of The Luke Principle: Counting the Costs of ... · The professional bureaucracy is like the rational machine bureaucracy in that design or standards predetermine what is to be done,

)N,RIVERS

L M., Yakushko, O. F., Martens, M. P., nicaland sub-clinical eating disorders: An Journal ofApplied Sports Psychology, 17, 79

T., & Salimi, L. (1998). Eating disorders on education and treatment responses. 5"(5), 199-207. lmpact of anorexia, bulimia, and obesity lolescents. American FamilY Physician, 64,

; and female athletes: A three level I/Iege Student Development, 30, 568-570.

(2001). Athletes and disordered eating: sional psychologist. Professional PFJchology,

ating disorders among high performance sence, 22, 271. z, H. K, & Muir, S. L. (1997). Why do eight? An interview study examining Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 42, 345

~1993). Cognitive treatments for eating -;finical PFJchology, 61,261-269.

~NTAFFAIRS JOURNAL

TheLuke Prinapie 45

The Luke Principle: Counting the Costs of Organizational Change for One-Stop Service Models in Student Affairs Melissa Ousley"

For which ojjou, intending to builda tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient tofinish it? Lest haplY, afterhe hath laid thefoundation, and is not able tofinish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, sqying, this man began to buildand wasnot able tofinish. Or what king,going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consultetb whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twen!)' thousand? Or else, while theother isyet agreatwqy rff, he sendetb an ambassage, and desiretb conditions of peace. Luke 14:28-32 (Thompson, 1988)

The Luke Principle states that the successful implementation of any organizational change requires a counting of the costs (Ousley, 2003). As developers do not construct a building, nor do governments go to war, without counting costs, administrators in higher education should not reorganize units or merge departments without counting costs. This manuscript addresses the costs of implementing a one-stop service model. In the implementation of a one-stop service center, the costs include (a) the remodeling of facilities; (b) the acquisition and training associated with technology; (c) the opportunity costs of choosing the one-stop model over an alternative model; (d) the hiring, training and compensation of staff; and (e) the emotional costs for staff as they make a paradigm shift, learning new tasks and adapting to an environment with new boundaries and relationships. The human element must be considered in implementing change. Staff members need time to grieve the loss of the old work environment and time to adjust to the new work environment. Countless cultural issues arise as a result of a change, and it is difficult to plan for the nuances of personality and culture that can dramatically affect the work environment and productivity. In making a decision to implement change, it is essential to count these costs and be prepared for dealing with the consequences of these changes.

Management fads leading to organizational change often onglOate in nonacademic sectors and are absorbed into higher education through the use of powerful narratives (Birnbaum, 2000). These trends follow a cycle in which many institutions virtually or symbolically adopt the fad to show acceptance that the new method is being followed, but eventually, the fad is abandoned. In a few cases, the new methods are adopted effectively, and these success stories

• Melissa Ouslry is a research analYst in multicultural and student affairs at Universi!)' of Arizona. Correspondence concerning thisarticle should [email protected].

FALL 2006 - VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1

'

.

46 OUSLEY

lead more institutions to adopt the fads, perpetuating the cycle (Birnbaum, 2000).

The push in some higher education institutions to transition from traditional silo methods of offering student services to an integrated one-stop model is an organizational trend originating from government and business (Federal Benchmarking Consortium, 1997), and this trend is currently being pursued in community colleges nationally (Moneta, 2001). The silo model processes tasks from department to department, whereas the one-stop model provides comprehensive services in one location. For example, in the silo model, students enroll in the admissions department, complete paperwork in the office of financial aid, select classes with an advisor, and register for classes with registration staff. The one-stop model combines these steps so that students work with one person in one office, rather than working with several offices and staff members. The explanation in adopting a one-stop model is that colleges and universities face pressure from multiple sources to be more accountable, efficient, and customer-service oriented (Hrutka, 2001). Implementing a one-stop model uses resources effectively in a studentcentered environment (Marsee, 2000).

This article presents findings from qualitative research on one-stop service centers in three community colleges. The effectiveness of the organizational change from a silo model, where parts of a process or service are provided by separate departments, to a one-stop model, where processes and services are integrated in a single location, is evaluated for each site. The following research questions guided this study. (a) Do one-stop service models place more emphasis on customer service? (b) What is reflected in the design and function of the one-stop service center? (c) What was the process for obtaining employee input on design? (d) What was the process for implementation for each of these colleges? (e) Was the center implemented successfully? (f) What staffing model was used? (g) Were staff members required to obtain additional training? (h) Was compensation for one-stop duties offered? (i) How did administrators and staff react to the reorganization of student services and the implementation of a one-stop center? G) Did administrators and staff invest in the change or resist it? and (k) How did work relationships change?

Literature Review

Integral to the discussion of student services' practices and organizational change is an exploration of the context in which institutions have turned to the one-stop model. Decreasing resources, increasing assessment and accountability, changing demographics, globalization, and technology create pressure for institutions of higher education to become more efficient, transforming their values and assumptions to be more like businesses (Kezar, 2001; Levin, 2001; Zumeta, 2001).

THE COllEGE STIJDENTAFFAIRSJOURNAL

The Luke

In the 1980s and 1990s, colleges and l

sources of financial support as go decreased (Bower, 1992; Callan & Fir demands for greater accountability f(

restriction of discretionary resources e the institutional level (Slaughter & Les an~ industrial interests created partne gamed access to resources in business dir~ct ~nd indirect power over college obligations for accountability coming boards. Indirect power is evident in tl: operational practices in higher educat co~orate mo~el as a standard for p business practices for colleges and univ

From resource providers and consti colleges to become more student-cent 2001; Moneta, 2001). Community cc students and responded with a greater became the colleges that would serv miss~ons (Richardson & Leslie, 1980). required greater funding, which were result was that colleges were forced resources.

Pressure to restructure results in inst enhances legitimacy and survival. This stop centers have been developed. Chai become more machine-like. The goal is guarantees customers receive the same This. strategy works well in simple, brie but It may not be conducive to cor believed that higher education is bee providing students with convenience all access. The downside is that' rat environments" (Ritzer, 2002, p. 22) ; thr~~gh "the regulation of employee decision-making discretion" (Birnbaum,

Because many professionals in studen model rather than a mechanized one greatest causes of conflict in impleme~t Mintzberg (1979) contrasted mecha professional bureaucracy, which relies 0

associated design parameter of training

FALL 2006 ~ VOLUlI

JSLEY

fads, perpetuating the cycle (Birnbaum,

institutions to transition from traditional ces to an integrated one-stop model is an im government and business (Federal d this trend is currently being pursued in ta, 2001). The silo model processes tasks vhereas the one-stop model provides ition, For example, in the silo model, rtment, complete paperwork in the office In advisor, and register for classes with ~l combines these steps so that students rather than working with several offices in adopting a one-stop model is that

ire from multiple sources to be more ncr-service oriented (Hrutka, 2001). .es resources effectively in a student

jualitarive research on one-stop service The effectiveness of the organizational ; of a process or service are provided by nodel, where processes and services are ited for each site. The following research , one-stop service models place more .at is reflected in the design and function What was the process for obtaining

was the process for implementation for nter implemented successfully? (f) What J members required to obtain additional one-stop duties offered? (i) How did organization of student services and the G) Did administrators and staff invest in I work relationships change?

