TCAC
List of Appendices
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall... ...Good fences make
good neighbors."
On This Page:
A scan of the structures and processes of other multi-campus universities tells us there is no one consistent or right approach. An even if we think we "got it right" for today, the rapidly changing environment will produce new demands tomorrow. Decisions about building a three-campus University of Washington hinge on the overall missions, the interdependencies of the parts, the assumptions that underlie structure and function, and our ability as people to work together. In this paper I present my view that central coordination and local autonomy are not contradictory, but are the yin and yang of a successful multi-campus university.
Independence, Federation, or Integration
Since the creation of the branch campuses in 1989, faculty and administrators on all three UW campuses have agreed that a fully integrated approach with a single faculty and administrative structure, as exists, for example, in the Washington State University system and others, is not desirable at the University of Washington. President McCormick affirmed in his address to the University community on October 2, 1996: "even as we address these problems as a three-campus university, the University of Washington, Bothell and the University of Washington, Tacoma should maintain their unique identities and their culture. They are not Seattle and they shouldn't be Seattle. local autonomy and authority should prevail there whenever it is appropriate. Our three campuses make up one university, but they each have unique missions."
If all are part of a larger whole, there is an implied interdependence of the parts. In what ways do these campuses depend on each other, and what does that suggest about structure and function? Three types of interdependence--sequential, pooled, and reciprocal--(Thompson, 1967) suggest alternatives structures and relationships. Few if any situations are pure types, and none is implicitly inferior or superior to the others.
Universities tend toward sequential arrangements among independent parts. One is not controlled by the others, and its existence, missions and operations are not contingent on the others. The goals, processes, and products of one are passed along to the others, who have their own goals, processes, and products. This type of interdependence usually exists between community colleges and universities, and between regional and research universities. It often exists between Arts and Sciences and professional schools, and between professional schools and the community-bassed facilities in which students have practicum assignments. If UWT and UWB were to function as regional universities independent of the Seattle campus, for example, many relationships among the three campuses would be sequential. The existence of a UW system, however, negates a sequential approach, and accordingly it negates parallel, unlinked administrative structures.
Pooled interdependence is characterized y a common overall identity, but with separately functioning parts. A federated structure exemplifies this type in which there is political unity, with a central coordinating government and a number of distinct units. Each unit has designated prerogatives and autonomy to control its own internal affairs, as long as its actions comply with the mandates of the central authority. Our national and state governments are one example of this type. The United Nations and European Economic Community (Common Market) are others. Closer to home, yet a different example is the intricate web of relationships among UW schools/colleges, all sharing the common identity and overarching structure of the University while also exercising a high level of autonomy. This type of interdependence most clearly illustrates the principle of central coordination with local autonomy.
The three UW campuses have considerable reciprocal interdependence, particularly in professional programs--nursing, education, and business--as well in external relations of the University. With both distinct and shared identities, the actions of one part directly and continuously influence the other. Standards and requirements in national accreditation of professional programs bring this issue to center stage. Programs cannot function independently and simultaneously present themselves as a single entity for national accreditation.
The appropriate type and mix of interdependence stem from philosophy and mission. Particularly with three campuses in close proximity--a critical and unique feature of the University of Washington--mission pertains in part to the market niche of each campus and program. President McCormick has asserted that the University of Washington in pursuing a federated approach across campuses: a partnership grounded in collegiality among diverse units, with an overarching identity and institutional mission. To the extent that missions are unique in units and campuses, their pooled contributions comprise the whole. In some programs, particularly professional programs, the mere existence of the same disciplinary label on multiple campuses has produced reciprocity, some by rational construction, some simply by parallel and uncoordinated growth.
If the University is the larger corporate and political entity, it requires system-wide coordination, as well as coordination at program level, with clear understandings of the mission or "niche" of each campus, their interdependencies, and their autonomy. Kanter (1995, P. 407) proposed that: "An infrastructure for collaboration is not a set of centralized initiatives that forces everyone to do the same thing; it is an overarching framework, an agreement about priorities that stimulates many diverse initiatives but then links them so they result in significant impact..."
I doubt that we envision a homogeneous University of Washington in all its parts. But we've not said with clarity what a multi-campus UW should and can look like in 15-20 years. Leaving the answer to political expediency or environmental determinism will happen by default unless we add a heavy measure of rational design. Ar the missions of the three campuses, now or in the future, the same? If they are, what happens to the UW's critical role as a major research university? Conversely, if every campus and program must reflect the mission of a Research I university, does that preclude local diversification? Can we as individuals respect that "different from" is not the same as "lesser than?"
Human and Organizational Development
The terminology of "the organization" and its interdependencies sound impersonal and non-human, yet organizations are human endeavors. The language of an organization's missions, structures, and strategies, the pain of its failures, the exhilaration of its successes, the mystery of its culture--all are reflections of its people. Organizational development, then, is grounded in human development.
