Following an extensive Cultural Self-Study of Kent State University by Cultural Research, Inc. in Fall 1997 and completion of its six-volume report in April 1998, the Cultural Self-Study Advisory Committee read and discussed the report and now issues its own recommendations for addressing the findings of the Study. These recommendations deal primarily with problems revealed by the study and are addressed to various members of the University community. Specific recommendations are summarized in the report and Appendix I.

The encouragement of respect for each person’s role across the campus community stands out as one of the primary areas of need. Put simply, we recommend that when we appreciate what someone has done, we should let that person know. Leaders can be role models for this recognition. We further recommend concerted action to develop a community that values and reflects diversity. Finally, because staff feel particularly undervalued, we recommend special steps to make their voice heard and to use their talents.

Because quality communication is the lifeblood of an organization, we recommend strong commitment at all levels to clear, concise, civil, honest, and open communication without fear of reprisal. We also address the need for widespread awareness of University processes and issues and better communication across unit boundaries.

To engage leaders in positive change, we urge all leaders to read the original Self-Study report, discuss it openly, and act on its findings. The role of the President and Executive Officers is critical to this process, including incorporation of the Self-Study into the strategic planning process. Leadership must be developed through directed training and through careful administrative searches, as well as through shared authority and development of leadership potential in all members of the community.

To encourage innovation and input at all levels, we recommend several strategies for the reduction of bureaucracy and encouragement of innovative ideas at all levels.

Dedication to our common educational mission requires not only clarity of understanding and commitment of support, but also regularly shared performance indicators that tell us how well we are carrying out our mission.

In order to push constantly for improvement at all levels, we urge for improvement of relationships among departments. Ad hoc committee reports that recommend change need to be followed up promptly. We also suggest development of a performance evaluation system for administrators and exploration of financial incentives for classified civil service staff. Units should develop key people with wide knowledge of University procedures who can improve efficiency in their unit and offer suggestions for division- and University-wide changes.

We urge wide dissemination of this committee report and frequent updates about the implementation of its recommendations. We also recommend continuing recourse to the original Self-Study Report in coming years as we develop ways to further improve the organizational culture of Kent State University. Committee members would also appreciate the opportunity to meet with the Executive Officers to discuss the Self-Study and the recommendations we offer.

Larry Andrews, Chair, and Dean, Honors College

Susan Barnard, Associate Professor; Director, Libraries & Media Services – Access Services

Valerie Brooks, Human Resource Development Specialist, Human Resource Development

Leslie Carter, Bursar, Bursar’s Office

Dr. Kathe Davis, Associate Professor, English

Dr. Cathy DuBois, Assistant Professor, Administrative Sciences, College of Business

Al Edgell, Instructor, Political Science

Dr. Richard Feinberg, Professor, Anthropology

Shawn Fugarino, Undergraduate Student Senate

Thomas Grove, Organizational Consultant, Human Resource Development

Dr. Elaine Hall, Associate Professor, Sociology

Diane Harris, Senior Secretary, Honors College

Dr. Sally Kandel, Associate Vice President for Human Resources

Debra Lyons, Library Associate, Access Services, Interlibrary Loan, Libraries and Media

Services

Dr. Noah Midamba, Associate Dean for Institutional Diversity

Dr. Lois Muir, Associate Provost for Planning and Academic Resource Management

Dr. Thomas Sosnowski, Associate Professor, History, Stark Campus

Dr. Beatrice Turkoski, Assistant Professor, School of Nursing

Bernadette Waters, Manager, Training and Development, Human Resource Development

Lucinda Welch, Graduate Student Senate

Regina Witsaman, Administrative Assistant to the Dean (retired), College of Arts and Sciences

A cultural self-study is an assessment process that reveals the institution’s underlying assumptions, beliefs, and values. The purpose of performing a self-study is to enhance the effectiveness of strategic initiatives. Because individual workplace issues and beliefs are based on the culture of the organization, strategic success cannot be achieved by focusing simply on the specific issues of the moment. For purposes of this discussion, the following definition of organizational culture is used throughout this report:

Consequently, long-term effectiveness is tied to an understanding of the fundamental workplace culture of the organization. Key components of workplace culture include: motivation, respect, communication, quality, commitment, productivity, leadership, collaboration, and innovation. Other ongoing organizational issues are affected either positively or negatively by these fundamental components of workplace culture.

