This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
The political process of environmental change on campus can be
viewed as the use of influence to bring about the desired change. While this
definition appears simple, it also opens the process of change to all who wish
to participate, both students and others, and the tactical nature of the
influence process suggests it can be an organized and thoughtful undertaking.
Environmental Change Process
The environmental change process can be organized and structured
around seven critical questions: (1) What in the environment is the target of
change?; (2) What are important environmental climate considerations?; (3)
What are the forces for change?; (4) How do the identified forces impact the
desired change?; (5) What are the strategies for the change process?; (6) What
are the tactics for carrying out the strategies?; and (7) Who participates in the
change process? Use of these seven questions can give an orderly, tactical,
and participatory process for change on campus.
What in the environment is the target of change? Discussion of this
question helps to focus on actually what is the desired change that is being
sought. Is it a change in policy, procedure, or personnel? Is it an
organizational change issue or is it a physical environmental change? Or, is it
all of the above? These and other similar questions are straightforward and
simple, but often groups begin the change process without obtaining a clear
view of the objective. A clear objective is obviously critical to the success of
the change process.
What are the important environmental climate /cultural
considerations? Attention to this question helps to highlight the "culture" of
the environment in which the change is being attempted. The organizational
or environmental culture of the armed services is different from the culture of
the local P.T.A. Organization. These cultural or climate considerations must
be addressed for a change process to be successful. For example, within the
campus environment at least three "cultural" considerations emerge. One,
much of the campus environment operates as a bureaucracy. There is an
hierarchical structure, units and sub-units are tied together by a formal chain
of command, and a system for communications exists. Two, while the
bureaucracy is quite evident, the campus environment also contains a
collegiate environment or a "community of scholars." Ways to "get things
done" differ according to whether you are working in the bureaucracy or in
the community of scholars. And third, the university environment, as do most
organizational environments, operates under the direct influence of the "white
male system" (Schaef, 1981). This system influences the assumptions about
events, dictates a language, and in general sets the "tone" for its functioning.
These are but three illustrations of climate or culture considerations. A more
thorough analysis would obviously produce additional considerations
including the notion of different subcultures existing within the university
setting. Keeping in mind the climate of the environment is critical when the
other questions in the process are discussed.
What are the forces for change? Within the college environment, what
forces are present which impinge on the change process? Martorana and
Kuhns (1979) offer a model to identify the interactive forces for change
within the campus environment. They view change as coming about through
the interactive forces identified as personal, extrapersonal, and goal hiatus.
Personal forces are of three kinds: decision makers, implementers, and
consumers. The extrapersonal forces include both tangible and intangible
forces. Tangible influences on change could include the factors of facilities,
equipment, dollars, and the land. Such variables as laws, policies, customs,
and traditions define the intangible forces for change. Goal hiatus, the third
force for change, refers to the discrepancy between where the organization is
and where it wants to be. For example, low enrollment for most state funded
institutions becomes a "goal hiatus" and therefore a force for change. These
forces make up the contextual political background for any change within the
institution. Identifying and understanding these forces is critical to the change
process.
How do the identified forces impact the desired change? How can the
various forces for change and those which would hinder change be
understood? The technique of force-field analysis is a useful tool in answering
this question (Golembiewski and Blumberg, 1970). Simply, this analysis deals
with the forces which act as a "driving force" for the desired change and those
which act as a "restraining force" for the change. The analysis requires the
listing of all driving and restraining forces along with such considerations as
the relative strength of each force and the relationships among the forces.
These analyses are important to the process of selecting a strategy to employ
for change.
What are the strategies for the change process? A strategy for change can be viewed as the overall plan which is developed to bring about the
change. Martorana and Kuhns (1975) identify the following strategies as
being useful within the campus environment: low-profile action, systematic
experimentation, participant involvement versus power coercion, creation of
demand, development of legitimacy, creation of power blocs, control of
internal organization and control of communications. Depending upon the
results of the force-field analysis, certain strategies emerge as more useful
than others. For example, if the likelihood is high that the desired change will
be misunderstood and thereby cause more restraining forces, then a
low-profile strategy may be advisable. But if the change is likely to be popular
then a more visible strategy may bring more driving forces to bear on the
situation. Students often find the strategy of systematic experimentation or
"pilot project" to be useful because it builds on the "climate" of an
educational environment.
What are the tactics for carrying out the strategies? Again, Martorana and Kuhns (1975) help in responding to this question. They describe a tactic within the change process as a specific action taken to accomplish a particular strategy. The following are examples of tactics: appreciation of timing,
obtaining an overview, determining obstacles, providing reassurance, building
on existing concerns, avoiding rejection, respecting the past, persuading the
opposition, confronting the opposition, compromise and co-opting, selecting
personnel for decision making positions, using trial balloons, using a front
person, carrying out a hidden agenda, and outflanking the opposition. Both
strategies and tactics have positive and negative connotations and some are
therefore more or less desirable depending on issues such as environmental
culture and political and ethical considerations. For example, the tactic of
appreciation of timing will be found useful in almost all organizational
settings while the use of the "hidden agenda" is most often found not
acceptable in the campus environment.
