A Meta-Culture of Engagement for an Emerging Future

In his book The End of College: Creating the Future of Learning and the University of Everywhere, author Kevin Carey, Director of the Education Policy Institute at the New America Foundation, confidently expresses a rosy view about technology-driven, unbundled education:

“[B]illions of dollars available to create digital learning environments and matching credentials designed to teach relatively small number of courses and subjects to billions of people...The weight of these large numbers will eventually grow so heavy that it will overwhelm even the formidable barriers of regulatory protection, public subsidy, and cultural habit that protects cathedrals of learning...[T]his is neither an avoidable or a distant scenario. The University of Everywhere is on the horizon.”

Meanwhile, in the blog post “Public Matters: A Response to Kevin Carey,” Matt Reed, the Vice-President of Academic Affairs at Holyoke Community College, forcefully counterpoints that such a vision is out of touch with the learning needs of most students and the mission of higher education:

“If we want a society of ever-increasing economic and epistemic polarization, we can replace colleges with apps.  But to the extent that we believe that average people matter, we need institutions that make it possible for them to succeed...To the extent that the new tools enable educators to serve the entire public better, bring ‘em on.  But if we’re just looking to liberate needles from haystacks, well, I’ve got some brutal unmasking to do.” Matt Reed,

Interesting as it may be to analyze the merits of these competing views of the future of higher education, I find it even more fascinating to compare the cultural milieus from which they emerge.

On the one hand, you have the Kevin Careys of the world. The End of College reads like a love story with the people of Silicon Valley and Cambridge. In Silicon Valley, we are introduced to one technologist after another and their clan of venture capitalists, remaking the world by disrupting it as "thunder lizards" would. Meanwhile, in Cambridge we meet the "smartest people" that are capitalizing on new technologies to reshape traditional institutions to create higher ed x. Running slightly beneath the surface of these two scenes is the shadowy but seductive character only known as AI. An immense confidence in if not a borderline infatuation with these characters makes for a compelling read of a determined future - the University of Everywhere.

On the other hand, you have the Matt Reeds of the world. You will often find them digging away in the trenches, fighting inch by inch for student success within the bounds of the norms and institutions of higher education. The story that these individuals tell is one of evidence based practice, budgets, and on-the-ground realities; arguably, this is far less gripping if more prosaic narrative. An immense confidence in if not a slight distaste for the glacial and contingent pace of institutional changes leads these individuals to seek sustaining innovations while brushing aside the “unsubstantiated rhetoric” of “trendy” ideas.

Once again, I will withhold an analysis of the relative merits of these different cultural lenses, as relevant and interesting as that would be. My scope here - what really captures my imagination - is to reflect on how the dynamism of cultural clashes can potentially be harnessed to create vibrant pathways to better ways of doing things.

The short answer is: I have no idea.

I suspect, however, that we may find our way to some possibilities by crafting a meta-culture of engagement. One norm of this meta-culture states that a diversity of culture should flourish in any epistemic space. Thus, it is imperative to step back from the analytical edge of distinguishing correct from incorrect logic, and instead dwell in the places of disorientation and dispute. Perhaps our time spent here will liberate us from our thought-tribalism and hence enlighten us to see anew. A second norm of this meta-culture states that we must be present to how culture conditions the emergence of perception, most notably our own. If we go further with this understanding, we find ourselves in a space of groundlessness. Here too we must abide - at least for a time - in order to free up creative space for engaging cultural dynamism.

None of this is to downgrade rational analysis and implementation. Rather, a meta-culture of engagement cultivates the foundation for open inquiry and creativity, upon which rational analysis and implementation can then proceed within a space of full possibility. The complexity in which higher education operates requires such an approach in order to diversify and thrive into an ever emerging and transforming future.

My Love-Hate Relationship with the Procedures Manual

Measuring in at 165 single-spaced pages and 50,000 words, the procedures manual that we developed for our department is a true administrative tome or tomb, depending on your perspective.

The past year has included both an system audit and a formal self-assessment for our department. Among many positive findings, these experiences have also exposed the occasional inconsistency in procedure, gap in documentation, or unwritten understanding. In response, we shored up our procedures, which doubled the heft of our manual.

