|
Article Excerpt
THE ORGANIZATION of institutions of higher education has been seen as operating with ambiguous purposes in vertically oriented structures that are only loosely connected (Cohen and March 1986; Weick 1976; Mintzberg 1979). The rationale for this ambiguity is twofold: (1) to allow for creative thinking, and (2) to respect--and even encourage--the autonomy of different disciplines. But ambiguity of purpose and vertical organization are at odds with thinking and expectations in an era of accountability and assessment, in which cross-institutional, or horizontal, reporting and measurement of institutional performance are highly regarded and increasingly demanded (Callan et al. 2006). Student affairs divisions are particularly challenged, given their ambiguous purpose (to support holistic student learning and development); the perception that they are support services, rather than core academic functions; and their primarily historically and traditionally framed organizational structures (Fenske 1990). Student affairs divisions are appropriately scrutinized to display how their ambiguous purpose is manifested in practice via organizational effectiveness and responsiveness to institutional needs, and through documented contributions to the development and achievement of desired student outcomes (Bresciani, Zelna, and Anderson 2004; Upcraft and Schuh 1996). The ability of student affairs functional areas to document and demonstrate value provides a pertinent opportunity to reconsider the organizational nature of student affairs programs, services, activities, and systems of support (Keeling 2004).
The frequent and increasingly predictable accusation that institutions of higher education operate in "silos" is based on the primarily vertical organization of those institutions; their various schools, colleges, business operations, student support services, real estate and economic development arms, foundations, and athletic programs operate in parallel with one another, more focused on promoting their own internal goals and objectives than on adhering to, elucidating, or accomplishing broader institutional purposes (Kuh 1996). It is a common observation that professors in any discipline have a greater sense of community and connection with professors in that same discipline in other institutions than with professors in other disciplines in their own institution (Clark 1963; Schroeder 1999). Similarly, student affairs professionals who find career contentment in residence life are more likely to collaborate locally, regionally, and nationally with others who do the same work rather than to seek interdisciplinary opportunities on their home campuses.
This vertical organizational structure is reinforced by centrifugal forces that create decentralization and locate governance, responsibility, and resources peripherally, rather than centrally; funding models in many institutions base the allocation of resources on credit hours, which drives money into individual schools based on student enrollments in courses (Ehrenberg 2000). Schools within larger institutions compete with each other for scarce resources and almost inevitably, and often by necessity, promote their own interests rather than those of the university at large. Centralized components of the institution--such as most student affairs offices, programs, and services--may struggle for resources in this context.
In these vertically organized institutions, there are important (and essential) horizontal forces; similarly, given the centrifugal, decentralized nature of decision making and resource allocation, there are nonetheless certain centripetal forces that pull some decision making, governance, and control to the center of the institution (Bourgault and Lapierre 2000; Kuh 1996; Mintzberg 1979). Notable horizontal forces include, of course, central administration (which may or may not have significant power; the extent to which power is centralized is directly related to how resources are allocated and managed), institutional accreditation, overall financial management, and certain levels of policy. But development, alumni relations, communications and marketing, enrollment management, and other core institutional functions are often performed to a greater or lesser extent by individual schools as well as by the institution as a whole. Similarly, central funding and policy development are centripetal forces--but the strength of those forces varies by institutional type, history, culture, and perceptions of the need for public accountability.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The inherent and necessary tensions between these horizontal and vertical elements generate and sustain complexity in institutions of higher education. Because each institution is of a particular type and exists in its own context (i.e., public, private, rural, urban, etc.), the vertical and horizontal structures vary in number and dimensions from institution to institution; but because they are fundamental parts of postsecondary infrastructure, they each exist in some form at every institution (see fig. 1).
Student affairs programs have a strong centripetal pull and are, of necessity, horizontal; since they (theoretically, at least) address the needs of all students in all schools, optimally they work across--and have an integrative role in relation to--the vertical structures,...
|
