This one's confused me for a long time. I have a map of the CCCU members and affiliates. There's a dozen such institutions in Southern California. Add another dozen in Texas and a dozen in Nebraska and Oklahoma (counting JBU in this group since we're on the Oklahoma border).
And then what? The only CCCU member school is Colorado Christian in the Denver area, and it's struggling. Then you have a smattering of marginal CCCU institutions: Grand Canyon in Phoenix with only 500 traditional undergrads and a Mormon as president, Southwestern College in Phoenix with less than 500 and pretty much a Bible school emphasis, and College of the Southwest in small town New Mexico 100 miles from Lubbock with less than 500 students and also something of a Bible school emphasis.
So you've got maybe 3000 students in traditional undergraduate settings in anything remotely related to Christian higher education for a region of the country with a current population base of 18 million (Arizona - 6, Nevada 2.5, Utah 2.5, New Mexico 2, Colorado 4.5, and Wyoming 0.5) and still growing. Given that most students attend college within a 300 miles radius of where their families are, this failure on the part of Christians to establish a strong presence in this region of the country is perplexing.
Perhaps it's just that the population growth has occurred in the last two decades, and Christians haven't quite caught up with that demographic change? Perhaps the weaker denominational ties in the 21st Century and in this part of the country are hindering these developments? Maybe what we'll need is an interdenominational institution like JBU or APU that can connect better to the megachurches in the area to start a branch campus in the area the way Midwestern University from Illinois has done in Glendale, Arizona. Hmm . . . I'll have to give that one more thought.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
From assessment to good teaching
I attended an assessment conference last week. That sounded pretty mind-numbing, and most of the presentations were (though the food was excellent!). But then somewhere in the three days, the focus shifted from "assessment" to helping students learn. That's what I needed to hear.
My general perspective has been that assessment is primarily educational bureaucracy from an accrediting agency (HLC) designed to keep other educational bureaucracies (state and federal government) from hounding us even more. But the new HLC criteria and much of what I heard at the conference was much more focused on how do we really help students get better. If by doing that we also happen to satisfy outside agencies looking for "accountability," great. But that's not the main concern--good teaching is. Amen.
Here's an example of how that approach seems to be going well at Alverno - http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/08/14/engelmann.
My general perspective has been that assessment is primarily educational bureaucracy from an accrediting agency (HLC) designed to keep other educational bureaucracies (state and federal government) from hounding us even more. But the new HLC criteria and much of what I heard at the conference was much more focused on how do we really help students get better. If by doing that we also happen to satisfy outside agencies looking for "accountability," great. But that's not the main concern--good teaching is. Amen.
Here's an example of how that approach seems to be going well at Alverno - http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/08/14/engelmann.
A war we can win?
I haven't really commented on current events in this blog, other than my on-going complaint about how we complain too much, but I found this NY Times piece on the state of the debate concerning Iraq to be helpful - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=2&oref=slogin.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
5-Minute University
Classic SNL piece that a colleague passed along - http://videosrv6.cs.washington.edu/general/5minuteU.wmv .
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
College grads less likely to abandon religion?
Contrary to what is perceived to be the normal pattern, this study appears to show that college grads a more likely to maintain their religious connection - http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/2007/06/sociology06.html.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Review of "Is the Reformation Over?"
As all of the official reviewers have noted, this authoritative summary of the issues from Noll and Nystrom is first rate. I have nothing to add on that score. The question for me is a policy one. What do their conclusions mean for institutions like ours who have been steeped in the Protestant tradition and who continue to see themselves as espousing a certain Protestant ethos in our educational efforts?
My thinking on the topic hasn't really changed as a result of reading this book. Have Catholics and Protestants come closer together since Vatican II? Undoubtedly. Are there still significant differences between the two groups in terms of their basic worldviews and theologies? Also yes. Of the two major initial breaking points, sola fides and sola scriptura, the hurdle of "justification by faith" has more or less been overcome, but the issue of church authority persists.
With that question of church authority still a major different in our "languages" speak Christian truth, I cannot yet support hiring a professing to a full-time position in which that individual would be one of the primary purveyors of our historically Protestant understanding of reality. That means, in my book, that I accept a place like JBU hiring staff and adjuncts who are professing Catholics, but not hiring full-time faculty, cabinet members, or a President who shares such views. Those are still steps too far if we are to continue the important work of speaking a particular understanding of Christianity to our students and to the wider culture. That is our mission, and hiring individuals to be the primary communicators of that vision who do not share crucial aspects of that vision seems to me inappropriate, however much I personally have moved toward the Catholic tradition (by joining the Episcopal Church) and however much the godparents of my son and others at JBU (and in the CCCU) strongly disagree with me.
My thinking on the topic hasn't really changed as a result of reading this book. Have Catholics and Protestants come closer together since Vatican II? Undoubtedly. Are there still significant differences between the two groups in terms of their basic worldviews and theologies? Also yes. Of the two major initial breaking points, sola fides and sola scriptura, the hurdle of "justification by faith" has more or less been overcome, but the issue of church authority persists.
With that question of church authority still a major different in our "languages" speak Christian truth, I cannot yet support hiring a professing to a full-time position in which that individual would be one of the primary purveyors of our historically Protestant understanding of reality. That means, in my book, that I accept a place like JBU hiring staff and adjuncts who are professing Catholics, but not hiring full-time faculty, cabinet members, or a President who shares such views. Those are still steps too far if we are to continue the important work of speaking a particular understanding of Christianity to our students and to the wider culture. That is our mission, and hiring individuals to be the primary communicators of that vision who do not share crucial aspects of that vision seems to me inappropriate, however much I personally have moved toward the Catholic tradition (by joining the Episcopal Church) and however much the godparents of my son and others at JBU (and in the CCCU) strongly disagree with me.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The decline of the secular university?
Will postmodernism result in post-secularism as well? The reviewer of this new book isn't convinced. Neither am I.
http://www.ctlibrary.com/45832
http://www.ctlibrary.com/45832
The Return of History?
As an historian, I continually chafe at the "doomsday" rhetoric and the lack of historical perspective that infuse much of contemporary reporting. Whether you agree with Robert Kagan's particular argument, I appreciate his emphasis on how much of our current international situation is both consistent with long-standing American actions and with most "great-power" rivalries throughout recent centuries.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html
And, at the other extreme, I appreciate hearing from the actual people on the ground, in this case, General Petraeus, about what's going on.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=484182dc-bf7c-42a7-ac74-9e270a9ef0f2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html
And, at the other extreme, I appreciate hearing from the actual people on the ground, in this case, General Petraeus, about what's going on.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=484182dc-bf7c-42a7-ac74-9e270a9ef0f2
Dilbert telecommutes
This is how I sometimes feel while on sabbatical and doing my own telecommuting. As a result, I've been finding temporary offices around JBU every morning so that I can get some "real work" done.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/work.at.home/dilbert/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/work.at.home/dilbert/
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Review of "Hard Facts"
The full title from Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton is "Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, & Total Nonsense, Profiting from Evidence-Based Management." It's a follow up to their "Knowing-Doing Gap," and in some ways, it argues the opposite point. In "Knowing-Doing," the authors contended that most managers know what to do, they just have problems implementing. In this book, they argue that most managers really haven't thought about what they're doing in terms of "real" evidence and instead tend to follow the latest trend, what their "gut" says, what is politically supported, etc.