·e Review

: services' practices and organizational in which institutions have turned to the

ources, increasing assessment and s, globalization, and technology create education to become more efficient, ions to be more like businesses (Kezar,

:NTAFFAIRSJOURNAL

TheLuke Principle 47

In the 1980s and 1990s, colleges and universities were driven to find alternative sources of financial support as government contributions to institutions decreased (Bower, 1992; Callan & Finney, 1997). A correlating factor was the demands for greater accountability for public institutions. Federal and state restriction of discretionary resources created increased resource dependence at the institutional level (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). As a direct result, educational and industrial interests created partnerships. As partnerships formed, colleges gained access to resources in business and industry, and these partners gained direct and indirect power over colleges. Direct power can be observed in the obligations for accountability coming from resource providers and governing boards. Indirect power is evident in the influence of business and industry on operational practices in higher education. Individuals in power often use the corporate model as a standard for practice in higher education and adopt business practices for colleges and universities (Zumeta, 2001).

From resource providers and constituents, there were also demands for colleges to become more student-centered and community-centered (Hrutka, 2001; Moneta, 2001). Community colleges faced an expanded market of students and responded with a greater variety of programs and services. They became the colleges that would serve everyone, with continually evolving missions (Richardson & Leslie, 1980)" These expanded services and programs required greater funding, which were non-existent (Hovey, 1999), and the result was that colleges were forced to provide greater results with fewer resources.

Pressure to restructure results in institutional changes in efficiency, which enhances legitimacy and survival. This pressure is the context in which onestop centers have been developed. Changes for efficiency cause institutions to become more machine-like. The goal is uniformity and a smooth process that guarantees customers receive the same standard of service in each encounter. This strategy works well in simple, brief encounters (Gutek & Welsh, 2000), but it may not be conducive to complex student services. Ritzer (2002) believed that higher education is becoming increasingly "McDonaldized," providing students with convenience, almost instantaneous service and greater access. The downside is that rational systems "dehumanize work environments" (Ritzer, 2002, p. 22) and worker autonomy is diminished through "the regulation of employee work schedules and a reduction in decision-making discretion" (Birnbaum, 2000, p. 15).

Because many professionals in student services work from a professional model rather than a mechanized one, this loss of autonomy is one of the greatest causes of conflict in implementing a one-stop model (Ousley, 2003). Mintzberg (1979) contrasted mechanized, rational systems with the professional bureaucracy, which relies on the standardization of skills and its associated design parameter of training and indoctrination. The professional


,.,

The Luke

THE COLLEGE STIJDENTAFFAIRS JOURNAL FALL 2006 - VOLUl\

48 OUSLEY

bureaucracy hires duly trained and indoctrinated specialists for the operating core and gives them considerable control over their own work. This autonomy means that the professional works relatively independently of colleagues, but closely with the students served. The professional bureaucracy is like the rational machine bureaucracy in that design or standards predetermine what is to be done, but the machine bureaucracy relies on the authority of hierarchy or power of office, whereas the professional bureaucracy relies on the power of expertise. This power of expertise is valued in higher education (Mintzberg, 1979).

Institutions of higher education are not rational. They are socially constructed, and context and culture are integral to understanding power dynamics (Kezar, 2001). Members of educational organizations, whether professionals or support staff, are not rational, and they are neither flexible nor subservient (Kezar). Attempts to make institutions of higher education more efficient, more like the business model, often fail because of differences in values and cultures. Businesses focus on market sensitivity, customer orientation, innovativeness, productivity, and profit. Institutions of higher education are criticized for appearing insensitive to economic realities, are motivated by idealism rather than profit, and subsidize education and services (Birnbaum, 2000). While businesses may have clear goals and well-defined products, colleges and universities have multiple and conflicting goals and intangible outcomes (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996; Kashner, 1990). In addition, employees may be more committed to their profession than their institution (Dill, 2000). Because of differences in mission and structure, business practices may not be a good fit when adopted in an academic environment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Moreover, because one-stop service models utilize business practices, they may be met with resistance from professionals in higher education who have different values. Careful consideration of institutional context is needed before implementing this modeL

Methods

Procedures

A case study of the values, practices and effectiveness of the implementation of one-stop centers served as the source of data for this study. A case study reveals institutional context and allows the holistic study of a phenomenon (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). The three community colleges included in this study were selected based upon the implementation of a one-stop center within the last five years and accessibility to the researcher. Institutional names have been changed to protect confidentiality.

Within each site, participants were selected with the goal of creating a sample that was representative of all those affected by the move to the one-stop model, including entry level staff, mid-level staff, mid-level supervisors, and

administrators. This holistic approach of the effects of model implementatio were asked to voluntarily contribute t

the institution before, during and!or : service center. They were interviewed open-ended questions about the im Appendix). Interview questions we implementation (staff roles versus sup of employ~e reactions to change, J

paraprofessIOnal staff, mid-level admin a variety of student affairs areas (admi financial aid, and registration). Docur used and supported the findings from i

To analyze the data, the researcher firs: (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). Based on a questions, themes were identified. T emphasis on customer service, (b) the r and effectiveness of implementation, ( compensation issues, and (f) reac administrators and staff. Cases were patterns (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). 1 cross-case analysis identifying common the implementation of one-stop centers.

Because of the small sample studied a issues to individual institutions, the stu brief examination of a method of 0

institutions that have implemented a or does not involve longitudinal observatio the unfolding of the modeL As such ~ may not be readily applicable to othe; iJ recommendations helpful to institutions

This study focused on the cultural implementation of one-stop service cern

for staff and administrators. Future r should evaluate how the centers are func

Participants

Multi-Campus College is a multi-campus small campuses (three of which were cho a large city in the southwestern region, completed at three campuses. Campus A B serves more than 9,000 students and (

I

USLEY

ndoctrinated specialists for the operating itrol over their own work. This autonomy elatively independently of colleagues, but .he professional bureaucracy is like the design or standards predetermine what is racyrelies on the authority of hierarchy or .ional bureaucracy relies on the power of , valued in higher education (Mintz berg,

lot rational. They are socially constructed, o understanding power dynamics (Kezar, izations, whether professionals or support neither flexible nor subservient (Kezar). er education more efficient, more like the of differences in values and cultures.

ty, customer orientation, innovativeness, : of higher education are criticized for ~alities, are motivated by idealism rather

and services (Birnbaum, 2000). While ad well-defined products, colleges and flicting goals and intangible outcomes er, 1990). In addition, employees may be nan their institution (Dill, 2000). Because -e, business practices may not be a good vironment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). iodels utilize business practices, they may .sionals in higher education who have of institutional context is needed before

thods

id effectiveness of the implementation of :e of data for this study. A case study \IS the holistic study of a phenomenon ~e community colleges included in this plementation of a one-stop center within the researcher. Institutional names have '.

ected with the goal of creating a sample affected by the move to the one-stop d-level staff, mid-level supervisors, and

~NT AFFAIRSJOURNAL

TheLuke Pn'nciple 49

administrators. This holistic approach was critical to get a comprehensive view of the effects of model implementation (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). Participants were asked to voluntarily contribute to the study because they had worked at the institution before, during and/or after the implementation of the one-stop service center. They were interviewed individually by the researcher and asked open-ended questions about the implementation process and effects (see Appendix). Interview questions were tailored to the roles played in implementation (staff roles versus supervisory roles). To understand the range of employee reactions to change, participants included professional and paraprofessional staff, mid-level administrators, and senior administrators from a variety of student affairs areas (admissions, advising/counseling, assessment, financial aid, and registration). Document analysis and observation was also used and supported the findings from interviews.

