16 Things...

Two weeks ago, I said that I would try to compile a list of a few observations from an administrative point of view that correspond to the wants and desires (and subsequent impact on morale) as suggested by faculty and staff from across the country. 


I was a little surprised by how few comments there were, given the apparent popularity of  the posting. It was the third most-read posting (375) of all time and it rose to this spot after just two weeks. Interesting...


I have to admit that creating this companion post proved to be more difficult than I imagined. After some thinking and some research, everything that I thought of for my list could be followed with a great big "so what". 


I did, however, find a bit of wisdom relative to administrative work that makes very good sense to me and I suspect many will agree.

Ultimately, the character of 

the [fill in the job title]'s job is such 

that, if they're good, 

you don't even notice that they're there.

I thought very seriously about clicking the "post" button and ending this thought right here. However, that would have been a bit too easy. I'm opting for something in the middle. 


Morale shifts are interesting things. It's often difficult to point to one event, one issue, or one particular condition that causes a shift in morale, in either direction. Usually, it seems to be a combination of small issues and changes rather than a precipitating event.  In my experience, change, regardless of whether the change is positive, has a fair chance of lowering morale. We don't like change. Even those of us that say we do, really we don't. Except for babies.


Ironically, the absence of change is just as likely to have the same consequence.


This makes to job of those that feel an obligation to pay attention to morale a bit tenuous. Take the list of 48 things from last week as example. My read of the list led me to the conclusion that the contributors, especially those that spoke in great detail, were most disappointed, upset, or discouraged by actions that affected them personally. Decisions were made, messages were communicated (or not), and rules changed that affected the individual (or in some cases, the group) in ways perceived as less than positive.


Brilliant deduction, right?


Many of the posters asked for very general and reasonable things; for leaders to listen, trust, support, share pain, uphold standards, and to be fair. This is a very simple list of expectations that are darn near impossible to argue against. 


That is until we put a real-life circumstance around it. 


Conceptions of fairness, honesty, and support change dramatically as we move from general application to the specific.


Consider:

• When is it ok to stop trusting someone? 
• At what point does the time for listening conclude and action begin? 
• Are there times when a decision needs to be made on the basis of something other than fairness? 
• By what measure should significant decisions be made? In other words, when should the good of the individual (or group) outweigh the good of the College, or vice-versa?  

Obviously, there isn't always an easy answer and your response probably would change depending on the situation. Thankfully, the basis upon which most decisions are made is fairly clear. We have history, data, the law, or internal policies among others to guide the way. 


Sometimes we don't and for those times, some sort of framework, a set of core values or a moral obligation drives the process.

Far too often, the basis of a decision is not clearly communicated to those affected. Sometimes for good reason, but this is typically the exception rather than the rule. 


Most often, the tasks of communicating the "why" and "how" of a decision is communicated is where the trouble begins. In a large organization, we rely on structures that represent the various constituencies on campus to help communicate. Sometimes, those channels are less effective that they could/should be. Sometimes, those affected don't hear (or listen) for the message until they are directly impacted. 


Not long ago, I heard a person describe what goes on in the College as “controlled chaos”. The more I thought about that particular comment, the more it made sense, although I’m still not sure if it was meant as a positive observation or not. 


I view the College and our reason for being as a nucleus. Around that nucleus, we have offices, departments, processes, initiatives, activities, projects and committees, in different and sometimes unpredictable orbits, all at different speeds and on different trajectories. If we look to science for a reasonable method to deal with the control of chaos, we find basically two approaches.


The first involves small, carefully chosen nudges that are applied to the system once per cycle, to maintain it near the desired orbit. Think strategic and annual planning, evaluations, academic and support assessment, performance indicators, and Higher Learning Commission visits.


The second method involves a continuous signal, injected into the system whose intensity is practically zero as those orbits are close to the desired path, but increases in intensity when things drift away from the desired orbit. Think PCA and it's subcommittee structure, our policies and procedures, committee chairs, staff meetings, and College Council. 


The secret to the game is to find places to stand where we can see all these different trajectories and orbits -- and to have conversations. These conversations are about making agreements with the people that are charged with either nudging the system or providing continuous signal because our view of an event and the conclusions we draw could be significantly different. Proper orbit is a function of perspective.


Logic dictates that best way to operate is to consult each other in terms of what we see and when, as a function of where we stand relative to the nucleus. Multiple perspectives make for better outcomes.



Unfortunately, in this process there can be a natural friction between those doing the nudging and those being nudged. Historically we, as individuals, tend to think less about the big picture perspective in lieu of holding to a smaller picture. Ultimately, we find it more difficult to forgo the smaller perspective when it threatens the larger. This is where morale lives.


Of course, the keystone of morale (and this whole discussion) is "How". How we go about nudging and injecting signal has the largest effect on morale. Judging by the "48 things", it appears that all too often the "how" is accomplished in the absence of listening, trust, support, shared pain, adherence to standards, and fairness. 


I have a very simple list of ways to gauge morale.
• Do the faculty and staff  want to be here? 
• Is there unity around mission?
• Are new staff members welcomed? 
• Do we have celebrations? 
• Do we treat mistakes as learning experiences, or opportunities to criticize? 
• Do we encourage experimentation and encourage risk-taking?
• Is there laughter?  Are people smiling? 
• And finally, is there sufficient opportunity understand and engage (if desired) in the decision-making process? 


Every college and university  has a history and a culture. The very best of these institutions develop trust among the faculty, the staff, and all constituencies --  students, community members, business leaders, trustees, and each other.  This is my job, and yours as well.


In closing, I present my companion list of 16 things "on the off chance that a well-meaning faculty and staff is interested". They apply to us all.

Acknowledge the interdependence of the components of the College.

Listen before you act.

Consult with relevant individuals, groups, and each other.

Take the time to be sensitive to our constituencies.

Make every effort to serve their basic needs.

Do not distort reality to achieve your own ends, even good ones.

Correct misconceptions and incorrect interpretation.

Respect others; do not diminish them in an attempt to make your point or win support for your perspective.

Resolve rather than exploit conflict.

Trust others until such time that they prove unworthy of your trust.

Help others to realize their full potential.

Set measurable and achievable goals.

Stand by others who in striving to meet common goals may make honest mistakes.

Accept responsibility.

Be Civil.

Share the leadership task.

(10,821)
"I think kids these days are watching too much TV. The other day I saw two kids playing. The little girl said to the boy, “Let’s play house.” He told her, “Alright. But I get to be House.”