The answer is "evidence-based management," part of a larger "evidence-based" movement that has had its greatest impact in "evidence-based medicine." "Evidence-based education" has its biggest following in England, but the basic ideas are certainly being applied in the U.S. as well. If you've read Freakonomics, Blink, or other "social science explained for the masses" books, you'll get the basic gist, though this monograph is much more academic in nature and contains far fewer riveting stories.
Nonetheless, the basic arguments are compelling. After laying out the basic rationale, the authors highlight six basic management questions and reveal that the typical conclusions most businesses have reached about these topics are "wrong" and then go on to explain what the current best evidence indicates is a better choice.
1) "Is work fundementally different from the rest of life?" Most businesses say "yes." There should be sharp lines between work and private life, and work life is ultimately more important. This attitude, the authors contend, developed out of a factory model in which employees are essentially "machines." Ford famously said that he hired "hands," but unfortunately, whole persons came along with those hands. But treating people as "machines" invariably makes them feel less valued, resulting in lower performance, higher turnover, etc. Those institutions that blur the work/personal life boundaries and treat their employees as part of the "community" as much as possible are the ones that typically see the highest levels of performance.
2) "Do the best organizations have the best people?" I've posted separately on this topic, but the current "war for talent" craze, the authors argue, is fundamentally misguided. Good systems and good teams matter much more than good people in a world in which we're all hiring from essentially the same talent pool.
3) "Do financial incentives drive company performance?" Similar to their arguments in their previous book, the authors contend here that individualized merit pay tends to reduce organization-wide performance, not enhance it. I've posted elsewhere on "how to do merit pay right" according to this argument, but the basic concern again is with creating good systems and good teams. Think of the situation in your personal life. Do you pit your family members against each other for a set amount of resources based on their performance according to some set indicators? We know instinctively what that would do to our "community" at home, so why do we think things would be any different at work?
4) "Is strategy destiny?" Strategy is sexier, more intellectually intriguing, and appeals more to our desire for a magic bullet. But, the authors argue, spending the same amount of time on better implementation matters much more than lots of time spent on strategy. I think of a Sci Fi story, and the WWII Germany-Russia analogy as well, in which the group with the superior military and technological sophistication eventually lost the struggle because they were so focused on the "perfect" solution that the opponent that focused on implementation of some basic ideas and basic weapons slowly surpassed them. At a personal level, this one's difficult for me, because I love strategy, but the point is a valid one. We spend way too much time figuring out our "mission," putting together strategic plans, and doing budgets instead of focusing on how to do our current jobs even better.
5) "Is it true that organizations change or die?" Well, yes and no. Most change efforts lead to worse performance, not better performance. But the only thing worse than lots of change is no change. The real argument here is that any attempt to change needs to have lots of evidence in support of the idea. Pilot projects, benchmarking peers, and just plain thinking things through matter a lot. Don't just go with whatever the leader's latest enthusiasm is.
6) "Are great leaders in control of their companies?" Again, yes and no. Since we tend to hire from the same pool of people, the person at the top only appears to make about 10% of the difference in performance. But then the authors give example after example of how this or that leader made a crucial difference in the long-term direction of a company. A 10% performance differential a year compounded over six years equals double the performance of the competitor, a point the authors fail to make.
In conclusion, the authors give a quick way to tell if companies are "evidence-based." How do they respond to failure? The best companies allow their people to fail and provide lots of mechanisms by which those failures can come to light and be used as ways to improve the organization over the long haul. It's this last point, let's call them "the tactics of mistake," to quote from a favorite SciFi book from my childhood, that I need to give more thought to. How do we create systems and cultures that allow people to be so fully involved in the team effort that they're willing to try new things that may or may not succeed and to then learn from these innovative efforts?
The answer is "evidence-based management," part of a larger "evidence-based" movement that has had its greatest impact in "evidence-based medicine." "Evidence-based education" has its biggest following in England, but the basic ideas are certainly being applied in the U.S. as well. If you've read Freakonomics, Blink, or other "social science explained for the masses" books, you'll get the basic gist, though this monograph is much more academic in nature and contains far fewer riveting stories.
Nonetheless, the basic arguments are compelling. After laying out the basic rationale, the authors highlight six basic management questions and reveal that the typical conclusions most businesses have reached about these topics are "wrong" and then go on to explain what the current best evidence indicates is a better choice.
1) "Is work fundementally different from the rest of life?" Most businesses say "yes." There should be sharp lines between work and private life, and work life is ultimately more important. This attitude, the authors contend, developed out of a factory model in which employees are essentially "machines." Ford famously said that he hired "hands," but unfortunately, whole persons came along with those hands. But treating people as "machines" invariably makes them feel less valued, resulting in lower performance, higher turnover, etc. Those institutions that blur the work/personal life boundaries and treat their employees as part of the "community" as much as possible are the ones that typically see the highest levels of performance.
2) "Do the best organizations have the best people?" I've posted separately on this topic, but the current "war for talent" craze, the authors argue, is fundamentally misguided. Good systems and good teams matter much more than good people in a world in which we're all hiring from essentially the same talent pool.
3) "Do financial incentives drive company performance?" Similar to their arguments in their previous book, the authors contend here that individualized merit pay tends to reduce organization-wide performance, not enhance it. I've posted elsewhere on "how to do merit pay right" according to this argument, but the basic concern again is with creating good systems and good teams. Think of the situation in your personal life. Do you pit your family members against each other for a set amount of resources based on their performance according to some set indicators? We know instinctively what that would do to our "community" at home, so why do we think things would be any different at work?
4) "Is strategy destiny?" Strategy is sexier, more intellectually intriguing, and appeals more to our desire for a magic bullet. But, the authors argue, spending the same amount of time on better implementation matters much more than lots of time spent on strategy. I think of a Sci Fi story, and the WWII Germany-Russia analogy as well, in which the group with the superior military and technological sophistication eventually lost the struggle because they were so focused on the "perfect" solution that the opponent that focused on implementation of some basic ideas and basic weapons slowly surpassed them. At a personal level, this one's difficult for me, because I love strategy, but the point is a valid one. We spend way too much time figuring out our "mission," putting together strategic plans, and doing budgets instead of focusing on how to do our current jobs even better.
