EPPL 635 Organization and Governance of Higher Education




Put in the syllabus a deadline for the outline of the case study
Review the readings the first night to highlight the most critical
Clip from the Devil Wears Prada for the HR frame.
U of R recruitment rap for symbolism
January 19, 2012:
Agenda
 (45 minutes)
Introductions—in Case Teams; House Keeping—Summer classes
(Ireland; Critical Theoretical Perspectives in Education Research (June-July 1st slot);
Program of Studies on file; February 16th—culture talk
 (30 minutes)
Organizational Issues
 (15 minute)
BREAK
 (30 minutes)
Review of syllabus
 (30 minutes)
Group processing and ground rules
Moved the class to SOE 2060 and the space is very good for the class size of 27. A mix of both
master’s and doc students, as well as “office” folk from W & M and some unclassified. I think
the group teams based on doc/master level will help in generating some good diversity of case
study responses. The timing for introductions was on-target. The discussion of organizational
issues was shorter—only 20 minutes. Think of what other prompts or discussion questions to
add. The syllabus time worked well—though they were pretty sleepy after the break. The team
work time was helpful. Put in the syllabus a deadline for the outline of the case study.
January 26, 2012:
Agenda
 (5 minutes) Housekeeping—BOV meeting
 (45 minutes) Topic Overview—pull some discussion questions from hat
 (45 minutes) Paradigms—jigsaw 3 topics/2groups
 (15 minutes) Break
 (15 minutes) Case Analysis—Nose to the Grindstone
 (15 minutes) Debriefing
Did whole class discussion questions at the beginning of the session. Predominately doc
students with questions and responses. Need to think of how to get in more involvement there.
The paradigm jigsaw is a keeper. Auggy said to do in the reconfigured groups to do a count off
of 1-4 and then four new groups meet. The #5 in a group just starts over. The case study was
limited in discussion given time constraints. Adjusted for times above to reflect the actual
timing. They are beginning to get the idea of cases, but will need to reinforce this as well.
February 2, 2012
Julianna out







(10 minutes) Housekeeping—
(15 minutes) Metaphors—Concept Map of Organizations
(20 minutes) Topic Overview
(30 minutes) Round-robin Discussion Questions
(15 minutes) Break
(30 minutes) Video Analysis
(30 minutes) Organizational Analysis—what is structural in your organization?
Need to check the PP and the weird things going on. This worked okay for the overview, could
tell some had not read. Shorter next time or not every week. The metaphors were a great way to
get students to think differently about organizations. Doing in week 3 versus the first week was
helpful as a way to engage with the readings a bit more. The round-robin questions were useful.
The smaller groups work best for this. Think how a debate might be a good option eventually
too. The videos were a big hit. Need to adjust the last question on the sheet about the ways in
which the other lens would view the structure. They didn’t get it. The drawing a picture of the
organization was good too—nice bookend to the metaphors and got them to think a bit about
their assumptions.
February 9, 2012






(10 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(30 minutes)
Housekeeping—overview of latest Class Notes
Walk about with Weber
Bureaucracy Debate
Break
Mintzberg—discussion
Case Study Analysis—Revisit Nose to the Grindstone
The walk about was useful and a different way for them to think about the material. It was
interesting to hear how the students felt that they learned/discussed differently by moving. The
bureaucracy debate as well went well—got into many of the nuances with examples. The larger
group size made it so that the one side broke into three tables, whereas the other side (con)
formed one large group. Good conversation on Mintzberg. The visuals with the model were
helpful and many good examples. It was especially useful to use the Nose to the Grindstone case
again as students were able to “see” the case differently than the last time we reviewed it. Very
helpful.
February 16, 2012
Mike out
Terry out



(5 minutes) Housekeeping: Program questions; February 26th dessert; Feb. 27th Day
(30 minutes) Theory X/Theory Y
(30 minutes) Human Resource Frame—discussion



(15 minutes) BREAK
(45 minutes) Video
(30 minutes) Roles of Leadership
The Theory X/Theory Y assessment went well. We discussed the matching between their own
preferences and that of their supervisors. A good project to keep in the week. The questions
were useful from the frame as many of the students still have preference for this. Went smoothly
from this to the HR frame conversation. Good input from most, though some of the master’s
students are still quieter. Need to keep the small group discussions to allow for these voices to
come out-and to mix up the groups a bit too. The Google video was a great fit. Need to still add
something more for the roles of leadership—maybe some kind of matching cards with leadership
approach-situation-employee to tease out the details. 15 minutes shy of time tonight.
February 23, 2012

(10 minutes)





(35 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(30 minutes)
Housekeeping: March 2nd event; shift in groups with Nicole dropping;
Reminder of Dessert on March 3rd;
PP overview—note HR posting
Organizational saga—in case writing teams
BREAK
Political Frame Project
Political Frame video
The extra time allotted for the PP overview was time enough. The review of this seemed to flow
well with some questions emerging—even the critical theory portions seemed to go better than
they did last year. The organizational saga in case teams provided them with a chance to catch
up on their case work, but also get into the nuances of culture, etc. The political frame project
worked very well – keep this function. There was less time for the joint group discussion and
less awareness of dual enrollment. Who is in the group really matters. Did a count down format
to form groups and this helped in mixing up folk. Keep that idea for next time in particular as
they would have been in their groups ahead of time. The Apollo 13 clip worked well. Mike
Mullin’s observation about type of dress and roles of power was insightful and got students
really thinking about some of the nuances of power – what they had, what they thought others
had, etc. Good evidence in walking around that some students are really reading more than
others!
March 1, 2012
Jess Hench out




