We are printing in its entirety what we feel is an extremely important article. It was found on the web page of the League for Innovation in the Community College and was originally titled "The Addictive Organization and the Community College."
Although it doesn't speak to a uniquely "part-timer" theme, the article touches upon concepts and issues which go to the heart of our emphasis on communication and constructive dialogue.
In it, author Sheila Ortega cautions that the inner processes in many educational institutions mirror those of much of the corporate world, and in doing so may provide a negative role model for students.
She cites a study in which concepts like codependence and addiction are the analogous paradigms for group behavior in dysfunctional institutions; in the study, it is suggested that a carefully designed "healing" process must be instituted for any positive change to take place.
Community colleges are serving the nation, providing a critical bridge for students seeking basic academic skills, comprehensive occupational training, and unique support services. The professionals in community colleges take pride in the fact that they help students to be successful. For the most part, students spill out of classrooms well educated, directed, and counseled. But can we say that we are entirely successful in our roles as leaders and educators?
A longstanding maxim in higher education is that education should teach students not only how to make a living, but also how to make a life. Recognizing that we all live in and through institutions (family, school, community, corporation), we must examine the model we are providing through our organizations, and question the example that we are setting for students.
In our role as leaders and teachers of present and future generations, the responsibility is uniquely ours to provide a good example, to be a powerful model of 'wellness' in terms of institutional philosophy, structure, and operation. Are we indeed providing such a model, or are we repeating some of the traditional mistakes of American corporations?
This abstract will attempt to address the question of the community college organizational example by exploring the concept of addictive organizations and relating it to the community college context. In addition, it will provide some suggestions about how leaders might help community colleges (and by extension, their employees and students) overcome the dysfunctions associated with addictive organizations.
No educational system is immune from the ills that plague other businesses and bureaucracies. Because of this, community colleges sometime provide a mirror image of corporate life in America; and, the recent trends in total quality management (TQM) and reengineering seem to be pushing colleges further in that direction. The challenge that comes with this push is that often the intended or unintended outcomes of processes like TQM or reengineering leave organizations distressingly far from providing answers to some of the more subtle yet critical problems of organizational life.
In The Addictive Organization, Anne Wilson Schaef and Diane Fassel tackle these issues by describing institutions which display all the standard symptoms of codependence. They claim that American business and industry are replete with examples of the symptoms listed below and, ironically, often it is the very change process meant to "fix" problems that leads to these organizational dysfunctions:
· Job descriptions are so broad that they are beyond normal human capacity, and people are rewarded for being workaholics;
· Employees feel that mistakes are unacceptable, and that they must deny them or cover them up;
·There is a prevalence of indirect communication. When in conflict, employees often avoid one another, carry tales to others, and only discuss problems with those who are powerless to help;
·The general philosophy is that everyone is part of 'one big happy family,' but membership in the family requires individuals to play rigid roles and to behave according to strict norms;
· Employees often feel the pressure of unwritten rules such as "Don't talk, Don't feel, Don't rock the boat."
If these characteristics sound familiar, it is not surprising. This type of organizational dysfunction may be more common than it is curable. But community college leaders cannot afford to ignore the problem. The dynamics of addictive organizations do violence to the effectiveness and potential of students as well as employees. When individuals try to survive and function within an addictive organization, they become addictive and codependent themselves and 'act out' in all sorts of unhealthy ways. Some manifest their problems by imposing rigid, extreme, and perfectionistic requirements on each other.
Conversely, some display an indifference born out of stress. Others simply withdraw or deny any damaging effects at all.
Schaef and Fassel point out that educational institutions may be prime candidates for this type of dysfunction. They note that individuals who enter careers in public service are often idealistic and may be more vulnerable to the stresses that arise when faced with the dynamics of addictive organizations. Faculty and staff become unrealistic with students and force them to meet unattainable goals in the name of "standards." Others begin to disengage from the stress of the organization and focus more on outside interests, hobbies, or pursuits. Persuading these individuals to talk about substantive college issues is often a significant challenge. Finally, some college leaders will continue to charge ahead with programs or initiatives and almost aggressively deny any dysfunction exists at all even in the face of large-scale organizational upheaval.
A close assessment of your organization may identify at least some of the dynamics of addictive organizations. Often, community college leaders can see the behaviors described here in many forms, acted out by many people, including themselves.
The situation, however, is far from hopeless. We have a choice of responses. One choice is to continue in denial and charge ahead, dysfunctions and all. Or, community college leaders can be true to their characteristically idealistic attitude and vote for the view that it is possible to foster, develop, and advance healthy organizations. In short, community colleges should strive to meet community needs while simultaneously nurturing intraorganizational 'wellness.'
The first step in the recovery of an addictive organization is the acknowledgment that a problem exists and the recognition that the organization, as well as the individuals within it, are going to have to change. Change is difficult. Outside experts might have to be called in to start the process or keep it in motion. Employees have to learn to recognize codependent behaviors within the organization and must also begin to design and implement strategies for healing. Throughout that process, codependent behaviors must be confronted and stopped.
Schaef and Fassel recommend the following strategies for beginning the healing process:
Those who are committed to change should begin to speak out and to ask for guidance as they struggle with old, destructive habits. College employees need to give each other permission to express feelings and thoughts, and work to overcome fears of retribution. Some argue that the traditional corporate model has provided us with a solid foundation for those fears; but without courage to overcome this sense of apprehension, a college team will restrict its ability to develop.
Even the most competitive businesses are beginning to realize that the old, rigid, secretive, and hierarchical paradigms are no longer functional. For those leaders who believe it is possible for community college organizations to become as healthy and successful as they consistently encourage their students to become, they can do no less than recognize that often systems become dysfunctional and take open and honest action to heal their institutions. Only then can community colleges provide a good and healthy example of organizational life to our students and to our community. And, perhaps then, we can say that we are truly successful in our roles as leaders and educators.
Sheila Ortega is the division head of Computer and Communication Technologies at Santa Fe Community College (NM) and is a North-Central Association Consultant/Evaluator. E-mail: jgilber2@ix.netcom.com
This article is printed by permission of Mark D. Milliron, Leadership Abstract Editor of the League for Innovation in the Community College.
Copyright MPFA
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited
[Return to Index for This Issue]
[Return to Mendocino College Part-time
Faculty Home Page]
Email: Mendocino
College Part-time Faculty
Last Update: 8/25/98