History of the Program
The following description of the Faculty Development Program’s history was presented by former Assistant
Chancellor/Vice Chancellor James Gueths at the annual Faculty Development/Extramural Grants Recognition
Reception in May 1994. He also discussed matters of general concern to the program, as detailed in Section II
of this handbook. Dr. Gueths, a former faculty member in the Physics/Astronomy Department, was an assistant
vice chancellor at the University until 1985. He chaired a 10-member faculty committee charged with
developing the Faculty Development Program. Dr. Gueths' remarks about how "a program designed around
ideas" can become vulnerable when "those with the 'living memory' of the events that shaped and formed the
program leave the organization," are particularly noteworthy. Including Dr. Gueths' remarks in this handbook is
one way the Faculty Development Board hopes to perpetuate the program's "living memory."
Presentation to Faculty Development Recognition Reception 1994
Twenty years ago, in Spring 1974, the UW Oshkosh Faculty Development Program was "born."
At that time, the organizational climate was very turbulent. The total enrollment for Academic Year 1973-1974
was well over 10,000 students, but the anticipated incoming freshman class was only large enough, if future
classes remained as small, to form a university of 7,000 students. Budget cuts were very severe. Tenured
faculty had been laid off. Dreams had turned to disillusionment. The organization was at war with itself. Life
was not fun at UW Oshkosh.
The new chancellor, Dr. Robert Birnbaum, was organizing a turnaround/reform program to be known as "the
Oshkosh Calendar Plan." Bringing the budget under control was a very high priority. Key features in the
reform program included the following:



changes in the academic calendar,
modification of faculty contracts so that summer school would be taught as "part of load," and
reduction of pay for any teaching "above load" by approximately one-third.
All in all, bitter medicine indeed.
In the professional development arena, only two small programs (one in the Graduate School, one from the
college deans) provided support. A total of $30,000 in small grants was available. Even in 1974 dollars, a
pittance.
The idea for a Faculty Development Program was conceived the first time I met Chancellor Birnbaum for a
private working lunch in Reeve Union cafeteria. Over a hamburger, he outlined the preliminary pieces of his
reform program. He then asked the price for me to personally support the idea and persuade faculty members
in my "network" to do the same.
I noted that a strong professional development dimension was missing.
"How much?" he asked.
My response was, and still is, that no matter the amount, it will never be enough. We settled on 2% of the GPR
budget (a little more than $200,000 in 1975 dollars) as a planning guideline.
In Fall 1974, Chancellor Birnbaum appointed a spectrum of "Kleenex" (temporary) committees to bring final
shape to the Oshkosh Calendar Plan, which was to begin in Summer 1975. He named 10 faculty and
Last updated: 6/29/2011
Page 1 of 4
academic staff1 to the committee and charged them with designing the new Faculty Development Program.
Five of those committee members still serve at UW Oshkosh today.
Beginning that fall, the Faculty Development Program Design Committee met two to three times each week.
Over a period of several months we crafted a set of five "Faculty Development Papers" that shaped and
defined the program. These papers were reviewed and ratified by the "Calendar Coordinating Council" and the
Faculty Senate. We moved very quickly and taped all meetings so that all ideas were captured, and no good
ideas were lost.
The design ideas and principles came from anywhere and everywhere. It was, perhaps, the most creative,
rewarding group experience of my professional life. In our committee meetings, we developed a new paradigm
for one of the University's core business processes. Segments of that paradigm are as follows.




A broad spectrum of professional development activity (research, teaching improvement, in-service
workshops, participation in intensive off-campus programs, contracted services, new organizational forms,
"near sabbaticals") would be supported.
Strong incentives would be provided for the pursuit of funded contract and grant activity.
Faculty and administrators together (not administrators alone) would collegially guide professional
development.
A stable, predictable, and highly visible proportion of the University's resources would be set aside "off the
top" for investment in professional development. As with sound personal financial planning, the faculty
would "invest in itself first."
It was a new paradigm for one of the organization's core business processes. Today, such change in business
process is called "re-engineering."
As the program took visible form, the graduate dean stopped me in Dempsey Hall to tell me that it would be
"gone with the next budget cut." He was wrong.
One college dean told me that "the deans (not the Faculty Development Board) would be allocating the money
in three years." He was also wrong.
Some faculty said that the grants would never really happen, and so they did not prepare proposals for
Summer 1975. The boat sailed without them.
Buildings and rooms last for many years. Only very rarely in life does one have the experience of working on
an idea-based program that visibly changes an organization and thrives for more than 20 years. Why has the
Faculty Development Program not only survived, but thrived?
I believe that the answers to this question provide important lessons for all of us who are interested in change.
The UW Oshkosh Faculty Development Program has endured because:

