"The challenge for policy-makers and the general public is to resist the impulse to force colleges and universities into substituting the kind of rote training that technology can cheaply supply for the more expensive education that teaches thinking and analytic skills, values, and an understanding of complex relationships, which the learned professor in the classroom can facilitate" (Kolodny, 1998, p. 36).
"The administrative bloat build over the last 20 years could be decreased to achieve flatter organizations and less expenditure. This goal could be accompanied with refocused attention on the fundamental priorities of higher education institutions" (Manning, 2013, p. 205). "The competition established between and among higher education institutions has built an arms race where all lose. The race to build the best amenities and facilities has distracted the attention of students, faculty, and administrators alike from the fundamental purposes of higher education: the achievement of a high quality education" (Manning, 2013, p. 205). The themes of increasing costs and the need for higher education finance reform rang throughout both readings this week. We all know financing college is a significant concern right now and something that needs to see some change to increase both access and success. But these quotes alone reveal many of the debates surrounding such a discussion. To begin, there is debate over the purpose of higher education. Is it to learn as much as you can in a classroom? Is it to be trained for a specific job or career? Is it to become a well-rounded individual capable of existing effectively in a diverse, globalized society? (Is it obvious which of these I most support?!) Without agreement on a purpose, administrators may not come together to make decisions about finance reform. Those who believe in a purely academic purpose may argue for the elimination of extracurriculars and athletics, as they are expensive entities that only serve to distract from classroom learning. Those who advocate for a job-training purpose would argue against general education curriculum and would immediately eliminate concepts of the liberal arts. Those who take the liberal arts, holistic perspective would say nothing can be eliminated - but may have few ideas for how to fund all the "extra things" colleges and universities offer. Is the answer to allow for different specializations for colleges? Generally, I see research institutions falling into more of the academic purpose of higher education, vocational and trade schools aligning more with job-training beliefs, and liberal arts schools making up the final category of purposes. However, I believe many schools - regardless of classification - have started to move toward the "do it all" approach, where they have all adopted elements of other types of institutions. Is this done to stay competitive? Is it the wisest choice? Should institutional specialization end? Over the past decade, we have seen a rise in online learning, MOOCs, and other virtual classroom styles. Yet, as Kolodny (1998) wrote, this is not able to achieve the same impact as in-person learning. Manning (2013) discussed removing administrative bloat, which I interpret as meaning student affairs should be reduced/eliminated (I want a job!!). Both seem to be concerned with accountability. But that too raises questions of how to measure performance and how to implement accountability. Overall, this week's readings raised many questions for me, none of which I have the answer to. I agree things must change in terms of financing higher education, but I cannot even fathom what that may look like right now.
0 Comments
In this week's readings, Bolman and Deal (2013) discussed the souls of organizations. They described the souls as being the bedrock of organizations' identities and values, and as being closely intertwined with the organizations' ethics. While reading this, I immediately began thinking of the souls of the various groups I've been a part of, whether they were work offices, student organizations, professional societies, or even just group project teams. Each one seems to have its own souls, but I came to realize I have a loosely-defined soul I prefer an organization to have. This was shown by how similar the souls among organizations I've led are, both because of how they were already established and because of how I crafted the soul while in the leadership role. I prefer organizations that value family-like structures and maintain strong ethics of inclusion and empowerment (or authorship).