To analyze the data, the researcher first conducted within-case analyses of data (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). Based on a review of the literature and the research questions, themes were identified. These themes included (a) a renewed emphasis on customer service, (b) the need for employee input, (c) the process and effectiveness of implementation, (d) the staffing model, (e) training and compensation issues, and (f) reactions to organizational change by administrators and staff. Cases were then compared to identify emerging patterns (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). This article presents the results of the cross-case analysis identifying common patterns among institutions regarding the implementation of one-stop centers.

Because of the small sample studied and the importance of specific cultural issues to individual institutions, the study results are limited. This study is a brief examination of a method of organization and does not reflect all institutions that have implemented a one-stop service center. This study also does not involve longitudinal observation of the stages of implementation and the unfolding of the model. As such, specific recommendations for practice may not be readily applicable to other institutions, but there are some general recommendations helpful to institutions in managing change.

This study focused on the cultural effects and effectiveness of the implementation of one-stop service centers on work environments and issues for staff and administrators. Future research on one-stop service centers should evaluate how the centers are functioning and the effects on students.

Participants

Multi-Campus College is a multi-campus community college, consisting of five small campuses (three of which were chosen for this study), in an urban area of a large city in the southwestern region of the United States. Interviews were completed at three campuses. Campus A enrolls nearly 6,000 students, Campus B serves more than 9,000 students and Campus C enrolls approximately 3,500


....

50 OUSLEY

students. The average age of students attending Multi-Campus College is 28 years, and 25% of students attend full-time. Students of color make up 39% of the student population. Multi-Campus College is a Hispanic-serving institution, with 29% of students identifying as Latino. Female students outnumber males 55% to 44%.

Multi-Campus College has one-stop student service centers at each of the campuses. Implementation was the result of a mandate from the institution's chief academic officer, but each campus was given autonomy for compliance. Each campus has implemented a different version of the one-stop concept, and each has different functions and staffing procedures. The primary reason the centers are physically and functionally different on each campus is because each campus has its own budget, resources and culture. Thus, each campus made its own decisions on how the model would be implemented. A collegewide model for services is now being discussed to provide consistency in services.

A total of 21 interviews were conducted for Multi-Campus College. At Campus A, a supervisor and five staff were interviewed. At Campus B, the dean, three supervisors and four staff were interviewed. The dean, two supervisors and four staff were interviewed at Campus C. Years of service ranged between less than a year and 30 years. These participants were demographically representative of the general student services personnel population at MultiCampus Community College.

Services offered at one-stop centers at Multi-Campus College included admissions, assessments, financial aid, brief advising on selecting classes, registration and transcripts. A rotation model was used to staff the one-stop centers. Staff members were borrowed from the departments and expected to be generalists in the services provided.

Metropolitan Community College is a single campus community college in an urban area of a large city in the mid-western region of the United States. Metropolitan Community College serves about 40,000 students yearly. The majority of students, 59.3%, work part time or full time. The average age of students is 27.5 years. Students of color make up 15.3% of the student population, with 9% of students identifying as African American. Female students make up 52.4% of the student population.

The dean, three supervisors and four staff members were interviewed for a total of eight interviews. Years of experience range between three and 27 years. Participants were demographically representative of the population in the student services division.

One-stop services included admissions, financial aid, and registration. Advising and counseling, parking services, student identification services, and veterans'

run COLLEGE STUDENTAFFAIRSJOURNAL

TheL.

services were located near the oneAd~~strators worked the one-stof requmng more than brief services escort.

Suburban Community College is a suburban area of a large city in the The college serves approximately 18 31.2% attend college full time and population is primarily white, 'With : students are 55% of the population.

The dean, five supervisors, and six s of !~ interviews. Years of exper PartICIpants. were demographically student servIces division.

The one-stop center provided adrni. academic advising, and educational services of access and support servi co~nse~g and employment 0Pf regtstratIon, and experiential and set were provided.

Re The results of this study are organ themes. Research questions were basel model in higher education and on a 1 and organizational theory in higher edt

Research Questions One and Two

Do o.ne-stop service models place m. what .IS reflected in the design of the CI

functIOn of the one-stop service cente Emphasis was placed on efficiency and SItes, per interviews and documents Metropolitan expressed this:

Before, it was a zoo. We would ge 11 p.m. The lines would go outsic norm for registration-now it's 5 located on different areas of carr ?eeded.t~ consolidate the process. I In providing services.

Another staff member at Suburban com:

FALL 2006 - VOLUJ

51 rSLEY

s attending Multi-Campus College is 28 -time. Students of color make up 39% of College is a Hispanic-serving institution,

atino, Female students outnumber males

student service centers at each of the -sult of a mandate from the institution's nis was given autonomy for compliance. ferent version of the one-stop concept, staffing procedures. The primary reason Lally different on each campus is because .ources and culture. Thus, each campus aodel would be implemented. A collegeI1g discussed to provide consistency in

:d for Multi-Campus College. At Campus erviewed. At Campus B, the dean, three viewed. The dean, two supervisors and : C. Years of service ranged between less ,e participants were demographically services personnel population at Multi

rs at Multi-Campus College included d, brief advising on selecting classes, 11 model was used to staff the one-stop :l from the departments and expected to

single campus community college in an d-western region of the United States. rves about 40,000 students yearly. The rt time or full time. The average age of color make up 15.3% of the student encifying as African American. Female t population.

: staff members were interviewed for a rience range between three and 27 years. :presentative of the population in the

i, financial aid, and registration. Advising ent identification services, and veterans'

The Luke Principle

services were located near the one-stop area in a large student service center. Administrators worked the one-stop counter with front line staff, and students requiring more than brief services were referred with a card, phone call, or escort.

Suburban Community College is a single campus community college in the suburban area of a large city in the mid-western region of the United States. The college serves approximately 18,000 students per semester. Approximately 31.2% attend college full time, and the average age is 26.9 years. The student population is primarily white, with 11.3% of students being of color. Female students are 55% of the population.

The dean, five supervisors, and six staff members were interviewed for a total of 12 interviews. Years of experience range between 2 and 15 years. Participants were demographically representative of the population in the student services division.

The one-stop center provided admissions, academic and career assessments, academic advising, and educational and personal counseling. Also, other services of access and support services for students with disabilities, career counseling and employment opportunities, financial aid advisement, registration, and experiential and service learning counseling and placement were provided.

Results

The results of this study are organized below by research questions and themes. Research questions were based on the implementation of the one-stop model in higher education and on a literature review on trends, professionals and organizational theory in higher education.

Research Questions One and Two

Do one-stop service models place more emphasis on customer service and what is reflected in the design of the college's new student services facility and function of the one-stop service center were the first two research questions. Emphasis was placed on efficiency and customer service in trainings at all three sites, per interviews and documents on training. One staff member at Metropolitan expressed this:

Before, it was a zoo. We would get done with registration during peak at 11 p.m. The lines would go outside the building Four hours was the norm for registration-now it's 5 to 30 minutes Departments were located on different areas of campus and this was very stressful. We needed to consolidate the process. It was a physical and psychological shift in providing services.

Another staff member at Suburban commented,

jNTAFFAIRSJOURNAL FALL 2006 ~ VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1 __1 _

52 OUSLEY

There was congestion, long lines, and run around. The dean brought donuts to calm the students. We joked about needing valium licks in the halls to calm the crowds .... Now there are no lines, there is more Web use, and there is more communication among staff.... Coming back from the break when we were implementing the model was an adjustment .... We had to adjust to other offices and functions. But the students view it as positive with no run around and faster, better communication, and we can interact with other departments. There is more of a community.