I will admit that part of my personality relishes the crispness and clarity of a thorough procedures manual. Following rules can produce a certain beauty, like a well-mown lawn. Following rules can also keep one out of of trouble, which - generally speaking - is a good thing for a department to do. Add to the equation that I (the department director) am preparing to leave the institution. There is both efficiency and comfort in the institutional memory created in the page upon page of the procedures manual. Structure can be empowering.

  Of course, structure can also be imprisoning. As a department director, I could easily spend all of my time and then some simply documenting whether or not we are in compliance with our procedures manual. I would like to think that I have something greater to contribute to the grand mission of higher education than simply ensuring that all of our receipts are in order. The zeitgeist of auditors can quickly mistake the forest for the trees.

  So how can we strike the right chord to harmonize procedures and performance?

Procedures should be driven by the end user. As department director, I set the parameters while engaging the end users to operationalize the structure. Not only does this engender ownership and hence implementation, but it also incorporates the best ideas of the most informed.

Procedures should be clearly demarcated as a means to an end. The purpose of my department is to improve student outcomes, not to follow procedures. It is imperative to structure procedures accordingly. A procedure should support achievement of your goals. This is a simple litmus test.

  A procedure should be reflective instead of additive. It can be easy to simply pile one procedure on top of another as new situations or understandings arise. Soon your department will make a Byzantine labyrinth look like a stroll through the park. Reflect on your procedures manual as an interconnected system and mindfully create, refine or eliminate procedures accordingly.

  Should I print bounded copies of my procedures manual...or should burn it? I have experienced both ends of the emotional spectrum. Approaching the procedures manual as a strategic tool to support the effective and appropriate achievement of outcomes, as opposed to a sacred text for proselytizing and condemnation, is a step toward a healthy relationship.

Your Data Experience: Empowering or Paralyzing?

I see data as being used in three primary ways: to account, to inform, and to no end.

I manage a program that is funded by a Federal grant that is part of a division that is part of an institution that is part of a system that is part of the State. Lest we forget, there is also the accrediting body and the U.S. Department of Education. All of these different parties want to see data to account for the success of my program. Are you doing what you say you are doing? Are you following our rules?

I am a self-proclaimed data wonk. I am seduced by the romantic charm of using data to make smart and efficient decisions based on predictive, formative and summative assessment. I am much more comfortable with crisp and clean judgment as opposed to amorphous and transient feeling. To evaluate is divine! I use data in many ways to inform how we do things in my program...and the results are significant.

I believe in the merits of using data to account and to inform. Yet, the view from the trenches often sees data usage masquerading as one of these purposes when in reality its usage is to no end. I will admit that I am often the one beating the drum: data, data, we need more data! But a sea of data can just as well drown as transport. The usage of data can just as well paralyze an organization as it can empower an organization.

How can we best approach the use of data?

One strategy is data prioritization. Those in higher education are familiar with academic prioritization: a systematic review and – hopefully – dialogue focused on aligning programs with the mission and vision of the institution. We need to be doing something similar with our data regimes in higher education. What are the key uses of data according to our mission and vision? What are the most potent and focused data indicators to achieve these purposes? What data usage must we elevate and what can we let go?

A second strategy is to prioritize people. “Results are an effect; people are the cause,” write Vannoy and Ross.* The people of the institution are on the front lines day in and day out, using data to account, to inform, and to no end. How do our data usage strategies meld with their workflow? How clear and straightforward are our data  usage strategies? Do people see our data usage strategies as helpful or hindering? And – we need to be honest – how much of our data usage is to no end?

“Culture eats strategy for lunch,” the authors continue.

As noted, I love data. Yet, in my everyday work with my program and students, my data usage wavers somewhere in the middle ground between empowering and paralyzing. I can only imagine the experience of folks who do not love data. There is a way forward, and it is worth pursuing, but we have work to do.

*Vannoy, S., & Ross, C. (2008). Stomp the Elephant in the Office. Lakewood: Wisters & Willows, Publishers Inc.

Bridging the Faculty-Staff Divide through an Epistemic Community

International relations theory defines an epistemic community as a transnational network of knowledge-based experts who help decision-makers to define and address the problems they face. These “scientists without borders” may be able to produce outcomes not easily realizable for national leaders operating in a state-specific political environment. Moreover, by redefining the boundaries of the social group, the network of thought partners gain a different psycho-social perspective that may open new opportunities for problem solving. For example, during the Cold War, American and Soviet scientists forged epistemic communities in the area of arms control in an effort to mitigate the adversarial relations between the governments of the two nations.