The program is obviously a good idea, linked to a vital organizational/cultural value--professional
development.
1
The committee members were: Robert Arnott (Chemistry); Tom Brady (Art); Ronald Gibbs (COEHS); Tom Laudon (Geology); Marvin
Mengeling (English); James Rice (Business); Georgia Schantz (Nursing); Marilyn Taylor (Reading/Study Center); Sally Teresinski
(l/LR); and James Gueths.
Last updated: 6/29/2011
Page 2 of 4









The program was designed by those it was intended to benefit. The design committee knew what was
required for its professional development.
The program's genesis was written down, carefully and completely. The origins of the program are
available for all to study and consider, particularly those who do not have a living memory of the forming
events.
The program was given legitimacy by important constituencies, though in many cases the latter almost
certainly did not comprehend what they were approving.
The program was paid for "up front" by all of the stakeholders. UW System wanted one of its campuses to
"lead" in faculty development and made a substantial base budget adjustment when UW Oshkosh
accepted the call. The faculty paid with reduced compensation for additional service. Academic
administration paid by visibly distributing power to a collegial group. Support administration had to develop
and support substantially more complicated personnel rules and procedures. Everyone invested. No one
got a free lunch.
The program's power was distributed in balanced relationships among different groups: the Research
Board and Panel; the Faculty Development Board and academic administration; the Chancellor and the
Faculty Senate. A shared decision design was intentionally and carefully crafted into the program.
The program's mechanisms for future change and evolution were also carefully designed into the program
from the beginning. No outsider could easily claim the right to redefine the program in future years.
The program's management was collegial in form. The vice chancellor and graduate dean were invited to
sit with the Board right from the start. Curiously, throughout most of the program's history, they have not
elected to do so.
The program was protected and nurtured by powerful sponsors and funding partners through its formative
years. UW System, the Lilly Endowment, the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, and
the National Science Foundation all became highly visible partners in one way or another.
The program invested its resources in the faculty, not in a bureaucratic structure, nor a large staff. Using
volunteer labor for administration, the program put its money to work for the beneficiaries.
Programs designed around ideas are very vulnerable in their infancy. During the program's first few years, the
attacks on it were numerous and varied.




The college deans would have little to do with a program that was not "theirs." They blustered and dragged
their heels. The vice chancellor prodded them to acknowledge and support the program.
The budget cutters wanted to reduce the level of investment, seeing an easy, faceless way to balance the
budget. The Chancellor would not listen. A deal was a deal.
The Faculty Senate sometimes forwarded weakly credentialed nominees for the Faculty Development
Board to the Chancellor. After consulting with the Board, the Chancellor asked the Senate for new
nominees.
The campus rumor networks occasionally carried news of "back-door sweetheart" deals with the money.
The "books" were always open. No money was allocated without full Board knowledge and support. The
rumors withered and died in the glaring light of fact.
After several years of stabilizing its policy structures, cultural norms, and decision technologies, the Board
moved to elect its own chair and stand on its own. While it continued to welcome sponsors and partners, it no
longer depended on them.
As its first elected chair, Gene Drzycimski led the Board into its adult life. Gene has recently retired, which
reminds us that there is a second, critical time when a program designed around ideas is particularly
vulnerable. That is when those with the "living memory" of the events that shaped and formed the program
Last updated: 6/29/2011
Page 3 of 4
leave the organization. In the next few years, all of those involved in the early years of the Faculty
Development Program will also depart.
With the "living memory" absent, many will argue that a "new deal" is needed. They will say that the faculty can
afford to invest less in itself, because the money is needed to achieve one or another immediate objective.
They will argue that collegial decision structures are too slow and cumbersome, and that full-time managers
will do a better job of professional development. They will say that the program was really not paid for in full in
1975.
They will be wrong.
But they will succeed unless those who continue at the helm of the Faculty Development Board, return on a
regular basis to study the writings that chronicle the circumstances under which the program was formed and
the principles under which it was designed to operate.
The rush into the information age will increase, not reduce, the faculty's need for professional development.
You will need to invest more, not less, in yourselves.
I wish you all success, and the best of luck in meeting this challenge.
Today
In 2006, the Faculty Development Program celebrated its 30th anniversary. As Provost and Vice Chancellor
Lane Earns affirmed at that celebration, “What was a good idea 30 years ago is still a good idea today.” Today
the UW Oshkosh Faculty Development Program continues in the tradition and format instituted in 1975-1976.
Program components have been added and revised to meet current needs, but the structure and overall
philosophy of the program remain intact.
Last updated: 6/29/2011
Page 4 of 4