A630.1.4.RB - Board of Directors

After viewing the Youtube video, A Tale of Power and Vision, reflect on your organization or a past organization. In a well-written post to your Reflection Blog, describe a situation from your organizational life that was similar to the situation from the video. Access the blog instructions by clicking on the blog icon. Describe the situation in detail making sure to discuss how the organization was able to work through the difficulties to enable real change to occur.

If you can't think of a similar situation, then reflect on the different organizational agents from the video: pessimists, pragmatists, visionaries, power players, and the crowd. Consider whether the attitudes represented by each of these agents are necessary and healthy within a normally functioning company. Try to think of both positive and negative aspects of each agent.


When I was working at another university, it was announced that the Department of Housing would be consolidating its three old, clunky computer programs for student charges, placement and academic access to a new software system (ResCenter) that would be allow better access to information about students for staff and students themselves. The information would make it easier to see all classes, housing, tuition fees and demographic information. It would give students the ability to change courses, housing, pay bills, see grades and loans, and request multiple verification for outside agents.

For staff, it was great for finding out when students had class (particularly for scheduling conduct meetings), why they had a hold on their account (usually for non-payment from the library, housing damages or financial aid issues). 

However, the university had several members of the community who were ten years in the job, and were rather pessimistic about changing processes. The older staff and faculty complained that they everyone at the University was used to the present system, and if new staff were added, no one in their departments would be able to train them. Things would be far worse before they got better. Another complaint was that there were more people to train over than people coming in. Because the comments were from those who had the most time and power in the institution (usually managers and directors of money-pits in the University) there was a slow transition of applications. 

Change is a way of life in today’s organization, but organizations are also faced with maintaining a stable identity and operations in order to accomplish their primary goals (Brown, 2011). There were obvious benefits to changing to one program. Visionaries saw the change as a step towards full automation with a central information hub and a way to save on time, effort and paper. Everyone could access certain areas of the application and see the information they were designated to see, just like when certain applications were withheld from other departments. Adding and deleting rights would be far quicker when someone could cut or add all access from one place. In two of the other systems, changes were only registered overnight; essentially a person fired immediately could have the power to change tons of information (or erase it) if they were on a certain level in the administration. The old programs also had roadblocks due to a lack of flexibility in their setup. The pragmatists in the group felt that change was needed. The new program would replace three programs, and was highly customizable. The pessimistic workers saw this blowing up in the University's face. This group felt that new folks simply were not seeing the big picture - the old programs crashed on occasion, but they were never all down at the same time. What if the program did not work, and everything had been transitioned for nothing? Some department had access to all three systems, while others did not need one or two of them, respectively. Would someone inadvertently gain access to information and abuse it? What if the application crashed? Then NO access would be available. This left many newcomers shaking their heads. The conclusion about the vets by the newcomers? "Having to learn a new system would require an investment [they] were not willing to make." Sadly, I believe many thought they would be phased out if things became more computer-friendly.

The power players (upper management) was focused on the bottom dollar. Having multiple system that did not update together lead to inaccurate records (overpayments, holds, etc). Inaccuracy between departments created distrust and frustration. Frustration with administration results in transfers. What would allow staff to engage with students' needs, faster? How were students going to react to being able to gain information at 2 am instead of having to do run around and get it from two or three different places, Monday through Friday, between 9 am and 5 pm, between classes, clubs, limited professor hours and meetings? This ideal would be on par with other schools, who recognized that students with access were happy students. Happy students stayed until graduation.

Still, the old regime felt that students were never satisfied, and changing the system (to the inconvenience of the staff) was going to lead to STAFF heading out the door. People were furious and had a reply for every benefit. What is someone messed up a record in the new system? They'd be no checks and balances? Who would hold the system accountable? The gole of the leadership was to quell the fears of the old staff, build excitement towarss the ease of the new program, and dissolve the use of the old programs as soon as possible so students could start fresh the next school year (and they systems could not be compared - new students and staff would know no better/worse). Trainings were conducted once the systems were tested. A group of students were introduced to the new system, given a crash course on it, and were asked to find several pieces of information about themselves through the new application. They noted that the information was searchable from the front page, the user interface was far more advanced, and that information they would usually need to wait to receive from a human was easily generated from the site. 

The first training with staff, however, was less than productive. It became a debate over security. There were quite a few office workers who had a negative attitude about the system. Theyu felt they could not guarantee their work on the system. The AAs had great relationships with each other, and the happy family model would be broken. What would happen if one of them erased necessary information that couldn't be retrieved? Would they be fired, for not knowing how to work the new system. It was age discrimination, they said. They'd already had to learn to use the three systems after transferring from strict paper files... 15 years ago. They now had to maintain paper AND the three systems, which was a huge shift in their job responsibilities back then.

The higher-ups assured staff that no one would be losing their job because of this program, and that many students still preferred to speak to live people. People were needed to update the system. Filing paper and only dealing with one program reduced the workload. Things were getting better.

Did venting quell all of their concerns? Not all of them, but it allowed them to feel heard and get a better understanding of why the new system was coming in and the advantages. In terms of security, the IT director noted that access was limited in the new system because levels of securities were assigned by processes, which could be customized quickly. If you needed access, you would have it. Plus, all changes were tracked.

It is not that the older staff did not want to move forward, accept change, or get to the other side of the chasm as depicted in the video by Kohn (2007); it is the need to address fear and risk in a manner that will have the greatest effectiveness. After a few in-depth training sessions, the office workers were on the same page and eager to customize the system for their own needs. Many came up with ideas on how to expand the program as well. 

"Positive psychology" researchers broadcast studies showing that optimistic people are happier and have more friends. In every way, it seems, optimists bask in the sunshine of the world's approbation, while pessimists mope in the shadows (Paul, 2011). However, this is not always the case! With their strong belief in hope, their "can-do" attitude often leads optimists to adopt problem-focused coping past the point when their efforts to change the situation will make a difference. They believe that they can achieve what they want to, just by trying hard. This type of perfectionism can lead them to hold false and unrealistic expectations. They'd be better off sitting down and taking a breather rather than continually striving to change the unchangeable (Whitbourne, 2010). Sometimes being a pessimist can be an asset; they can see why something may not work and we can fix it before it becomes an issue.However, the Negative Nancy in all aspects of a company can be discarded. Consistent pessimists bring down departments and companies with their negative attitude, and that attitude can spread like a virus.

References
Brown, D. (2011). Experiential Approach to Organization Development. 8th edition. Prentice-Hall Publishing.

Kohn, S. (2007). Board of Directors: A tale of power and vision. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZVIWZGheXY

Paul, a. 2011. The Uses and Abuses of Optimism and Pessimism. Psychology today. Accessed at https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201110/the-uses-and-abuses-optimism-and-pessimism

Whitbourne, Susan. (2010). The Trouble With Optimism. Psychology today. Accessed athttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201011/the-trouble-optimism?collection=69594