Perhaps the strongest example of my preferred organizational soul is that of the student newspaper where I was the Managing Editor. Everyone operated as a family with genuine care and concern for each other paired with strong loyalty. We sought to make everyone feel welcome and included, which was done pretty naturally especially considering just how vastly different each person was. Finally, we played to each others' strengths and provided enough autonomy for each person to take ownership of their role. Such an organizational soul also reflects the Feminist perspective of organizations as described in Manning (2013). On the other hand, I have worked in organizations and offices where I find myself at odds with the soul. I typically struggle with souls born out of the political framework, where power is strongly valued. In one student affairs office where I have worked, the student volunteers in one organization were valued much more highly than student staff members and other constituencies. This embodied favoritism, fueled senses of entitlement, and created poorly-founded perceptions of power and authority of one group of students over another. I struggled with this office's soul, as it was so conflicting with my own values, ethics, and identity. Once I began reading the chapters from Schloss and Cragg (2013) for this week, I realized how applicable organization souls are to crises and laws. What an organization values, the ethics they maintain, and their sense of identity will guide how they respond to emergencies and the ways in which they will interact with various policies. Will they be equipped to handle crises, or will a single emergency be their end? Will they strive to uphold policies, or will they seek to understand laws just to know how to sidestep them? In the examples I described above, I can see how the newspaper's soul and the campus office's soul would influence their interactions with crises and policies. The newspaper would be ready for a campus protest against an editorial it wrote because every staff member would have each others' backs and they would have carefully written the editorial in accordance with its values of right and wrong. On the other hand, however, I could see the campus office failing to respond to dissatisfaction and criticism by external groups; those students who were undervalued and not included in the "favorite" group would likely turn against the office and fuel the fire. In regard to policies, the newspaper staff was well-versed in them and knew how to reinforce them through their work. With the campus office, however, I would see shady things happening to try and get around policies with facilities, marketing on campus, etc. In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading about various souls of organizations. As I continue my job search, I will do my best to identify the souls of colleges and campus offices to help me find my best fit. "Quantum leaps and paradigm shifts. . . are uncontrollable, unpredictable, and full of opportunity. . . The shift to a new paradigm involves understanding that these environments can be understood though not controlled, that there are many possible outcomes to the situations presented, and there is more going on than objective measures reveal" (Manning, 2013, p. 137-138).
It is impressive to think that these sorts of ideas are applicable to organizations and their structures; they sound more like plot lines in the Twilight Zone than frameworks to apply to organizations. Yet, Manning (2013) wrote about these ideas in the context of higher education and the volatile environments in which such institutions exist. To be a successful administrator of higher education, one must understand these notions. The landscape of higher education features many hills and valleys and shifts seemingly from one world to another. Perhaps one of the most frequent and significant paradigm shifts is launched through political administration and government. Federal governments, governors, and state legislatures can change the whole world of higher ed. For example, the Obama administration redefined what Title IX looked like on college campus and how it should be enforced to address issues of sexual assault. Just a few years later, however, the Trump administration revoked such policy and drove it in an entirely new direction. At the state level, deadlocks between legislatures and governors can result in $0 funding support of universities, as is currently seen in Illinois. These are all things university administrators cannot control. However, by seeking to understand them - the quantum leaps, the paradigm shifts - they can more effectively respond to them. I believe a common problem is administrators seek to try and predict or control such things rather than simply striving to understand them. Another quote that really stood out to me from Manning's chapters (can you tell these were my favorite for this week??) was: "Quantum organizational theorists postulated that relationships form the core of reality in institutions. Organizations did not exist as entities separate from human behavior that operated on 'natural' laws determined from outside that system. Rather, humans and their relationships were the organization. . . Quantum-assuming organizational members understand that leaders and other personnel cannot be swapped out like machine parts. The absence of one person has a ripple effect on the entire system as relationships shift, change, and re-form" (Manning, 2013, p. 139). I think this is especially true at smaller institutions. Having come from a much smaller private school and being in the midst of a job search for employment at such institutions, I both see and value the interconnectedness of such organizations. Whereas I believe larger institutions can tend to be more focused and operate in "silos", professionals at small institutions need to depend on each other moreso. When I'm interviewing at small schools, I find myself speaking with faculty, with safety officers, business affairs officers, coaches, and more. At larger institutions, these people aren't as likely to be involved in such processes. Having such an interconnectedness presents both benefits and challenges, but for me, the benefits are amazing and the challenges are exciting. |
Kristin KreherMy happiness comes from meaningful interactions, the outdoors, thrift shops, and saying "thank you." Archives
April 2018
Categories
All
|