I have dealt with two different principals many, many times in my career/life. This concept takes into account a number of previous items I posted on, so I may, at times, allude to or directly point out these facts during this real-life, triangle example. Serving two principals over the course of the past three months took a toll on me, and I'm hopeful I can describe it in all it's glory!
On the first day on the job at Urban and Regional Planning, I became aware of the program's ongoing accreditation renewal. The process began sometime in May, and before I arrived a report had been sent to the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB) and was under review by the Site Team Visit (SVT) in preparation for their visit to our department. My boss told me I would be involved in the process, but since I had just begun, she wasn't sure to what extent. Over the course of the next two months, I quickly became aware that the SVT's visit would lie squarely on my shoulders. I connected with the Executive Director of the PAB and she provided me with a multitude of materials to read in order to plan an excellent visit. On top of this was the Self-Study Report which our department put together and I needed to become aware of, per my boss. At the onset, the reading wasn't difficult and understanding the logistics was something I had been familiar with in a previous position. Very quickly, you will notice that I began receiving information from both sides, PAB and my Department, and each needed tending. I also, filled my plate with new responsibilities in my new role, many of which required in-depth training or simply becoming familiar with office routines.
My boss assigned me the task of assembling the schedule for the team and organizing all meals, travel, and guests (PAB requires the team meet with employers, alumni, current students, faculty, Deans, Provosts, etc.) During the initial planning stages, I prepared a Site Visit in direct accordance of the rules set forth by the manual provided to me by the Executive Director of PAB. My boss told me she was happy with the schedule I had created and I reiterated to her that it checked off all of the bureaucratic boxes required by PAB. With the satisfied schedule in hand I began contacting the groups of guests we would invite for the meetings, as well as faculty with their specific times. I should add here, that I took the liberty to schedule around the faculty teaching schedules and this was appreciated by my boss and she gave me a "pat on the back" for taking this into consideration. Upon receiving confirmations from all attendees, I forwarded the final schedule to the Executive Director of the PAB. Here is where things got hairy...
The Executive Director told me that, while I did a good job scheduling all of the proper meetings, the days were too long for the SVT, and I would need to shave off time, by combining meetings of tenured faculty and shortening a couple of meetings. After following these instructions, I reduced the scheduled work day. Then, I explained to my boss that due to the combined meetings, there would be many faculty who may not be able to attend due to teaching commitments. This was not acceptable to my boss, so I was once again back to the drawing board with my schedule. (After about three iterations like this, the inefficiency became belligerent and I became more frustrated.) Finally, I produced a schedule that was both acceptable to my boss as well as to the PAB, but there was one set of meetings I had yet to confirm: the Interim Provost and the Acting Dean of our College. I wrote to the Assistant of these persons (who, in a way, acts as the head of UEO assistants and in turn, a boss-like figure) and she could not make the appointments happen the way I had scheduled them. I explained this to the Executive Director of PAB and she refused to give me any wiggle room, and yet again, I rearranged the schedule. In the end, I spent hundreds of hours undoing and redoing, and the inefficiencies that arose from such an arrangement, where I had to please both my boss and the PAB, were innumerable.
Conflict presented itself in this situation, but because the Accreditation Board had so much power over the program, we could not very easily go against their wishes, even when their wishes were nearly impossible to grant. Conflict arose among our unit between myself and the UEO, because we did not agree on the best solutions, and conflict also arose between my boss and the PAB team because she felt they were being unreasonable. My boss could not contact the team (due to confidentiality rules) which may have been a good thing since she was so frustrated. But, as I said, this frustration could not be voiced or made obvious by even me, for fear it would affect the outcome of the accreditation review. I would also have to suggest the PAB seemed to be operating opportunistically as they offered no room for compromise. It was "their way or the highway" with total disregard for how it might affect our daily operation schedules.
The last thing I have to say about this situation is that it brought me and my boss closer because she saw how hard I worked to produce an excellent output, and we also learned how to solve problems together. While we operate in a hierarchy type organizational structure, we still learned to problem-solve together and determine the best course of action for responding to the PAB in their requests, even though it was ultimately my responsibility for assembling the schedule and pleasing both principals.
In the end, I'm thrilled our accreditation Site Visit ended Wednesday and that I am relieved of the extreme amount of stress it brought me.
First let me say some things about accreditation more generally, based on what I've observed when I was in Business, also what I know about accreditation in other colleges from when I had my campus job, as well as campus level accreditation. I knew somebody who was on the team that visited our campus for the 2000 review.
ReplyDeleteThere seem to me several issues that set the stage for these visits. The first, and most obvious, is the business model in the unit in the absence of accreditation. Does that model meet the approval of the accreditors. For example, Accounting, which had its own separate review separate from AACSB review for the college, relied on adjunct faculty to teach many of the undergraduate courses, as a way to hold down cost of instruction. The accreditors wanted these instructors to have some way of demonstrating competence to teach their courses. This could be done by publishing research in the area, but otherwise needed some demonstration that was outside the norm of practice.
The accreditors also seem to want the units themselves to define the goals and the metrics for achieving those goals. From what I saw, this was managed by one staff person whose full time job was to address these issues, but most faculty were oblivious to it.
Then, once in the while the accreditation visit makes substantial changes in specific practices. That 2000 visit I mentioned is what got the ball rolling on getting rid of Chief Illiniwek. If I'm not mistaken, the 1990 visit pushed the campus into putting technology into classrooms.
All of this is meant as backdrop on what you experienced. The unit administrators suffer through the accreditation visit, but much of the rest of the people may treat it as background noise only or as a hurdle that they must get over but that otherwise doesn't impact their future behavior. So your stress during the process is understandable, but much of that is preconditioned on the belief by most faculty and staff here that we are doing a good job and don't need outsiders to tell us that or to suggest that we change our practices.
One last point is that people in your unit may themselves do accreditation visits at other universities. Those people tend to have more savvy about the process and can inform the administrators about how they should prepare for the visit. The rest of the department, however, is pretty clueless about it.
So the stress you experienced is in good part a function of the preparation that came before. And one reason why the visits are so stressful is that we tend not to pay attention to accreditation after the last visit has concluded until the next visit is forthcoming.
On the point of accreditation more generally, I would agree on some counts for my current department. First, I agree with the fact that the model of our unit is structured closely with that of the accreditation bureaucracy (by that I mean, we make sure all the boxes can be checked). But there is some level of accountability that comes from the accreditation standards, such as having balanced teaching appointments related to ethnic diversity. I felt that the accreditors did expect units to define goals and metrics, but unlike your experience, our departmental involvement in this subject matter is high. I would venture to say that the heavy involvement is a direct result of the small size of our faculty (only 14 FTEs) and the ability our department has to have 100% attendance at nearly all faculty meetings. I would guess the number is nowhere near 100% for the business faculty.
ReplyDeleteI would say that much of the faculty took this very seriously and regularly inquired when they had questions about the effects the visit could have or the importance of the visit. In response to your final sentence, though, I would say that is completely accurate. Because accreditation reviews are 7 years apart, there is little to no attention paid to the board until the next review date. I think, though, the timing makes it difficult. I know very few departments that have had the same head for more than 7 years, and I would imagine accreditation is not on the list of "turnover" notes when the heads change.