5) "Is it true that organizations change or die?" Well, yes and no. Most change efforts lead to worse performance, not better performance. But the only thing worse than lots of change is no change. The real argument here is that any attempt to change needs to have lots of evidence in support of the idea. Pilot projects, benchmarking peers, and just plain thinking things through matter a lot. Don't just go with whatever the leader's latest enthusiasm is.
6) "Are great leaders in control of their companies?" Again, yes and no. Since we tend to hire from the same pool of people, the person at the top only appears to make about 10% of the difference in performance. But then the authors give example after example of how this or that leader made a crucial difference in the long-term direction of a company. A 10% performance differential a year compounded over six years equals double the performance of the competitor, a point the authors fail to make.
In conclusion, the authors give a quick way to tell if companies are "evidence-based." How do they respond to failure? The best companies allow their people to fail and provide lots of mechanisms by which those failures can come to light and be used as ways to improve the organization over the long haul. It's this last point, let's call them "the tactics of mistake," to quote from a favorite SciFi book from my childhood, that I need to give more thought to. How do we create systems and cultures that allow people to be so fully involved in the team effort that they're willing to try new things that may or may not succeed and to then learn from these innovative efforts?
Should we abolish aptitude tests in college admissions?
I admit that I've been in favor of such tests for my entire career, but now having reading both Gladwell and Murray arguing against the SAT and in favor of GPA and achievement tests, I'm starting to change my mind.
http://american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/abolish-the-sat
http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_12_17_a_kaplan.htm
http://american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/abolish-the-sat
http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_12_17_a_kaplan.htm
Friday, July 13, 2007
University Entrepreneurship in the CCCU?
Every year our Business students win some of the top awards in the state for new business ideas, yet they never start any of these wonderful concepts. Why not? And why don't any CCCU schools do work in this area that I can find except maybe Grand Canyon and Grove City (both on the fringes of our movement).
I wonder, therefore, whether it's time for our CCCU schools to start doing what a lot of other institutions have done and develop their own "entrepreneurship" programs that include potential start-up training and funding for these ideas. Check out, for example, the following university websites as examples.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/topcolleges
http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2006/august/159880.html
http://www.smallbusiness.com/wiki/Directories:University_Entrepreneurship_Programs
http://epe.cornell.edu/
http://sba.udayton.edu/entrepreneur/
http://www.asu.edu/ui/entrepreneurship/
I wonder, therefore, whether it's time for our CCCU schools to start doing what a lot of other institutions have done and develop their own "entrepreneurship" programs that include potential start-up training and funding for these ideas. Check out, for example, the following university websites as examples.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/topcolleges
http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2006/august/159880.html
http://www.smallbusiness.com/wiki/Directories:University_Entrepreneurship_Programs
http://epe.cornell.edu/
http://sba.udayton.edu/entrepreneur/
http://www.asu.edu/ui/entrepreneurship/
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Why alumni really give to universities?
And in the case of elite institutions, it's not necessarily because they love the school -http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2007/07/11/the-false-altruism-of-alumni-giving/.
Is this "new" generation different?
I've been reading and hearing a lot of this "new" generation under various names such as "millenials" and "new Victorians." I'm a little suspicious of such generalizations of any particular group or any particular zeitgeist, but here's a recent piece on the topic in case you needed more evidence - http://www.nyobserver.com/2007/new-victorians.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
A 3-year college?
No links, just a random thought that's been rattling around for awhile. I've been wondering how to kill two birds with one stone.
First, the "Education Myths" book argues that professors in general are paid better than engineers on an hourly rate (even taking into account work at home, etc.) and that the real problem in their annual salary is that they're only being paid for 9 months of work. Second, our new educational structures (on-line, year-round, cohort focused, patchwork, etc.) don't require that we follow an agricultural calendar of long summers off.
So, why not develop and market a 3-year undergraduate experience with a combination of on-line, internship, off-campus, and mission-trip opportunities over the summer? The faculty would be employed on a full-year basis supporting one of the above programs and doing alternative summer projects (administrative, teaching, research).
Admittedly, this notion has been around a long time, going back to Harvard's founding (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-956X(197407)51%3A4%3C269%3ATTDAMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8) and continuing with much of the current English, Indian, and maybe now even European educational systems (http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i13/13a04504.htm). I also understand that there are lots of logistical hurdles with such an idea, beginning with the possibility that students just aren't interested in such a thing, but the concept just seems to me to make too much sense and is being adopted so many other places around the world not to be piloted somewhere here in the U.S. (East Carolina being the only American institution I could find who is trying this - http://www.ecu.edu/threeyeardegree/).
First, the "Education Myths" book argues that professors in general are paid better than engineers on an hourly rate (even taking into account work at home, etc.) and that the real problem in their annual salary is that they're only being paid for 9 months of work. Second, our new educational structures (on-line, year-round, cohort focused, patchwork, etc.) don't require that we follow an agricultural calendar of long summers off.
So, why not develop and market a 3-year undergraduate experience with a combination of on-line, internship, off-campus, and mission-trip opportunities over the summer? The faculty would be employed on a full-year basis supporting one of the above programs and doing alternative summer projects (administrative, teaching, research).
Admittedly, this notion has been around a long time, going back to Harvard's founding (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-956X(197407)51%3A4%3C269%3ATTDAMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8) and continuing with much of the current English, Indian, and maybe now even European educational systems (http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i13/13a04504.htm). I also understand that there are lots of logistical hurdles with such an idea, beginning with the possibility that students just aren't interested in such a thing, but the concept just seems to me to make too much sense and is being adopted so many other places around the world not to be piloted somewhere here in the U.S. (East Carolina being the only American institution I could find who is trying this - http://www.ecu.edu/threeyeardegree/).
Do you hate libraries?
Interesting ruminations on public libraries from the Freakonomics page - http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2007/07/10/if-public-libraries-didnt-exist-could-you-start-one-today/.
Are we interviewing people all wrong?
Another Gladwell piece in which, combining some of the work he later used in Blink, he argues that if we're going to interview people the way we have been (a romantic search for the "right" person), then we'd be just as well off with seeing a tape of them for two seconds with the sound off -
http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_05_29_a_interview.htm.
But if we want to know specific performance potential, then we should use the structured interview format that industrial psychologists are promoting. Guess I've been doing this all wrong, but I'm not quite sure from what I've read what really is the "right" way to do an interview. Here are a couple Google finds on the topic.
