oR % i

® 2

ahaa ae

a INNOVATION ABSTRACTS

VOLUME XI, NUMBER 1

IVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTI

Energizing an Institution for Excellence

In the spring of 1984, the president of Riverside Community College formed the Strategic Planning Advisory Committee, PSPAC (pronounced pizz-pack). Fifty-cight faculty, managers and support staff gathered together to try to answer such questions as: “Who are we? What's our purpose? Why do we exist? What do we do well? What is our business?”

The group met each Friday afternoon (yes, Friday afternoon) to discuss case studies of successful and unsuccessful businesses. We read John Naisbitt’s Moegatrends, George Keller’s Academic Strategy and a history of our college, written by two Riverside profes- sors.

President Chuck Kane was the “teacher of record” at the Friday meetings. His presentations included different audiovisual media: videotape, overhead transparencies, blackboard, sound/slide, flip charts. Other presenters were expected to follow suit, and most sessions were exemplars of good teaching.

The president usually opened the Friday meetings with, “Name one good thing.” This created a positive, healthy, upbeat atmosphere. There were some surpris- ing reports, things most people wouldn’t have known. The “good thing” accounts often brought spontaneous applause and encouragement. There was also lots of humor, with the president often laughing at himself. Through the process, new and hidden talent appeared, frequently from surprising sources.

Smaller groups of nine or ten, which we called CAN Groups (named for a can-do attitude), met for an hour between the large-group meetings on Fridays to mull over the discussion questions on the week's case study or current topic. Each CAN Group had a CAN Leader, and the CAN Leaders met with the president on Thursday afternoons as his CAN Group. The CAN Leaders informed the president about how things were going in cach of the groups. What was said, rather than who said it, was stressed. Individuals’ names were not to be used. Of course, not everything went smoothly; some CAN Leaders were having a tough time witha few individuals in their groups, so other Leaders pitched in with suggestions to alleviate tensions and avoid potential problems.

It was our original intention to change the personnel and leadership of the CAN Groups about every four weeks. When we brought it up with the leaders, they all said, “No way!” Their groups were just beginning to jell, and they didn’t want to repeat the courtship period. Gradually, an extremely strong spirit of trust and camaraderie had quictly developed among the mem- bers of each CAN Group, including the president's.

While the CAN Groups were expected to discuss ideas and look at concepts from every possible angle (we called it “looking at the fish” from an article which described 19th century Harvard professor Louis Agassiz’s habit of making his students study a dead fish by the hour, day and week), they were not expected to produce any product. To produce a product, we developed “Action Groups.” Action Groups were made up of representatives from each of the six CAN Groups. They operated on Friday afternoons and had to work within very limited and rigid time limits. While philosophical discussions were held in the CAN Groups, Action Groups were to quickly create some- thing of substance and to explain and defend it. For example, they could be assigned to rank the top five things the college does best (from a list of 100 devel- oped by the large group), or list three of the most important things we must do to become a quality college (again from a long list).

Some participants didn’t want themselves and the college to be compared with businesses. They said a “business mentality” was hostile to academe. “We're not a business!” they exclaimed. But the complaints became less frequent when we got into our own busi- ness. Almost subconsciously, some newly-learned business and marketing principles were applied to RCC. We brought in former faculty members who had taught in the ‘20s, ‘30s and ‘40s, and they shared stories of what this college was like in its early years. We invited some community leaders who had done infor- mal surveys of what the “man on the street” thought of our college. We had graduating high school seniors tell the group why they would not be attending RCC and what made another college or university more attrac- tive. Some of their reasons were not flattering, but we

mi?)

EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (NISOD) Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin