Summer Institute Synthesis

What is Inquiry?

Inquiry is humbleness… Inquiry is curiosity… Inquiry is humility

“Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it thinking of yourself less”

-Summer Institute, 2016

Throughout the summer institute I have tasked myself to personally think about inquiry through Bolman and Deal’s four frames from which people view their world. The four frames are Structural, Human Resources, Political, and Symbolic. Each frame comes with a rage of concepts, metaphors and value which prove the cosmetic structure for organizations.

This is the service year in my doctoral journey. I believe this is the year that I enhance my servant leadership characteristics. Dr. Darnell Bradley instructed us to drill down into the heart of  the issue is that we want to explore, (Summer Institute, 2016). The Summer Institute has given various nuggets of information that I can use in my current role and throughout my leadership experiences.

Dr. Tom Angelo spoke about leaders being manipulators, (Summer Institute, 2016). It is my observation that it makes sense. Getting people to focus is essential in the process of reaching operational goals.

As a leader if you can get people to care about learning, you will accomplish goals. If people are not motivated to learn no progress can be made.

-Phil Vincent, 2013

0000000000

xxxxxx

hhhhh

mmmmmm

Student-Athlete vs. Student Employee

–

Mindfulness – The awareness that arises out of intentionally paying attention in an open kind discerning way – Shauna Shapiro

A bold leader is sincere in knowing their is a need and acting on it, but most important don’t apologize for it- Dr. Kamps

As a doctoral student at Cardinal Stritch University, I have been tasked with choosing an issue for the service year to investigate and communicate the importance of an issue and the transformation of an individual, the organization, and society.

When I think about service or contribution to the welfare of others (Merriam-Websterdictionary.com), I think about a population that I have committed my research to. In my attempts to create awareness my service project will investigate the idea of paying student athletes. After reading Humble Inquiry, a good lead off question maybe, why not pay athletes?

An important fact about this issue is revenue is being earned but not necessarily by the student-athlete directly. The following table shows a snap shot of how much revenue has been generated by NCAA men’s basketball versus the top revenue generated professional sports.

-Kantar Media 2012

 To Pay or Not Pay Athletes  – Scholarly article which addresses the root cause of the issue

TIMELINE OF CHALLENGES TO NCAA POLICY

The NCAA’s amateur athleticism model, which has withstood various challenges over the years, is being directly challenged in lawsuits that have the potential to remake the college sports landscape. Here’s a history of some of the major cases that have led to this point:

1984: The U.S. Supreme Court rules the NCAA cannot restrict the number of televised games it allows. The University of Georgia and the University of Oklahoma had challenged those rules as an illegal restraint on trade. Justice John Paul Stevens said the NCAA might enjoy some latitude on other rules governing players, but only the TV restrictions were at issue in the case.

“It is reasonable to assume that most of the regulatory controls of the NCAA are justifiable means of fostering competition among amateur athletic teams and therefore procompetitive because they enhance public interest in intercollegiate athletics” (Henry 2015)

1999: The NCAA pays a $54.5 million settlement after it was accused of capping the pay of assistant coaches at $16,000 per year. Federal judges decided that cap violated antitrust laws.

2008: The NCAA reaches a settlement in a lawsuit brought by former Stanford football player Jason White and others. They accused the NCAA of keeping scholarships beneath the actual cost of attendance. Under the settlement, the NCAA created a $10 million fund to reimburse former athletes for educational costs they previously incurred. The NCAA made an additional $218 million available to pay for benefits given to college athletes enrolled between the 2007-13 academic years.

2014: In a case led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken blocks the NCAA from making rules that deny players the right to compensation when their images are used commercially, for example, in video games and telecasts. Her ruling could allow some players to receive as much as $20,000 when they leave school. The NCAA has appealed.

2015: In a concession to calls for athletes in major sports to be paid, the NCAA allows the five largest conferences to pay stipends that fund attendance costs not otherwise covered by scholarships limited to tuition, room and board. Separately, the National Labor Relations Board denies a bid by Northwestern University football players to form their own union.

-Pressherald.com (2015)

Sports Activist

  Dr. Leonard Moore is a current Sports Activist and is currently working with the National Labor Board to gain alliance in the consideration of compensation for athletes. Below is a portion of Dr. Leonard blog that discusses Unionization.

The Unionization of College Athletes -Blog

An excerpt of this appeared in NYT Room for Debate

National Labor Relations Board’s ruling that qualifies Northwestern football players as employees of the university and grants them the right to unionize is creating much debate around the issue of athletic reform in college athletics. I applaud the activism of these athletes to seek measures to obtain just treatment and a voice in the decision making process that impact their lives. It speaks to the sophistication and determination these modern day college athletes are willing to exhibit in order to bring about reform. This ruling is an example of their grassroots activism; the kind that is necessary to encourage athletic reform.