One-stop centers were structured to use generalists to screen and triage service requests, providing general service for the majority of these requests. Generalists referred students for more complex service needs. One administrator at Multi-Campus College Campus A summarized the benefits of using generalists this way:

We have got to support students and make an accessible one-stop. My philosophy is to have generalists because we need to meet the needs of the students-the direction community colleges are going is to have generalists, not specialists. When the administration doesn't support this philosophy, teamwork and camaraderie breaks apart and we become silos agam.

This model is designed for streamlining services for the sake of efficiency and for improving customer service.

Research Questions Three, Four, and Five

The third, fourth, and fifth research questions were these: What was the process for obtaining employee input on design? What was the process for implementation? Was the center implemented successfully? Reported input ranged from no input to serving on implementation committees. All staff at all three colleges interviewed reported a desire for more participation in the implementation process. No matter how smooth the transition to the one-stop model, participants at all three colleges reported anxiety about change and wishing for more information. One supervisor at Suburban stated,

The most negative thing about the change was waiting for the building to open and the anxiety and rumors about the change. My staff were sure it wouldn't be the way they wanted. It was a fear of the unknown, and no amount of information would put them at ease. When they saw that "We weren't screwed over," they liked the new model.

Many participants also reported stress over adjusting to multiple changes at once. These changes included a new facility, new methods for completing tasks, new technology, new work relationships, and new departmental identities and culture. Regarding these changes, one staff member at Metropolitan concluded,

THE COLLEGE SIUDENTAFFAIRSJOURNAL

TheLuke I

Staff don't like the new system. Th had cliques plus too many cha conversion, the physical move, tr

were overwhelmed.

Conflict also occurred in the impleme admini~trators, professionals, and suppc for design and function. On Multi-Cam] staff member stated,

The concern we've had with highel lowering ourselves to the mall mem

~o much as a place where one goes Just another service provider, when the take-a-number approach. I worr to people and what it gives students' to co.llege and you fit into the collq grOWlng up process, you go to collet are doing the consumer culture for to get that bigger experience of educ

Whereas at MUlti-Campus College ( responded,

People pictured it differently. We w We need more signage and commur

that it would be two full-timers. Inste hard to balance departmental needs or when staff are on vacation. We I week plus evenings. I don't feel that because I'm sitting out there while th,

Values between professionals and pal conflict arose as these employees moved t

together. This point was reflected by College Campus C who noted,

People are territorial, some are not, departments .. " There are more spats people are getting along, more willing have. more understanding by being conflict about people not pulling their There is no accountability for those moved on because of inequity.

Expectations differed as to how much should have in implementation. The g

FALL 2006 - VOLUMl

I

)USLEY

nes, and run around. The dean brought le joked about needing valium licks in the N' there are no lines, there is more Web use, on among staff.... Coming back from the lting the model was an adjustment.... We LOd functions. But the students view it as I faster, better communication, and we can There is more of a community.

use generalists to screen and triage service e for the majority of these requests. . more complex service needs. One ge Campus A summarized the benefits of

Its and make an accessible one-stop. My because we need to meet the needs of the iunity colleges are going is to have 1 the administration doesn't support this raderie breaks apart and we become silos

Ig services for the sake of efficiency and

IdFive

h questions were these: What was the It on design? What was the process for plemented successfully? Reported input llplementation committees. All staff at all a desire for more participation in the »» smooth the transition to the one-stop ges reported anxiety about change and pervisor at Suburban stated,

e change was waiting for the building to about the change. My staff were sure it . It was a fear of the unknown, and no them at ease. When they saw that "We

he new model.

; over adjusting to multiple changes at facility, new methods for completing

onships, and new departmental identities s, one staff member at Metropolitan


Staff don't like the new system. Three separate departments merged. They had cliques plus too many changes at once (the Y2K technology conversion, the physical move, training, and peak registration.) People were overwhelmed.

Conflict also occurred in the implementation of the one-stop centers when administrators, professionals, and support staff had conflicting values and ideas for design and function. On Multi-Campus College Campus A, one upper-level staff member stated,

The concern we've had with higher education all these years is that we're lowering ourselves to the mall mentality of our culture and we're not seen so much as a place where one goes to experience higher learning, but it's just another service provider, where do I go to get this thing done.... It's the take-a-number approach. I worry about that, I worry about what it says to people and what it gives students for expectations. It used to be, you go to college and you fit into the college culture. That was part of the whole growing up process, you go to college and you fit into the culture. Here we are doing the consumer culture for colleges and where are students going to get that bigger experience of education and learning? I worry about that.

Whereas at Multi-Campus College Campus B, a mid-level supervisor responded,

People pictured it differently. We wanted one counter, not a round desk. We need more signage and communication to students. We were assured that it would be two full-timers. Instead we have the two-hour rotation. It's hard to balance departmental needs because we are limited when it's peak or when staff are on vacation. We have five people to cover five days a week plus evenings. I don't feel that one-stop is the best use of my time, because I'm sitting out there while the paper on my desk piles up.

Values between professionals and paraprofessionals differed greatly and conflict arose as these employees moved to an environment where they worked together. This point was reflected by one staff member at Multi-Campus College Campus C who noted,

People are territorial, some are not willing to answer questions for other departments .... There are more spats-some people transferred out. Now people are getting along, more willing to help. They see what others do and have more understanding by being in other people's shoes. There is conflict about people not pulling their weight-some have gone elsewhere. There is no accountability for those who are still here, and others have moved on because of inequity.

Expectations differed as to how much input and participation employees should have in implementation. The greatest conflict between staff and

FALL 2006 - VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1 :NTAFFAIRSJOURNAL

____1 _

I

.

54 OUSLEY

administrators occurred at Multi-Campus Community College and Metropolitan Community College, whereas acceptance of the one-stop service model was more complete at Suburban Community College and less resistance occurred. At Suburban, one staff member explained,

The environment has been positive-we work in a collaborative manner, and there is more effort to work this way. The information specialists' help is phenomenal, they pitch in if additional staff is needed.

Research Questions Six, Seven, and Eight

What staffing model was used, were staff members required to obtain additional training, and was compensation for increased duties offered were the sixth, seventh, and eighth research questions examined. Staff reactions to staffing models differed depending on whether a rotation was used and whether compensation was offered. Reactions at Multi-Campus Community College and Metropolitan Community College were largely negative because rotation models were used without compensation. Departments were merged and staff members were cross-trained to serve shifts as generalists. Resistance resulted when staff objected to added duties and increased training without compensation. One upper-level staff member at Multi-Campus College Campus C explained,

What is most stressful is being short staffed and having high turnover. We have to start over training new people, and staff are expected to do more at more levels for more people. There are constant shifts. The technicians are not paid enough for the work they are doing. There is a lot of responsibility and expertise is needed. We have had multiple changes with technology, the physical move, training, and classification and compensation issues. Staff felt threatened. They are frustrated and resist because of compensation issues.