Who participates in the change process? While this question is listed last in this series of questions, it is the most important. It is being raised last because the complexity of the process has been established by the previous
questions. How does one decide on the target? Read the environment?
Identify forces? Analyze forces? Choose strategies and tactics for the change?
There is no easy answer to this complexity, but the most reasonable way to
proceed is to have all who will be impacted by the change participate in the
change process! Adherence to this principle is both efficacious and ethical.
The more persons involved the greater the diversity of ideas. The more
persons involved the less likely the desires of a few will be changing an
environment that impacts many. The elements of diversity and participation
allow the change process to also be an educational process.
REFERENCES
Bacharach, S.B. & Lawler, EJ. (1982). Power and politics in organizations.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Banning ,J.H. (1987). Environmental change: A seven question process. The
campus ecologist, 5(3), 1-2.
Golembiewski, R.T. & Blumberg, A. (1970). Sensztzvzty training and the
laboratory approach. Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.
Martorana, S.V. & Kuhns, E. (1975). Managzng academic change: Interactive
forces and leadership In higher educatzon. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schaef, A.W. (1981). Women's reality: An emerging female system In a white
male society. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
At the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater the institutiona mission
statement includes the following:
". . . meeting the educational and personal development needs of students through effective teaching, academic advising, and counseling, and through cultural, recreational and extracurricular programs. (Hall Director Manual, 1986-87, p. 1)"
The Office of Student Housing takes this part of the mission statement
as the basis for its philosophy. In addition the Office of Student Housing takes
the responsibility of providing a "safe, secure, attractive and educationally
sound environment in order to meet developmental and educational needs of
the students. "
In light of this educatinal philosophy a unique programmatic approach
has been implemented on campus called the Responsible Living Environment
(RLE). The objective of RLE is to have residents live together as adults and
be responsible for their environment. One way this is accomplished is through
the development of a community. In order to develop this community, we
must provide the setting for interaction and communication among residents.
This is accomplished through meetings, programs, and other gatherings. An
end result of this is trust and respect among themselves. By establishing a
sense of community, the residents make a commitment to an educational
experience.
RLE and community come together when the residents begin taking
ownership in the environment and responsibility for their actions and
reactions within the environment.
The establishment of RLE begins shortly after the residents arrive in
the fall. The first step of the program begins with the individual Residence
Hall Councils providing policy recommendations, which the residents of that
building then vote on. The RLE philosophy is presented and explained to the
residents by their Resident Assistant. The guidelines include such policies as:
escort procedures, visitation hours, quiet hours and solicitation within the
hall.
One of the ways the program is implemented within the hall is through
the actual voting process. By allowing the residents to vote on these policies
they take ownership in them and support and enforce them. An example of
this is when residents ask other residents to be quiet during the established
quiet hours. RLE is also implemented in the paint program which provides
residents with the opportunity to paint their individual rooms or common
areas. The Office of Student Housing provides all the supplies and the
residents provide the ideas, labor and final product.
The Office of Student Housing has also established a Judicial Board
system that takes an educational approach which complements the
Responsible Living Environment philosophy. The Judicial Board is comprised
of trained volunteers from the halls who hear discipline cases, determine the
outcome and provide creative sanctions if needed. Sanctions which have been
created are: doing building rounds with the Duty Resident Assistant, attending
an Alcohol Education program or meeting with Univerity Staff to discuss
policy or procedures. The objective being educational and developmental, not
punitive.
The way developmental theories, such as Chickering and Perry, fit in
is idealistic in nature. Only does it become realistic when the time is spent
conceptualizing and integrating these ideas, philosophies, and programs.
At UW-W students are required to complete a training course,
Horizons, prior to becoming an RA. Developmental theories are shared with
them as a base of knowledge to work from. They are asked to think in terms
of where a student is developmentally and ask themselves how they might
best meet the challenge at hand. In addition to the hteory, they are taught
Interpersonal Skills, Crisis Intervention and Situational Leadership as ways of
facilitating the development of the student. At points throughout the course,
the theories are reviewed to better understand the reasons why students act or
think the way they do. The outcome being that they learn more effective ways
to respond to the situation at hand and therefore can make an impact on the
development of the student. For example: when a student is confronted for
inappropropriate behavior in the halls, the RA is asked to think about where
the student is developmentally, to assess the situation and then make a choice
on how to handle the situation. Resident Assistants are reminded that
residents need the respect of being an adult, that they need to take
responsibility for their actions. The object of Responsible Living Environment
is to allow residents to take responsibility for their actions, to feel the
consequences, and to begin moving through developmental stages.
REFERENCES
Koschoreck, L., Cseri, C. and Miller, D. The Establishment of a Responsible
Living Environment to Promote Student Development. ACPA Program,
unpublished handout booklet, 1987.
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Judicial System Handbook and
Residence Hall Living Guide, 1987.