The University secured the services of Cultural Research, Inc. from Winnipeg, Canada. The University elected to use an external service to ensure confidentiality and because this particular company has performed a similar study on the University of Manitoba as well as other social service and governmental agencies. This Advisory Committee had Cultural Research, Inc. detail the various steps and procedures used throughout the data collection process. The methodology is presented in the following appendices:

• Appendix A: Methodology Summary
• Appendix B: Project Stages
• Appendix C: Reliability and Trust Value (Validity)
• Appendix D: Samples by Qualitative Data Collection Process
• Appendix E: Culture Survey Forms
• Appendix F: Comparison of Form 1 Response to KSU Population
• Appendix G: Comparison of Form 2 Response to KSU Population

Based upon the findings from its analytical processes, Cultural Research, Inc., submitted a report that included the following:

Performing the Cultural Self-Study at this time is particularly critical as the University is engaging in its next round of strategic planning. Because the Self-Study provides information about values, beliefs, and guiding assumptions, the University will be able to determine if they are consistent with the strategic direction as the planning efforts move forward. Furthermore, once the strategic goals are set, the University will be able to implement goals and plans more efficiently by using this cultural knowledge.

On April 22, 1997, President Carol A. Cartwright charged the Cultural Self-Study Advisory Committee with the following:

In May 1998, as committee members were reading the Self-Study, several open forums were held, including one by computer classroom link with the seven regional campuses. The purpose of these forums was to answer questions and gather suggestions about process. One full copy of the 6-volume report was also placed on reserve at the Kent Campus Main Library so that all faculty and staff could read it for themselves.

Realizing very quickly that the entire 1800-page study would be too difficult to address comprehensively, the committee selected priorities from among the 22 organizational analysis areas. For a listing of the 22 organizational analysis areas, please see Appendix H. The committee first clustered similar organizational analysis areas and then used a nominal group process technique in order to select priorities. As a result of this method, the committee developed the following four sub-committees:

As recommendations were being prepared during weekly meetings in the summer, the sub-committees were mindful of several overriding or pervasive themes found in all of the organizational analysis areas. These overriding themes were:

1. Respect
2. Mission
3. Disconnection
4. Regional Campuses
5. Communication
6. Leadership

Once the sub-committees developed and presented their recommendations, the committee circulated to all university personnel highlights from the report and asked for feedback. Upon further deliberation, the committee elected to organize the recommendations upon a framework based upon eight cultural foundations, as described by Cultural Research, Inc., in the report:

While overlap among the eight cultural foundations exists, the committee elected to use this framework as a way to recommend very specific actions, while also illustrating how all the recommendations may impact the culture as a whole.

The Cultural Self-Study of an institution as large and complex as Kent State University produced a large and complex report. That report contained much good news about common values and about high satisfaction in some areas, but it also conveyed many areas of serious concern. Readers of that report, even those on the Advisory Committee, responded with a broad range of perspectives and experience. Thus, it is difficult to arrive at any simple solutions to problems identified by the Self-Study. The consensus of the committee, however, is to offer a limited number of recommendations, some with immediate urgency and some with recognition of the need for long-term, gradual change. Our hope is that this report will be only the first of many reports, interpretations, and action plans to come as the University community digests and responds to the findings of the Self-Study. To give the reader a sense of the recommendations as a whole, we have listed them in Appendix I along with a timetable and other comments for implementation.

Some of the actions we recommend can be undertaken by each individual, who, as a member of a University community, must reflect on how his or her own attitudes and behaviors support or detract from the core educational mission of the institution. Some actions can be undertaken collectively by workplace units, where there is already a foundation of strength and dedication. Still other actions must be undertaken by leaders at all levels, including Executive Officers, because their responsibility is great and their attitudes and behaviors have great practical and symbolic impact. Finally, although Self-Study respondents included only faculty, staff, and administration, the students are a vital part of the University community and culture, and they must remain our central concern in all that we do.

As discussed earlier, the recommendations are organized according to a framework based upon the eight cultural foundations, here collapsed into six. Before specific recommendations are discussed, a description of each of the foundations is quoted from the Cultural Self-Study report.

Faculty, staff, and administrators do not feel valued or respected by others in the University community for doing their daily activities, which they believe support the University’s mission. A formal Distinguished Staff Recognition Program was launched this past October to recognize significant contributions by members. This new program supplements other formal recognition programs, such as the distinguished teaching and scholarship award programs for faculty as well as programs in specific divisions and units. These programs create a positive environment and do show genuine appreciation.