Cultural conflict emerged as small departments were integrated into a larger work environment. Employees had to adjust to a new identity and culture and to changes in the nature of the tasks performed. One supervisor at Metropolitan expressed it this way:

Things got bad with needing to know so much and learn about new technology. We had to bring in a professional for team building, and to help with interpersonal issues like how to get along with others, getting to know people, even music was an issue. We had 60 people and they liked different radio stations. There were lots of issues, coffee, lunch, eating at desks, dress codes. Admissions was more professional and registration and financial aid were more relaxed. People were not used to working out front. There was no fonnal dress policy by the institution, so it was hard to enforce. We had dirty dishes in the sink, and the fridge was an issue. Small

tnt: COllEGE S1VDENTAFFAIRS JOURNAL

TheGtke

things became major problems. \'l: month we have a celebration for people forget about ups and down

Reactions to the one-stop model were College because generalist positions competitive hiring process with incre: the greater need for training and administrator articulated how the mo explaining it this way:

There was a lot of training includir etc. The generalist positions we department areas. This was somew vacant. There were three positior advising and counseling. It isn't g were new classifications, titles, at

creating excitement about the new business. We picked generalists whc

These generalists were cross-trained to the division and to assist departments member interviewed reported that the services division.

Research Questions Nine, Ten, and B

The final three questions explored were react to the reorganization of student one-stop center? (b) Did they invest in t

work relationships change? The overall services centers at each site was positiv were present at each site. As the stud administrators and staff faced environm with n~w groups of people and learning supervisor at Suburban described these c

There were cultural issues between I

where to eat. We didn't think about There was a loss of cohesivenes Admissions/registration blended wi cultures blending and a loss of coni changes in identity and a blurring of 1

This resistance and cultural conflict v College. All but one of the staff interviev

FALL 2006 - VOLU~

mSLEY

rIti-Campus Community College and rhereas acceptance of the one-stop service ian Community College and less resistance mber explained,

tive-we work in a collaborative manner, this way. The information specialists' help lditional staff is needed.

d Eight

rere staff members required to obtain ation for increased duties offered were the questions examined. Staff reactions to on whether a rotation was used and

Reactions at Multi-Campus Community ty College were largely negative because ompensation. Departments were merged I to serve shifts as generalists. Resistance ed duties and increased training without lff member at Multi-Campus College

ort staffed and having high turnover. We eople, and staff are expected to do more here are constant shifts. The technicians ork they are doing. There is a lot of ded, We have had multiple changes with re, training, and classification and reatened. They are frustrated and resist

partments were integrated into a larger adjust to a new identity and culture and tasks performed. One supervisor at

know so much and learn about new professional for team building, and to

lOW to get along with others, getting to ssue. We had 60 people and they liked : lots of issues, coffee, lunch, eating at more professional and registration and

leople were not used to working out ilicy by the institution, so it was hard to sink, and the fridge was an issue. Small

\IT AFFAIRSJOURNAL


things became major problems. Weare trying to bridge these gaps---every month we have a celebration for bonding. Food has a tendency to make people forget about ups and downs.

Reactions to the one-stop model were more positive at Suburban Community College because generalist positions were created and marketed through a competitive hiring process with increased compensation commensurate with the greater need for training and skills required by the position. One administrator articulated how the model was more positive at Suburban by explaining it this way:

There was a lot of training including formal training tests, who to refer to, etc. The generalist positions were created by taking positions from department areas. This was somewhat voluntary, and many positions were vacant. There were three positions from admissions, financial aid, and advising and counseling. It isn't going to work unless it's staffed. There were new classifications, titles, and pay levels. We did a good job in creating excitement about the new philosophy and the new way of doing business. We picked generalists who were customer service oriented.

These generalists were cross-trained to provide triage and general service for the division and to assist departments that are short-staffed. All but one staff member interviewed reported that the generalists were assets to the student services division.

Research Questions Nine, Ten, and Eleven

The final three questions explored were: (a) How did administrators and staff react to the reorganization of student services and the implementation of a one-stop center? (b) Did they invest in the change or resist it? and (c) How did work relationships change? The overall representation of the one-stop student services centers at each site was positive, but resistance and cultural conflict were present at each site. As the student service departments restructured, administrators and staff faced environmental and cultural changes in working with new groups of people and learning new methods for completing tasks. A supervisor at Suburban described these changes as follows:

There were cultural issues between departments--conflicting dress codes, where to eat. We didn't think about that when we were making changes. There was a loss of cohesiveness and tension between boundaries. Admissions/registration blended with financial aid. There were different cultures blending and a loss of connection with core groups. There were changes in identity and a blurring of boundaries.

This resistance and cultural conflict was minor at Suburban Community College. All but one of the staff interviewed indicated that the new model was

FALL 2006 ~ VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1

1

56 OUSLEY

positive and that they enjoyed working with staff from other departments in the new center. One staff member stated:

The third floor records team is fairly satisfied. There are no problems, and they are more task oriented and happy to not be front line. They are more introverted people. They get the information they need, communication is good, and they have better knowledge on who does what in other departments. The second floor registration staff feels the same, with more contact and communication with other departments. The (one-stop) success center team is wonderful, they help problem solve and are team oriented, student focused.

Staff said that the new model was an improvement for students and the use of generalists was helpful in serving students and easing the workload for departments. The group who resisted was the advising and counseling staff. One staff member explained that the reason for this resistance was a difference in service philosophy between people-oriented professionals (the counselors) and task-oriented paraprofessionals (the rest of the department). Specifically, this staff member described this resistance as:

They are competent professionals but want to have free reign and opinions. They want to be the center of attention, where they were before. Service is now like a pyramid (the generalists screen most of the questions and work is filtered so counselors get fewer but deeper questions), but they don't see it this way. They don't feel appreciated, but degraded, rather than seeing the big picture and that they are the center of the model.

This participant felt that these professional staff members had different values and this caused conflict.

At Multi-Campus Community College and Metropolitan Community College, resistance and cultural conflict occurred as staff members were cross-trained as generalists and merged from small departments into a larger division. While staff acknowledged that working with new people created greater appreciation for each staff member's role, seemingly minor issues caused discord. Staff argued over dress codes, how coffee was prepared, choice in radio stations and which clock had the correct time. One administrator from Multi-Campus College Campus B noted:

It is important to have a model that is individualized to the needs of the campus, with matching physical facilities and philosophy. It's a perpetual growing service and it is never done as a delivery mechanism. The ability to customize is good. There was a cultural adjustment. Admissions and financial aid now share space. There was conflict over how the coffee should be made, so we now have two coffee pots. People have different methods for answering phones. The clocks on the walls in each area were

THE COllEGE STUDENTAFFAIRSJOURNAL

TheLuke

set to different times, and there' day. We resolved that by using tI standard college time.

While these were issues faced at Subw le~r~e~ to work together, enough c rrurumize conflict. At MUlti-Campus ar created. At Multi-Campus College Carr

There were no incentives or c compensation study, people stayed appeals did not go through. If the one-stop. Why should I do a spec by saying there was not enough "Thanks for going above and beyoi

Multi-Campus still faces resistance fron in position classification and compensa:

To combat similar types of resistance, 1 workers and established weekly stat opportunities for feedback. One adrnir morale in this way:

When you break bread with SOl

light. ... If the staff are not happy, ~ recognize milestones, graduations, creative people who are dedicated' have families and that's more imp know that you are genuinely cono need to be comfortable enough to VI

As a result of these training and teambui Metropolitan.

