Compiled Open-Space Conversation Topics

Compiled Open-Space Conversation Topics:

Action Team Capstone Summit

Elkhart Lake

May 10-11, 2012

Intro: Action Capstone Summit participants were asked to discuss an “open-space” topic that they had identified as areas in need of cross-fertilization. Topics included:

A.  Access (not chosen)

B.  Statement of Intent (one group)

C.  Competency development (three groups)

D.  Specialist-county match-making (one group)

E.  Assessment system (not chosen)

F.  Culture change (two groups)

G.  Consistency (not chosen)

H.  Scholarship divisiveness (one group)

I.  Effectiveness and efficiencies (one group)

J.  Mentoring (not chosen)

Competency Development

Group One:

1.  Intended outcomes for cross-fertilization:

  1. Prioritization – what do we say no to?
  2. Core competencies that reflect all action teams
  3. Greater clarity on what is expected of all of us – what is the baseline and who does this apply to (examples: technology, scholarship, multiculturalism)
  4. Consensus on what we’d screen for a new hire; reward thru promotion
  5. How do competencies and expectations work together?
  6. Look across the unit – more or less needed per unit

2.  Organizational intelligence: Currently, what helps or hinders our ability to achieve these outcomes?

  1. Having time to develop competencies
  2. Will standards make us not able to give raises and have a large enough applicant pool
  3. Lack of consistency of definitions and use
  4. Have a starting place now (positive)
  5. Inconsistencies in how leadership views competency development
  6. Current budget situation is forcing our hand (positive)
  7. Discrepancy in how stakeholders may view us – in some venues we’re seen as service providers, not scholars
  8. Gave more technology to help us (positive)
  9. Have one-time resources that could be used to hire back or hire on short-term to get systems up and running (positive)
  10. Have model (positive)

3.  In light of these responses, what should CE focus on?

  1. For academic competencies, enable program areas and departments to act without excluding competency development for non-faculty
  2. Be able to create baseline measurements
  3. Focus on strengthening competencies as a unit, allow for different levels of attainment
  4. Determine what is “core/required” and communicate them

4.  How would CE achieve this focus?

  1. Designate who will lead this effort: what resources are needed to make this happen across divisions
  2. Use one-time funds
  3. Use both/and approaches (sensitive to academic freedom and teaching purpose) – academic and non-academic competencies must be addressed
  4. Sharepoint
  5. Integrate measures of competency development into performance management systems and related systems and incentivize it

Group Two:

1.  Intended outcomes for cross-fertilization:

  1. Basic skill sets needed as identified by action teams; e.g. political effectiveness, inclusive excellence, scholarship

2.  Organizational intelligence: Currently what helps or hinders our ability to achieve these outcomes?

  1. No staff/department to carry this out
  2. High demand (Econ. Low supply/high demand example)
  3. Who defines core competencies
  4. When is it done?
  5. Never-ending and always changing

3.  In light of these responses, what should CE focus on?

  1. Define most needed core-competencies
  2. Survey – cross-fertilized to help define

4.  How would CE achieve this focus?

  1. Has to be prioritized, actions, energy, resources, and a home (ownership)

Group Three:

1.  Intended outcomes for cross-fertilization:

  1. Indentify core competencies from action teams such as political effectiveness, civil rights, scholarship, MAP, etc.

2.  Organizational intelligence: Currently what helps or hinders our ability to achieve these outcomes?

  1. Hinder: Requires staff to coordinate – there’s no system
  2. Maybe seems never-ending
  3. Who defines core competencies and how does it evolve?
  4. Help: Demand is high

3.  In light of these responses, what should CE focus on?

  1. Define most needed core competencies
  2. Combined survey of action team competencies

4.  How would CE achieve this focus?

  1. Make up a list of priorities
  2. Needs action, energy, needs to be resourced

County-Specialist Match-Making:

1.  Intended outcomes for cross-fertilization:

“Opportunities abound:”

  1. Cross-county sharing of specializations (Ag., some FL, CNRED)
  2. Subcontracts across county boundaries (Lafayette)
  3. Combined 4-H/FL positions (resulting from back-fills)
  4. 4-HYD liaison (.25) buy-out
  5. Shared programming based on individual specialization
  6. Team specializations in FL
  7. Specialists and county-based colleagues working together more
  8. WNEP work groups/teams – benefit for program area statewide
  9. Other program area colleagues develop CNRED skills if there is no CNRED agent
  10. Lead educator partner with support educators
  11. Buy-outs and explicit funding structures support sharing county-state and state-state

2.  Organizational intelligence: Currently what helps or hinders our ability to achieve these outcomes?

“Challenges abound:”

  1. Cross-county partnerships hold no guarantee one year to the next
  2. Few hired specialists in 4HYD
  3. Communication structure and strategies
  4. CNRED not in all counties
  5. Working with other counties or campus-based colleagues – how does campus or county know they are “getting what they paid for”?
  6. Is the time equivalent to the buy-out
  7. Urban v. rural – differing perspectives – how can urban areas use the resources available to them (instead of specialists?