On the other hand, I am disappointed in the inertia of the NCAA, which has forced the hands of athletes to seek change and resolution externally. The NCAA efforts have been quite reactionary and defensive instead of proactive and visionary since the onslaught of cases that are challenging amateurism. Maybe their track record of losing in the lower courts and winning in the higher court is a tactical strategy they find successful. Maybe there are simply exhibiting “too big to fail” that is pervasive among corporations of this size.

“The NCAA opposes any efforts to unionize college athletes. In an email response to CNBC on the Northwestern University case, the organization said “The NCAA is not a party to the proceeding, but it is our hope that after reviewing the record, the NLRB will agree with Northwestern that student-athletes are first and foremost students of the university, not employees.”

NCAA, 2014

SO WHAT? Why is this issue important? Is it A – the individual, the student-athlete that makes it important? Is it B – the organization, the institutions that make this important, or is it C – society, the stakeholders that make this issue important?

If you hate test like me you probably were looking for D – All of the above? Correct!

THE INDIVIDUAL – Student-Athlete

• A cornerstone of this issue
• Pose the argument at hand that compensation is necessary for the work/skill/time put into athletics for a university/college
• Recruited, granted access for a service/laborer

 

Bibliography

Carodine, K., Almond, K. F., & Gratto, K. K. (2001). College student athlete

success both in and out of the classroom. New Directions for Student Services, 93, 19-33.

doi: 10.1002/ss.2

Doyle, A. (2008). The student-athlete model and the socialization of intercollegiate

athletes. Athletic Insight, 10(1).

Kissinger, D. B., & Miller, M. T. (2009). College student-athletes: Challenges,

opportunities, and policy implications. IAP.

Tucker, L. W., & Parks, J. B. (2001). Effects of gender and sport type on

intercollegiate athletes’ perceptions of the legitimacy of aggressive behaviors in sport.

Sociology of Sport Journal, 18(4), 403-413.

 

.

Blog post title

This is an additional placeholder post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post.

Adaptive Change Model

 

Background

Job Corps is a 50-year-old federally funded program that services at risk youth and young adults, ages 16 through 24. The goal is to improve their quality of life through vocational and academic training, which has the potential to lead to a job or further educational placement; Title I-C of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 authorizes Job Corps. To date Job Corps is the largest federally funded program with costs ranging over a billion dollars annually.  There are 125 centers in the nation spread across seven different regions. Currently, the Milwaukee Job Corps Center, contracted by MINACT Inc., which is apart of the Chicago Region, is the center undergoing adaptive change.

Problem – Need for Adaptive Change

After participating in a host of assessments it is fair to say some findings are on the center level and will continue to be if there is not a structural change, which will lead to an improvement in the quality of service for the students. Adaptive change is necessary, unlike a technical change, it requires new learning, change must come from the collective intelligence of the employees at all levels, working together they will learn their way towards solutions. This particular adaptive change consists of creating a counseling department for streamline counseling services as well as the counselors. This department will help counselors receive consistent guidance, effective counseling training and professional development to provide quality-counseling services to the entire student population at the Milwaukee Job Corps.

There are two counselors designated to each team; there are 3 trade teams and one career preparation team comprising of eight counselors. Each counselor is required to give outlined services to each student on their caseload as well as being heavily involved in documenting and following up with students depending upon their behaviors and conduct. The problem with this setup, depending on the team, there are different procedures on every team, so when students are passed back and forth from caseload to caseload depending on both their need and center’s need, services may not be present or applicable in each situation. By creating a counseling department, there is one director to oversee a cohesive counseling department. The challenge comes in making sure each department’s voice is heard and expectations are continuously being meet in providing services for the students, easier planned then executed.

Current Reality

Learning will need to take place in order for this change to be effective. “The first step in tackling any adaptive challenge is to get to the balcony so you can see how your organizational system is responding to it,” (Heifetz et al. 2009 p. 49). As a leader with the efforts of driving this change, creating a counseling department for consistent services, getting to the balcony is key; understanding the bigger picture will help sell the change in positive light. Creating an understanding of the role of a counselor and how to develop job duties consistent with the vision of the center to improve the quality of service will be primary goal of this adaptive change, it drives the vision. This will be a collective effort for all levels of employees, line staff managers, directors and the contracting corporate office. The departments will have to merge one important entity but within this merger make sure their departments lose its own effectiveness. With this proposed structure change the vocational teams would lose their counselors and just have the trades and trade instructors. The CPP Team Director would become the Director of Counseling and the CPP instructors would be apart of the academic department with the rest of the instructors that handle all academic services.

Devising a political strategy is important in implementing this change. Knowing who the allies, opponents, authority, casualties, and dissenters are will set the platform.

