Understand the Problem: Part 2
Mention the CARE Team to any staff person at Westminster College
and you will get in return a huff, an eye roll, or a moan. The CARE Team is touted as our primary
retention strategy aimed to provide appropriate assistance to students and to
keep them enrolled through graduation. This aim is supported across the
institution. Why, then, does it elicit
such negative reaction?
Three tools were employed to better understand the problem – SWOT
analysis, stakeholder analysis, and stakeholder survey. The first tool used is a tool for environmental scan called SWOT. Morrill (2007) suggests examining internal factors, such as strengths and weakness, and external factors, such as opportunities and threats is helpful to understanding the current problem and context. The second tool used is the stakeholder analysis. Heifetz et al (2009) provide this tool to analyze stakeholders (Table 6-1, p. 100). They suggest examing each stakeholder's rrelationship to the issue, preferred outcome, noblest value, loyalties, and potential losses as these considerations help approach change with empathy and understanding and can help avoid surprises and pitfalls. The third tool used was the stakeholder survey. Schein (2017) prefers qualitative assessment when uncovering organizational culture, but does suggest that quantitative assessment has its place in prioritizing improvement areas.
Stakeholder
Survey
A survey was conducted with faculty and staff as a means to
uncover frustrations and areas for improvement.
Three root causes of lack of confidence were discovered:
Lack of follow up - Previous
experience has resulted in no communication, excuses about how hard it is to
reach students, long delays from referral to follow up or no follow up at all,
students not required to attend meeting with a resource
Lack of clarity about what constitutes a
CARE referral – Respondents are confused about what should be referred,
when is too early to refer, when is too late, what steps can individual
employees take to assist before referring
Unaware of how to refer –
Respondents mentioned not being able to remember the email address or not
knowing it; others requested an online referral form
Respondents also offered clear guidance for improvements:
Individual case follow up and communication
– Respondents want some semblance of an update, though this varies
greatly. Most would be satisfied with an
understanding of the CARE process steps and acknowledgment that a CARE team
member has connected with the student.
Some suggested academic advisors and faculty for other classes be
included in the fact finding for a specific student. Others indicated the outreach must happen
more quickly.
General awareness and information sharing –
Respondents want to understand what is involved in the CARE process, what CARE
stands for, who is on the team, how to submit referrals, and what support
services are available. Some suggested
this be made available in a brochure, others requested presentations at
department meetings.
Training – this was not mentioned by
many respondents, though there was an indication that employees need training
to know how to identify problems and when to refer.
In summary, faculty, staff, and students have confidence in
CARE, but are frustrated with the lack of communication and follow through they
have experienced. Further, they
articulated a need to educate the campus community about the team, its purpose,
its people, and its processes. Finally,
there is a desire for training of faculty, staff, and students to assist and
navigate referrals.
Problem
Synthesis
There are layers to the CARE problem that can
be addressed over time. These layers
include:
- lack of clarity, both internal and external, in our processes
- lack of awareness across campus in our purpose, people, and programs resulting in issues of confidence
- lack of adequate resources to effectively complete and measure our work.
Understand the Problem: Part 3
Westminster College is often
described as a tight-knit community, a home-away-from-home for students, a
place where we hold doors open for one another.
An underlying assumption in these utterings is that the Westminster
community will care for and support its members. We tell this story in our recruitment of new
students. We tell this story in our ceremonies and celebrations. Our students tell this story beyond our
walls.
Years ago, a student learned
of the death of her parents as a result of a car accident. They had been on their way to move her out
and home for the summer. She read the
news on social media. Within minutes,
her sorority sisters, friends, and acquaintances lined the halls of her
dorm. College administrators arrived as
well, even the president. We comforted
her, cried with her, made arrangements to move her home, and helped her
siblings make funeral arrangements. A member of the board of trustees pledged
to pay her senior year tuition. The
entire community swarmed in support of this one student in crisis. This is not an isolated story.
Schein (2017) helps us make
sense of this story and shape a cultural understanding through the
identification of artifacts, espoused values, and basic underlying
assumptions. Using his levels of culture,
I define the organizational culture of Westminster College.