One of the most valuable activities we can engage in individually and collectively to create a more positive culture is to say thank you more often. The Committee does not recommend that the University embark on a "thank-you" campaign or develop a formal "thank-you" program. Rather, this type of recognition should be incorporated as a genuine spontaneous practice. Simply put, if we appreciate what someone has done, we should let that person know.

This recommendation is targeted primarily at leaders throughout the institution because they set the climate and are in a position to serve as positive role models. If leaders set an example by acknowledging the contributions and roles of all members in our community, this will cause others to recognize the importance of the various roles and responsibilities at the University. To support this initiative, leaders should also discourage talk and behavior that generically belittles or maligns other departments and units. This is not to say that we should not address conflict, but that we should work openly with other departments to resolve problems, showing that we trust and value the role and function of the various services we have at the University.

The Self-Study provides information about the current state of the University’s diversity initiative. The Self-Study reveals a significant gap between faculty, staff, and administrators in their perceptions about diversity, particularly with respect to racial and gender issues. These responses range from those who hold a perception that everything is fine to those who hold a perception that the University has only just begun to address these issues. Not surprisingly, women and minorities report the greatest dissatisfaction with the University’s response to diversity.

The study also indicates that there is a large gap between one’s personal beliefs and one’s perception of leaders’ beliefs. Leaders are perceived as believing that everything is fine; however, this is not what the leaders themselves perceive. There is also a relatively strong contingent of respondents (25%) who believe that the University should not "force" diversity and that everything will take care of itself if we just leave well enough alone.

The ‘disconnection’ of the faculty, staff, and administration from the diversity initiative may find its roots in the University’s initial response to the Diversity at Kent State University: Report of the University-wide Diversity Planning Committee (1993) report. As discussed later in this document, the University needs to provide more feedback to the University community once reports are issued. The administration should have been more assertive about implementing the recommendations and more clear in communicating the University’s accomplishments to the community. Perhaps the University needed to set specific diversity goals emerging from the report so units could then align their operations with University goals. The result is that the majority of the University community does not know about current or past diversity efforts, and therefore perceives that the initiative is no longer valued.

We recommend that the President issue a statement that acknowledges the perceived diversity gap and reaffirms the dedication and commitment of the University to close this perception gap. The President should cite the findings from the Self-Study to illustrate the issues and concerns more clearly in this initiative. Following this pronouncement, the President could discuss the role of the Office of Institutional Diversity and what specific measurable goals it is currently working on.

The Office of Institutional Diversity has formed and charged its own advisory committee. In the spirit of keeping communication open, the Office of Institutional Diversity should find a mechanism through which to report regularly its activities as well as work in conjunction with other University entities committed to diversity, such as: the Women’s Resource Center Advisory Committee, the Pan-African Faculty and Staff Association, Human Resource Development, and the ADA Advisory Committee, thus establishing multiple channels and means to deliver the University’s philosophy and commitment to diversity. We fervently believe that responsibility for diversity should not be relegated solely to one office but be embraced as a philosophy of the entire University community. Furthermore, we recommend that the 1993 University Diversity Report and the Self-Study be used together to develop recommendations for specific action plans. These action plans should include the following:

• Acknowledge that diversity is an inclusive concept.
• Initiate widespread discussion of diversity’s significance for Kent State University.

• Communicate clear and specific goals that reflect the University’s definition of diversity.
• Share statistical information at the unit level, beyond what is required during search processes, so that units become engaged in working toward diversity goals and know how well they are performing with respect to the goals of diversity.

• Evaluate administrators, through a formal performance appraisal system, on their ability to operationalize the diversity goals in their units and provide incentives and rewards.

Other ideas discussed include (a) incorporating student perspectives in the plans and

(b) developing strategies to encourage larger and more diverse recruitment pools. The University could also consider using internal faculty, staff, and administrative expertise to help with attitude and behavior change at all levels.

While the University has many existing committees and structures, classified civil service staff members currently do not have a mechanism through which they can raise issues. A Classified Civil Service Advisory Council, coordinated and staffed by the Personnel Department, would be integral for clarifying and communicating policies and procedures to faculty, staff, and administrators, particularly those policies which focus on such aspects of the hiring process as application, screening, and transferring. One idea generated in the discussions was to create a handbook detailing some of these key procedures. This recommendation would be a new initiative and would need the active support of the Personnel Department, which would be responsible for coordinating and staffing this activity. The specific structure and charge of this council could be developed by the Personnel Department staff members and classified Civil Service representatives.