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/pe1015.pdf
http://www.hr-guide.com/data/A301.htm
Also, see this article from the Chronicle about interviewing - http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2007/05/2007052501c/careers.html.
http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_05_29_a_interview.htm.
But if we want to know specific performance potential, then we should use the structured interview format that industrial psychologists are promoting. Guess I've been doing this all wrong, but I'm not quite sure from what I've read what really is the "right" way to do an interview. Here are a couple Google finds on the topic.
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/pe1015.pdf
http://www.hr-guide.com/data/A301.htm
Also, see this article from the Chronicle about interviewing - http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2007/05/2007052501c/careers.html.
New urbanism comes to office design?
As we're in the process of potentially building two new facilities at JBU, this makes me wonder about how best to arrange offices, furniture and people - http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_12_11_a_working.htm. According to this article, what we've done with all of our other buildings is mostly counterproductive. But I wonder whether what works for a creativity firm applies equally well to academia?
Training over talent?
On a related note to the "teams over talent" post, a bunch of articles I've been reading about what I would have called the truly talented basically argue that it is training that matters much more than talent. The collapse of the "aptitude" test concept in favor of a focus on "achievement" buttress that argument as well. Here's a Gladwell article about Kaplan that makes this point - http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_12_17_a_kaplan.htm. See also this updated post from Freakonomics on the training over talent concept (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/how-talented-is-this-kid/) and this piece on expertise (http://www.leggmason.com/funds/knowledge/mauboussin/Are_you_an_expert.pdf). My Grad Business classes make similar arguments about experts being good at "intuition" and models being good at analysis.
Team over talent?
Gladwell's New Yorker piece (http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_07_22_a_talent.htm) and Pfeffer and Sutton's Hard Facts make similar points that having a good system that emphasizes cooperation and teamwork matters much more than having good people with lots of talent. The emphasis on "systems" is something I completely support, but the emphasis on teams over talent is an argument that's taking me longer to adjust to. But I'm learning.
Health care contradictions?
We've been spending a lot of time at JBU thinking through health care issues. Gladwell, apparently, has been struggling with these same issues. But I'm confused by the apparent contradictions in his two main pieces on the topic. The first, in 2004, basically says that we don't need to spend hundreds of dollars a month Celebrex when for 99.9% of people, ibuprofen will do just as good of a job. If people were spending their own money for such things, and if the entire health care industry had to think through such cost-benefit analyses, we'd be much better off - http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_10_25_a_drugs.html.
But then less than a year later, Gladwell denounces the philosophy underlying his previous diagnosis, namely that of "moral hazard," as being at the heart of what's wrong with the American medical system - http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html.
I'm confused. The system's broke because it doesn't focus enough on economic efficiency and because it focuses too much on economic efficiency.
The possible way to square this circle is to say that "basic" health care, in the form of routine dentist visits and so on, should be mandatory (either provided by the state or required of everyone that they have basic health insurance that covers such things), but that additional costs should be coming out people's pockets more directly so that they have more incentive to question whether that Celebrex prescription is really necessary.
The other way to square this circle, now that I've read up on his blog a bit more, is to say that employer-funded health care is the real problem, and that the two real solutions are either government-funded universal health care (what Canada does) or government-mandated universal health care that relies instead on individuals and the marketplace (what many states currently do with auto and home insurance). Either alternative is better than the current solution that only we in the U.S. developed after WWII. On that point, I can probably agree.
But then less than a year later, Gladwell denounces the philosophy underlying his previous diagnosis, namely that of "moral hazard," as being at the heart of what's wrong with the American medical system - http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html.
I'm confused. The system's broke because it doesn't focus enough on economic efficiency and because it focuses too much on economic efficiency.
The possible way to square this circle is to say that "basic" health care, in the form of routine dentist visits and so on, should be mandatory (either provided by the state or required of everyone that they have basic health insurance that covers such things), but that additional costs should be coming out people's pockets more directly so that they have more incentive to question whether that Celebrex prescription is really necessary.
The other way to square this circle, now that I've read up on his blog a bit more, is to say that employer-funded health care is the real problem, and that the two real solutions are either government-funded universal health care (what Canada does) or government-mandated universal health care that relies instead on individuals and the marketplace (what many states currently do with auto and home insurance). Either alternative is better than the current solution that only we in the U.S. developed after WWII. On that point, I can probably agree.
Personality tests are meaningless?
As someone who has found these personality tests (MBTI, Strengthsfinder, Working Styles, etc.) to be valuable in my own thinking, I was intrigued by Gladwell's critical analysis of their value - http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_09_20_a_personality.html.
The Cellular College?
And by "cellular" I mean "cell groups," not "cellphones." I'm working my way through Gladwell's New Yorker pieces and came across this one regarding the phenomenal growth of Rick Warren's ministry as well as megachurches in general. How do they do it? The short answer is that they combine low barriers to entry via the main services with intense forms of community via cell groups. http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_09_12_a_warren.html
My question for higher education is whether there are things that we can learn from this model of ministry. All of the big, successful companies appear to follow similar formats in which they have low entry barriers (easy to get a job at Wal-Mart) with lots of emphasize of building community (the Wal-Mart "Way," to quote Don Soderquist's book).
I look at our degree completion programs with the ubiquitous cohort model, and I see some of that format in place there. I read Richard Light's arguments about the value of theater programs and the like in college settings in that they create close bonds between students and to the community, and I find echoes of this philosophy.
But could we do more? I think so. Why don't we? Well, I for one have resisted this impulse my whole life as something of an "anti" joiner, so in my own experience, it's because the emphasis on groups was always being forced to join with people and in activities that I had no interest in. What Gladwell pointed out, however, is that Warren's approach is to provide groups that appealed to all possible interests while still giving direction and structure.
In the college context, maybe that just means providing resources for groups of students, faculty, staff, or all three who have common interests to get together to do things that interest them. I'm not sure, but it's clear that there's real power in the small group idea that we in higher education, with our individualist research mindset, have largely failed to tap.
My question for higher education is whether there are things that we can learn from this model of ministry. All of the big, successful companies appear to follow similar formats in which they have low entry barriers (easy to get a job at Wal-Mart) with lots of emphasize of building community (the Wal-Mart "Way," to quote Don Soderquist's book).
I look at our degree completion programs with the ubiquitous cohort model, and I see some of that format in place there. I read Richard Light's arguments about the value of theater programs and the like in college settings in that they create close bonds between students and to the community, and I find echoes of this philosophy.
But could we do more? I think so. Why don't we? Well, I for one have resisted this impulse my whole life as something of an "anti" joiner, so in my own experience, it's because the emphasis on groups was always being forced to join with people and in activities that I had no interest in. What Gladwell pointed out, however, is that Warren's approach is to provide groups that appealed to all possible interests while still giving direction and structure.