(30 minutes) Housekeeping—March 15 study break; March 16th VCCS trip; debrief on
case analysis; reading questions
(45 minutes) Diversity at W & M—Viewing Diversity through the symbolic lens
(15 minutes) BREAK
(60 minutes) Multiple views of college culture
Lots of nerves about the case study and writing. Think most were allayed by the end of the
discussion. Many looked pretty tired out with it all. The look at the websites after the
questions/discussion on the readings was useful. I didn’t prepare questions, but they seemed
quite ready and willing to engage. The multiple videos worked great and fit into the
conversation well. Look for the going to college song/video Mike Mullin mentioned. Think of
the “updated” version of some of the clips to be more modern. Made for a great conversation!
The topic hung together well and the race article was a clear hit. Think of other ways to build
on this too.
March 18, 2012
Austin/Anne





(15 minutes)
(60 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(30 minutes)
Housekeeping--summer schedule/fall schedule
Mini-lecture/Discussion Questions
BREAK
Leadership/Frame orientation
Case application
The mini-lecture with questions embedded worked well—timing of about an hour was fine. It
was good with the U or R insert and flowed very well. Remember to read the directions for
Bolman and Deal –need to number each of the responses and add up. The students were able to
see how the various frames worked and how they were able to work to their favorites. The
picking of a case worked best in the end and with small groups—picked Carol’s case and the
idea of the West. Able to see diversity of the frames this way too.
March 22, 2012
Melinda out






(10 minutes)
(40 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(30 minutes)
Housekeeping—2nd year masters—exit interviews; program plans
Katz & Kahn Graffiti Exercise
BREAK
Organizational Learning/Learning Organization Comparison
Vision Statement/Left-hand exercise
Case Study with Archetypes
Reviewed the international papers/teams and that seemed to alleviate fears. The graffiti exercise
went well—some used concept maps on the graffiti papers and that really helped others
understand how they might be able to “see” the information differently. As well, having others
explain the information was useful. The org learning comparison was somewhat useful, but they
had trouble thinking about many of the similarities. I think adding to this a portion that
indicates how a leader would use this process would be more useful. The vision statement
exercise went very well—made the groups reconfigure after the first group process and that
really helped in shaking up the conversation. The left-hand part of this really made a difference
as it was first obvious that people had different ideas about the vision and second that even the
same words held different meanings—diversity for instance. No time for the archetypes—second
year in a row on this, so maybe just drop. Class was tired!
March 30, 2012
Sean out






(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(45 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(45 minutes)
(15 minutes)
Housekeeping--Semester time lines
Defining Shared Governance
AAUP/AGB governance documents--discourse analysis/debating points
BREAK
The case of the activist board--a multi-frame perspective
Current issues in governance
Reviewed the remaining deadlines—need to change the rubric for the International Project. The
definitions of shared governance were helpful in uncovering some assumptions assumed about
the process. Keep this for the next time. The review of the AAUP/AGB documents was useful.
Next time, send out in advance to give them more time to review and post under the handouts for
the week. Reviewed a bit about the activist board, but not in the detail really needed for the
project. Consider just dropping this issue. Discussed the current cases in governance –this year
was the resignation of the President of the University of Illinois. Discussed the strong role of
faculty on some campuses.
April 5, 2012
Mike Mullin, Mike Adkins, Cristen, Marcia out
Agenda






(10 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(35 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(40 minutes)
(20 minutes)
Housekeeping--Semester time lines
Discussion Questions
Leadership Frames/Chaffee’s Five Models
BREAK
Case Study—Cutbacks and Priorities
Video
Leadership Frames—tell students to recall their dominant frame from the Bolman & Deal
leadership survey. Have them get into one of the four groups: Structural; HR; Political;
Symbolic. Each group should consider the following:
o
o
o
o
What decision-making model seems to make the most sense?
How might you approach planning given your organizational framework?
What stakeholder groups/other voices get heard in this instance?
What are the potential blind spots?
The discussion questions really elicited some good commentary. The discussion took a full
hour—allocate time differently next time. Didn’t do the video as a result. There were some who
really didn’t like the Argyis article, while others really did. Look at updating some of the articles
for this week for the next round—in particular if there is a Chaffee update that will be more
modern based. The five frame conversation with the Chaffee decision making models and
questions was quite helpful. Students realized the assumptions they were brining to the table,
how they had different meaning for particular words, etc. The case too was helpful. Kept them
in their Bolman and Deal frames and there was enough conflict within those groups, but next
time, look at jigsawing them instead to put them in a new group that is mixed frames. The frame
of symbolic was woefully underrepresented.
April 12, 2012
Jess out





(10 minutes)
(45 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(50 minutes)
Housekeeping—no class next week, due group cases
Change mini-lecture
Discussion Questions
BREAK
Case Study—Badger State
The lecture was okay—the pause moments really help. Overall, the group was quite tired. Think
how I might put in a beginning prompt to set the stage for the lecture and then follow up with the
points. Perhaps some video insertions with the interview with Kotter or something jazzy about
the brain barriers. Discussion questions by author worked well as the wiki teams had lead
people for each of the articles and they served as facilitators. The case study was marginal. We
did as an entire group and that may have been limiting. Only 30 minutes to devote and they
were just watching the clock by that time.
April 19, 2012
NO CLASS--CSCC
April 26, 2012
Ed Smith—Skype in from IHEP
Unwritten rules of policy/politics/leadership
May 3, 2012
International Roundtables