The Self-Study indicates that staff members do not feel that they have opportunities or the support to participate in University committees, decisions, and activities. While we understand that one’s primary work responsibilities must be completed, the Self-Study reveals a perception among staff that they would not be supported in participating in broader University committee service or participating in professional development opportunities. Staff members perceive that they would not be allowed time off or that they would not be able to keep up with their workload if they were given time to participate.

In the process of developing a culture that respects everyone’s role as well as a culture in which leadership is shared, unit leaders need to be openly supportive of staff members who wish to engage in University committee service or professional development activities. Furthermore, University service activities need to be structured to keep the needs of staff members and various units in mind. We recognize that there is expertise in staff members who serve at the front line and that the University will benefit by using this expertise to improve various processes and procedures or by developing staff members to more fully engage in improvement efforts of the University. However, this cannot occur unless the staff members are encouraged, locally, to engage in such activities by their unit leaders.

1. Establish a recognizable and measurable institutional commitment to clear, concise, civil, honest, and open communication at all levels of the University; bottom-up and top-down, without fear of adverse consequences.

The Self-Study reveals a pervasive sense of cynicism, distrust, and miscommunication. Several of the recommendations in this report stress the need to improve communication. It is especially important that the President and Executive Officers set an example of the best kind of communication, as described in our recommendation here. Reducing the sense of miscommunication will take time and open effort, including a willingness to answer questions about any and all communications. The perception at any level of the organization that secrets are being kept inappropriately, perhaps as an aspect of status or power, is damaging to the spirit of trust. All members of the community must also find the delicate balance between communicating positive messages externally and to each other, when they have genuine substance, and communicating realistically and candidly within the community about problems and how to solve them. For the latter to work, rather than to offend, trust must be present, as a pre-condition on the part of all members of the University community.

Furthermore, respondents and attendees at open forums held by the Advisory Committee referred to fears, particularly among staff, that the survey questionnaires would not be kept confidential and that they can be punished in their workplace for criticism. Working in such an atmosphere of fear is unhealthy for organizational culture. All leaders must not only explicitly reassure staff and faculty that there will be no retaliation for any suggestions; they must show by their actions that they actively encourage openness and collegial problem-solving.

2. Improve awareness of University processes and issues.

The Self-Study suggests that many members of the University community are unaware of what other units do, how certain decisions are made, how many processes work, and what consulting resources are available within the University. Several strategies could be used to improve awareness:

1. Leaders at all levels should explain how constituent input was useful in arriving at decisions. Input must be sought and encouraged at every opportunity. The basis for decisions, including how input was used, must also be communicated. All too often the views solicited from members of a unit seem to vanish once they have been given. By closing this communication loop, leaders can also convey their trust and respect for colleagues.
2. Use "Dialogue," e-mail, and the home page bulletin board more frequently to address important issues. "Inside Kent" serves well to share successes and good-practice models across the University, but it is not so well suited to addressing issues of organizational culture. As an organ of the Division of Human Resources, "Dialogue" could be used immediately to address some of these questions found in the Self-Study: "How are committees formed?" "How are budget decisions made and rationalized, and by whom?" "How are new faculty incorporated into the University community?" "How do the postal services work?" "How are communications to the Board of Regents handled?" "What is the nature and purpose of councils of deans and of chairs/directors?" "Where does one go to find assistance with...?"
3. Use University experts to improve communication at all levels throughout the organization. We recommend that expertise available on the campuses should be used by those in leadership positions to analyze current modes of communication within and between units, groups, or levels; identify areas that would benefit from improvement; and assist in developing more positive methods of communicating. Developing effective communication styles that will bridge this destructive gap is vital to developing and strengthening a positive culture in the University. This initiative echoes the recent Faculty Senate resolution to use internal consultants on major projects whenever possible.

1. Encourage communication across boundaries.

The Self-Study reveals a sense of isolation in workplace units, along with a frustration with obstacles to communication that discourage connections across boundaries. Several strategies could help:

1. Create unit "shadowing" days, when people from two units who have a working relationship visit each other. The Study reveals that people often feel that others at the University do not value their work or that of their workplace, and that though they feel productive and mission-oriented, they are unsure about other units. Using mutual visits, with explanations of work processes and time required, will lessen ignorance and blaming of our internal "clients," increase collegiality, and lead to joint problem-solving to improve work processes and relationships.