Discus

The dynamics of institutional traditions: for each institution. As institutions of ~ervice departments to form one-stop se m new ways with new people, and to bec

Small departments merge to form larg( and employees lose former identities to 1 requires cross-training and socialization tl re.sistance and symbolic adoption of the WIth change and appease administrators. is that if it defines the implemental

FALL 2006 - VOLUN

OUSLEY

Irking with staff from other departments in stated:

; fairly satisfied. There are no problems, and d happy to not be front line. They are more ie information they need, communication is knowledge on who does what in other

. registration staff feels the same, with more with other departments. The (one-stop) ful, they help problem solve and are team

n improvement for students and the use of ~ students and easing the workload for ted was the advising and counseling staff. e reason for this resistance was a difference ple-orienred professionals (the counselors) (the rest of the department). Specifically,

stance as:

mals but want to have free reign and enter of attention, where they were before. ie generalists screen most of the questions 'sget fewer but deeper questions), but they feel appreciated, but degraded, rather than ey are the center of the model.

ssional staff members had different values

~e and Metropolitan Community College, ed as staff members were cross-trained as :lepartments into a larger division. While I new people created greater appreciation lngly minor issues caused discord. Staff vas prepared, choice in radio stations and One administrator from Multi-Campus

:hat is individualized to the needs of the 'acilities and philosophy. It's a perpetual ie as a delivery mechanism. The ability to a cultural adjustment. Admissions and here was conflict over how the coffee : two coffee pots. People have different he clocks on the walls in each area were

~NTAFFAIRSJOURNAL


set to different times, and there was conflict over when staff left for the day. We resolved that by using the clock on the telephones to know the standard college time.

While these were issues faced at Suburban Community College initially as staff learned to work together, enough departmental identity was preserved to minimize conflict, At Multi-Campus and Metropolitan, new identities had to be created. At Multi-Campus College Campus C, a staff member stated:

There were no incentives or compensation. With the classification/ compensation study, people stayed technicians and we know that specialist appeals did not go through. If they had, we would be more willing to do one-stop. Why should I do a specialist's job? Human resources justified it by saying there was not enough critical thinking in our job. They say, "Thanks for going above and beyond, but we won't reclassify you."

Multi-Campus still faces resistance from staff, particularly because of inequities in position classification and compensation.

To combat similar types of resistance, Metropolitan used social events to bond workers and established weekly staff meetings to provide training and opportunities for feedback. One administrator at Metropolitan described the morale in this way:

When you break bread with someone, you see them in a different light....If the staff are not happy, students don't get the best service. We recognize milestones, graduations, take pictures ....We have excellent, creative people who are dedicated to their jobs. We recognize that they have families and that's more important than their job. People have to know that you are genuinely concerned about their well-being....People need to be comfortable enough to vent with no repercussions.

As a result of these training and teambuilding efforts, morale has improved at Metropolitan.

Discussion

The dynamics of institutional traditions and staff culture provide unique issues for each institution. As institutions of higher education consolidate student service departments to form one-stop service centers, staff must learn to work in new ways with new people, and to become generalists.

Small departments merge to form larger, more comprehensive departments and employees lose former identities to form new social systems. This process requires cross-training and socialization to the new environment. It may lead to resistance and symbolic adoption of the one-stop trend in an effort to cope with change and appease administrators. The danger of this symbolic adoption is that if it defines the implementation, it may lead to the eventual

FALL 2006 ~ VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1

1

58 OUSLEY

abandonment of the innovation (Birnbaum, 2000). Findings from this study reflect Birnbaum's theory on organizational change in higher education: if the one-stop service center is adopted only symbolically and is not integrated into the core of the institution, the restructuring will not be successful and will not translate into different models of actual service delivery. If employees are not able or willing to resolve interpersonal and cultural issues and form new identities, the one-stop center is doomed to fail. There will be no changes in the organization and delivery of student services.

Shifting from a silo paradigm to a one-stop service center can be a daunting task, and this model may not fit well in every institution. The Luke Principle states that change requires extensive planning and commitment within an organization, from all of organization's employees. The social and cultural implications of change must be considered (Ousley, 2003). Without commitment from all employees, implementation will be symbolic rather than actual (Birnbaum, 2000). For the successful implementation of a one-stop center, an infusion of resources is needed to provide adequate training and staffing that both provides quality service to students and incorporates the values of student development (Woodard, Love, & Komives, 2000).

The literature indicated that colleges are changing in response to pressure to be more efficient and focused on customer service (Hrutka, 2001). The results of this study support the argument that a focus on efficiency and customer service also serves to preserve the college through increased marketability and increased status. The sites within this study enjoyed increased status as other colleges benchmarked the one-stop service centers. Also, in comparing student feedback about services at these community colleges with four-year institutions, participants at Suburban stated that service at the community colleges was superior to service at the universities with the restructuring to a one-stop model.

With an emphasis on efficiency and customer service, services at one-stop centers are task and skill oriented rather than focused on student development. The philosophy of student development is rarely congruent with express service. While utilizing a student development approach is not viewed as costeffective as is providing efficient service using generalists in a one-stop center, it pays through increased retention and graduation rates and through holistic student development (Woodard, Love, & Komives, 2000).

The "low-cost" strategy of hiring part-time staff to provide student services is the current trend (Rhoades, 1998). One-stop centers using part-time staff may be more cost-effective short-term, but costs in staff retention and organizational change may make them less cost-effective in the long run. High turnover of staff, training costs, and the cultural costs to the work environment may outweigh the benefits of efficient, customer-centered service.

IHE COLLEGE STIJDENTAFFAIRSJOURNAL

The Luke

The implementation of the one-stop ~ollege an? Metropolitan Community SItes are still combating cultural issues stop model. The lack of buy-in by man one-stop concept. While more services operated as if they remained in a silo requests and without providing gene center, and some expressed a desire to the one-stop center but not providing E but not actual compliance) is a mirnerir in response to pressures to change, al a~opt1on of a fad (Birnbaum, 200( reInforcement by peers resulted in commitment at Suburban Commun participants interviewed favored the 0

trained generalists to be an asset to the s

Reactions at MUlti-Campus Community College were largely negative because additional compensation. Departments members were cross-trained to serve a duties and increased training without co ~s small departments were integrated inr in further resistance to the one-stop rno

identity and culture. As employees lost environment, deskilling occurred as sl general services (Mintz berg, 1979; Rhoad

Reactions to the one-stop model were IT

College because generalist positions we competitive hiring process. The gene compensation commensurate with the required by the position, underscoring applica~ts were told upfront what the ge g~~e~alists were cross-trained for providi division and for assisting departments that

The move to a one-stop center requires; of change takes time and resources. B,

impacts employee jobs, resistance is Co:nmunication is critical to encourage reSIstance and to alleviate fears about chai control of functions they consider their concerned about an increased workload. compensation and job security. Reward~

FALL 2006 - VOLUMI

OUSLEY

(Birnbaum, 2000). Findings from this study mizational change in higher education: if the [ only symbolically and is not integrated into tructuring will not be successful and will not actual service delivery. If employees are not ersonal and cultural issues and form new loomed to fail. There will be no changes in ident services.

lone-stop service center can be a daunting vell in every institution. The Luke Principle sive planning and commitment within an arion's employees. The social and cultural be considered (Ousley, 2003). Without mplementation will be symbolic rather than

successful implementation of a one-stop ; needed to provide adequate training and T service to students and incorporates the odard, Love, & Komives, 2000).

s are changing in response to pressure to be omer service (Hrutka, 2001). The results of t a focus on efficiency and customer service ege through increased marketability and Ills study enjoyed increased status as other service centers. Also, in comparing student se community colleges with four-year Ian stated that service at the community the universities with the restructuring to a

id customer service, services at one-stop her than focused on student development. ipment is rarely congruent with express /elopmenr approach is not viewed as costvice using generalists in a one-stop center, and graduation rates and through holistic e, & Komives, 2000).

rt-time staff to provide student services is Jne-stop centers using part-time staff may n, but costs in staff retention and n less cost-effective in the long run. High :he cultural costs to the work environment t, customer-centered service.

