Batz clearly is attempting to be a consensus manager -- he wants an agenda to go through for implementation with the least amount of conflict. However, it is also possible that he is being rather Machiavellian (potentially at the expense of committee and administrative time). He allows infighting to occur with the ostensible hope that the individuals will work things out. Yet there is an underlying current that perhaps he is using the apparent open ended, congenial style to get people who will concur with his views -- others to resign so that it appears he is not being heavy handed. However, for Jones' own agenda to work out she must consider that management of a situation and leadership are two entirely different things.
Jones must immediately meet with Batz and, rather than usurping his authority, counsel him to make a decision regarding the conference. Even if he rules against one side, that side might still respect him based on his ability to justify and explain...
At present we have no consensus, no decision, several unhappy stakeholders, and are only postponing the inevitable. If Batz is unwilling or unable to make said decision, or to manage in a manner that is appropriate for Jones' agenda, she has two choices: counsel him and write a performance plan that includes decision making, or replace him and remove the pilot program from his school.
The easiest and most expeditious solution in this case is for Jones to help Batz understand that even in simple situations it is important to have a managerial style that engenders consensus, but not at the expense of action. Jones must make it very clear that she cannot tolerate indecision in matters such as this; that too much time, energy, and loss of productivity has resulted in a relatively simple situation. It is now up to Batz to decide if he will embrace Jones' style and directive.
