Chapter 5: SMSU as a Connected Organization

Engaging in Healthy Internal Communication

Missouri State values the input from external constituencies, as described in the previous section. However, good communication within the institution as well is vital to supporting service to the common good and the institution’s external constituents. Since 1995, for example, the University has developed three long-range plans. The preparation of each of these, as noted in Chapter 3, has engaged numerous people from throughout the campus. Also since 1995, significant changes have been made in the electronic culture, contributing to changes in internal communication. Most of these changes have been extremely helpful, fostering the sharing of documents in the drafting phase and publishing information previously kept private or available only in limited paper copies. For example, the University has utilized the World Wide Web effectively to communicate both with internal and external constituents. The Director of Web Services and Web Advisory Committee have encouraged the use of resources to maximize use of the Web for a number of purposes.

Missouri State demonstrates healthy internal communication in a number of additional areas:

• University centers—Missouri State centers bring in a large percentage of external grant funds and must be discussed as part of the planning and budgeting process. Approximately 20% of external funds (FY 2003-04) were in the area classified as “service” projects. Although the percentage of grant monies labeled “service” had diminished from previous years because of an increase in total grant funds to more than $15 million, $2.9 million of the external funds officially were dedicated to “service.” In addition, service was a significant aspect of numerous grants that were not classified as “service” oriented.
• Committees—Missouri State maintains more than 70 standing committees at the university level and several hundred additional ones at the college and department levels. The committees generally are composed of members representing all areas of campus or the respective unit, in order to facilitate communication about the committees’ concerns.
• Curricular Changes—The faculty governance system for curricular changes ensures that internal communication occurs as proposed changes proceed through multiple layers of consideration. After being drafted at the program level within a specific department, a curricular change must next be approved by at least one College Council prior to being forwarded to the Faculty Senate and, if a 500- or 600-level course, to the Graduate Council. Finally, the changes must be approved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Approval or the lack thereof is recorded in the appropriate Committee, Council, and Senate minutes. Forms for curricular changes designate some of the process. The process is also described in the By-laws of the Faculty, Article VI, Section B3 (1-4).While this process ensures internal communication, it also presents a challenge and could be streamlined, as discussed in Chapter 4.
• Promotion and Tenure Guidelines—Conversations about promotion and tenure requirements have led to formalized documents regarding the promotion and tenure process. As a result, these documents are more consistent University-wide. The Faculty Handbook, for example, clarifies the process and policies. Nonetheless, there are some who believe the guidelines are still too vague, and the Faculty Handbook is undergoing revision.
• The Teaching Fellowship Program (TFP) - Sponsored by the Academic Development Center (ADC), the TFP program offers financial assistance and ongoing support for projects designed to (a) improve student learning in a course or program of study and (b) contribute to local and disciplinary knowledge for teaching and learning. Through this program, faculty and departments are finding ways to integrate teaching and research for the enrichment of both. Many times, sponsored projects are initiated by faculty from different departments who then combine their areas of expertise to research special topics. This program provides interdisciplinary seminars, collegial dialogue, and technical support for research on and the improvement of motivation, learning, and teaching.
• Showcase on Teaching—Initiated in 1999, the Showcase on Teaching brings together numerous faculty and administrators campus wide twice a year to share teaching-related insights and innovations. This event, sponsored by the Academic Development Center and the Office of Academic Affairs, is designed to highlight the best practices in teaching and faculty development initiatives, and consists of a variety of demonstrations and workshops conducted by faculty.
• Showcase on Research—The Faculty Showcase on Research is a twice-yearly event, sponsored by the Academic Development Center and the Office of Academic Affairs, designed to highlight faculty accomplishments in research. Each semester one or more of the University Research Award winners makes a presentation about his or her research.
• The Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL)—The Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) is a major initiative coordinated by the Carnegie Foundation and the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE). The program seeks to encourage campuses to support the development of a scholarship of teaching and learning as elaborated on by Ernest Boyer and others. The University has participated in all phases of this multi-year project. One of the intended outcomes is to bring to faculty members’ work as teachers the recognition and reward afforded to other forms of scholarly work in higher education. The campus conversations are guided by a task force composed of selected representatives from the six colleges.
• CASTL New-Faculty Network—A voluntary program, the interdisciplinary new-faculty network offers support and information to first and second-year faculty. Groups comprised of one experienced faculty member, serving as a facilitator, and three to five new faculty members meet regularly throughout the academic year.