)ENTAFFAIRSJOURNAL


The implementation of the one-stop centers for Multi-Campus Community College and Metropolitan Community College are likely symbolic because both sites are still combating cultural issues and resistance among staff to the onestop model. The lack of buy-in by many staff impedes the paradigm shift to the one-stop concept. While more services were consolidated, some staff members operated as if they remained in a silo structure by referring without screening requests and without providing generalized service at the one-stop service center, and some expressed a desire to return to the old silo model. Working at the one-stop center but not providing generalized service (i.e. physical presence but not actual compliance) is a mimetic effort to show attempts at compliance in response to pressures to change, and such a situation reflects a symbolic adoption of a fad (Birnbaum, 2000). Compensation to generalists and reinforcement by peers resulted in effective implementation and staff commitment at Suburban Community College. All but one of those participants interviewed favored the one-stop model, and considered crosstrained generalists to be an asset to the student services division.

Reactions at Multi-Campus Community College and Metropolitan Community College were largely negative because rotation models were used without additional compensation. Departments were merged and specialized staff members were cross-trained to serve as generalists. Staff objected to added duties and increased training without compensation. Cultural conflict emerged as small departments were integrated into a larger work environment, resulting in further resistance to the one-stop model. Employees had to adjust to a new identity and culture. As employees lost autonomy through a controlled work environment, deskilling occurred as skills were downgraded in providing general services (Mintzberg, 1979; Rhoades, 1998).

Reactions to the one-stop model were more positive at Suburban Community College because generalist positions were created and marketed through a competitive hiring process. The generalist positions received increased compensation commensurate with the greater need for training and skills required by the position, underscoring the value of the positions. Position applicants were told upfront what the generalist position would entail. These generalists were cross-trained for providing triage and general service for the division and for assisting departments that were short-staffed.

The move to a one-stop center requires a major paradigm shift, and this kind of change takes time and resources. Because restructuring service models impacts employee jobs, resistance is likely to occur (Ousley, 2003). Communication is critical to encourage staff to disclose the reasons for resistance and to alleviate fears about change. Staff may be reluctant to release control of functions they consider their area of expertise, or they may be concerned about an increased workload. Staff may also have concerns about compensation and job security. Rewards and increased equity in pay can


i

60 OUSLEY

increase acceptance and underscore the value placed on the change, as observed at Suburban Community College.

Staff may also have concerns that some functions are not appropriate for a one-stop center. For example, functions in which a confidential environment is needed, such as in counseling, may not be a good fit in the one-stop model due to concerns in the work environment and cultural atmosphere. It is possible that staff feel comfortable with the concept being promoted in the change, but are concerned with how it will affect the day-to-day atmosphere. As change is implemented, staff may be moved to a new work area or interact with new coworkers. These cultural issues alone can undermine organizational change (Ousley, 2003).

To establish commitment to the change, input and participation in decisionmaking is essential. Staff members must be included in every aspect of the design to identify functions and reduce obstructions that can develop in providing service. Staff input is crucial in creating an efficient model and establishing cooperative team building among staff. Staff feedback is especially important when looking at cross-functional tasks. Institutional context, departmental culture, territoriality and how changing boundaries impact relationships must be considered. It is important that administrators do not implement significant changes at once as multiple changes overwhelm staff. Continual evaluations of one-stop functions and dialogue with staff and students are necessary to assure that the one-stop service center is functioning as planned. These elements constitute the counting of costs needed to facilitate a paradigm shift in providing service.

References

Birnbaum, R (2000). Managementfads in higher education: W/here thry come from, what thry do, whythryfaiL San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bower, D. (1992). Compa'!J and campus partnership: Supporting technolo!!J transfer. New York: Routledge.

Callan, P., & Finney, J. (1997). Public andprivate financing of higher education: Shaping publicpolicy for thefuture. Phoenix: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.

Dill, D. (2000). The nature of administrative behavior in higher education. In M. C. Brown II (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher education (pp. 92-110). Boston: Pearson.

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983, April). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.

Federal Benchmarking Consortium. (1997). Seroing theAmericanpublic: Bestpractices in one-stop customer service. Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.npr.gov/library/ papers/benchmrk/

run COLLEGE S1UDENTAFFAIRS JOURNAL

TheLuk

Greenwood, R, & Hinings, C. (19 change. In M. C. Brown II (Ed.), C 313-335). Boston: Pearson.

Gutek, B., & Welsh, T. (2000). t» relationships, marketstrategies, andbusi

Hovey, H. (1999). StatespendingJor highel cumnt support. San Jose, CA: State P for Public Policy and Higher EduG

Hrutka, M. (2001). Student services change, some things stay the same. professionals. Retrieved January 15, 2( article.cfm?ID261&category=Featu

Kash~er,]. (1990). Changing the cOfl directions in higher education: Managir. Francisco: jessey-Bass.

Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding andfaci" San Francisco: jessey-Bass.

Levin,]. (2001). Globa/iiing thecommum!J. Lofland,]., & Lofland, L. (1995).Ana!y~ M~rsee,]. (2000). The one-stop concept. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The professiona

Organization & governance in higher edi« Moneta, L. (2001). Online and physi

NetResults: NASPA's e-i/ne for student a from http://www.naspa.org/netresul~

Ousley, M. (2003). Cf!ffie pots and clocks: higher education. Ann Arbor: UM! Dis:

Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: . labor. Albany, NY: State University 0

Richardson, R, & Leslie, L. (1980). The evolving mission. Washington, D.C.: A Junior Colleges.

Ritzer, G. (2002). McDonaldization: The. Press.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Ac entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, Ml:

Thompson, F. (Ed.). (1988). The Thomps. Indianapolis, IN: B. B. Kirkbride Bibl

Woodard, D., Love, P., & Komives, S. (L newcentury. San Francisco: jessey-Bass

Zumeta, W. (2001). Public policy and an from the past and present for the r states and public higher education policy Hopkins University Press.

FALL 2006 ~ VOLU

I

OUSLEY

core the value placed on the change, as College.

.t some functions are not appropriate for a :tions in which a confidential environment is ,not be a good fit in the one-stop model due nent and cultural atmosphere. It is possible : concept being promoted in the change, but ect the day-to-day atmosphere. As change is to a new work area or interact with new coone can undermine organizational change

hange, input and participation in decision; must be included in every aspect of the reduce obstructions that can develop in :rucial in creating an efficient model and ng among staff. Staff feedback is especially os-functional tasks. Institutional context,

and how changing boundaries impact [t is important that administrators do not nee as multiple changes overwhelm staff.

functions and dialogue with staff and ~ the one-stop service center is functioning te the counting of costs needed to facilitate

ferences

1 higher education: Where they come from, whatthry ey-Bass.

partnership: Supporting technology transfer. New

andprivate financing of higher education: Shaping American Council on Education and Oryx

ative behavior in higher education. In M. C. governance in higher education (pp. 92-110).

pril). The iron cage revisited: Institutional mality in organizational fields. Amencan

97). SenJing the.America» publtC.· Bestpractices in 'rieved January 15, 2003 from ;/benchmrk/

f3NTAFFAIRSJOURNAL


Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change. In M. C. Brown II (Ed.), Organization & governance in higher education (pp. 313-335). Boston: Pearson.