To extend a metaphor to higher education, the faculty community and the staff community at an institution can sometimes feel like two distinct nations. Traditionally, each community tends to have their own rules and their own leadership. Each community tends to draw a boundary circumscribed by the classroom, whether inside or out. The mission of the faculty tribe is student learning. The mission of the staff tribe is student persistence/completion. In the worst of times, the international relations between the faculty community and the staff community is perceived as a zero-sum game.

At my institution, I co-chair our Persistence and Completion Committee. From the outset, the committee included “transnational” actors from across the faculty and staff communities. Forming an epistemic community is not as easy as seating faculty and staff members at the same table, however. An epistemic community requires a common point of knowledge expertise. It requires framing an issue in such a way that diverse perspectives are focused on a shared goal. Through open and honest conversations over the period of our first 15 months as a committee, we came to construct a narrative of student success in which student learning, persistence and completion are interdependent. A student must persist to continue learning. A mastery of learning is completion. Student learning, persistence and completion happens inside and outside of the classroom. Though our tribal activities may specific, our global destiny is shared.  We became a trans-institutional network of knowledge-based experts who help decision-makers to define and address student success.

Like most human enterprises, interpersonal relationships were at the heart of our success in bridging the faculty-staff divide. We started with a small group of people from many different parts of the college and got to know each other. We each brought our perspective to challenging discussions. We built mutual trust and appreciation. We struggled together to create a wider and more inclusive frame of reference. And now the members of our epistemic community are well-positioned to return to their respective tribe and share our narrative of student success.

Cultural change at the institutional level is incremental. Not everyone will be swayed by our idealism of a common pool. But by bringing together a diversity of individuals to provide a trans-institutional reframing of our various roles in a shared endeavor, we move toward greater collaboration and more porous boundaries.

Observations from a First-Time Lobbyist

Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. is abuzz with activity, a frenetic and hectic movement of people. I was there speaking to U.S. Congresspersons about the importance of supporting educational access and success for low income and first generation students.

In Congressman Coffman’s high-walled office adorned with photos of veterans and diplomats, I told stories of student success. In a sunlit hall outside of Congresswoman DeGette’s bustling office, I invited her to attend a student roundtable. In the only space we could find available - a basement floor cafeteria - I told Senator Gardner’s legislative aid:  we need to invest in support programs in order to protect Pell.

It was surreal, almost an out of body experience. Governance is far from perfect, but I experienced nothing of the "gridlock" or stasis that you hear about in the media. Progress may or may not be happening as you see fit, but things are certainly happening. And the overwhelming message that I received from the numerous Congresspersons over six days in D.C. was plain and clear: the voice of constituents matters.

Public policy and appropriations play a huge role in impacting higher education and our students. There are a number of effective strategies for communicating your message:

•  Contact the District Office of your Congressperson and invite him or her to attend a roundtable discussion with your students at your campus. Pay attention to the particular interests of the Congressperson, which may be college affordability, student debt, specific student populations (first-generation, Veteran, minority), college completion, et cetera. 

• Identify the Congressperson's Legislative Aid responsible for Higher Education and form a relationship with this person. A phone call or e-mail is appropriate. State the value in supporting specific policies or appropriations for the Congressperson's constituents. 

•  Do not assume that a Congressperson is for or against your position based solely on his or her political affiliation. Again, pay attention to the particular interests of the Congressperson and use these to frame the value in supporting specific policies or appropriations.

• Do not get discouraged by a particular vote or decision by your Congressperson. Nothing happens in a vacuum on Capitol Hill and there are many - yes - political calculations. A Congressperson may support your position even if a particular action seems contrary to your position. 

• Connect with your professional organization or your institution's government relations office to visit Capitol Hill in person. When there, do not get discouraged if you find yourself advocating with a Legislative Aid (who may be half of your age). Legislative Aids meet directly with the Congressperson on a frequent basis. Your meeting with a Legislative Aid is the real deal; don't take your eye of the ball. 

• Position yourself as a content expert in Higher Education. Ask how you can support the policy-making process of your Congressperson. For example, is there a specific type of data that would be useful? 

• Speaking of data, be prepared with both quantitative data that demonstrate program effectiveness as well as qualitative data (e.g. student stories) that provide the context for how the program impacts the lives of constituents. 

