So my friend Sandra wants to keep up on my goings on in Canada.
Jim & I flew into Calgary on Christmas Day. We got an upgrade to first class on our flight - an auspicious beginning.
It wasn't too hard getting into Canada and getting my work permit - the young man was a big Longhorn fan and would love to get a ticket to the game. I gave him my card (like I have any clout!)
Calgary was a nice town - we didn't have a lot of time to explore, but did see a bit of downtown. It was wicked cold and we were using public transportation. It was fun to watch people ice-skating at the Olympic Square an outdoor arena for the awards ceremony when the Olympics were in Calgary.
Flew in a propeller plane to Lethbridge. We had seats 9 a & b - I thought it would be close to the front, but they were the last two seats in the plane. Fortunately, the wind was okay. We rented a car in Lethbridge so we had wheels here. Problem is they don't plow the roads, so driving is tricky.
Since Jim went home on New Year's Day, it is two legged transportation for me. I am waiting until the snow melts to take Tracy up on her offer to let me use her vehicle. I hope to explore the bus service this weekend.
The residence halls here are very different from my previous college experience - more like a motel with doors opening onto a field. I have a little two bedroom suite with a small kitchen/living/dining room combo. Comfortable actually - except the bed...
but I can walk to work and come home for lunch if I want. About 400 students live in residence - very different from many community colleges - its more common in rural locations. Lethbridge also has a pretty big international population.
Everyone has been very welcoming. I am just getting my feet wet with the first week. Meeting folks and starting to learn about the college. One concession to the cold - nearly all of the buildings are connected.
I did experience a Chinook wind - fierce, but not as warming as I had been told. It blew so much of the snow which is very powdery that some folks houses got nearly buried! Crazy. But I have plenty of warm gear. And my body seems to be heating up anyway!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Thursday, December 20, 2007
"Analysis of Baseball" by May Swenson
This post is for Kerry and Jason.
Analysis of Baseball by May Swenson
It's about
the ball,
the bat,
and the mitt.
Ball hits
bat, or it
hits mitt.
Bat doesn't
hit ball, bat
meets it.
Ball bounces
off bat, flies
air, or thuds
ground (dud)
or it
fits mitt.
Bat waits
for ball
to mate.
Ball hates
to take bat's
bait. Ball
flirts, bat's
late, don't
keep the date.
Ball goes in
(twack) to mitt,
and goes out
(twack) back
to mitt.
Ball fits
mitt, but
not all
the time.
Sometimes
ball gets hit
(pow) when bat
meets it,
and sails
to a place
where mitt
has to quit
in disgrace.
That's about
the bases
loaded,
about 40,000
fans exploded.
It's about
the ball,
the bat,
the mitt,
the bases
and the fans.
It's done
on a diamond
and for fun
It's about
home, and it's
about run.
It's about
the ball,
the bat,
and the mitt.
Ball hits
bat, or it
hits mitt.
Bat doesn't
hit ball, bat
meets it.
Ball bounces
off bat, flies
air, or thuds
ground (dud)
or it
fits mitt.
Bat waits
for ball
to mate.
Ball hates
to take bat's
bait. Ball
flirts, bat's
late, don't
keep the date.
Ball goes in
(twack) to mitt,
and goes out
(twack) back
to mitt.
Ball fits
mitt, but
not all
the time.
Sometimes
ball gets hit
(pow) when bat
meets it,
and sails
to a place
where mitt
has to quit
in disgrace.
That's about
the bases
loaded,
about 40,000
fans exploded.
It's about
the ball,
the bat,
the mitt,
the bases
and the fans.
It's done
on a diamond
and for fun
It's about
home, and it's
about run.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Hidden Connections
After reading Fritjof Capra's book, Hidden connections: Integrating the biological, cognitive, and social dimensions of life into a science of sustainability, I vacillate between hope and despair. He offers a provocative look at our world today.
Chapter 4 on Life and Leadership in Organizations provides a wealth of useful constructs to use in my paper on shared governance in the community college. He maps his previous discussions of the features of living systems more directly to organizations in this chapter.