3.  In light of these responses, what should CE focus on?

“Be open to opportunities:”

  1. How do we ensure balance?
  2. How do sharing situations get paid for or otherwise supported?
  3. Conversations about how sharing might look/work in a variety of situations
  4. Enhance specialist/county connections

4.  How would CE achieve this focus?

“Persevere:”

  1. Position by position
  2. County by county
  3. Guidelines to access/connect additional resources
  4. Open to opportunities to find the win-win (win-win-win)

Culture Change

Group One:

1.  Intended outcomes for cross-fertilization:

Holistically intentional conversations:

  1. Inclusive excellence and traditional scholarship – relationships between faculty and academic staff
  2. Statement of Intent required – how do we get around “make me”
  3. Entrepreneurship and compensation
  4. Monitoring progress – developmental evaluation
  5. Sharepoint

2.  Organizational intelligence: Currently what helps or hinders our ability to achieve these outcomes?

Some perceptions:

  1. Infusing scholarship into inclusive excellence could hinder by lowering the bar
  2. Help: There are examples of scholarship and inclusive excellence – reaching diverse audiences
  3. Need to identify and document more examples, like:
  4. Amish
  5. Hispanic diary workers – living in community modules
  6. Patty Nagai – persons with disabilities – green industries

3.  In light of these responses, what should CE focus on?

  1. How do we provide support to build capacity that enables county educators and state specialists to do a better job of reaching out and programming for diverse audiences/underserved audiences?
  2. Models

4.  How would CE achieve this focus?

  1. Awareness building – use our examples, share them, examine, learn from what we did – what happened
  2. Bring together community of interests to discuss what happened – identify and evaluate common approaches, challenges, successes

Group Two:

1.  Intended outcomes for cross-fertilization:

  1. Sustainability
  2. Potential growth, internal and with new audiences and partners for program and funding
  3. Retention of colleagues
  4. New audiences

2.  Organizational intelligence: Currently what helps or hinders our ability to achieve these outcomes?

  1. Tradition – helps and hinders
  2. Size – helps and hinders
  3. Geography – helps and hinders
  4. Time - hinders

3.  In light of these responses, what should CE focus on?

  1. Define expectations
  2. Clarify expectations
  3. Establish accountability
  4. Examine beliefs about our hiring process
  5. Put our values “out there” as we broadcast our open positions
  6. Focus on new, early and mid career colleagues
  7. Participatory approach to engaging colleagues

4.  How would CE achieve this focus?

  1. Mandates are not all bad
  2. Don’t be afraid of conflict, don’t be chicken

Efficiency and Effectiveness

1.  Intended outcomes for cross-fertilization:

  1. Increase efficiencies processes in CE (will help offset the inefficiencies we can’t control (e.g. at county level and “big” Extension)
  2. More efficient and effective programming if working across program areas – build off of communities of practice
  3. Increase ease of access – finding specialists and colleague resources
  4. System/database that is easy to use and easy to search
  5. Opportunities exist for staff to build capacity in administrative leadership
  6. Liaison model consistent across program areas

2.  Organizational intelligence: Currently what helps or hinders our ability to achieve these outcomes?

  1. Challenges in finding people and navigating to find specialists, etc. support – how to find them across program areas
  2. Challenges in finding other colleagues who are doing work we are interested in
  3. Current challenge of being between the “old” districts/program area connections and the new teams – should we be driven by geography (regions?) or statewide?
  4. Good that new teams are forming across program areas – multi-disciplinary

3.  In light of these responses, what should CE focus on?

  1. Focus on easy access to information for people (internal) – SoI may help
  2. Ability to connect access programming resources (e.g. collaboration with colleagues to write grant proposals)

4.  How would CE achieve this focus?

N/A

Scholarship Divisiveness

Group One:

1.  Intended outcomes for cross-fertilization:

  1. Identify and communicate scholarship as an issue of inclusive excellence
  2. Education about scholarship using consistent and understandable language

