UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTING MANDATED REORGANIZATIONS 103 president changed his plan. Instead of a stand-alone engineering college, the engi- neering programs would all be merged into the existing College of Information Technology, which was struggling with declining enrollments and had an interim dean. The college would be renamed the College of Engineering and Information Technology, with engineering listed first. The president said that anticipated growth in engineering programs would offset the enrollment challenges facing the current information technology programs, and the colleges overall would appear more balanced and productive to the Board of Regents [Political]. The provost called to confirm Bret’s support for appointing one of the engineering technology depart- ments chairs as interim dean of the new college. It was only with this phone call that Bret began to realize the extent of the work that was necessary to reorganize. It meant, at the very least, splitting off two departments (along with their administrators, faculty, staff, students, space, and finances) and housing them in three new departments in their “new” college [Structural & Human Resource]. Nineteen months may sound like a lot of lead-time, but placed on top of regular decanal job, time evaporated. Other complications arose that were not anticipated. For instance, the College of Science and Technology was named in an endowment. Which college would receive the endowment? What parts of it? The college’s centralized advisement center was now to be divided. Which college would receive how many staff, and which ones? What was an acceptable process for these decisions that would stand up to the scru- tiny of faculty, staff, students, and the provost? Much guesswork ensued. Bret did not know of deans who had gone through a similar situation, and there was no resource book for guidance. Against Bret’s recommendation, the endowment was moved to the new engi- neering college. The interim dean argued successfully that this move was in line with donor intent. And although he was probably correct, the move negatively impacted several initiatives in Bret’s college that supported students and faculty in research and service. A messy debate also occurred over the split of the advisement center. Only new resources added by the provost’s office mitigated some of the tension. Wrangling over space continued for several years. Once the engineering college was implemented and marketed, enrollment in its programs surged, as did the demand for service courses in the science and math departments in the science college. It is unclear, however, how much of the growth can be attributed to the splitting of the college versus to the conversion of engi- neering programs. The reorganization in this case was made primarily for symbolic and marketing purposes. This is not an uncommon rationale. We interviewed deans at a range of But beyond the enthusiasm about the symbolism of reorganization, no one was really reflecting on what the college reorganization would mean.