The 1997 salary increases for the President and the Executive Officers had devastating cultural consequences for the University community, consequences that still remain more than two years later. Comments were noted in the Study regarding perceived inequity and administrative elitism. Annual salary increases reflect an important mechanism through which the University communicates its assessment of value. While we understand and respect the fact that salaries must reflect parity with similarly situated individuals, market value, and internal equity, nonetheless, the salary increases of 1997 created a gap of good will between the Executive Officers and faculty, staff, other administrators, and students. Determination and communication of future salary increases need to be done with great care and sensitivity to the cultural implications which may emerge as a result.

(Note: The Self-Study Advisory Committee had several discussions on exactly to whom the term "leadership" applies and precisely whom survey respondents had in mind when asked questions about their views of "leaders." While the committee affirms that leadership should exist and be encouraged throughout the University, leadership in this section refers to those people who have been appointed and elected by the University to guide and direct the efforts of others - largely administrators, but also key faculty and student leaders.)

Leadership is intimately responsible for stimulating positive change. For that reason and because the study addresses such major issues as communication, decision-making, input, respect, etc., all persons in leadership positions (Executive Officers, Deans, Department Chairs or Heads, Program Directors, etc.) should read the report. We are very well aware of the time and commitment required to read the report carefully; however, the information contained within the report is critical to the very essence of leadership. Knowledge about the current culture of the University is vital to understanding how to implement initiatives, interact with staff, develop departmental plans, improve relations across departments, and decrease the perception that leaders are unaware of problems. If the University is to successfully and cohesively meet the externally imposed societal and financial changes that the University must face in the near future, this knowledge will be crucial.

We recommend several mechanisms for reading the report in a manageable and productive manner:

1. Multiple copies of the Self-Study are available, including one in the Kent Campus Main Library, and individual chapters could easily be circulated among the leaders in a school or unit.
2. The report could be incorporated into the Leadership Academy; a chapter per month could be sent to those who participated in the Internal Planning Conference, and then another conference could be held periodically (every six months) to engage in small group discussions about the implications of the report (and to provide updates on what has been implemented and how successful it has been).
3. The report could be placed on the KSU website but accessible only to members of the Kent State University Community.

We believe that it is important for the Executive Officers and all campus leaders to openly discuss the findings of the Self-Study with their staff. This recommendation is based on the assumption that University leaders have read or will read the Self-Study.

One area of particular note is the relationship between faculty, staff, and administrators. Clearly there has been a line drawn in the sand between University leaders and staff members with respect to trust. How this line was drawn is irrelevant. How to erase the line is the task at hand. Whereas a disconnection between administrators and faculty/staff is noted, staff members have the greatest perception of not feeling appreciated, respected, or supported by their leaders. The Self-Study reflects an intense distrust and skepticism of what University leaders say and do. There is little evidence that leaders acknowledge or are even aware of staff sentiments. If University leaders were familiar with staff perceptions and expectations, then the action leaders take to show respect and acknowledgment might be better received. Leaders have the potential to demonstrate their commitment to staff and staff development.

The Study confirms everyone’s commitment to the students and the University mission. Who is committed to staff? Acknowledging the Self-Study and talking about the findings is one step towards opening communication. Staff members would take notice that the conversations of the leaders involve them. The study reflects a belief that input is not valued; opinions may be sought, but they are not utilized. Communication is perceived as a one-way street. An opportunity for open and clear communication can be created if all the leaders took the time to talk with and listen to not only their constituents but also constituents from seemingly unconnected areas. Such discussion could be a springboard to communicate difficult issues openly among the staff. Recurring themes in the report suggest that internal meetings are not handled effectively, teamwork is not perceived to be particularly effective, and cross-divisional functions and relationships are strained. An open discussion and acknowledgment of some of these findings may help engage units and divisions in resolving problems.

We believe that it is important for all Executive Officers to initiate the discussion about the findings of the Cultural Self-Study with faculty and staff in their unit, and we strongly recommend that all members of the University community read the report. Discussions of the report could be a springboard to open communication about difficult issues among and between the different groups within each unit.

3. Understand the special role that the Office of the President has in the improvement and development of the University’s culture.

The Office of the President has a special role in setting the tone for University culture through both words and action. The President faces multiple demanding tasks, including external relations, relations with the Board of Trustees, and major strategic decision-making. Internally, the President’s actions have far-reaching impact on all members of the University community. Although all employees bear responsibility for a positive workplace culture, meaningful change must start with the President.

The President has a critical role in encouraging and ensuring that the leadership reflects the values and beliefs and truly does implement recommendations and strategic directions. When this does not occur, the President must take action because the result reinforces the "disconnection" phenomenon between the messages the President publicly gives to the University community and the actual operations of the University. The President needs to be the primary force that aligns unit and divisional leadership to the future direction of the University. Further, the symbolic power of the President’s choices cannot be overestimated.

