deal, 2013).
The Symbolic Frame
While the human resource frame is certainly fitting of this organizational dilemma, it is
not the only frame that can be utilized to understand the organizational problems occurring at
Westfield College. Not only is this a dilemma that involves the interaction of people and the
organization of which they work, but it also involves the meaning given to that work (Bowman
& Deal, 2013). According to Bowman and Deal, the symbolic frame is utilized to apply meaning
to our world. This meaning can be applied through values, symbols and rituals. Meaning is a key
part of the Director of Developments dilemma. When she accepted her position, she was told

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

12

that the Development Office was an important part of Westfield College, but when she began
working at the college that importance was not shown in the college leaderships actions. The
verbal meaning and support of the Development Office is not being expressed in the
organizations values, campus symbols, rituals and ceremonies. Organizational values, symbols
and ceremonies are all variables affecting this dilemma (Bowman & Deal, 2013).
In the symbolic frame symbols, rituals and ceremonies are valued more for what they
mean, rather than what they actually produce (Bowman & Deal, 2013). Ritual and ceremony
could be mistaken for interchangeable terms, but in this frame they are distinctly different. A
ritual is something that occurs frequently or normally, while a ceremony is a grand and special
occurrence. A ceremony that is being valued in such a way in this organization dilemma is
Westfield Colleges Homecoming. When the Director of Development spoke to the Director of
Alumnae Services about adding a development reception to the event, she was told that
Homecoming is a celebration of the college (Puzzle pieces case study, n.d., p. 164). The
Director of Alumnae Services feared that adding a development portion to the event would
change the meaning of the ceremony and transform it into a pass-the-collection-plate (Puzzle
pieces case study, n.d., p. 164). Four of the main functions of ceremony are to social, stabilize,
reassure and convey messages to external constituencies (Bowman & Deal, 2013, p. 260).
Ceremonies function as people-focused events that seek to maintain and remind people of
meaning (Bowman & Deal, 2013). The Director of Alumnae Services certainly holds this notion
to be true.
When speaking to the Director of Development about Homecoming, the Director of
Development also mentions that he developed a relationship with alumni over the years through
Homecoming and thought a development reception would threaten that relationship. The

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

13

Director of Alumnae Services appears to fear that the ceremony would loose its symbolic social
function. Adding a new portion of Homecoming that is more focused on supporting the business
of Westfield College, rather than supporting the social relationship of the alumni to the college,
could very well start to strip Homecoming of its strong social standing. The Director of Alumnae
Services does not want to lose the social function of his Homecoming event, and therefore he
does not want to add anything to the event that would threaten this function (Bowman & Deal,
2013).
According to the Director of Alumnae Services, the ceremony of Homecoming looks to
celebrate the college and seemingly remind the alumni of the positive experience that they had
when they attended Westfield. It is providing a stable image of celebration of Westfield College
to the alumni. Not adding new activities, such as the development reception, allows
Homecoming to replicate and maintain this image yearly. Something that is stable is not apt to
change. Adding the development reception would be a change the event and therefore is a direct
threat to its stability. The Director of Alumnae Services does not want to add any new elements
to Homecoming because he does not want to disturb the stabilizing nature of the event (Bowman
& Deal, 2013).
Being a stable ceremony means that what the alumni experience at Homecoming remains
the same at each Homecoming event they attend. This non-change can be viewed as a
reassurance to the alumni. The alumni are comforted that the images or ideas of Westfield
College have not changed since they graduated. By adding a new development portion to
Homecoming, the Director of Alumnae Services fears that the alumnis ideas of Westfield
College and Homecoming will change. The alumni may begin to view their college as one
seeking charity. Homecoming may be viewed as a solicitation of donations. The Director of

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

14

Alumnae Services does not want the alumni to hold this view of Westfield College or
Homecoming. With this change of viewpoint, the ceremony would no longer function as a
reassurance. He wants to provide the alumni with the reassurance that Homecoming is a
celebration and that the alumnis already perceived images of Westfield College remain
(Bowman & Deal, 2013).
The final function of ceremony is to express meaning to groups or people not directly
connected to the ceremony (Bowman & Deal, 2013). For example, the Homecoming event is one
that could be attended not just by alumni who are very involved in the alumni network, but also
casually involved alumni, family of alumni, prospective and current students, faculty and staff,
and members of the local community of Summit, South Carolina. After the Director of Alumnae
Services denied the Director of Development a development reception, they approached the
President of Westfield College for his decision and thoughts. The President said he would feel
uncomfortable if people who had attended out of love for Westfield were pressured into
making a financial contribution (Puzzle pieces case study, n.d., p. 165). In this quote the
President expresses that he fears a development reception would change the perception of
Homecoming. The message that the ceremony would be conveying would no longer be one of
celebration, but one of charity. This change in message is one that both the Director of Alumnae
Services and the President expressly explain they do not want. Both would like the Homecoming
to continue to function as a ceremony that showcases a message of celebration of Westfield
College (Bowman & Deal, 2013).
The Director of Developments interaction with the Director of Alumnae Services and the
President is just one example of where the symbolic frame can be employed to understand the
organizational dilemma of Westfield College. The Director of Developments interaction with the