Allies	Center Director Counselors	See the same vision Have the same concerns Advocate and provide clarity to the change	Buy-in from other center staff (protect time on task/lets resistance Accountability	Consistency Dedication Maintain quality of service
Opponents	Supervisor Academic Instructors Government (changes submitted plan)	Consensus Support	Power Voice	Create a plan that they are in agreement with
Authorities	Center Director Corporate Directors Government	They have to understand the vision They have to see the change through	Continuously monitoring goals Center position	Show a difference in productivity in comparison to all other center Improving the overall quality of service
Casualties	CPP Instructors Students (if change does not happen or unsuccessful)	Quality of service Input Jobs	Create buy-in (big picture) Ensure the value of their opinion (voice) Create visual models	Build time in to train with counselors Show how concerns and problems will be addressed and solved
Dissenters	Team Managers	Giving them responsibility in the change Ask them to identify any unseen pitfalls in the proposed change	Utilize their findings on weaknesses in the change	Move forward with identifying their contributions to this change

                                                                                -Devising a Political Strategy Table

Diagnosis the System

Strategy

The strategy is to create a counseling department, which will help streamline and make consistent the services that are given to the students enrolled at the Milwaukee Job Corps. Several departments will have to merge, positions will be eliminated, and supervisor duties will change as a result of implementing this change.

Structure

Focusing on the roles, power and authority, and reporting relationships of the structure this is the proposed model:

Structurally, the Counseling Student Services Department is the core of the model. The outside components are the various teams. This just depicts the directly affected departments. Essentially this department will be the foundation for the center. “An organization’s formal structures create the playing field and rules for all activities that take place in the overarching system,” (Heifetz et al. 2009 p. 54).

Leadership roles with in this proposed model are affected by this change. Team Managers will lose some of their subordinates. Not having a direct supervision over the counselors will affect some day-to-day routines, for example having counselors on a specific team substitute in the classroom. They will not be controlled primarily by the Team Managers, which will require them to be in the classroom more then desired. This change takes away direct authority and is perceived as having less power.  “A high need for power which is socialized: that is greater than the need for affiliation; and a moderate need for achievement,” (P. Anderson, August 2014).

Lateral Capability Systems & Processes

Focusing on networks, processes, teams, integrative roles and matrix structures within these changes are most important in this area. Team selection will be strategic; as mentioned in People Practice identifying strengths and weaknesses when setting up teams to implement this change is crucial. Having an even balance creates cohesive teams that are able to work together and provide input where needed. The entire change itself included integrative roles.

Metrics and Rewards

Focusing on the reward system, goals, scorecards/metrics, values and behaviors, compensation and rewards is key.  It will be in the interest of change to express to the Team Managers they are no longer held accountable for counselor productivity goals. This will help curve the behaviors during this change. Creating rewards for benchmarks reached while implementing this change will be critical but needs to be controlled. Avoiding the possibility of creating a narrow focus by putting time limit incentives in place will be eliminated.  The purpose of this is so the vision can be reached with as much creativity as possible.  If possible taking a look at salaries, compensating for increased duties maybe an option.   The metrics and rewards systems will have to be reviewed and changed accordingly as it pertains to the center, contractor and government keeping in tact the values and principle in which Job Corps is based on. It is the writer’s understanding that the rewards system is a significant area that needs to be developed throughout this process.

People Practices

Focusing on staffing and selection, performance feedback and learning and development is necessary will addressing people practices. Knowing different strengths and weaknesses of personnel is important when selecting people to assist with and help drive adaptive change. As for the Milwaukee Job Corps Center screening is a high priority and the interview process and well as the selection for center involvement is rigorous. During adaptive change, feedback will be critical. Having visual benchmarks for measured performance goes all long way when motivating and pushing change. Staff should be well informed about process both successes and failures; transparency keeps the playing field level and produces realistic goals. “In practicing adaptive leadership, you make interventions that, though sometimes unwelcome, are designed to help people in your system (your organization, team, community, society, or family) address worthy challenges,” (Heifetz et al. 2009 p. 109).  There has to be forward motion and constant learning throughout this change; the team has to be able to reflect as well as see progress.

Plan of Action

There is a definite plan of action in place for the purposed change to develop a Counseling Student Services Department. The proposal has been submitted to the Center Director, Corporate Office and is waiting for approval to be forwarded to the Department of Labor. Typically the writer is not able to proceed with plans until after approval. Some next step in the interim will be to create a survey to begin receiving feedback about the proposed plan. After data is collected, starting to identify possibly pitfalls. The writer will diagnosis the system as discussed earlier. Focusing on protecting the culture walking through the five points of diagnosing the system. Creating teams to help work on training individuals how to refer and solicit counseling services. The counselors will be speaking at all staff meetings giving a depiction of the new plan. Making the center aware of possible upcoming changes to be able to set the platform and avoid the surprise element will be strategic planning. This adaptive change is necessary it will take the center to the next stage raising the level of quality service, increasing the center level of competition and productivity. That is the overall vision of this change.

References

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A. & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world.  Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Kokemuller K. (2014). Small Business Chronicle. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/transformational-leadership-vs-situational-leadership-18819.html