In the college context, maybe that just means providing resources for groups of students, faculty, staff, or all three who have common interests to get together to do things that interest them. I'm not sure, but it's clear that there's real power in the small group idea that we in higher education, with our individualist research mindset, have largely failed to tap.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Harvard discriminates, and that's a good thing?
Interesting explanation of what higher education is about, and academic intelligence isn't necessarily at the core, real world success after graduation is, and the two are not always correlated.
http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html
http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html
Why are blondes beautiful and suicide bombers Muslim?
Interesting summary article from a new book that attempts to use evolutionary biological arguments to explain a whole host of human behaviors - http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml.
The decline of American higher education?
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist prone to bouts of Spenglerian pessimism about contemporary society, but as something of a traditionalist myself, I tend to agree with his view of this topic.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/blissfully-uneducated
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/blissfully-uneducated
Why Computer Science programs are failing?
Perhaps this explains why we had to cut our CS program at JBU - http://www.american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/revenge-of-the-frosh-seeking-robots. Does it also mean we should be adding an Economics major?
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Predicting the commercial success of creative endeavors?
If there are "rules" for the commercial success of creative endeavors, can we teach those? And if statistical analysis works for predicting the success of music and movies, as well as basketball players, can we follow a similar process for predicting the success of a teacher, politician, etc.?
http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_10_16_a_formula.html
http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_05_29_a_game.html
http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_10_16_a_formula.html
http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_05_29_a_game.html
Friday, July 6, 2007
The decline of civics education?
Here's a case study of the decline of civics education by investigating changes in the naming of schools in the U.S. Very interesting - http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_51.htm.
Review of "Best Practices in Adult Learning"
Marginally helpful for the general education reader, individual chapters might be useful for those in specific positions (such as Adult Learning Advisor). There was the usual nods to "institutional mission" and the "need for flexibility" before giving some individual case studies of "best practices" on a smorgasbord of topics.
Most interesting for me was the "lessons learned" sections at the end of each chapter, particularly the overview "lessons" from editor Lee Bash. Those included the following:
1) Proper structure is essential, and "the best systems use a structure where one leader is responsible for everyone in the unit."
2) Mission statements and learship vision must align.
3) Change is constant in these programs.
4) Be "learner-centered" and entrepreneurial.
Hmmm . . . At JBU, we're doing #1 wrong, we're improving on #2, and we vacillate on #3 and #4. From what I know of other CCCU institutions, they're weak on #2 and #4. In general, we just don't give these issues much focus, as witnessed by the fact that only recently has the CCCU even started talking about adult learners, even though half of all graduates of CCCU institutions are now coming from adult learner programs. There's clearly a lot of work to do.
Most interesting for me was the "lessons learned" sections at the end of each chapter, particularly the overview "lessons" from editor Lee Bash. Those included the following:
1) Proper structure is essential, and "the best systems use a structure where one leader is responsible for everyone in the unit."
2) Mission statements and learship vision must align.
3) Change is constant in these programs.
4) Be "learner-centered" and entrepreneurial.
Hmmm . . . At JBU, we're doing #1 wrong, we're improving on #2, and we vacillate on #3 and #4. From what I know of other CCCU institutions, they're weak on #2 and #4. In general, we just don't give these issues much focus, as witnessed by the fact that only recently has the CCCU even started talking about adult learners, even though half of all graduates of CCCU institutions are now coming from adult learner programs. There's clearly a lot of work to do.
Medieval Studies and Psuedo-Medievalism collide
Since I grew up in this subculture and still feel a close affinity to this Tolkein-inspired combination of academic interests and "play," I found this article particularly fascinating - http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i44/44a00801.htm?=attw. The challenge the piece concludes with is the one that I've spent much of my career on, how do we harness the natural attraction of certain subjects (medieval studies, WWII, etc.) for larger educational purposes?
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Be Happy!
Because I've spent much of my teaching career talking about the first half of the twentieth century, with all of its attendant horrors, I tire easily of all of the dour pessimism that permeates the news and our cultural mileau. This editorial from William Kristol reminded me of why (whatever our political persuasions) we really should be a lot happier and optimistic than we typically report ourselves to be - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1640412,00.html.
Education via Prediction Markets?
I've been fascinated by the potential power of prediction markets and have even had some conversations at JBU about running one on our undergraduate enrollment numbers for Fall 2008. We'll see if that idea pans out. But if not, I've got other thoughts about how to run education (both the processes and various courses) using this tool.
In the meantime, here's an interesting interview on the Freakonomics blog with Mr. "Wisdom of the Crowds" - http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2007/07/05/a-qa-with-intrades-john-delaney/. See the Intrade website (http://www.intrade.com/) or the Financial Times website (http://www.ftpredict.com/) for more information.
In the meantime, here's an interesting interview on the Freakonomics blog with Mr. "Wisdom of the Crowds" - http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2007/07/05/a-qa-with-intrades-john-delaney/. See the Intrade website (http://www.intrade.com/) or the Financial Times website (http://www.ftpredict.com/) for more information.
How should we educate military officers?
Interesting difference of opinion between two military men whose opinion I respect, one being General Petraeus - http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/07/2007070501j.htm?=atmj. In some ways, this is the classic "intrinsic vs. practical knowledge" debate. In others, it's about "classical" education vs. modern "critical thinking" theories. Petraeus, by the way, is more for "intrinsic knowledge" and "critical thinking" via secular graduate schools. Ralph Peters supports more language training coupled with practical experience.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Who are the terrorists?
No one who has read The Possessed by Dostoyevsky or The Secret Agent by Conrad will be suprised by Economics professor Alan Krueger's explanation that it's intellectuals and politicians trying to attract attention to their cause who are the most likely to become terrorists. Witness, for example, the recent arrests in the plots in Great Britain in which all of the suspects so far appear to be doctors.
So, if the more educated one becomes, the more likely one is to become a terrorist, what does that say about our work in higher education?
So, if the more educated one becomes, the more likely one is to become a terrorist, what does that say about our work in higher education?
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
On-line gaming is good for you?
I've been avoiding World of Warcraft and the rest of that ilk so far, but maybe I should rethink my priorities?
http://www.marketwire.com/2.0/release.do?id=743230
http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/07/study-online-ga.html
Of course, they also take away from home work time - http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070702/NEWS06/70702045/1048/SPORTS.
http://www.marketwire.com/2.0/release.do?id=743230
http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/07/study-online-ga.html
Of course, they also take away from home work time - http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070702/NEWS06/70702045/1048/SPORTS.
Putting a price on happiness?