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

15

Director of Admissions regarding the colleges literature and publications can also be viewed
through the symbolical frame. Specifically, the idea of symbols and value can be seen in this
interaction. Westfield Colleges publications, of which the Director of Admission is responsible,
act as symbols to prospective students and the general public. These publications emulate what
the college values or supports and are utilized as visual symbols to convey these values
(Bowman & Deal, 2013). The Director of Admissions rejects adding development themes to the
publications. She explains she is preserving the reputation and tradition of Westfield College in
her justification of this rejection (Puzzle pieces case study, n.d., p. 165). She does not value
development as a significant part of the image of Westfield. Her actions demonstrate she values
reputation and tradition. Since the Director of Admissions publications are used as symbols to
represent the college and express its values, it can be determined that Westfield College does not
value development either (Puzzle pieces case study, n.d., p. 165).
Bowman and Deal define value as what the organization lives and breathes in its
everyday function and actions (2013). What the organization affirms in mission statements,
organization documents and even in conversations amongst employees is not always what the
organization actually values. So for example, the President expresses to the Director of
Development multiple times that development is very important to Westfield College, yet the
actions of him, the Director of Alumnae Services and the Director of Admissions prove that
development is not yet held as a value at Westfield College. Each project the Director of
Development proposes is rejected. These rejections show in action that Westfield College does
not value or support development yet. The Presidents verbal expression of the Development
Offices value does not have real value or real meaning. The value and meaning is found in the
actions of the other Directors and the President. This lack of value in the Developments Office

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

16

has prevented the department from successfully completing any major projects at Westfield
College (Bowman & Deal, 2013).
Proposed Resolutions
Even though an organizational dilemma currently exists at Westfield College, the
dilemma does not have not to remain. Utilizing the human resource and symbolic frames,
solutions to the dilemma can be found. The Director of Development can start to actually
collaborate with the Director of Alumnae Services and the Director of Admissions as an equal
member of the Presidents Council. Instead of being treated as a staff member who works under
them, the Director of Development can work with them on projects. In this respect, the actions of
those directors and the President can begin to reflect the words that the President had repeated to
the Director of Development. The President had said that development is important to Westfield
College, but the actions of the senior-level administrators have not shown this notion. Work may
have to be redesign to show this importance, but this modification should increase the
satisfaction of the Director of Development, as well as the productivity of her office. Overall
these changes will showcase that Westfield College really does value development and the work
that the Office does and can do.
One strategy that can be employed to help solve this dilemma is found in the human
resource frame. Providing their own interpretation of Argyris and Schons theories-in-use,
Bowman and Deal (2013) developed six ways for dealing with interpersonal conflicts in groups,
which are as follows: develop skills, agree on the basics, search for common interests,
experiment, doubt your infallibility and treat differences as group responsibility (p. 179-180) The
Director of Development, the Director of Alumnae Services and the Director of Admissions can
all utilize these recommendations when working together on projects and collectively as

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

17

members of the Presidents Council. When working with the President, the Director of
Development and the other directors can also employ these six strategies. In using the
recommendations of the human resource frame, the problems uncovered in the symbolic frame
can be resolved. For example, as a group the directors can modify ceremonies and symbols to
better reflect the realized value of the Development Office to Westfield College. The perceived
value of the Development Office needs to be transformed into real value. These six human
resource strategies can help to facilitate this transformation.
When Bowman and Deal (2013) define the strategies of developing skills they list a set of
skills as examples. One skill they provide as example is listening. The Director of Alumnae
Services, the Director of Admissions and the President are currently not employing the skill of
listening when communicating with the Director of Development. For example, the Director of
Admissions did not listen to the Director of Developments reasoning for requesting changes to
Westfield Colleges publications. The Director of Admissions did not want to change the
publications for fear it would negatively change the image of the college. The Director of
Development explained that the change would help current and prospective students better
understand that they can be contributors to the college. While this may be a change in image for
Westfield College, it is not necessarily a negative change. The Director of Admissions did not
fully listen to the Director of Development. Listening is not simply hearing someone, but
processing what that person is saying. The Director of Development is recommending changes to
events and publications and providing solid reasons for these changes. The other directors and
the President must refine their listening skills to really hear these reasons and understand that
requested changes are to further development at Westfield College.