The most basic building block of a healthy personality is trust. A sense of trust is the prime foundation for an intact sense of self and individual identity. Trust is essential for autonomy, initiative, intimacy, generativity, integrity (Erickson, 1980). A press for autonomy absent a basic sense of trust, or perhaps because of overt distrust, is fertile ground for both intra- and interpersonal conflict. These stages of individual development are not purely linear; it takes years of cumulative, validating experience and testing one's boundaries for a person to become a healthy self.
It may be stretch to apply the psychology of human development to the creation of a multi-campus university. But I believe it is instructive to do so, particularly in relations to trust. Academics are not know for blind trust in the organization or its administrative officers--often quite the contrary, as administrative power appears the antithesis of individual freedom and self-determination. Although universities are organized as vertically-integrated, bureaucratic hierarchies, the true academic defends freedom of inquiry at all costs, thus resisting on principle any type of prescription and control (Boulding, 1975). Raise the level of analysis to the program or department, and the same phenomenon is evident: "live free or die". An so at the Level of school/college, and now at campus level, and even the university as part of the larger social structure.
Bellah and associates (1985) contend, as did Tocqueville, that individualism is the core of the "habits of the heart" of American culture. They further argue that the link that precludes either a "culture of separation" or an authoritarian structure is a commitment to community--a trust that the common good will also be the individual good. Therein lies the critical paradox of an academic community, and the essence of a three-campus university. The university and our academic traditions have a magical binding power as a community of scholars. But identity with and commitment to that greater good is rooted in the perceived individual good.
The perceived greater good is not an administrative structure or a strategic plan unless it serves the front-line scholar and program. While some managers view front-line autonomy as a small step away from anarchy, many faculty view administrative control as a small step away from oppression. Both the greater good and the individual good can be served by central coordination with local autonomy, but they require definition.
Autonomy, Coordination and Control
Fuzzy definitions of autonomy, combined with the necessity of organization management in a turbulent environment, create confusion and conflict. The three campuses of the University of Washington are now at that stage of development. We have rejected the image of the jigsaw puzzle where all the parts fit nearly together in one design with nice, tidy, straight edges. We remain unclear about how diverse and free-spirited each of the parts can be and still collectively form one entity. Confusion and conflict exist particularly in the prerogatives of professional programs to diversify.
If the University of Washington is to succeed with a federated model, we have to state an operational definition of "central coordination and local autonomy". The Nursing Tri-Council articulated that concept in 1995 and attempted to define it for nursing programs on the three UW campuses. For central coordination, under one national accreditation, we would link resources wherever possible while still maintaining separate budgets, consult and inform across the three campuses, share governance of curriculum through single curriculum committees in the School of Nursing with voting representatives from each branch campus, avoid inappropriate duplication of programs, and maintain an external, global perspective. The Tri-Council had no decision-making authority over nursing programs on the three campuses. A proposal that it would have a position of control over what programs were offered fell flat.
Local autonomy was defined as campus-based decisions about admissions and graduations, faculty appointments and promotion, curriculum and instructional programs, scholastic standards, personnel, space and budgets. Beginning with programs and curriculum "cloned" from the School of Nursing, this approach was quite successful during the early years. At the point of delineation of new programs at UWT and UWB, however, we stumbled. Does local autonomy include the prerogative to establish new, potentially competing programs and specialty offerings? When there is a conflict, who decides what programs will be offered? As the branch campuses grow and differentiate, should they aim toward independent function, with separate national accreditation of their professional programs? Do we view current linkages simply as a stage of evolution, or as the UW approach indefinitely? Must it be the same for all programs? And again, who decides?
While nursing began with a relatively integrated approach, liberal studies, education, and business were separate from the beginning. Liberal studies remains independent of the College of Arts and Sciences, apparently the preferred and successful approach on all three campuses. However, standards and requirements for national accreditation, as well as decisions about programs and community linkages, now force clarification of structure and function in education, business, nursing and the developing program in social work. The increase in distance learning and educational outreach from each campus further complicates the picture, as curricular offerings no longer can be assumed to be geographically restricted.
These dilemmas cycle back to our fundamental beliefs and assumptions about the academic community. Building UWT and UWB has tended to be incremental, with different assumptions and starting points in programs, yet with a vaguely defined image of "the University of Washington" as the standard for all. The mind set, the confidence, and perhaps even the willingness to look at other than a traditional campus may not yet be adequately present within and external to the University of Washington, Seattle-based faculty over the past 30 years came to join a Research 1 university. UW, Tacoma and UW, Bothell by legislative design, intent and action serve local constituencies, and faculty on those campuses cane here to constitute a community-based and community-oriented campus as part of a larger university system. The very idea of a brand called "University of Washington" requires overarching, pooled missions, so that the essential character and boundaries of one part are not devalued to build another in a zero-sum mode. Such a shared system precludes merely transferring agreements and structural alignments for the future of the University of Washington--how tight, how loose in mission, structure and function, and what local responsibilities, authority and prerogatives of the faculty.