The President is the University’s most visible leader and, by far, the single most influential person in the organization. If the President makes dramatic and sustained gestures of good will, sensitive to values shared widely in the University community, staff, faculty, administrators, and students are likely to respond in kind.

The Self-Study Advisory Committee submitted feedback to the President about the strategic planning process as it was being formed. Highlights of the report particularly relevant to strategic goals were also distributed to the Strategic Planning Steering Committee as well as to all members of the University community. This feedback is contained in Appendix J. Subsequently questions concerning internal environment, based on the Self-Study, were included in discussion issues given to unit planning committees. We feel that the strategic planning process currently being implemented by the President reflects the spirit of input suggested by the Self-Study. We recommend that this report and the Self-Study itself be considered for current and future strategic planning, decision making, and deliberations at all University levels.

5. Design and develop a process for Executive Officers and persons in leadership positions to develop administrative skills, with a special emphasis on interpersonal relationship skills.

The Self-Study indicates that relationships between faculty, staff, and administrators are strained. The committee believes that leaders throughout the University, beginning with Executive Officers, have a special responsibility to foster positive relationships and assist faculty and staff to develop positive relationships - within and between individuals, groups, units, schools, colleges, or divisions. Leaders also need good interpersonal skills in order to challenge misinformation and encourage change in behavior that does not cultivate positive relationships.

Some departments on campus can be positive change agents and develop a series of programs addressing interpersonal relationship development. (e.g., the Leadership Academy and the Division of Human Resources) However, the primary issue is for leaders to instill in faculty, administrators, and staff a sense that relationships with each other are important and critical to creating a mutually beneficial environment. Consequently, leaders of the institution must be the first individuals to have this understanding. How does one hold a leader accountable for fostering good relationships? How does one measure whether or not a leader has been successful in relationship building? These are not easy questions to answer. The best administrative evaluation instrument may not be able to provide an accurate assessment of how well someone performs at fostering good relations. Despite the difficulties, a starting point is for the University leaders to engage in daily positive interactions with their faculty and staff members.

While some formal mechanisms for fostering better relations can be developed, such as the Leadership Academy and other training programs, a program is not necessarily the solution to this issue. Leaders need to understand the importance of good relationships on the environment, productivity, and overall success of the University.

The findings of the Cultural Self-Study should be used in the interview process of key administrative searches. This information could be used to share with candidates the values of faculty, staff, and administration and to discuss how they might address the concerns and issues raised in the report during the interview process. An interview question bank could be developed, shared with key search committees, and then incorporated into the Administrative Search Checklist worksheet which is distributed annually to all departments by the Office of Affirmative Action.

Too often, talent is not fully utilized at KSU. This results not only in a loss of available human resources, but also in apathy and a feeling of disrespect. An important aspect of leadership is to give power and authority to others. In that way, leadership is strengthened throughout the organization and talent is utilized. Leadership is the opposite of micromanagement. Micromanagement is indicative of a low trust environment. Sharing authority collegially distinguishes university culture and enables new leaders to develop.

A recurring theme throughout the report was to reduce the "bureaucracy" at all levels. We clearly need to reduce overly complex, inhibitory, and/or redundant processes. Units could focus on one specific activity or process by identifying, implementing, and evaluating alternative procedures and processes. The expertise and value of staff could be recognized and used. Student input could also be valuable in identifying areas for possible change. Two specific suggestions are to simplify the Policy Register and to decentralize decision making (e.g., reduce the number of signatures required on personnel paperwork).

We recognize that innovation and change will require an attitude of openness and willingness to change; however, any effort to improve the processes and procedures of the University should be seen not as negating or devaluing the strengths of the past, but rather as looking toward improving efficiency for the future.

The Self-Study indicates dissatisfaction with the ineffectiveness of meetings and efforts at teamwork across the University. The Self-Study also indicates a desire to reduce bureaucracy, discussed above. Therefore, creating separate structures that solely address innovation do not appear to be desired or valued by faculty, staff, and administrators. Rather, improvements need to be made in the established structures, and input and innovation discussions need to be incorporated into the daily activities of these existing communication and governance structures.

Meeting conveners or chairs should initiate a discussion with their particular team or group about their meeting processes and how input and innovation may be incorporated into the ongoing agenda. Members of existing communication and governance structures should specifically consider ways in which they can solve problems, improve efficiencies, reduce bureaucracy, and improve unit operations overall within their sphere of responsibility.

