Multi-Goal Strategies
Nov 14th, 2008 by strategicplanning
This page has been added to facilitate proposal of strategies that support more than one goal. For each recommendation, please provide the suggested strategy and reference the goal(s) that it will support. Each of the goals and a strategy toolkit (with information the process, guidelines on strategy development, and requirements for submission) can be found at the Strategic Planning website.
12:28 pm - 1-29-2009
My suggestion will seem simple, and maybe even simplistic, but I offer it as a philosophical foundation that could ultimately determine the level of benefit to be derived from “Charting Our Future” planning effort. In reading over the results, strategies and blog entries, it is clear that there is an implicit “they” in just about every goal and comment. Take any of the six goals and you could place a “They should. . .” before them to capture the implied expectation. I suggest that we should build a culture that begins with “I should . . .” Now, I am not just being a Pollyanna in this regard. When I say we need to build such a culture, the trigger to success is pushing down authority as well as responsibility to functional individuals who impact “lifelong learning, critical thinking, and personal growth” of our students (both in and outside the classroom); who “produce high-quality scholarship and creative achievements throughout the University” and so on through each of the six goals.
There is a practical side to what I am trying to say: functionality should mean more than bureaucracy in a professional setting like BGSU. Who someone reports to is less important than what each of us actually does. Building an “administrative infrastructure” in another age would be called building a “super structure” that is more concerned with garnering power than pushing down authority (and the resulting accountability). This is just wrong-headed and usually spendthrift.
I have been an administrator and now I am an observer and teacher of administrative practice in higher education. A reality that has emerged in my mind over my years of practice and study is that centralized authority generally does not produce either efficiency or effectiveness even though such authority is usually well intentioned to do both.
So my suggestion is simply to turn the prism through which we view responsibility and authority upside down, Instead of looking at it through a macro lens of what the “institution’s” vision should be and how this drives a mission, or what values it should espouse, what learning outcomes it should achieve and what goals should be established, we should connect the macro design to micro elements of individual aspiration and activity.
There is nothing wrong with articulating vision, mission, values, learning outcomes and goals. This is all well and good and the work that has been done so far should be lauded as good process that has been inclusive in nature. However, unless the ownership of goal achievement is vested in the actual teaching/learning transaction, the quality of student life provided by individuals to individuals on this campus and the culture of respect that committed to use our expertise and encourage collegial discourse and decision-making, I fear that this process will not result in the desired, and very necessary, product.
There are no silver bullets to be found through consultancies. The best of advice takes on meaning only when it is activated and it will only be activated through a bottom-up embrace of responsibility coupled with functional authority. I have found that professionals do not mind change as much as they mind being changed. If there are no perceived benefits to functionaries a higher authority deems necessary to change, it is little wonder that there is resistance. When individuals perceive that we are in charge of goal achievement and so are accountable for it, the motivation to improve is intrinsic and productive.
In summary, our challenge is to activate the “I” rather than assume that “they” will get what this University needs done.
1:29 pm - 1-29-2009
Environmental Sustainablity as part of BGSU’s vision and mission
Even casual review of initiatives implemented in the first few days by President Obama clearly shows environmental sustainability integrating into almost all future activities. Universities around the country have been embracing environmental sustainability as a key component of their institutions, and BGSU has fallen far behind. We need to catch up in this vital area, and still have an opportunity to show leadership and initiative. To start doing this, BGSU needs to:
1) have our graduates leave as environmentally literate in order to function well as engaged members of their communities
2) have opportunities for our graduates to integrate environmental sustainability as part of their education to prepare themselves for professional opportunities. This knowledge is certainly not restricted to the sciences, but permeates through almost all disciplines. As just one example, students interested in becoming successful entrepreneurs and business people have wonderful opportunities if they are well versed in the principles of environmental sustainability.
Furthermore, will we miss an important recruitment tool if we do not make a visible institutional commitment to the environment. For example, “in a Princeton Review survey this year of 10,300 college applicants, 63 percent said that a college’s commitment to the environment could affect their decision to go there.”(1) We can make a commitment visible by engaging in such activities as joining the almost 300 colleges and universities whose presidents have signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment, and ensuring that all new construction is (well publicized) LEED certified. Most importantly, however, will be including in any new governance statement clear recognition that environmental sustainability is central to our vision and mission.
(1). New York Times, July 7, 2008