2.  Organizational intelligence: Currently what helps or hinders our ability to achieve these outcomes?

  1. How do we expand everyone’s contribution to scholarship
  2. Inconsistent language; unclear communications
  3. External partners not fully appreciating/understanding

3.  In light of these responses, what should CE focus on?

  1. Provide examples of scholarship throughout CE
  2. Consistent language

4.  How would CE achieve this focus?

  1. An educational training tool shred with new colleagues, mentors, external partners
  2. Have systems across CE that recognize the use of scholarly work in all appropriate positions
  3. Integrate into positions through position descriptions, hiring, orientation, evaluation, and advancement/promotion

Group Two:

1.  Intended outcomes for cross-fertilization:

  1. Inclusive Excellence - identify scholarship as a piece of the inclusive excellence conversation
  2. CVRAT – consistent and understandable way to communicate the value of scholarship internally and externally
  3. StAT (staffing) – infuse scholarship from hire (position description), reviews, every part

2.  Organizational intelligence: Currently what helps or hinders our ability to achieve these outcomes?

  1. How do we express that everyone contributes to scholarship when there are no readily available examples (hinders)
  2. External partners input is often discounted in the tenure process
  3. “Scholarship” often considered only as an academic term. Scholarly work is valued by our county and external partners – but they aren’t thinking about it in the pure definition of scholarship
  4. State statute defines faculty and academic staff and that can be divisive

3.  In light of these responses, what should CE focus on?

  1. Provide examples of scholarship across all of CE (CASI white paper is an example)
  2. Education on the consistent use of language
  3. Redefining our job titles and categories

4.  How would CE achieve this focus?

  1. Educational tool/training defines scholarship and gives examples to:
  2. New hires
  3. Current colleagues
  4. Mentors
  5. External partners
  6. Show varied examples applicable to faculty and staff

Statement of Intent

1.  Intended outcomes for cross-fertilization:

  1. Connections between colleagues
  2. Institutional need to share connections with others
  3. Way to help people think about CVRAT, IEAT, SAT as part of their work
  4. Help direct resources?

2.  Organizational intelligence: Currently what helps or hinders our ability to achieve these outcomes?

  1. Hindering:
  2. Another piece of paper
  3. Strong resistance
  4. Old school resistance
  5. Fear of the unknown
  6. Lack of understanding of what it is – not out there yet
  7. So, what’s it going to be used for
  8. Helping:
  9. Institutional need to share connections with others
  10. Good baseline info for CE
  11. Stop and reflect on what we’re doing
  12. Very different from Plan of Work

3.  In light of these responses, what should CE focus on?

  1. Clearly state “what’s in it for me”
  2. Define clear non-threatening purposes
  3. Use it for multiple purposes
  4. Stop and reflect on what we’re doing (1-2 times per year schedule an “institutional day of reflection” in lieu of something else on the schedule
  5. Relate it back to CE’s purpose, vision, values, and need for individuals to support the institution’s focus

4.  How would CE achieve this focus?

  1. Get the message out on SoI ASAP – even if the tool isn’t done yet
  2. Wislines/webinars/workshops done by PD&E to help people move forward
  3. Relate it back to CE’s purpose, vision, values, and need for individuals to support the institution’s focus

Large group report-outs – aha moments:

Effectiveness and efficiencies: Difficult to connect across the state – need a user-friendly, easy means of connection

County-specialist matching: From both county and state perspectives – both would be strengthened with guidance for case-by-case decisions

Scholarship divisiveness: Scholarship needs to be tied to both inclusive excellence and communicating value through relationships with language that resonates internally/externally. Support throughout collegial life-cycle. Provide examples for all colleagues.

Culture change – inclusive excellence and scholarship: What hinders is the perception of lowering the bar – fortunately, we have lots of examples of inclusive scholarship. Need to:

·  Support county/campus capacity for outreach

·  Share examples

·  Paradigms for partnerships

Statement of Intent:

·  Thinking about values up front

·  Clearly state “what’s in it for me”

·  Communicate non-threatening purpose – quickly

·  Aha: Scheduled day of reflection

Competency development: Aligning competencies (scholarship, inclusive excellence, communicating value through relationships) leads to clarity of expectations for what is needed in particular levels/units – one-time funds can be used to resource.

Culture change: Focus on new colleagues and put our cultural values out there to them. Engage seasoned colleagues as ambassadors of culture or change. New colleagues and seasoned colleagues can mentor one another for change.

Top View