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.
Monday, July 2, 2007
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)