Always been interested in how they derive these sorts of prices for happiness. Marriage, for example, is worth $105,000. http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2007/06/20/the-freakest-links-happiness-gaming-and-congestion-edition/
Graduation rates are poor measures of effectiveness?
Here's another interesting piece about how our views of higher education are still much too wedded to traditional models - http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i44/44b01601.htm?=attw. We fixate on 6-year graduation rates, but in today's society, at least 28% of those who eventually graduate from college take longer than 6 years, and many of the 39% who have some college experience still gain significantly from even their limited higher education exposure. Furthermore, most of those who stretch out the process this far are from lower socio-economic groups.
The authors have a series of possible policy prescriptions as a consequence of this data, but for our small college purposes, the most interesting aspect to me is how we need to be more flexible in our understanding of what it is that our students are typically looking for in their college experience. Less and less is it the traditional "4-years in ivy-covered buildings."
Here, perhaps, is a better way of analyzing graduation rates - http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/09/2007091701n.htm.
The authors have a series of possible policy prescriptions as a consequence of this data, but for our small college purposes, the most interesting aspect to me is how we need to be more flexible in our understanding of what it is that our students are typically looking for in their college experience. Less and less is it the traditional "4-years in ivy-covered buildings."
Here, perhaps, is a better way of analyzing graduation rates - http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/09/2007091701n.htm.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Review of "Joy at Work"
I finally got around to finishing that "Joy at Work" book by Bakke (chapel speaker last spring). In no particular order (just as I came upon the arguments in the text), here are my notes from the book (which I hope are relatively comprehensive and not too idiosyncratic). Make of them what you will, though you can probably see from the similarity to some of the agendas that I've been promoting (ancillary fund, innovation fund, budget prioritization process, indirect cost allocation, use of task forces to resolve major issues, salary over benefits, and so on) why I resonated with much of what Bakke is arguing for and why I therefore thought it might be worthwhile passing along this brief summary.
- have fun
- keep score of everything
- share all information
- emphasize salaries over benefits
- use group strategy sessions instead of annual reviews
- there are no hourly workers, and everyone is "management"
- experiment with setting compensation by group feedback (he says this part has been the most difficult to do)
- have all salaries be calculated from the same base pay
- limit "training" and maximize on-the-job education by doing
- keep to a minimum number of supervisory layers (no more than 3-5 steps between President and anyone)
- utilize values surveys focused on comments
- institution-wide task forces do most of the real work
- limit the size of the central staff
- encourage generalists instead of specialists
- focus on shared values and service to society instead of bottom line financial contribution - leaders should focus on service to others instead of making decisions
- follow the principle of subsidiarity (have decisions made at the lowest level possible)
- everyone has to seek lots of advice or you're "fired"
- everyone has to be responsible for the consequences of their work
- the biggest consequence of a bad decision is not being put in a position to make another one
- limit organizational charts, handbooks, and policy manuals
I hope that was helpful. As always, if you have any particular thoughts about the above, feel free to share them with me.
- have fun
- keep score of everything
- share all information
- emphasize salaries over benefits
- use group strategy sessions instead of annual reviews
- there are no hourly workers, and everyone is "management"
- experiment with setting compensation by group feedback (he says this part has been the most difficult to do)
- have all salaries be calculated from the same base pay
- limit "training" and maximize on-the-job education by doing
- keep to a minimum number of supervisory layers (no more than 3-5 steps between President and anyone)
- utilize values surveys focused on comments
- institution-wide task forces do most of the real work
- limit the size of the central staff
- encourage generalists instead of specialists
- focus on shared values and service to society instead of bottom line financial contribution - leaders should focus on service to others instead of making decisions
- follow the principle of subsidiarity (have decisions made at the lowest level possible)
- everyone has to seek lots of advice or you're "fired"
- everyone has to be responsible for the consequences of their work
- the biggest consequence of a bad decision is not being put in a position to make another one
- limit organizational charts, handbooks, and policy manuals
I hope that was helpful. As always, if you have any particular thoughts about the above, feel free to share them with me.
Review of "Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education"
Since I'll be headed to an assessment conference later this month, and since our assessment efforts will be taking much of our administrative time this year, I thought I should read through some assessment literature to acquaint myself with a field that I've been pretty much ignorant of in the past.
After trying to read through this book, I'm reminded again of why I have been avoiding these issues. I'm sure the authors are well-intentioned, but the key chapter reviewing "A Decade of Assessing Student Learning" sums up the problem pretty well. Basically, the chapter says "we've been trying for 10 years to get people interested, but most people still aren't convinced it's a good idea and aren't doing it right even when they are so convinced."
All the reasons the chapter mentions fit me as well. Even though I'm generally well disposed toward measuring such things as teaching effectiveness (student evaluations), institutional effectiveness (graduation rates, job placements, etc.), acquisition of basic knowledge and skills (MFAT, CLA, etc.), and constituency satisfaction (NSSE, SSI, etc.), most of this assessment literature appears to me to be an indirect assault on educational freedom and innovation by technocrats who have little evidence of performance improvement in support of their widesweeping efforts. We all are supposed to do our work the way the educational establishment now operates, and I just don't see much value in that approach. None of the case studies or systems ideas in this book convinced me otherwise. They all assumed that this approach would lead to better results, and then suggested developing grandiose mission statements with very complicated processes. No thanks.
If "assessing student learning" means give me a few basic measure (CLA, NSSE, MFATs, student evals), provide some support mechanisms to improve on these measures, offer some incentives to make these improvements, and then let the individual groups involved work together to make those improvements, I'm all for it. But that's not what's on display here. Ugh.
Back to organizational behavior books that at least seem to understand that if you can't give a "Assessment for Dummies" version in the first chapter, you ain't going to convince people to get on board.
After trying to read through this book, I'm reminded again of why I have been avoiding these issues. I'm sure the authors are well-intentioned, but the key chapter reviewing "A Decade of Assessing Student Learning" sums up the problem pretty well. Basically, the chapter says "we've been trying for 10 years to get people interested, but most people still aren't convinced it's a good idea and aren't doing it right even when they are so convinced."
All the reasons the chapter mentions fit me as well. Even though I'm generally well disposed toward measuring such things as teaching effectiveness (student evaluations), institutional effectiveness (graduation rates, job placements, etc.), acquisition of basic knowledge and skills (MFAT, CLA, etc.), and constituency satisfaction (NSSE, SSI, etc.), most of this assessment literature appears to me to be an indirect assault on educational freedom and innovation by technocrats who have little evidence of performance improvement in support of their widesweeping efforts. We all are supposed to do our work the way the educational establishment now operates, and I just don't see much value in that approach. None of the case studies or systems ideas in this book convinced me otherwise. They all assumed that this approach would lead to better results, and then suggested developing grandiose mission statements with very complicated processes. No thanks.