• At the end of the day, your Congressperson is just that - a person. Feel confident in your ability to communicate with this person. Accept that each of us have limitations and that the ideal does not always align with the possible. Let your Congressperson know that you value his or her hard work to improve the lives of constituents. 

Education Technology: The Dialectic of Utopia and Dystopia

With advances in education technology, the future of higher education looks great or terrible, depending on who you read.

In one camp you will find the zealots. This tribe sees education technology producing a grand disruption in which massive online competency-based learning - unbundled from calcified institutions and guided by sophisticated privatized data science - creates robust educational outcomes determined strictly by merit at a fraction of the cost. A true utopia.

In another camp you will find the luddites. This tribe views such a vision of education technology as truly dystopic, as a fanciful illusion so enamored in political expediency and its own zeitgeist that it ignores the social and interpersonal structures long-proven to effectively educate students, in particular those most vulnerable (low-income, first-generation, and non-white students).

In the middle ground stands many others, taking careful stock of the unfolding dialectic.

The technological determinism of the zealot tribe asserts that because we can do something with technology, it is a foregone conclusion that a) the outcome will be better when using technology and b) technology is unstoppable.

The interpersonal determinism of the luddite tribe asserts that because humans are social learners, it is a foregone conclusion that a) the outcome will be better when using personal interaction and b) technology makes us less human.

The dialectic of thesis and antithesis between these two tribes enlivens the potential for evolutionary movement within higher education. Higher education has the opportunity to draw on the strength of its humanistic roots while moving creatively into the future through emergent technologies.

For the dialectic to lead to such a synthesis, those in the middle ground must be careful and balanced arbiters of both evidence and values. What constellation of practices most effectively produces specific educational outcomes? What constellation of practices most effectively enlivens the human experience?

Technology is a human enterprise. There is more to the human enterprise than technology. Education needs neither disruption nor restoration, but - somewhere in the middle - evolution.

Reframe: Leadership

"If you consider yourself a leader, you may want to turn around and see if anyone is following you. If not, then you are just going for a walk."

I will acknowledge that there is a certain amount of truth to the logic and pragmatism in this framing of leadership. Problems arise, however, when leadership becomes merely a quest to acquire followers. Now you are simply a public relations specialist with an ego.

To me, leadership is inspiring others to act toward a shared goal. Leadership is not about acquiring followers but rather realizing partners. It is not about a personal vision but rather shared dreams. And sometimes there is nothing more important and inspiring than a leader going on a long lonely walk into terrain that others dare not go.

At the end of the day, I see leadership possessing a certain Taoist quality. The Way that can be known is not the true Way. Leadership cannot be found if you seek it, only if you do not.

Trust and the Leap of Faith

Charcoal clouds to the west lie low on the mountains. An acerbic sun shines harshly on the San Luis Valley, any hint of its warmth whisked quickly away by the winter wind. The highway runs directly from point A to point B, with nothing but the occasional tumbleweed blocking the view of the San Juan, Sangre de Christo and Culebra ranges.

I can see them a mile away, broken-down on the side of the road. Two people with thumbs out, a string of vehicles march past unabated. I pull over.

They come to my window, arms pulled in tight against their body, hands shoved into pockets, woefully under-dressed for the weather. Their truck broke down an hour ago, they say; they just need a ride a few miles up valley; I am the first one that stopped. The margin between subconscious and conscious - the land of biases and survival instincts - automatically takes notes and raises a few red flags.

This much is certain - they are quite cold.

Conversation lowers my guard as we roll together down the highway. A cell phone battery died; a deadbeat friend decided to go bowling in Monte Vista instead of coming to help; a girlfriend had to work until 7:00; a step-brother is living at the family shack and trying to get his life together after a stint in juvenile.

I am directed left onto a dirt road, a mile later right onto a smaller dirt road. "It is just a little further." Then left onto what would pass as a cow path if it weren't for the cattle guard blocking bovine progress. We pass by the middle of nowhere. We are ostensibly heading toward said shack.  "It is just a little further. Just a little further."

I attempt to be discreet with my cell phone at the ready. Not that there is any signal out here.

They are profuse in their gratitude, in a profanity-laced sort of way. It reminds me of some of my roughneck cousins back home; I smile. A spiritual happiness of sorts wells up, like when you realize that the world just might not be as messed up as it sometimes seems. The valley graces me with sanguine alpenglow.

Trust - it is at the core of effective relationships, communities, and organizations.