He cites the dual nature of human organizations as the reason for their difficulty with change. First, organizations are designed for specific purposes (most for making profits). At the same time, organizations are made up of communities of people who build meaningful relationshps within their everyday work. He argues that change cannot be externally designed for living systems. The nature of systems is that they can only be "disturbed". "Meaningful disturbances will get the organization's attention and will trigger structural changes" (p. 112). Change cannot be mandated from the top, but needs to emerge from the natural processes of living systems.
We need to involve people in the change process from the very beginning, so it is meaningful.
The mechanistic approach to management is considered by Capra to be a major obstacle to organizational change. Even though this approach has increased productivity and efficiency, it does not allow for the flexibility and adaptations needed in today's global environment. Capra points to two key features of companies with a long history: a strong sense of community and common values and acceptance of new ideas in order to learn and adapt.
He distinguishes between the formal structures of the organization and the informal structures - both are needed. The creativity and adaptability within the organization is housed in its informal networks of communications.
An important idea of living communities is their self-generating nature; they create share meaning which shapes the identity and rules of conduct within the organization. Capra calls this shared meaning and knowledge along with the rules of conduct as the "dynamics of culture". The explicit knowledge of the organization can be communicated easily, but the tacit knowledge of the organization can only be learned through experience. Capra says that tacit knowledge is "created by the dynamics of culture resulting from a network of (verbal and nonverbal) communications within a community of practice" (p. 115) . Consequently, we cannot treat knowledge as something separate from the people and organization in which it exists.
Chapter 4 on Life and Leadership in Organizations provides a wealth of useful constructs to use in my paper on shared governance in the community college. He maps his previous discussions of the features of living systems more directly to organizations in this chapter.
He cites the dual nature of human organizations as the reason for their difficulty with change. First, organizations are designed for specific purposes (most for making profits). At the same time, organizations are made up of communities of people who build meaningful relationshps within their everyday work. He argues that change cannot be externally designed for living systems. The nature of systems is that they can only be "disturbed". "Meaningful disturbances will get the organization's attention and will trigger structural changes" (p. 112). Change cannot be mandated from the top, but needs to emerge from the natural processes of living systems.
We need to involve people in the change process from the very beginning, so it is meaningful.
The mechanistic approach to management is considered by Capra to be a major obstacle to organizational change. Even though this approach has increased productivity and efficiency, it does not allow for the flexibility and adaptations needed in today's global environment. Capra points to two key features of companies with a long history: a strong sense of community and common values and acceptance of new ideas in order to learn and adapt.
He distinguishes between the formal structures of the organization and the informal structures - both are needed. The creativity and adaptability within the organization is housed in its informal networks of communications.
An important idea of living communities is their self-generating nature; they create share meaning which shapes the identity and rules of conduct within the organization. Capra calls this shared meaning and knowledge along with the rules of conduct as the "dynamics of culture". The explicit knowledge of the organization can be communicated easily, but the tacit knowledge of the organization can only be learned through experience. Capra says that tacit knowledge is "created by the dynamics of culture resulting from a network of (verbal and nonverbal) communications within a community of practice" (p. 115) . Consequently, we cannot treat knowledge as something separate from the people and organization in which it exists.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Building community through food
Here's an alternative to the traditional pumpkin pie!
Pumpkin Bars
2 c flour
2 t baking powder
1/2 t salt
1 t pumpkin pie spice
1 t cinnamon
1 t baking soda
4 eggs
1 16 oz. can pumpkin
2 c sugar
1 c vegetable oil
1 c chopped nuts
Heat oven to 350. Combine dry ingredients. Add eggs, pumpkin, sugar, & oil. Beat well. Stir in nuts. Spread in greased 15 x10x1 pan. Bake 25 min. Cool
Frosting
1 3 oz. cream cheese, softened
1 T milk
1 3/4 c powdered sugar
1 t vanilla
Combine all ingredients and blend well. Spread on cooled pumpkin bars.
Enjoy!
Pumpkin Bars
2 c flour
2 t baking powder
1/2 t salt
1 t pumpkin pie spice
1 t cinnamon
1 t baking soda
4 eggs
1 16 oz. can pumpkin
2 c sugar
1 c vegetable oil
1 c chopped nuts
Heat oven to 350. Combine dry ingredients. Add eggs, pumpkin, sugar, & oil. Beat well. Stir in nuts. Spread in greased 15 x10x1 pan. Bake 25 min. Cool
Frosting
1 3 oz. cream cheese, softened
1 T milk
1 3/4 c powdered sugar
1 t vanilla
Combine all ingredients and blend well. Spread on cooled pumpkin bars.