A successful balance of autonomy and control requires that we capitalize on paradox. Do good fences make good neighbors? Organizational theory says "yes, but..." High integration as a single, big unified organization is the "something there is that doesn't love a wall," but it precludes local autonomy. That would be a "UW in a box" approach--you've seen one site, you've seen them all.
Low or fuzzy autonomy means frustration of individuals and groups, and problems of management across ill-defined boundaries--it becomes difficult or impossible to site responsibility, authority and accountability. This approach assumes we're all in this together and we all know the rules and expectations; but we don't. With more assumed than said, and leaving processes and outcomes to our collective good will, negativity can all too easily ooze in, for example, as subtle messages about inconsistent quality and "second-class citizenship". Sound familiar?
Clear boundaries among the units means not only greater control and accountability of each part, paradoxically it also means greater autonomy of function within that framework. However, too strong boundaries lead to separatism and decreased potential for boundary spanning and overall flexibility (Schneider, 1991).
The delicate balance of autonomy and control requires management of mission and management of boundaries. Operationally, as found in studies of business and industry (Mohrman and associates, 1989), suggests: 1) defining niches of the units; 2) controlling the flow of resources and "customers" to each unit; 3) building a network of services that emphasizes interdependencies, thus achieving economies of scale; 4) keeping the boundaries of clear yet flexible through managing interdependencies and boundary spanning; and 5) executive leadership that entrusts and enables collegial partnerships and thrives on uncertainty, yet exerts control as needed for the overall interests of the University.
There must be a reason most multi-campus universities choose either integration or independence; a federated approach--a flexible, collegial partnership--is messy. Some theorists and organizational leaders believe it is the essential wave of the future, the only way to roll with the punches; others with a mind set of the traditional vertically-oriented hierarchy regard it as chasing rainbows. Wheatley (1994) votes for the future:
"this new world is asking us to develop a different understanding of autonomy. Everywhere in nature, order is maintained in the midst of change because autonomy exists at local levels. Sub-units absorb change, responding, adapting. Rather than developing pockets of stability and incrementally building them into a stable organization, nature creates ebbs and flows of movement at all levels. These movements merge into a whole that can resist most of the demands for change at the global level because the system has built into it so much internal motion."
What then should be the focus of multi-campus, long-range strategic planning, say for 2020? Imagine if we had been asked in 1976 for plans and projected outcomes for 1998. In 1976 Microsoft, Immunex, Zymogenetics, Assymetrix and other giants did not exist as corporations and barely as fields . Boeing was still reeling from the shock of finding that building a faster plane was not the need; building a plane that carried people cheaply was the issue. That was before the spotted owl issue devastated the forest products industry, before the Judge Boldt decision changed fishing... What would our strategic plan have looked like if we had responded to the immediate pressures of 1976? We would have said we need fore foresters, more fish; we would have missed the point. (I am grateful to Dean Arthur Nowell, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences, for this perspective.)
The point n 1976 would have been, and still holds today, that the University Washington is a complex institution with two inseparable core missions: to do significant, world-class research and to educate the best students so they can be successful in a changing world. Achieving those goals as a University requires a continuous blending of front-line autonomy with overall coordination to achieve purposes jointly and widely that none could achieve alone.
In many ways a federated, interdependent system is not as easy to implement as either independent programs with stable, thick fences and the freedom to ignore our neighbors, or unified programs with a monolithic identity, structure and locus of control. Central control and coordination oat first glance appear the antithesis of local autonomy. Combining them to form the UW identity as a collegial partnership adds new potential for ambiguity and conflict. Yet the compelling advantage of a partnership is its potential for synergy and harnessing the power of the combined strengths of each campus--the whole greater than the sum of the parts. It requires a different mind set than a traditional organization; it requires confident and collaborative faculty and leaders attuned to both internal and external dynamics.
Autonomy and coordination are the yin and yang of a successful three-campus university. As has been said of the debate about heredity versus environment, it's not a competition; it's a dance.
Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A., and Tipton, S.M.
(1985).
Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Boulding, K. (1975). "Quality versus equality: The dilemma of the university,"in Daedalus, 2:298-303.
Erickson, E.H. (1980:reissue) Identity and the life cycle. New York, Norton.
Kanter, R.M. (1989). When giants learn to dance: Mastering the challenges of strategy, mamangment, and careers in the 1990's. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kanter, R.M. (1995). World class: Thriving locally in the global economy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
McCormick, R.L. (1996). "Annual address to the University community," University Week, October 22, p.1.
Mohrman, A.M., Mohrman, S.A., Ledford, G.E., Cummings, T.G., and Lawler, E.E. (1989) Large-scale organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, S.C. (1991). "Managing boundaries in organizations," in de Vries, M.F.R.K. and associates. Organizations on the couch: Clinic perspectives on organizational behavior and change. Pp 169-190.
Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wheatley, M.J. (1994). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Based on presentation to the UW Board of Deans, March 4, 1996, UW Tacoma.
