With it already being halfway through the semester, it is time to really get going on my final project. To begin gaining an understanding of how I want to tackle this project, I am going to use this week’s Reaction post as an opportunity to apply an organizational framework to Greek Peer Advocates. This week’s readings from Bolman and Deal (2013) addressed the symbolic framework.
I will begin by introducing Greek Peer Advocates (GPA). GPA is a sexual assault awareness and prevention training program sponsored by the Office of Greek Life at Ball State. Two years ago, the office launched this program to address issues of sexual assault within the fraternity and sorority community. The immediate success and excitement it experienced, however, was not sustainable. As trainee retention dropped and enthusiasm waned, the program needed to refocus and redirect. This is what it is spending this semester doing, through the work of the student directors and support of the professional advising staff (the Assistant Director of Greek Life and three graduate assistants, including me). By examining GPA through the symbolic framework as described by Bolman and Deal (2013) in this week’s readings, I can gain insight into how various elements of the program and organization may have led to its decline and identify opportunities to help it rebuild. Bolman and Deal (2013) wrote of cultures, vision, values, languages, and ceremonies as part of the symbolic framework. The culture created by the GPA directors and lead trainers is one of determination to prevent sexual assault, a strong understanding of the various elements of sexual assault, a voice of advocacy, and a drive toward activism. This is displayed in the way they interact with each other, the articles and news they share, and the stories they tell. The vision for GPA is to create a trickle down effect of awareness and education; those who go through the training are meant to take the information back to their chapters and share it with other members perhaps through formal presentations but moreso through informal conversations. Some of the values related to GPA are a commitment to justice for victims, an ownership of intervening not just being a bystander, and an education of how to end sexual assault. Members of GPA speak a language riddles with words from Title IX policies, such as “consent,” “sexual harassment,” and “gender-based discrimination,” and words very tailored to the structure of the program. Finally, the only ceremony that really exist are selections of the directors (and that is even a stretch to consider this a ceremony). Although most of this sounds great, there are many hidden issues with GPA related to these various elements of the symbolic framework. To begin, the culture of advocacy and activism is exhibited in the leaders of the program and in their daily lives, but they struggle to extend it toward those who go through the trainings. The vision of a trickle effect is good, but is not being effectively enacted; trainees are not taking the messages back to their chapters as intended, so this must be rethought in how the program facilitates that. Honestly, I do not see issues with the values. But, I do see issues with the languages used; for those unfamiliar with the program (as another grad assistant and I were at the beginning of the semester), the program-specific language is difficult to grasp; this also is applicable to the Title IX language for those who are unfamiliar with it. Finally, I see an opportunity for ceremonies to be introduced to enhance the organization. An end of training ceremony where people’s achievement of finishing the training could aid in retention by formally recognizing their efforts. Overall, the symbolic framework can be applied to a variety of organizations to identify their areas of strengths and weaknesses. I enjoyed applying it to GPA and look forward to doing similar work for the final project.
0 Comments
"Symbols that are meant to include can inadvertently exclude. Action meant to set expectations for excellence can chafe against student expectations of adult freedom and independence" (Manning, 2013, p. 98).