Artifacts
Echoed in these stories is a
set of espoused values: community, sense of belonging, and student-focused
support. These values are present in
artifacts such as the mission and vision statements. The mission statement
reads:
The
mission of Westminster College is to help students develop competencies,
commitments and characteristics that have distinguished human beings at their
best. The College sees the well-educated person as one whose skills are
complemented by ever developing values and ideals identified in the
Judeo-Christian tradition. Westminster’s quest for excellence is a recognition
that stewardship of life mandates the maximum possible development of each
person’s capabilities.
Stewardship, in the Christian
tradition, entails community responsibility to care for and support one
another. The vision statement carries
this theme in its language as well:
Westminster
College will be nationally recognized as a leader in providing a supportive and
transformative educational experience for all students. Forged in a tradition
of academic excellence and inclusion, Westminster’s approach to a comprehensive
liberal arts education focuses on critical thought, collaboration and experiential
learning, which empowers students to lead successful lives of meaning,
integrity, and service to others.
In this statement, we boldly
proclaim that we will be a leader in providing such support.
Support services, programs,
and offices serve as additional artifacts of this culture of care and
support. The Wellness Center offers
health and counseling services as well as wellness coaching; the Academic
Success Center offers academic coaching and tutoring; the College requires a
transition-to-college course called Westminster 101 and provides a peer success
coach in every section; the Office of Faith and Spirituality is home to the
Student Emergency Fund, food pantry, and lending library. Of specific concern to this micro-change
project, the CARE team anchors a comprehensive and coordinated approach to
student support to maximize the benefit to students. Or at least it is what we hope to do.
Espoused Beliefs, Values, and Behavioral Norms
While there is a shared goal
of serving and supporting students, there are behavioral norms that get in the
way. The Vice President of Student
Affairs created the CARE Team (under a different name) nearly 30 years ago. Providing this kind of individualized support
and care for students is resource intensive; however, Westminster College has
always been a campus with tight resources and limited staffing. To accomplish these lofty goals, salaried
staff are expected to work many hours and to avail themselves to students
outside the traditional work week. During his tenure, the VPSA suffered a heart
attack related to job stress which altered the way he engaged with his work
dramatically. His approach shifted to
fulfilling the spirit of the task, while not tending to the outcomes. Faculty, coaches, and others began to
distrust the VPSA and initiatives originating from his division. Despite a change in leadership three years
ago, this distrust looms. Some staff
refuse to make referrals, while others still speak of skepticism in the
process. The care and support we offer
students is diluted and ineffective as a result of this sentiment.
Basic Underlying Assumptions
Another threat to the
effectiveness of CARE team work is the basic underlying assumption that
students should be engaged in their own success. This assumption weaves through the faculty,
coaches, CARE team, but is often challenged when working directly with
students. In CARE team meetings, we
sometimes remind ourselves that “we can’t want student success more than the
student.” Students resist outreach,
refuse to engage, and seemingly usher in their own failure. This behavior makes visible the assumption we
hold about the role of the student. This
assumption has consumed the attention of CARE team agendas as we attempt to
define boundaries and effective outcomes.
Work Avoidance
Heifetz et al (2009) name
four archetypes of adaptive challenges, including work avoidance which best
fits the challenge of increasing the effectiveness of the CARE Team. Retention is a complex idea and isolating
root causes of retention issues is challenging.
Student support needs is only one possible root cause and even the idea
of student support is ambiguous. What
kind of support do students require? How do we know if the support works? The resigned VPSA mentioned earlier
implemented a number of technical fixes to CARE that did not impact
retention. In fact, first-year-to-sophomore
retention declined over time. He focused
on the creation of a technology platform to track data, but ignored the
criticism and suggestion of faculty. He
narrowly defined support to include mental health services and leaves of
absence procedures. He was notorious for
telling bad jokes to divert from the issue at hand. And he created a proxy fight with the
Director of Counseling, blaming her for the inefficiencies of the CARE
process. These are all behaviors
consistent with the work avoidance archetype (Heifetz et al, p. 85).
Comments
Post a Comment