• Learning Communities Workshops—in April, 2005, the ADC and the Office of Student Affairs co-sponsored the first of a planned series of conversations on the power of learning communities to transform campus environments. The mixture of attendees was unique as students, faculty, staff, administrators, and members of the Board of Governors came together to
  • Identify and articulate needs that exist today for learning communities
  • Form a vision that embodies the positive qualities of learning communities
  • Create strategies for the development, implementation, and support of learning communities in action.
• Participants were introduced to examples of the University’s existing learning communities and to resources and support services available to assist with the establishment of new communities. The conversations will be offered each semester to give participants an opportunity to meet, share experiences, and plan for the future.
• Faculty Interest Groups—Faculty have formed special interest groups designed to keep alive conversations begun during sessions and workshops. Following David Jonassens’s August workshop on “computers and mind tools,” a group of faculty began meeting to explore applications of technology for enhancing problem-solving and critical thinking. The ADC has hosted these gatherings, which, combined with the interest that arose from a technology session at the Showcase on Teaching, focus on how technology can be used effectively in course design and implementation to enhance learning. In addition, faculty participating in “case method” sessions at the August 2004 and January 2005 Showcases on Teaching continue to meet to share experiences and strategies for using cases in courses offered across the curriculum (see more in the ADC Newsletter).
• Biennial Faculty Morale Survey—The current survey, and results of surveys from previous years, are available on the Faculty Senate home page.
• Campus-wide survey—In  November, 2003, faculty and academic administrators participated in the Survey on Institutional Priorities and Faculty Reward System. The survey was followed with workshops led by nationally known educator Robert M. Diamond. Discussions with participants at the workshops targeted clear areas for future development leading to institutional improvement. Key sections of the Faculty Handbook identified by participants in the survey and workshops have since undergone revision to help clarify the faculty rewards system and its alignment with the University mission.
• Public-Affairs Dialogues—The Institutional Priorities survey and Robert Diamond workshops also revealed a clear need for the University community to engage in conversations that broaden and deepen understanding of the University’s public-affairs mission. To address this issue, faculty and academic administrators were invited to participate in a series of Public Dialogues hosted by the Department of Communication, in cooperation with the ADC and the Office of the President. Designed to encourage individuals both to understand others’ perceptions and to express their own, the Public Dialogue process was an opportunity for participants, in groups of six to eight, to discuss the issues with the help of trained facilitators. The purpose of the Dialogues was not to produce consensus or to make decisions, but rather to promote the constructive exchange of ideas and perspectives, and to be a springboard for continuing conversation and action.
• Academic Council meetings regularly invite conversations among all deans and ensure University-wide communication at an administrative level.
• Focus, President Keiser’s monthly newsletter, communicated issues he believed of significance to the campus community. President Nietzel’s weekly e-newsletter Friday Focus raises issues of significance in higher education across the nation as well as those important to the institution.
• Publications, such as the University’s E-bulletin, the student e-mail bulletin, student newspaper, the alumni newsletter, and publications of offices such as the Office of Multicultural Student Services inform the campus community of events and issues.
• In spite of the exemplary systems and activities fostering service and collaboration, the Steering Committee notes several challenges related to the University’s internal communication. These include
• Budget decisions and priorities – Many faculty and department heads, until recently, have expressed a lack of understanding of and involvement in certain budget decisions.
• Information transfer – Although much information about the University is readily available, it does not get to everyone. The success of information transfer depends on how people in all levels of the network (Academic Affairs, the President’s Office, faculty, staff, and students) choose to participate in information transfer.
• Curricular changes – Although curricular changes are published in College Council minutes, advisors across campus do not always know when changes affecting their students have been made, if they do not avail themselves of the information.
• Interdisciplinary courses and degrees – Within the current administrative structure, the creation and implementation of interdisciplinary studies programs and courses are difficult.
• Interdisciplinary research – These projects often occur successfully when no funding is sought. When funding is sought, however, the number of signatures and comments required for these kinds of projects increases. Furthermore, because the application preparation process is lengthened, faculty often do not allow for the extra time and express frustration with the system. Some choose not to pursue funding because of their frustration.
• Academic and physical plant communication – Academic administrators and faculty express frustration regarding implementation of minor changes in facilities, such as replacing light bulbs and ceiling tiles, and of major changes such as the installation of motion sensor lights in chemistry labs, that have an adverse effect on lab usage. The problems seem to be due in part to poor communication.
• External Constituent responses – Although external constituents express thanks and positive responses to the University’s work, these responses are not made public in a way that could strengthen the University’s image and faculty morale.
• International programs communication —Programs and initiatives are housed in different locations, thus causing some duplication of efforts.