EDITOR'S NOTE.
Article contributed by Linda Koschoreck, Cindy Cseri and Debbie Miller of the Office of Student Housing at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater.
Handbook of Organizational Measurement. James L. Price and Charles W. Mueller. Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman. 1986, $23.95, 293 pages (cloth).
As the title indicates, this work is a compendium of organizational
measures designed "to promote standardization of the measures used in the
study of work organization." A previous Handbook was published in 1972 by
Price and this new work reflects some of the current work done in
organizational measurement. The introductory chapter is a slight-though-mighty overview of measurement dealing with the basic issues of
psychoand socio-meterics. The book's next 30 chapters present the
organizational measures divided nicely into topic or variable areas.
Chapters 2 through 31 are the heart of the material dealing with:
Absenteeism, Administrative Intensity, Autonomy, Centralization (Power
Stratification), Commitment, Communications, Complexity, Violence of
Conflict, Coordination, Departmentalization, Distributive Justice,
Effectiveness, Formalization, General Training, Ideology, Innovation,
Mechanization, Motivation, Need Strength, Pay Stratification, Bases of
Power, Prestige Stratification, Productivity, Routinization, Satisfaction, Size,
Standardization, Turnover, Work Group Cohesion, and Work Load.
Each chapter contains a definition of the variable and a description
and thorough review of major measurement efforts in that area. For example,
the Chapter on Centralization (Power Stratification) defines centralization as
". . . the degree to which power is differentially distributed within an
organization . . ." and goes on to relate this to other significant concepts. Four
measurement projects are reviewed for Description, Definition, Data
Collection, Computation, Validity, Reliability, and sections on Comments and
Source provide additional material.
While this might seem to be an arid presentation as readable as Tests
in Print, in reality it is an excellent way to learn about complex organizations
and how they affect people. Because this material is "foreign territory" to
many people, it will provide a richness of new conceptual material to think
about how the college affects the student, and a whole new set of measures to
find out how that relationship really works.
The measures and ideas presented by Price and Mueller are found in
nearly every research journal dealing with the college and the student.
Moreover, for the practitioner this is an excellent source of material to be
used to diagnose problems within any department. This book is readily
understandable by first year graduate students and should be in every
department library.
Aldrich, H.E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bacharach, S.B. & Lawler, EJ. (1980). Power and politics in organizations.
San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Baldridge, J.V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university . New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Baldridge,J.V. (1975). Rules for a Machiavellian change agent: Transforming
the entrenched professional organization. In J.V. Baldridge & T.E. Deal
(Eds). Managing change in educational organizations. Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan Publishing Corp.
Banning,J.H. (1979). Consultation for environmental change: An
administrator's view. In K. Hamilton & C. Meade (Eds). Consultation on
campus. New Directions for Student Services, No. 5. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Barr, M.J. & Keating, L.A. (1979). No program is an island. In New
Directions for Student Services, No. 7. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bennis, W.G., Benne, K.D., Chin, R., & Corey, K.E. (1976). (Eds). The
planning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Beer, M. (1976). On gaining power and influence for OD.Journal of applied
behavioral science, 12(1), 44-51.
Christensen, V.R. (1980). Bringing about change. In 11. Delworth and G.
Hansen (Eds). Student services: A handbook for the profession. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dressel, P.L. (1981). Administrative leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
Gross, E. & Grambsch, P.V. (1986). University goals and academic power.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Gwinn, D.G. (1981). Meeting new challenges: Creating a climate for change.
College and university, No. 3, 13-25.
Lindgren, H.C. (1982). Leadership, authority, and power sharing. Malabor,
FL: Robert K. Krieger Publishing Co.
Lynch, M.L. (1981). The politics and management of campus program
development. In M.L. Lynch (Ed.). Student affairs in the 1980's. Ann Arbor,
MI: ERIC/CAPS.
Mann, D. (1975). Policy decision-makzng in education New York: Teachers
College Press.
Martorana, S.V. & Kuhns, E. Managing academic change: Interactive forces
and leadership in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Penny, J.F. (1969). Student personnel work: Role conflict and power. Journal
of Education, 151 (3), 42-52.
Richman, B.M. & Farmer, R.N. (1974). Leadership, goals and power in higher
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Riley, G.L. & Baldridge, J.V. (1977). (Eds). Governing academic
organizations. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp.
Schaef, A.W. (1981). Women's reality: An emerging female system an a white
male society. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Salancik, G.R. & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The base and use of power in
organizational decision making: The case of a university. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 19(4), 453-473.
Schwerner, S.A. (1975). The counseling service and academic politics: A case
for delivery of services. The counseling psychologist, 5(1), 121-123.
Taylor, H. (1971). How to change colleges: Notes on radical reform. New
York: Holt.
Tilley, D.C. (1973). Student services and the politics of survival. In J. Katz
(Ed.). Services for students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
Waldo, D. (1969). The university as a power center. Educational record, 50(1), 121-128.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.