Gutek, B., & Welsh, T. (2000). The brave new service strategy: Aligning customer relationships, market strategies, and business structures. New York: Amacom.

Hovey, H. (1999). State spendingfor higher education in thenext decade: The battle to sustain current support. San Jose, CA: State Policy Research, Inc. for the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

Hrutka, M. (2001). Student services for distance learners: While some things change, some things stay the same. NetResults: NASPA 's e-iinefor student affairs professionals. Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://www.naspa.org/netresults artic1e.cfm?ID261&category=Feature/

Kashner, J. (1990). Changing the corporate culture. In W. Steeples (Ed.), New direciions in higher education: Managing change in higher education, 71, 20-22. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding andfacilitating organizational change in the 21'1 century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levin, J. (2001). Globaliiing thecommunity college. New York: Palgrave. Lofland,]., & Lofland, L. (1995). AnaIYiing social settings. Boston: Wadsworth. Marsee,]. (2000). The one-stop concept. NACUBO Business Officer, July, 56-60. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The professional bureaucracy. In M. C. Brown II (Ed.),

Organization & governance in higher education (pp. 50-69). Boston: Pearson. Moneta, L. (2001). Online and physical services: A student affairs paradox.

NetResults: NASPA's e-iine for student qfJairs professionals. RetrievedJanuary 15, 2003, from http://www.naspa.org/netresults/artic1e.c&n?ID=87&category=Feature/

Ousley, M. (2003). Coffee pots and clocks: Cultural challenges to organizational change in higher education. Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services.

Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: Unionized }acuIty and restructuring of academic labor. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Richardson, R., & Leslie, L. (1980). The impossible dream? Financing community college's evolving mission. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Ritzer, G. (2002). McDonaldization: The reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Thompson, F. (Ed.). (1988). The Thompson chain-reference bible: Fifth improved edition. Indianapolis, IN: B. B. Kirkbride Bible Co.

Woodard, D., Love, P., & Komives, S. (2000). Leadership and management issues for a new century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zumeta, W. (2001). Public policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons from the past and present for the new millennium. In D. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education poliry (pp. 155-189). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.


I

62 OUSLEY

Appendix A: Interview Questions for Staff

• How long have you worked for this department? This institution?

• What is your current position? Has your classification changed since the onestop student service center was implemented? How do you feel about this change in classification?

• Describe the current staffing organization and functions of your one-stop center. How does your position fit into this organization? What was the staffmg organization before the center was implemented? How did you fit into this organization?

• Before the change in structure, what was a typical day like? Why was the change made?

• What input did you have in creating the center? Did you feel your voice was heard? If so, at what levels and by whom?

• What was the process for implementation?

• Ts the new structure better or worse for you and why? What was the first week like? How did the structure work? What was the office like? What is a typical day like now?

• Did you have to learn new skills to work in the new structure? If so, what training was offered? How was this training similar or different to previous educational or one the job training you have had? What incentives or compensation were provided?

• How do you feel about the move to a different structure? Is this better or worse for you, and why? Is this better or worse for students, and why?

• Are the numbers of students served tracked? Is this number greater or smaller than before the change? How do students give feedback and what do they say?

• What were the most negative or most stressful things about making the change? How did you deal with these issues?

• What were the most positive or stress reducing things about making this change? How have the changes benefited you?

• How have your relationships with co-workers changed since the implementation of the new structure?

• If you had the time, money and power, what would you change about the experience of making this large organizational staffing change or about the one-stop center?

THE COLl.EGE STIJDENTAFJ-AIRSJOURNAL

TheLuke,

Appendix B: Interview Questi<

• How long have you worked for this c

your current position?

• Describe the current staffing organiz: center. How does your position fit in

• ~y ~d you change to a new structu IS the Ideal service model and provide philosophy of your center and how de and philosophy?

• ~at was the staffing organization be did you fit into this organization? Wh:

• What input did you have in creating tl; heard? If so, at what levels and by whc

• What vehicles for communication did staff, public and students? \,('hat was tl

• Did front line staff have to learn new s what training was offered? How often compensation were provided to staff ir resource provisions for the center: hurr organizational chart, pay levels) budget Please give me a copy of docu~ents th,

• How do you feel about the move to a d :vorse ~or staff, and why? Is this better ( 1S a typical day like now?

• How do you obtain feedback from the J done? Please give me a copy of the instr summary of the feedback received.

• What were the most negative or most sn change? How did you deal with these iss

• What were the most positive or stress re change? How have the changes benefitec

• How have your relationships with staff c the new structure?

• If yo~ had the time, money and power, v expenence of making this large organizat one-stop center?

FALL 2006 ~ VOLUME

I

OUSLEY

rview Questions for Staff

this department? This institution?

[asyour classification changed since the onemplemented? How do you feel about this

anization and functions of your one-stop It into this organization? What was the .enter was implemented? How did you fit into

hat was a typical day like? Why was the

ng the center? Did you feel your voice was r whom?

entation?

.se for you and why? What was the first week What was the office like? What is a typical

) work in the new structure? If so, what is training similar or different to previous ~ you have had? What incentives or

to a different structure? Is this better or tter or worse for students, and why?

d tracked? Is this number greater or smaller tudents give feedback and what do they say?

ost stressful things about making the ~se issues?

ess reducing things about making this aefited you?

co-workers changed since the re?

wer, what would you change about the anizational staffing change or about the

'ENTAFFAIRSJOURNAL

The Luke Principle 63

Appendix B: Interview Questions for Deans and Supervisors

• How long have you worked for this department? This institution? What is your current position?

• Describe the current staffing organization and functions of your one-stop center. How does your position fit into this organization?

• Why did you change to a new structure? Where did this idea come from? What is the ideal service model and provider? What is the mission statement and philosophy of your center and how does it fit your college's mission statement and philosophy?

• What was the staffing organization before the center was implemented? How did you fit into this organization? What was a typical day like?

• What input did you have in creating the center? Did you feel your voice was heard? If so, at what levels and by whom?

• What vehicles for communication did you use to discuss the change with the staff, public and students? What was the process for implementation?

• Did front line staff have to learn new skills to work in the new structure? If so, what training was offered? How often do trainings occur? What incentives or compensation were provided to staff in making this change? Describe your resource provisions for the center: human resources (staffing, job descriptions, organizational chart, pay levels), budget and technology needs and resources. Please give me a copy of documents that illustrate this.

• How do you feel about the move to a different structure? Is this better or worse for staff, and why? Is this better or worse for students, and why? What is a typical day like now?

• How do you obtain feedback from the public and students? How often is this done? Please give me a copy of the instrument used for feedback and a summary of the feedback received.

• What were the most negative or most stressful things about making the change? How did you deal with these issues?

• What were the most positive or stress reducing things about making this change? How have the changes benefited you?

• How have your relationships with staff changed since the implementation of the new structure?

• Ifyou had the time, money and power, what would you change about the experience of making this large organizational staffing change or about the one-stop center?


Documents

of The Luke Principle: Counting the Costs of ... · The professional bureaucracy is like the rational machine bureaucracy in that design or standards predetermine what is to be done,