I do think that more interactive resolution approaches could have been used by Mr. Bunn during this assembly of his cost savings proposal. Although he did ask the deans for ideas on how to make the cost savings measures, when they refused to make a first pass he could have presented his “quality matrix” prior to the actual assessments. This would allow for feedback and most likely some healthy debate regarding Mr. Bunn’s assessment approach. He could have heard of the concerns not covered in his matrix so that all concerns could be addressed so that a complete assessment would be completed.
Mr. Bunn didn’t try to save all the programs but rather made huge cuts in some and eliminated others thus not looking for a win-win for all faculty, students, and staff. He didn’t really address the concerns of all parties involved by rather just looked to meet his bottom line. This clearly back fired when the protests started and the call for his resignation was made by the student senate. If he included all parties the likeliness that more of a consensus would have been reached is more likely. The negotiation process breaks down quickly if both sides are not felling heard. In the end of any negotiations, both sides need to make concessions and in this case jobs were probably going to be lost no matter what but if evey one is involved actively, the acceptance to the deal is much more able to occur.