Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment: Creating a Culture of Assessment Through the High Performance Programming Model of Organizational Transformation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Portland State University PDXScholar Library Faculty Publications and Presentations University Library 2013 Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment: Creating a Culture of Assessment through the High Performance Programming Model of Organizational Transformation Meredith G. Farkas Portland State University, [email protected] Lisa J. Hinchliffe University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ulib_fac Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Farkas, Meredith G., and Lisa J. Hinchliffe. "Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment: Creating a Culture of Assessment through the High Performance Programming Model of Organizational Transformation." Collaborative Librarianship 5.3 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Library Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment: Creating a Culture of Assessment through the High Performance Programming Model of Organizational Transformation Meredith G. Farkas ([email protected]) Portland State University Lisa J. Hinchliffe ([email protected]) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Abstract In an environment in which libraries increasingly need to demonstrate their value to faculty and adminis- trators, providing evidence of the library’s contribution to student learning through its instruction pro- gram is critical. However, building a culture of assessment can be a challenge, even if librarians recognize its importance. In order to lead change, coordinators of library instruction at institutions where librarians are also tenure-track faculty must build trust and collaboration, lead through influence, and garner sup- port from administration for assessment initiatives. The purpose of this paper is to explore what it takes to build a culture of assessment in academic libraries where librarians are faculty through the High Per- formance Programming model of organizational change. The guidelines for building a culture of assess- ment will be exemplified by case studies at the authors’ libraries where instruction coordinators are using collaboration to build a culture of assessment with their colleagues. Introduction analysis, and where services are planned and delivered in ways that maximize positive out- Providing evidence of the library’s contribution comes and impacts for customers and stake- to student learning through its instruction pro- holders.”1 In an assessment culture, assessment gram is critical in today’s era of quality concerns becomes part of the fabric of what the library and accountability. However, even if librarians does, just like buying materials and checking recognize the importance of assessment, build- them out, and its value is recognized across the ing a culture of ongoing assessment and contin- institution. It is not something that the library uous improvement can be a challenge. Doing so does in order to please accreditors or university is especially challenging when librarians are also administrators, but to appropriately target its faculty, due to competing priorities and the au- services and better serve its constituents. In spite tonomy that comes with faculty status. This pa- of the fact that many libraries strive to be user- per explores what it takes to build a culture of focused, many do not have a culture in which assessment through the High Performance Pro- assessment is a regular part of their practice. In a gramming model in academic libraries where recent survey of libraries at bachelor's-, master's- librarians are faculty and discusses what librari- , and doctorate-granting institutions in the Unit- ans can do to lead change processes with library ed States, only 59% reported having a culture of faculty. Case studies are provided of instruction assessment.2 programs in the libraries at the authors’ institu- tions: Portland State University and the Univer- In a true culture of assessment, negative assess- sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. ment findings are treated as an opportunity for improvement, not evidence that an employee Lakos and Phipps provide an often-cited defini- has failed in a performance review. With respect tion of a culture of assessment: “A Culture of to an instruction program in an academic li- Assessment is an organizational environment in brary, a culture of assessment would mean an which decisions are based on facts, research, and organizational environment in which people Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 177 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment trust their colleagues and administrators suffi- • Quality of service is the highest priority, so ciently to be willing to risk discovering negative ideas designed to improve service are taken things about their teaching. For tenure-track li- seriously, regardless of who they come brarians, this might be perceived as particularly from.6 risky, as negative results could lead to a tenure • Communications are honest and transpar- denial. As such, developing a culture of assess- ent; information is neither kept from em- ment creates an environment for improving in- ployees nor from leaders. Leaders are open structional services and student learning. to feedback and criticism and invite it. Though Lakos and Phipps describe a desired Two key characteristics that distinguish the high end-state, a culture of assessment, it is not nec- performance model from other types of organi- essarily easy to enact this if an ideal organiza- zational frames described by Nelson and Burns tional culture does not exist. Changing culture are a clear sense of purpose and a wide-reaching requires effort and intentionality. Guiding prin- commitment to the organizational vision. Mem- ciples and frameworks for analysis can assist in bers of the organization not only have a strong thinking through process and evaluating pro- commitment to the vision, but the vision is so gress. The High Performance Programming clear that each of them, if asked to articulate it, model is one such framework for looking at or- would say virtually the same thing.7 Since ganizational culture and processes for building commitment to the vision is so pervasive in the trust, a compelling shared vision, and a user- organization, leaders can feel comfortable giving focused culture, all of which are critical elements employees the freedom to be creative in design- of building a culture of assessment. ing programs, products, and services in support of achieving that vision.8 This freedom makes The High Performance Organization employees feel comfortable taking risks and try- ing new things. In a learning culture, anything In 1984, Nelson and Burns published a book new, whether a success or failure, will lead to chapter that offered a compelling vision of the new learning that can improve service. Auton- high performance organization and provided omy and commitment to vision engenders an clear and concrete steps toward achieving it.3 energy that makes people excited to come to Since its publication, many authors have defined work. the high performance organization, with all of them sharing certain characteristics.4 The high performance organization sits in con- trast to three other organizational frames de- • The high performance organization has fined by Nelson and Burns: reactive, responsive, moved from leadership via control to lead- and proactive. ership via commitment. Leaders build loyal- ty through their commitment to their em- • The reactive organization is characterized by ployees and developing employees’ sense of chaotic activity and a lack of any shared ownership in the organization. There is a sense of purpose. Employees in a reactive strong emphasis on ritual and the develop- organization do not know by what stand- ment of a strong, almost clannish, culture.5 ards they are being judged, which leads to a • Most high performance organizations have focus on self-preservation rather than the adopted a flat organizational structure and a good of the organization. participatory management model. Workers • The responsive organization has a strong tend to be organized into teams, and teams sense of purpose and is focused on short- have a great deal of autonomy, authority, term goals. Employees know what they and responsibility. Unlike many team-based need to do and managers are focused pri- organizations, silos do not exist in the high marily on coaching employees to meet those performance model and people from any well-defined goals. area of the organization can make sugges- • A proactive culture is focused more on the tions for areas outside of their direct respon- future and creating a shared vision for the sibility. Collaborative Librarianship 5(3):177-188 (2013) 178 Farkas & Hinchliffe: Library Faculty and Instructional Assessment organization. In this frame, employees are tion cannot transform itself overnight, but the empowered to develop long-term goals that actions that leaders take now will help to pro- are consistent with the organizational vi- gram the organization of the future. After all, sion. Employees feel a sense of ownership of organizational culture is based upon shared his- and commitment to the organization. tory,