3. Encourage a process by which innovative suggestions can be heard, evaluated, and implemented.

We noted that many faculty, staff, administrators, and students might have innovative ideas that will improve the University. The University should establish a centralized location in which such suggestions could be received, evaluated, and implemented. It is imperative that individuals who submit a suggestion be given feedback, regardless of its feasibility. The Distinguished Staff Recognition program does have an innovative suggestion award, but this program excludes faculty. Therefore, the University should consider a process and a reward system by which all members of the University can participate. "Inside Kent" could include a regular column that highlights an innovative idea and its implementation.

We suggest that an annual fund be set up by the President’s office to recognize and reward innovation efforts for positive change at the unit level that would reduce costs for a particular process or procedure, increase productivity in a specific task, improve and streamline a specific process or task, significantly improve relationships within or across units, etc. Units would submit proposals detailing the innovation suggestion and start-up costs. Proposals that hold promise for effectiveness would be funded within a specified limit (e.g. two $5,000 grants). Those proposals that were submitted jointly by two or more units or departments would be given added weight in grant decisions. Detailed reports of the innovation and its outcome would be distributed to all University members at the end of each year, with detailed evaluation of cost effectiveness. Successful innovative efforts for positive change could then be adopted by other units as appropriate.

5. DEDICATION TO THE MISSION / COMMITMENT AND LOYALTY AT ALL

In order to maximize commitment in an organization, commitment must be a two-way street. Leaders and the organization itself must be viewed as committed to employees, and employees must feel committed to the organization.

1. Clarify the meaning of the mission by identifying performance indicators. Have leaders communicate the mission to their faculty and staff on an ongoing basis and have the President hold an annual meeting to discuss how well the University has performed on these critical performance indicators.

The Self-Study suggests that faculty and staff are committed to the mission of the University. However, this commitment really reflects how each person defines the mission. Furthermore, the Self-Study indicates that while a person believes that he or she has a strong commitment to the University mission, this same person does not believe his or her coworkers share the same commitment. Faculty, staff, and administrators all recognize that teaching and research for the benefit of the student are a good thing. The problem, however, is that the University community has different working definitions of the mission. This segmented thinking allows for people to function effectively in isolation, not seeing or understanding the connection that binds us. The University needs a simplified mission statement that everyone can recognize, work to achieve, and evaluate for success.

Once again, University leaders must initiate dialogue about the meaning of the University mission so that a better understanding of it will emerge. Achieving the mission should be a constant theme whenever leaders address their constituents. Merely stating the mission repeatedly is not, however, the point of this recommendation. The primary point is that everyone needs to know what the mission is; then all can participate in decisions about how to achieve it, and know if we are successful at it.

The University needs an action plan or evaluative tool to identify attributes of the mission. Hopefully, the current round of strategic planning will provide mission and goal clarity. By evaluating the University on success at achieving the mission, we will reduce those invisible boundaries that prevent us from working together more effectively. Clarity of mission at all levels will also help make meetings more productive, and, over time, the University will have a sense of community that can easily be seen by current and prospective students and their families, current and prospective faculty and staff, and alumni. This sense of community will have its foundation in a mission that is clearly understood by all. People will want to become part of our community because there is such a strong sense of commonality and teamwork.

To keep the importance of the mission at the forefront of University activities, the President should hold an annual meeting, separate from the State of the University address, to discuss how well we are performing on specific critical mission indicators. This will allow faculty and staff to recognize the success of collective efforts and understand where more work is needed.

The study indicates that individuals do not believe that other University departments are responsive to internal requests for service, i.e., from one department to another. This issue could be addressed in three ways:

1. Unit leadership should work proactively with other unit leaders to ensure that requests for service are met and improvements are made when they are not.
2. Leaders need to foster positive relations among their staff within and between departments so that when there is a breakdown in service, staff will work together to help make improvements.
3. Leaders - in consultation with their staff - need to identify systems and procedures within their operations that are redundant and overly complex, and work with other units to bring about more streamlined operations. A review process should utilize the staff members involved with the processes, thus helping build relationships within and between departments.

2. Incorporate some key principles into the ad hoc committee process, including prompt follow-up and implementation.

The Self-Study reveals concern about how the need for a committee is decided, how committees are formed, how committee members are chosen, how committee activities are communicated, and how or if committee recommendations are reported and processed into action. There is a perception that committee reports or recommendations are sought, but that action is taken which may not reflect the committee recommendations without any explanation or rationale being offered.