If "assessing student learning" means give me a few basic measure (CLA, NSSE, MFATs, student evals), provide some support mechanisms to improve on these measures, offer some incentives to make these improvements, and then let the individual groups involved work together to make those improvements, I'm all for it. But that's not what's on display here. Ugh.
Back to organizational behavior books that at least seem to understand that if you can't give a "Assessment for Dummies" version in the first chapter, you ain't going to convince people to get on board.
Educational games are BORING?
Here's a topic close to my heart, the educational usefulness, or lack thereof, of games, video games in this case - http://www.slate.com/id/2169019/nav/ais/. Having spent much of my personal life playing various games (typically big, complicated board games) and much of my professional career trying to find ways to use historical simulations in my classes, I've been continually perplexed regarding why the education world can't seem to find better ways to use simulations as part of the learning environment. I even taught a course on "gaming and culture" which tried to explore some of these topics with bright freshmen.
The short answer from this article, and from my experience with my reading and interaction with students, is that if "play" isn't enjoyable, it isn't play, and it won't entice anyone. Educators, in other words, kill the use of games by trying to make them more "simulations" than "play."
I should add that my own attempts to design games of my own have invariably fallen prey to this very temptation. I co-designed a simulation of our institution's operating procedures (called "YOU" for "Your Own University") that focused so much on getting the "economics" right, that I'm not sure it can be played without a facilitator, and I'm not sure it's always that much fun to play even when there is a good facilitator available.
In summary, I completely understand and agree with what the author is arguing for, but as he notes, trying to create a game that is fun and teaches you something is darned difficult to do. When it happens (Monopoly, Acquire, Civilization, Diplomacy, etc.), those games become instant classics. "YOU" ain't an instant classic, but we in the education world can keep trying.
The short answer from this article, and from my experience with my reading and interaction with students, is that if "play" isn't enjoyable, it isn't play, and it won't entice anyone. Educators, in other words, kill the use of games by trying to make them more "simulations" than "play."
I should add that my own attempts to design games of my own have invariably fallen prey to this very temptation. I co-designed a simulation of our institution's operating procedures (called "YOU" for "Your Own University") that focused so much on getting the "economics" right, that I'm not sure it can be played without a facilitator, and I'm not sure it's always that much fun to play even when there is a good facilitator available.
In summary, I completely understand and agree with what the author is arguing for, but as he notes, trying to create a game that is fun and teaches you something is darned difficult to do. When it happens (Monopoly, Acquire, Civilization, Diplomacy, etc.), those games become instant classics. "YOU" ain't an instant classic, but we in the education world can keep trying.
Income inequality and higher education
These economists argue that the rising value of higher education is driving much of our current income inequality and is, in general, a good thing - http://www.american.com/archive/2007/may-june-magazine-contents/the-upside-of-income-inequality. I wonder whether we're collectively ringing this particular bell of the financial benefits of higher education as loudly as we should be.
Illegal immigation is a temporary problem?
I found this perspective of the economics of illegal immigration to be a welcome reprieve from the current hysteria over the subject - http://www.american.com/archive/2007/june-0607/mexican-immigration-will-solve-itself.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Who is the competition?
One might think that for a small, Christian, liberal arts institution, the competition is other small, Christian, liberal arts institutions. And if you look at our cross-applications, at least 50% are with exactly those schools, and probably more than 50% of the "likely" applications.
But every time I attend a CCCU event, I notice how much everyone feels like "we're in this together" and freely shares (of at least appears to freely share) whatever "best practices" they might have. This blog, perhaps, is a small example of that sharing attitude.
So if other CCCU schools aren't "the competition," who is? Two alternatives come quickly to mind. First, it's the "pragmatic" and "anti-intellectual" mindsets that convince many that higher education isn't for them. So "the enemy" is ignorance. Ignorance of the importance of higher education both for the "intrinsic" knowledge gained and for the practical benefits in long-term financial rewards. According to this argument, any effort to get more kids through high school and on to college will be good for all of us.
But since I have little influence over the culture of NW Arkansas, let alone the state, region, nation, or world. So it's on to the second argument, that the "real" competition is all of the four year institutions who aren't "small, Christian, liberal arts" institutions, particularly those with whom we cross-app.
If that's correct, and I believe it is, then we should be cooperating a lot more with the Hardings and Ouachitas than we do and thinking through a lot more how to "beat" Phoenix, University of Arkansas, University of Central Arkansas, and so on.
Let's just take one business world example to make the point (an illustration summarized from Pfeffer & Sutton's Hard Facts). The Napa Valley wineries started with a guy named Mondavi in the mid 60s. He supported the development of lots of other area wineries in which he had no financial stake and with whom he was financially competing. The resulting spirit of cooperation helped them all get better until the great "Judgement" of 1976 in Paris when a bunch of California wines first beat out a bunch of French wines in a blind taste test. California wine prices then soared, Mondavi's included.
The lesson is pretty straight forward that our CCCU institutions (and related schools like Harding and Ouachita) in general tend to rise and fall together. We should, as a consequece, see ourselves much more as allies in a common cause than I typically hear us talking about when we talk through competing programs and schools with whom we cross-app.
But every time I attend a CCCU event, I notice how much everyone feels like "we're in this together" and freely shares (of at least appears to freely share) whatever "best practices" they might have. This blog, perhaps, is a small example of that sharing attitude.
So if other CCCU schools aren't "the competition," who is? Two alternatives come quickly to mind. First, it's the "pragmatic" and "anti-intellectual" mindsets that convince many that higher education isn't for them. So "the enemy" is ignorance. Ignorance of the importance of higher education both for the "intrinsic" knowledge gained and for the practical benefits in long-term financial rewards. According to this argument, any effort to get more kids through high school and on to college will be good for all of us.
But since I have little influence over the culture of NW Arkansas, let alone the state, region, nation, or world. So it's on to the second argument, that the "real" competition is all of the four year institutions who aren't "small, Christian, liberal arts" institutions, particularly those with whom we cross-app.
If that's correct, and I believe it is, then we should be cooperating a lot more with the Hardings and Ouachitas than we do and thinking through a lot more how to "beat" Phoenix, University of Arkansas, University of Central Arkansas, and so on.
Let's just take one business world example to make the point (an illustration summarized from Pfeffer & Sutton's Hard Facts). The Napa Valley wineries started with a guy named Mondavi in the mid 60s. He supported the development of lots of other area wineries in which he had no financial stake and with whom he was financially competing. The resulting spirit of cooperation helped them all get better until the great "Judgement" of 1976 in Paris when a bunch of California wines first beat out a bunch of French wines in a blind taste test. California wine prices then soared, Mondavi's included.