In The Speed of Trust, Stephen M.R. Covey asserts four key components of trust, from the organizational perspective. 1) Integrity to walk your talk. 2) Intent to pursue straightforward motives based on mutual benefit. 3) Capabilities that inspire confidence to get things done. 4) Results that reveal our track record and follow through.

I add a fifth key component: the leap of faith.

My decision to pick up the young men stranded in the high desert at the height of winter with the sun quickly absconding probably falls under Covey's concept of blind trust (as opposed to smart trust). It involved an unidentifiable risk of the unknown. But I took this leap of faith with great intentionality. Sometimes a leader needs to risk one's sense of self in order to prove that greater ideals still animate our higher potential, regardless of the naysayers (and they are many).

Now I don't advise that you pick up hitchhikers on a daily basis, metaphorical or otherwise. My episode was a moment in time in which the stars aligned to provide me with a test of my own personal integrity to walk the talk. But I do advise that you take smaller leaps of faith frequently to demonstrate the trust that you place in your family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues.

The realist in my office likes to protest: "But Troy - what if they take advantage of you?!?"

Some have and others will. But far more have graciously honored the trust I have offered them. I am certain that exposing my flank engenders reciprocity of trust in the great majority. And I wager that each act of vulnerable trust nudges the great needle of the universe toward a fuller realization of our true potential.

I am as strategic as they come. In fact, my Meyers-Briggs preference is colloquially known as Mastermind. By default, then, I am prone toward smart trust, to weighing the pros and cons of an action, to treat trust as a sort of leadership capital to be expended along the lines of a budget. But we cannot conflate trust with strategy masquerading as trust. We must take the leap of faith - though the naysayers will say "ill-advised" - in order to enliven the true bond of trust.

Organic Leadership

Like the Sage on Stage approach to teaching, the Colonel on Horse approach to leadership views everyone else as passive recipients and benefactors of the omniscient and omnipotent one. Even if the Colonel has a good idea of where he or she is going - which is an assumption - everyone else will simply tread the exact same path and end up in the exact same place. Groupthink. Lemmings. Et cetera.

When I work with others, I put forth significant effort to be mindful of judgment. Judgment in and of itself is not necessarily problematic; in fact, it is necessary. Problems arise when we assume that our judgment is descriptive of an objective world, one that appears exactly the same to everyone else. I tend to agree with the postmodernist idea that an objective world may well exist, but we can only know through conditions of its emergence. For example, the wavelength of light that appears as a blue sky can be descriptively measured, but how we understand and make meaning of that appearance emerges through our language, emotions, culture, sensory receptors, and so on. Do we know, then, that the blue sky appears the same to all of us? Who is right?

Such a problematization of objective judgment is a problematization of the Colonel on Horse. Due to the objective and subjective divergences that exist on a team of individuals, it is an inefficient allusion laced with missed opportunity and egoism to have everyone else get in line and follow the leader.

Thus, I prefer the concept of organic leadership: cultivating ecosystems that produce a flourishing and vibrant community, concomitantly guiding diverse emergent energy toward a shared vision of success.

In this direction, I ascribe to three guiding tenets.

1. Create a culture of positivity. Your work environment is a cauldron of inspiration, where each individual realizes the significance and meaning of their contributions to the team's vision of success. Productivity is a corollary of fun and excitement. Be fresh air. Be sunshine. Create a vision to respond to the age-old question: Why does any of this matter?

2. Balance structure with autonomy. Each individual benefits from different levels of guidance and independence, often at different times in different stages of evolution within different responsibilities. Listen attentively to your teammates to find the sweet spot and support right balance. Sometimes you may need to be the Colonel on Horse, but other times you need to simply get out of the way!

3. Pursue open communication built on authentic relationships. Be curious about other people's thoughts and ideas and happenings. In an ecological world, all is interconnected and relational. Communicate honestly yet kindly through both the clear days and the stormy nights.

A Classic Text on Working with Others

Whether you are an advisor, teacher, or administrator, the importance of being attentive to relationships and emotions cannot be understated. As long as we higher education professionals are working with humans, and not robots, this will remain imperative to the work that we do.

It is plain to say that some people we more naturally relate with and understand, and others less so. This comes about through varying personalities, shared and divergent experiences, similar and different emotional profiles, and so on. For example, as an advisor, I often times work with a student older and more experienced than myself, or a student with eight times the street cred, or a student with a chip on their shoulder, or a student coming from a very different place. Yet it is contingent upon me to establish trusting relationships and a genuine emotional connection with each individual, regardless of the ease or difficulty of doing so.