We recommend that the ad hoc committee process be communicated more clearly to the university at large. The Executive Officer or Administrative Officer sponsoring a particular ad hoc activity needs to provide the rationale and purpose of a proposed committee; seek volunteers for the committee activity, and appoint committee members from the pool of those who might be affected by the committee’s recommendations. Another important principle that should be incorporated into the ad hoc committee process is to ensure that committee recommendations are promptly publicized and followed up with an implementation mechanism. The Self-Study reveals widespread cynicism about recommendations for improvement, both at the workplace level and University-wide, that languish for lack of attention to implementation (e.g., 1993 Diversity, ADA Compliance, and Community Service reports that only recently have been revisited by new committees). Each ad hoc committee or other committee issuing a periodic review should include in its recommendations an indication of who is responsible for follow-up and implementation. It should then have a feedback session with the administrative office receiving the committee report within a reasonable time to identify how and why the committee recommendations will or will not be acted upon. Each committee should be responsible for monitoring and reporting to the University at large the progress of implementation activities.

We recommend that these ad hoc committee recommendations begin with the Cultural Self-Study as a positive and visible response to this document. We further recommend that the recommendations of this Cultural Self-Study Advisory Committee report be promptly disseminated and be implemented as appropriate in a timely manner. This report and updates on its implementation should be placed on the University website.

Administrative performance systems should be in line with departmental goals, division and university goals, and the University Strategic Plan. This requires sharing of goals as well as discussion as to how units and individuals composing those units can contribute to realizing those goals. Shared and agreed-upon performance expectations, as well as personal development plans to enhance performance and knowledge, should be developed between superiors and subordinates on an annual basis and reviewed periodically. This will reduce the potential element of surprise at the time of evaluation and establish performance expectations against which performance outcomes can be measured. Communication regarding performance expectations, and hence trust, will thus be improved.

The Division of Human Resources will be developing an administrative evaluation instrument once the Administrative Compensation Review process is completed. We recommend that this instrument include a 360-degree feedback perspective, i.e., assessment by those hierarchically above and below the person being evaluated. We recommend strongly that this instrument also be used for all levels of administration, including Executive Officers. The goal of this evaluation instrument is to provide developmental feedback that will ultimately be useful for administrative development.

3. Research financial incentives for classified civil service staff.

The Self-Study indicated a disconnection between performance and rewards, particularly among the classified civil service staff. Therefore, the Personnel Department should research possible financial incentives for classified civil service that will make the connection between reward and performance clear. Some possible financial incentives are one-time bonuses, merit pay, and team/departmental awards.

4. Increase the University systems and procedural knowledge of several key people in each division who could then serve as resources for their division.

A recurring suggestion in the Self-Study is to reduce the complexity and the bureaucracy of various University systems and procedures. We acknowledge that many systems and procedures may be overly complex and have redundancies. However, we also acknowledge that some procedures and systems are in place to provide rigor, protection of due process, and accountability. Therefore, bureaucracy needs to be reduced without sacrificing procedural rigor.

In many instances, a clear understanding of procedures may reduce the perception of bureaucracy. In others, once an understanding of procedures has been clarified, suggestions for streamlining may surface. We recommend that a core of people, representatives from each division (perhaps more from the academic area), be identified and cross-trained on the major University procedures—including, but not limited to—hiring, civil service regulations, affirmative action, review of the interdepartmental charge process, simplifying the policy register, auditing procedures, etc. These individuals could then serve as advisors for their area and help provide guidance, prevent problems, and increase efficiency at their unit level. The purpose of this recommendation is to find a mechanism to connect the units with the University’s centralized systems and procedures.

Kent State University’s organizational culture is defined by its history, its setting, and above all by its people. May 4, 1970 has marked us with a responsibility to care for each other and to model a civil society. Our eight small cities and beautiful campuses have encouraged a sense of community. The ever-changing configuration of people we have been and strive to be is moved by a common desire to serve our students well.

We are realistic in recognizing that institutions of our nature, size, and complexity are slow to change; that there are cynics or loners among us who have lost faith or seem indifferent to collective responsibility; that good people can have bad days. Yet we are optimistic in believing that we all, at heart, wish to work in a place where we bring out the best in each other, that the time is at hand for bold changes, that together we can create a better home for our students in the 21st century.

G:\SHARED.DAT\HR\HRD\CULTAUDT\REPORT3.WPD255