The lesson is pretty straight forward that our CCCU institutions (and related schools like Harding and Ouachita) in general tend to rise and fall together. We should, as a consequece, see ourselves much more as allies in a common cause than I typically hear us talking about when we talk through competing programs and schools with whom we cross-app.
Review of "The Knowing-Doing Gap"
The basic premise of this book by two Stanford profs, Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton, is that in our information age, we're pretty much awash in information. As a consequence, we typically "know" what to do as an organization, but for a variety of reasons, we don't actually "do" what we know, hence the "Knowing-Doing Gap" title. (Interestingly, their second book, Hard Facts, seems to make almost the opposite argument that we go around "doing" all sorts of things that we believe to be true, but that really aren't true because we haven't done enough critical examination of the issues involved.)
But back to the problem of doing. What are the issues involved? The authors focus on five.
1) Lots of institutions "talk" issues to death and assume that since they have these nice long-range planning documents that they're actually implementing what they say they are. Wrong. Although they don't use this quote, I was reminded of Napoleon's saying that "in love, as in war, first I engage, and then I see what can be done." Not the most pleasant of fellows, that Napoleon, and one could certainly wonder about the ends toward which all his "doing" were directed, but the military's constraint training refrain of "a good plan now is better than a great plan after the battle is over" is certainly appropriate.
2) Lots of institutions get too stuck in their own "memory" of how things have been, and therefore should be, done. How many times have you heard "we've always done it that way." As a bit of a Burkean myself, I'm resistant to the jettisoning of institutional ethos that "memory bashing" might imply, but the authors are fairly nuanced in their description of these ingrained organizational behaviors.
3) "Fear" is perhaps the biggest item on their list, and the authors make frequent reference to TWM guru Deming's argument that the most important means of improving institutional quality is to "drive out fear." So much for Machiavelli's "it is better for the Prince to be feared than loved"?
4) Most helpful for me was the chapter on how "measurement" can obstruct good judgment. The problems with measurement are many, but given their emphasis in their second book on "good" measurement, you can tell that they're not rejecting "all" measurement, just a lot of the short-term, end-result oriented measurement that most organizations follow (share price, for instance).
5) I was intrigued with the authors concerns about "internal competition," especially their points about individualized merit pay. See my post on "merit pay done right" for further reflections on this topic - http://triple-e-education.blogspot.com/2007/06/merit-pay-done-right.html.
The authors then conclude with illustrative examples of firms that appear to have surmounted the "knowing-doing gap" and then eight suggestions for how to "turn knowledge into action."
1) Why before How. In other words, you need to really understand your mission and goals before you can figure out things like what to measure.
2) Knowing comes from doing and teaching others. The authors particularly laud AES for its radical decentralization of authority, but they also emphasize any sort of program in which people learn by doing and teaching.
3) Action counts. In general, an organization is better off doing all sorts of pilots and experiments instead of having long discussions about the "ideal" solution.
4) There is no doing without mistakes. The best institutions realize that people will fail and that real learning comes from that failure. Not acting is the much bigger sin than acting incorrectly.
5) Drive out fear. Much of the emphasis here was on eliminating heirarchy, both perceived and real.
6) Fight the competition, not each other. With Southwestern, for instance, it's always "us versus them." Maybe it's not very enlightened, but it's darn successful.
7) Measure what matters. Pick a small number of items that get at core processes instead of short-term indicators of institutional end results. In the case of higher education, for example, this might mean looking at NSSE results instead of number of books published by the faculty.
8) What leaders do will become what the institution does. Organizations eventually follow the leader.
There's a lot more detail that I could go into including some particular policy prescriptions that might appropriate for an institution such as JBU, but I think I'll leave those conversations for separate posts, such as the merit pay issue, when I have time.
But back to the problem of doing. What are the issues involved? The authors focus on five.
1) Lots of institutions "talk" issues to death and assume that since they have these nice long-range planning documents that they're actually implementing what they say they are. Wrong. Although they don't use this quote, I was reminded of Napoleon's saying that "in love, as in war, first I engage, and then I see what can be done." Not the most pleasant of fellows, that Napoleon, and one could certainly wonder about the ends toward which all his "doing" were directed, but the military's constraint training refrain of "a good plan now is better than a great plan after the battle is over" is certainly appropriate.
2) Lots of institutions get too stuck in their own "memory" of how things have been, and therefore should be, done. How many times have you heard "we've always done it that way." As a bit of a Burkean myself, I'm resistant to the jettisoning of institutional ethos that "memory bashing" might imply, but the authors are fairly nuanced in their description of these ingrained organizational behaviors.
3) "Fear" is perhaps the biggest item on their list, and the authors make frequent reference to TWM guru Deming's argument that the most important means of improving institutional quality is to "drive out fear." So much for Machiavelli's "it is better for the Prince to be feared than loved"?
4) Most helpful for me was the chapter on how "measurement" can obstruct good judgment. The problems with measurement are many, but given their emphasis in their second book on "good" measurement, you can tell that they're not rejecting "all" measurement, just a lot of the short-term, end-result oriented measurement that most organizations follow (share price, for instance).
5) I was intrigued with the authors concerns about "internal competition," especially their points about individualized merit pay. See my post on "merit pay done right" for further reflections on this topic - http://triple-e-education.blogspot.com/2007/06/merit-pay-done-right.html.
The authors then conclude with illustrative examples of firms that appear to have surmounted the "knowing-doing gap" and then eight suggestions for how to "turn knowledge into action."
1) Why before How. In other words, you need to really understand your mission and goals before you can figure out things like what to measure.
2) Knowing comes from doing and teaching others. The authors particularly laud AES for its radical decentralization of authority, but they also emphasize any sort of program in which people learn by doing and teaching.
3) Action counts. In general, an organization is better off doing all sorts of pilots and experiments instead of having long discussions about the "ideal" solution.
4) There is no doing without mistakes. The best institutions realize that people will fail and that real learning comes from that failure. Not acting is the much bigger sin than acting incorrectly.
5) Drive out fear. Much of the emphasis here was on eliminating heirarchy, both perceived and real.
6) Fight the competition, not each other. With Southwestern, for instance, it's always "us versus them." Maybe it's not very enlightened, but it's darn successful.
7) Measure what matters. Pick a small number of items that get at core processes instead of short-term indicators of institutional end results. In the case of higher education, for example, this might mean looking at NSSE results instead of number of books published by the faculty.
8) What leaders do will become what the institution does. Organizations eventually follow the leader.
There's a lot more detail that I could go into including some particular policy prescriptions that might appropriate for an institution such as JBU, but I think I'll leave those conversations for separate posts, such as the merit pay issue, when I have time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