In this week's readings, Chapter 8 of Manning's text discussed cultural perspectives of higher education institutional organizations. She examined what all goes into shaping this culture, and she pointed out the flaws of a corporate culture approach to higher education. In such institutions, Manning wrote that culture is formed by all the people within the organization, the long-standing conflicting goals within such settings, and the numerous subcultures existing among stakeholders. She highlighted the values and assumptions, history and traditions, priests and storytellers, language, and architecture that shape cultures of higher education institutions. What stood out to me the most, however, was the section on symbols, specifically the excerpt that began this blog post. While symbols are important parts of any culture, they are always up for interpretation. As the text said, a statue of the institution's founder may reflect tradition and excellence and service and entrepreneurship to one person, while simultaneously reflecting outdated notions and values to another person. I believe such controversial symbols are becoming more and more prominent in today's systems of higher education. We must carefully consider how such symbols can be perceived and what they are intended to represent. However, intention alone cannot justify continued support of a symbol that is perceived as exclusionary or gentrifying. It can be a tough territory to navigate; symbols are important in creating culture and instilling pride, but they can also cause controversy. Which, leads us right into the readings from Bolman and Deal (2013) for this week. These readings continued last week's introduction to conflict in organizations and looked deeper into the political framework of organizational structures. My favorite section from this reading was about the political skills a manager must possess: agenda-setting, mapping the political terrain, networking and building coalitions, and bargaining and negotiating. The bargaining and negotiating skill is something I get to practice in my job right now, in a much more explicit form than in the sense Bolman and Deal are meaning it to be. Working with Student Center Programs, I am often contracting outside vendors and trying to negotiate with them about the services they'll provide and the price we will pay them. Although this is somewhat different than what a manager must do in leading an organization, many of the same practices are still in place. For example, I must strive to understand what exactly the vendor is wanting and how I can help them get that while still getting what I want and need. This works best when I follow the steps described by Bolman and Deal. The first step is to separate people from the problem. Many of our vendors are sole proprietors and their business is their whole livelihood; this makes it much more difficult to separate the people from the deal than it is when we're working with large booking agencies. The second strategy is focusing on interests, not positions. It's not a matter of taking sides or being opposition; it's a matter of us and the vendor both trying to maximize our interests. The third strategy is to invent options for mutual gain instead of locking in on the first alternative that comes to mind. Sometimes we do this by creating bundle packages with more items, making the vendor's trip more worthwhile and our price-per-item lower. Finally, the last strategy is to insist on objective criteria - standards of fairness for both substance and procedure. I view this as maintaining realistic expectations; like I wouldn't expect a vendor to do any event below-cost. Overall, understanding this part of the political framework among others can help an administrator be more effective in navigating conflict and maximizing the results of the organization and its individuals. This week, I really enjoyed the readings from Bolman and Deal (2013). To begin, I want to zero in on my favorite part of it, Exhibit 6.1 Models of Motivation at Work on page 121. This seems to be an element often overlooked by new leaders and managers when trying to consider how to increase the performance of their team. In my assistantship and practicum, I am responsible for advising several student leaders. Quite often, they will come to me with frustrations about their organization members under-performing or issues with membership retention. When this happens, I will engage them in a conversation about what their members are seeking through this involvement and how the organization is meeting those needs and desires. We talk about how to help organization members pursue their own goals and motivations in a way that also aligns with the needs and goals of the organization. Additionally, we will discuss little ways in which to increase their motivation, such as providing them with greater ownership of their work, sharing results of their efforts, and acknowledging their work with gratitude.
Many classes, job interviews, and initial organization meetings will begin with the same question: “Why are you here?” The goal of this question is to elicit potential opportunities to motivate the members of the class, the job applicant, or organization member. However, people often take it as a test. It seems to, more often than not, spur one of two reactions: eye rolls or an artificial answer that is clearly based on whatever the respondent believes the questioner wants to hear. Yet, when these answers are given, there is a missed opportunity to demonstrate what could help a respondent have a great experience. We need to start considering this question more thoughtfully and answer it honestly. Okay, back to the readings…how am I 300 words into this reflection and haven’t even really discussed the readings?! I guess Exhibit 6.1 just ignited several thoughts for me. In this graphic, models of motivation are shared. From Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Pink’s three drives, several different elements of needs are shared. However, they are all based on the same premise: people have needs, and they are motivated by trying to meet those needs. I especially like the models by McClelland and Pink. McClellands addresses people’s three primary needs/motivators: achievement, power, affiliation. Everyone wants to accomplish something and see the results of their efforts, they want to gain authority to spread influence, and they want to have groups with which they can identify and feel a sense of belonging. Pink highlights three “drives”: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. For me, purpose is always a significant driving force. Whenever I feel burnt out or discouraged with my work, I refocus on my purpose of serving others to power through the challenge. Additionally, I want to have control over my work (autonomy), and I want to always continue improving at what I do (mastery). Seeing these different models and the times of their development makes me wonder: do people’s needs and motivators change over time? I’m not talking about an individual’s needs. I’m talking about needs common to a whole generation. Can such research and models persist, or will there be continuous generational changes? Which needs are so core to being a human that will always be applicable? As we seek to be leaders and managers, these are the questions we should taken into consideration. |
Kristin KreherMy happiness comes from meaningful interactions, the outdoors, thrift shops, and saying "thank you." Archives
April 2018
Categories
All
|