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

18

After listening to the Director of Developments reasons, it would be helpful for the key
players of this dilemma to all agree on basic goals and shared common interests. The President,
with the support of the Presidents Council, has expressed the need and importance of
development at Westfield College. But as stated previously, the actions of the President and his
council have proven otherwise. Verbally, there is an agreement that development is important
amongst all senior-level administrators. The directors and the President also share the interest of
doing what is best for Westfield College. Goals now need to be set to realize these agreed upon
notions.
One major goal should be for the Development Office to collaborate on one project with
the Director of Alumnae Services and one project with the Director Admissions. These projects
do not have to be permanent. Instead, they can be experiments. With experimentation there are
no winners of losers. Instead, there are parties coming together equally. Experiments are agreeing
to try something new when agreement in other areas cannot be found (Bowman & Deal, 2013).
For example, the Director of Development and the Director of Alumnae Service could
collaborate to create development alumni events that are separate from Homecoming.
Homecoming could still remain as a celebratory and social event, while new development events
could be used to expand the image of Westfield College as one that cares about development.
These events could work as ceremonies. The Development Office could produce more social
events for alumni to attend. These development events would work to stabilize the idea of
Westfield College as an organization that prioritizes development, as well as reassure alumni and
other community members that the college is working towards this priority. Overall, these events
would help to express Westfield Colleges value of development.

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

19

Another experiment would be for the Director of Development to collaborate with the
Director of Admissions to create new development-focused literature. Instead of distributing the
literature in the Admissions Office, this new literature could be distributed through the
Development Office. In doing so, the Admissions Office could still use its current literature as
visual symbols to express Westfield Colleges value of tradition. Therefore the Development
Office would be using its literature as visual symbols to express Westfelds new value of
development. Former values would not be taken away. A new value would simply be added. This
recommendation is a compromise that allows Westfield to retain its current image and values in
addition to the new value of development.
Adding these collaborative projects to the Director of Developments work could help
transform her motivators into satisfiers. With these new projects, she would be working in areas
she previously thought she would be when she accepted the position. As she would be overseeing
new events and publications, this work would be providing her with increased responsibility.
Additionally, an expanded workload and shared responsibility for the creation of publications
and operation of events would qualify as advanced work that is fitting of her Director title. The
President and the Presidents Councils approval of this work would act as recognition of the
importance of the Development Office, as well as the skills and ideas of the Director of
Development. Finally, the approval of these projects and their eventual production can be
identified as an achievement for the Director of Development. Considering that she was working
on no major projects and would now be working on two, she would have achieved quite a lot in a
short period of time. Allowing the Director of Development to produce two projects out of her
office with the assistance of the Director of Alumnae Services and the Director of Admissions
would work as a collaborative way to increase the Directors satisfaction with her job.

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

20

This redesign of work would not only provide satisfaction in the Director of
Developments work, but also empowerment. New projects that are helm in the Development
Office, rather than outside offices, would help to facilitate an expansion of the Director of
Developments autonomy. Furthermore, the Director of Development would be working with the
Director of Alumnae Services and the Director of Admissions, instead of seemingly working for
them, when making decisions about these projects. A truer form of teamwork would be
experienced. This overall increase in the Director of Developments authority would work as an
increase in empowerment.
Creating new projects that are produced in the Developments Office would act as a way
to create more authority and autonomy for the Director of Development. These projects would be
collaborations with Alumnae Services and Admissions. The projects would help to foster shared
authority, common interests and teamwork. They would work to actively produce and express the
true value of development at Westfield College. Finally, these projects would assist in increasing
the Director of Developments satisfactions with her job and the empowerment in her job. The
human resource and symbolic frames were utilized to come to these conclusions. Each frame
provided a new lens to view the Directors dilemma, as well as the resolutions of the dilemma.
The human resource discovered news ways in which the directors and President could work
together, while the symbolic frame explored ways that changes in college operations could better
reflect the meaning of Westfield Colleges values. Together, the two frames provided a clear
vision of how to modify the organization and production of work at Westfield College to satisfy
and benefit all parties involved.
References

THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTS DILEMMA

21

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and
leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. (2015). Organization - definition and more from the free
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/organization
New England Resource Center for Higher Education. (2010). Carnegie Classifications:
Standard Listings. Retrieved from
http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup_listings/standard.php
Puzzle pieces case study. (n.d.).