Enjoy!
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Overview of Solomon and Flores: Building Trust in Business, Politics, Relationships, and Life,
Solomon and Flores explore the important idea of trust and its role in business and other arenas of life. They deconstruct the idea by looking at simple or naïve trust, blind trust, and mature or authentic trust. Simple trust is trust that is “yet unchallenged or unquestioned” (Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 31). This is the paradigm we have for trust, which is transparent and innocence, like a child’s trust in a parent. Blind trust is trust in denial; when trust has been betrayed, but the betrayal is ignored.
Authentic trust is “…fully self-aware, cognizant of its own conditions and limitations, open to new and even unimagined possibilities, based on choice and responsibility, rather than the mechanical operations of predictability, reliance, and rigid rule-following” (Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 59). Authentic trust is trust that is chosen and maintained with effort; it is a blend of both trust and distrust. It allows trust to be rebuilt if there is a breakdown of trust.
Often we think of trust based on familiarity, but as our world becomes smaller and more interconnected, we must trust others with whom we may have no personal relationship. More and more we must trust strangers in order to operate in our day-to-day lives. When considered from the context of entrepreneurial college, trust in our partners is critically important. If we distrust each other, we are less likely to develop a cooperative relationship. Trusting is taking a risk.
Developing authentic trust requires an openness and honesty that is often not desired in institutions. Instead, what replaces trust is “cordial hypocrisy” in which members of the institution pretend to trust, instead of exploring differences honestly. Harmony is maintained, but it is at the risk of undermining the health of the organization. Open distrust is healthier, because the institution can take steps to deal with something known. “Denial, not distrust, is perhaps the greatest enemy of trust”(Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 59). I think it is a vitally important to create a climate that allows for open expression of differences instead of fostering one that encourages a “happy face” that covers deep-seated problems.
In authentic trust, both parties understand the mutual obligations and responsibilities that each brings to the relationship. It is trust based on reciprocity. If there is a breakdown in trust, one must assess what is not working, and make changes needed to renew trust. Solomon and Flores contend that the way that trust can be restored is not just through earning trust, but also by giving trust freely. That seems naïve upon first consideration, but it does convey the message of giving someone a second chance. Trust lost is very hard to regain; it is better to limit one’s commitments to those that can be kept. Word, once given, needs to be kept.
The challenges of creating trust within an institution are amplified by the reciprocal nature of trust. When it is not clear who is responsible for something, it is hard to give trust. Trust is based on relationships; in large institutions individuals must often rely on others with whom they have little or no connections. Those individuals who are skilled at building relationships are often the ones who can get things done within the system; they know whom they can trust to follow through on commitments. Instead of systems that work effectively, often it will be a patchwork of individuals who can make things happen – an inefficient approach at best.
Trust seems to be a linchpin needed for creation of a healthy organizational climate. It is built daily by the actions taken by the leadership of the organization that are congruent with the values espoused. It requires trusting the individual employee in the organization to do his or her job in accordance with the mission of the organization. A trusting foundation allows the individuals within the organization to be open, honest, creative, innovative, and risk-taking.
Solomon, R. C., & Flores, F. (2001). Building trust in business, politics, relationships, and life.
New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Authentic trust is “…fully self-aware, cognizant of its own conditions and limitations, open to new and even unimagined possibilities, based on choice and responsibility, rather than the mechanical operations of predictability, reliance, and rigid rule-following” (Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 59). Authentic trust is trust that is chosen and maintained with effort; it is a blend of both trust and distrust. It allows trust to be rebuilt if there is a breakdown of trust.
Often we think of trust based on familiarity, but as our world becomes smaller and more interconnected, we must trust others with whom we may have no personal relationship. More and more we must trust strangers in order to operate in our day-to-day lives. When considered from the context of entrepreneurial college, trust in our partners is critically important. If we distrust each other, we are less likely to develop a cooperative relationship. Trusting is taking a risk.