Growing up, I remember my dad reading the newspaper every night. However, he only had one book in his library: How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. From a young age, I was captivated by this book: I loved all the books in my own burgeoning library, and thus was very curious about the singular tome in my father's; even more so, the title of the book always struck me as odd. Out of serendipity, I recently cross paths with this book again, 20 years later. Out of sheer curiosity, I decided to give it a go.

A classic text first penned in the 1930's, How to Win Friends and Influence People had sold 15 million copies by 1981, while being translated into nearly every written language in the world. So the jacket informed me, as I turned the book over in my hands. Still, I could not see the title as anything other than a euphemism for How to Manipulate People and Get Your Way. Just as before, it seemed a strange topic.

To my surprise, though, there are many interesting and good strategies outlined in the book (sprinkled between plenty of cultural anachronisms - interesting in themselves). Certainly, one could use these strategies to manipulate people and get your way. But just the same, one could use these strategies to show genuine interest in others and expand your circle of concern. The underlying objective depends on the current status of your ego. The Jedi Force is used for both good and evil.

The grand strategy outlined by Carnegie - translated into contemporary language - is to value people and honor their contributions. When we escape our own narrow concerns, and go out of our way to truly listen to what others say and feel, then we can establish a strong foundation for partnering toward shared outcomes.

This is an invaluable strategy for building relationships and emotional connections, especially in situations where this does not come about naturally. At our first meeting, I always start by asking questions, listening, and learning as much as I can about a person. I make it a point to affirm the strengths and accomplishments that I hear in their story. I tune in to the emotions tied their memories, and attempt to put myself in their shoes. I am mindful of checking my own judgments, and open myself to the vibrancy and perspective of the person sitting across from me.

Consequently, the foundation of human relationship is built on trust, and many internal defenses and biases are eased. In other words, I have earned their respect.

Dale, I have something to add. In my view, it is more than just influencing another person.  By being true to the process, and allowing for it to reciprocate, then you too are being influenced by another person. And through such a process, we too grow - in our role as higher education professionals, in our role as people. When we open to this process, then we truly are genuine.

Highly Inefficient Efficiencies in the Workplace

In the New York Times article “Messages Galore, but No Time to Think,” Phyllis Korkki
highlights the insidious dark side of our deterministic march toward technological productivity. At any given moment, we can now use e-mail, cellphones, instant messaging, text messaging, social media, corporate intranets, cloud applications, and pagers to communicate at work. (What did I miss?) Moreover, the fluidity of these technologies means that we can mix our personal and work communication, 24/7.

Technology is in itself value neutral; its use determines its value. I am thinking of the electrical outlet at my grandparents’ old house, where we managed to use various splitters and power strips to plug in a dozen cords into a single outlet. At some point, of course, this becomes dangerous, either blowing a fuse, or worse, sending a shower of sparks into your home. This is past the point of diminishing returns.

When will we reach this point, as we plug more and more communication lines into our minds? When did we?

“Something may have been lost as we adopted these new communication tools: the ability to concentrate,” asserts Korkki.

According to neuroscientists such as Dr. Daniel Seagull, the practice of mindfulness – or sustained attention – thickens the pre-frontal cortex, which is the rational center of the brain. The pre-frontal cortex balances the more impulsive amygdala system. Balance is good, because sometimes deliberation is required, but other times (such as in dangerous situations), a quicker response is required.

For the sake of the argument, let’s assume that our excessive use of always on multiple communication technologies is the opposite of mindfulness practice. Instead, such practice is to quickly divide out attention in the name of efficiency. What does that do to neurological balance between our rational and our impulsive systems?

The question then becomes: Does the work we do require sustained rational analysis and decision making? Because if it does, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot in the name of efficiency.

Here, it seems, efficiency takes the form of a Zen koan: that which we seek we cannot find unless we stop seeking.

“To lessen the disruptive nature of e-mail and other messages, teams need to discuss how to alter their work process to allow blocks of time where they can disconnect entirely,” adds Korkki.

In other words, the most effective and productive approach requires that we set aside some time to slow down and focus on only one thing.

“Nature does not hurry, yet all is accomplished,” stated Lao Tzu, long ago.

