The Liberal Arts Gateway initiative is one of the most successful course revitalization projects I have seen in more than 35 years in academia, and I firmly believe that its success is largely due to two key elements in the LAG philosophy: If you want to revitalize courses, you must (1) empower professors around (2) a core set of guiding values.
Empowering professors doesn’t mean asking them nicely to revamp courses or look at some outcome data. It definitely doesn’t mean ordering them to implement the latest fad some administrator picked up at a weekend conference and then label them as obstructionists because they might be a bit skeptical that a two-hour workshop trumps the lifetime they’ve dedicated to the excellence of their disciplines.
In the previous series on mission, intention, and trust, I laid out a framework for identifying patterns and improving organizational functioning for the sake of our mission. Let’s turn now to applications of this MIT framework to specific decisions, large and small, throughout the college, starting with the search for a new provost.
My focus is the search process itself, taken as an institutional activity. I want to look at how that process is structured, rather than any specific decisions or recommendations by anyone in particular. This involves analyzing how we approached the process of searching for a provost, from the perspective of mission, intention, and trust. One goal is to use the MIT framework to reveal patterns that can explain specific symptoms that arise in the institution; another, of course, is to suggest a way to improve.
One way to avoid the consequences of decision-making principles is to mistake them for goals. No doubt, you’ll recognize this move when I provide a typical example:
I was in a guiding pathways conversation with an upper administrator about the need to differentiate workforce students from transfer students early, so that we can help students move forward efficiently. I was in the middle of explaining how students often come in with particular goals but are not always clear about the best pathways to reach their goals, given their educational and life experiences, and the sooner we can get students connected to instructional leaders to help sharpen the pathway, the better. Perhaps realizing (or imagining) the implications of this strategy, this person interrupted me with that knowing-pitying look, and said, “You know, Matthew, all our students are actually workforce students.”
Just after I defended my dissertation and was pronounced a doctor, I went to visit my mom. At one point in the afternoon, I overheard her talking with her long-time friend.
Friend: Well, Matthew got his doctorate — now he’s a doctor! You must be proud.
Mom: Yeah, well, I guess.
Friend: Aren’t you proud? That’s such an accomplishment!
Mom: Well, yeah, he’s a doctor, but not the kind of doctor that can do anybody any good.
Maybe a philosophy doctor it’s not the kind that can do this institution any good either, but it’s not gonna stop me from trying.
Having looked at mission and trust, let’s turn to the institutional structures and processes that make administration possible. “Structures and processes” is a way of drawing attention to the features of our organization that accomplish the work of the college. The three most important functions of administration are forward planning, decision-making, and codification of processes. Obviously these functions overlap, but let’s just say that forward planning is about strategic planning for the future, decision-making focuses on managing the affairs of the institution in the present, and codification is about establishing and maintaining the “how-to manual” for our functions and operations (including planning and decision-making).
Think of ACC as an orchestra: We have lots of people playing the instruments they’ve worked to master, and each one has a “part” of the whole piece of music, the part that each instrument and player contributes. And we have conductors, those who are responsible for the ensemble and for the music we make together.
That’s a lovely image, full of harmony (ha ha!) and passion and togetherness — but a pretty image can hide important features of how the organization actually operates.
Of course, we have a mission, but in its bones, this institution is not mission-centered or mission-driven. This does not mean we aren’t doing meaningful, life-changing work; we are, every day. What I mean is that we expend considerable energy on overcoming persistent institutional obstacles to excellence — energy that could go to more constructive, mission-centered work.
We’re starting a new academic year, and if you’re like me, amid the chaos and the promise and crisis management and excitement of new classes and a new semester and a new academic year, you find yourself wanting to take a moment to stop the roller-coaster and just . . . think. I’m taking a few moments to do just that, and I invite you to think along with me, in several installments.
The Student Literary Award is part of a larger competition hosted by the League for Innovation, which is open to community college students across North America. For the last 50 years, The League for Innovation in the Community College has pursued its mission to cultivate innovation and excellence in the community college environment, and Austin Community College is a proud partner in this mission.
One aspect of this partnership is our participation in the Student Literary Award competition, which affords our students the opportunity to showcase their creative literary talent. Our judges were very impressed with all the submissions this year, and in particular, they celebrated the variety of styles and interpretations represented in the student submissions.
In addition to the competition winners, our judges also selected a series of short stories and poems for publication on our website. I encourage you to visit and enjoy the many visions and voices of our students and authors!
Here are our ACC’s 2021 winners of the League for Innovation Student Literary Award.