Developing authentic trust requires an openness and honesty that is often not desired in institutions. Instead, what replaces trust is “cordial hypocrisy” in which members of the institution pretend to trust, instead of exploring differences honestly. Harmony is maintained, but it is at the risk of undermining the health of the organization. Open distrust is healthier, because the institution can take steps to deal with something known. “Denial, not distrust, is perhaps the greatest enemy of trust”(Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 59). I think it is a vitally important to create a climate that allows for open expression of differences instead of fostering one that encourages a “happy face” that covers deep-seated problems.
In authentic trust, both parties understand the mutual obligations and responsibilities that each brings to the relationship. It is trust based on reciprocity. If there is a breakdown in trust, one must assess what is not working, and make changes needed to renew trust. Solomon and Flores contend that the way that trust can be restored is not just through earning trust, but also by giving trust freely. That seems naïve upon first consideration, but it does convey the message of giving someone a second chance. Trust lost is very hard to regain; it is better to limit one’s commitments to those that can be kept. Word, once given, needs to be kept.
The challenges of creating trust within an institution are amplified by the reciprocal nature of trust. When it is not clear who is responsible for something, it is hard to give trust. Trust is based on relationships; in large institutions individuals must often rely on others with whom they have little or no connections. Those individuals who are skilled at building relationships are often the ones who can get things done within the system; they know whom they can trust to follow through on commitments. Instead of systems that work effectively, often it will be a patchwork of individuals who can make things happen – an inefficient approach at best.
Trust seems to be a linchpin needed for creation of a healthy organizational climate. It is built daily by the actions taken by the leadership of the organization that are congruent with the values espoused. It requires trusting the individual employee in the organization to do his or her job in accordance with the mission of the organization. A trusting foundation allows the individuals within the organization to be open, honest, creative, innovative, and risk-taking.
Solomon, R. C., & Flores, F. (2001). Building trust in business, politics, relationships, and life.
New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Shared governance
One of the colleges I want to examine relative to models for shared governance is Valencia Community College in Florida. The reason that the President of the college offers for establishing a shared governance structure is as follows:
"A learning college needs decision making structures that honor the fact that the faculty and staff who mediate student learning know things about the students and about the organization that the rest of us cannot know. Therefore, they must have a powerful voice in the collaborative decision making that characterizes a learning organization (Valencia,2001 para. 5)."
This is a powerful statement about the mission of the college as a learning institution and how the governance structures can support this mission. It will be interesting to examine if this structure does indeed support the goals for improved student learning.
"A learning college needs decision making structures that honor the fact that the faculty and staff who mediate student learning know things about the students and about the organization that the rest of us cannot know. Therefore, they must have a powerful voice in the collaborative decision making that characterizes a learning organization (Valencia,2001 para. 5)."
This is a powerful statement about the mission of the college as a learning institution and how the governance structures can support this mission. It will be interesting to examine if this structure does indeed support the goals for improved student learning.
East Austin Summit
I had forgotten what a small community Austin is! It was fun to connect with old friends at the East Austin Summit. I even was able to network with a foundation funder who is interested in a couple of non-profits that I support.
I wish that ACC was more represented at the event. Dr. Tyra Duncan-Hall, retired Provost for th college, was the master of ceremonies. One board member, Jeffery Richards, was a presenter, but he was representing his agency, the Urban League. Loretta Edelen, the college's community outreach director was there as well. One art faculty member was there representing his outside business. I would like to see more students and more faculty involved in business or other relevant arenas of the college at the event.
The biggest aha was about the role of assets in creating stability and building wealth. The need for both education and strategies to assist individuals in improving their conditions seems paramount. The one of the greatest challenge to change this situation are the welfare policies that prohibit assets, but do not offer enough of a foundation for getting out of poverty. A new paradigm is needed.
I wish that ACC was more represented at the event. Dr. Tyra Duncan-Hall, retired Provost for th college, was the master of ceremonies. One board member, Jeffery Richards, was a presenter, but he was representing his agency, the Urban League. Loretta Edelen, the college's community outreach director was there as well. One art faculty member was there representing his outside business. I would like to see more students and more faculty involved in business or other relevant arenas of the college at the event.
The biggest aha was about the role of assets in creating stability and building wealth. The need for both education and strategies to assist individuals in improving their conditions seems paramount. The one of the greatest challenge to change this situation are the welfare policies that prohibit assets, but do not offer enough of a foundation for getting out of poverty. A new paradigm is needed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