Here is one intervention: actually take your lunch break, and put all of your electronic devices in sleep mode, if only for 30 minutes.

And another easy starting point: unless there is a legitimate reason to do so, do not send an e-mail to someone when you could take a minute to walk over and talk to them in person.

Lastly, keep in mind that neuroscience has debunked multi-tasking as a myth. Your brain is not hardwired to focus on more than one thing at a time – it is what it is. Multi-tasking is simply the rationing out of that one line to shorts bursts of limited attention. Is this really the most efficient way of doing things?

Are you busy, or are you productive? These are two different things.

Chronicle Article: "How Many Administrators Are Too Many?"

Happy New Year, folks.

I thought the question about what the ideal number of faculty compared to administrators/support staff was fascinating.  The article explores the facets of the question through University of Nebraska, but there is no clear conclusion other than to say that the stereotypes are debunked on multiple sides.


http://chronicle.com/article/Counting-Up-the-Campus-Work/136477/?cid=at

Postmodernism, Heuristics, and Administration

"The feminist theorists had a great point when they noted that we’re all embodied, and flawed, and, in some sense, blinkered. The lesson I drew from that was a need for humility in the face of complicated, messy realities. But the humility isn’t in the service of fatalism or a flight to innocence and virtue.  It’s in the service of making changes that aren’t doomed from the outset," writes Dean Dad on The Confessions of a Community College Dean blog.

For those with a background or interest in philosophy now hunkered down in the trenches of day to day reality as a higher ed professional, this is great stuff! It is insightful, relevant - and here I am speaking specifically to the armchair philosophers out there - fun to apply the theories and concepts of particular philosophies to the tasks and issues facing our contingent realities (that was a bit of a rhetorical flourish, I will admit).

"I was reminded of that this week in a discussion about a proposed program.  When I raised a series of questions about the practicality of it, I was hit with the concept/implementation distinction.  And I realized that from the perspective of someone responsible for budgeting and staffing, the distinction is false.  A concept that can’t be implemented is a flawed concept," Dean Dad muses.

Who doesn't love to "spend time in the weeds of postmodernism"?!?

If the excerpts above at all capture your intrigue, I suggest you read the whole post, where Dean Dad uses basic concepts of feminist theory, postmodernism, and pragmatism to frame his view of best practices when managing the relationship (dare I say dialect?) between a strong conception and its realistic implementation (definitely a thesis-antithesis-synthesis thing!).

Anyways...Dean Dad's blog post brings to mind parallels with another book I am currently reading: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. In this tome of contemporary psychology by one of its current stars, Kahneman talks a lot about heuristics. In short, a heuristic is a mental shortcut our mind takes - often automatically - to make quick and short work of the deluge of information constantly being hurled at it. For the most part, the use of heuristics is an effective and amazing ability of the mind. allowing us to adapt and thrive without getting mired in information overload, just as pragmatism prevents a postmodernist from getting "lost and paralyzed in an infinite regression of what’s already implicated in what" (Dean Dad).

The challenge, however, is that heuristics - as a necessity - tend to (over)simplify situations and can produce inaccurate judgments as a result. And thus we have biases. 

This is an important consideration to make when we are involved in the fast-paced world of making administrative judgments, balancing conception with implementation and the like. Postmodernism, as well as the psychology of biases, reminds us that our judgments and intuitions are anything but clean cut objective assessments of the world. Whether or not we care to admit it, our thoughts are mired in conditions of emergence and heuristics. As Dean Dad states, this does not mean that we need to be fatalistic and throw our hands up. But it does mean that when making decisions, we should be mindful of the perspective and bias integral to our judgment. In this situation, a bit of humility mixed with time out for critical reflection and gathering the views of others can at least move us in the direction of a rational assessment befitting an effective action-outcome response to the contingencies that we face.

Code of Conduct and Ethical Statements

So, I saw this article in the Chronicle, "Year-Old Code of Conduct Makes Slow Progress Among For-Profit Colleges " (Ask me or your supervisor for the division's access code.)  Their “Standards of Responsible Conduct and Transparency” webpage is a dead link.  I guess they have never heard of the National Association of College Admission Counseling which has a very strong ethical statement.  Recruitment and Student Outreach relied on this Statement for its Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) Admissions Program Self-Assessment Guide (SAG).  I'm curious to know where other professionals get their ethical statements.