 |
|
|
| 
|
The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal Answering the Fundamental Questions of Organizational Existence: Developing, Implementing, and Communicating Effective Mission Statements and Goals to Guide Advising Programs or Centers Jeffrey L. McClellan, Utah Valley State College Introduction Who am I? Why am I here? What will I become? These are the great fundamental questions of existence. The answers are elusive, however, and science has fallen short in its attempts to provide them. As a result, people look up to the heavens and around to nature in their quests to discover themselves. Some find what they seek; others continue to look. The answers that could ultimately satisfy everyone continue to elude most. For advising administrators, similar questions about academic institutions are likewise significant, because the organizations they lead cannot effectively function without answers. Fortunately, these kinds of answers are not too elusive. However, before advising programs and centers can find the answers to these questions and benefit from them, administrators must learn to “assess, analyze, and develop mission statements that are responsive to market dynamics . . .,” “. . . formulate the organization's key goals, and objectives . . .,” and effectively communicate the organization's purpose and mission (University of Phoenix, 1999). They will then benefit from knowing who they are, what their purpose is, and what they wish to become. Understanding One's Mission Learning to “assess, analyze, and develop mission statements that are responsive to market dynamics” (University of Phoenix, 1999) results from organizational introspection, which can only be accomplished when leaders ask deep, prodding questions that reach to the heart of the quest for their organizational identities. Pearce and Robinson (2000) wrote, “three indispensable components of the mission statement are specifications of the product or service, specifications of the primary market, and specifications of the principle technology for production and delivery” (p. 30). Without understanding these elements in relation to the advising structure, one cannot clearly formulate a mission statement. Hence, the first three questions to ask are: What is our product, whom do we serve, and how do we provide our service? First, what is our product? All companies begin with a product or service that their originators feel “can provide benefits to their clientele” (Pearce & Robinson, 2000, p. 28). The importance of knowing exactly what these elements are cannot be overstated, and everything the company does should contribute to the provision of these products or services. Administrators must recognize, however, that determining what the product actually is may be more difficult than it appears, especially when the product is a service such as academic advising. To those who practice advising, this may appear to be a cohesive and simple process. In reality, academic advising manifests itself differently from institution to institution. Consequently, it is imperative that advising administrators carefully consider what they mean by academic advising within the context of their institutions. As a result, White (2000) suggests, “. . . the first rule to observe is to make sure that the mission of the advising program is consistent with that of the institution” (p. 181). Mindful of the context of the institution's mission, administrators can examine the expectations, goals, and processes that drive the advising function within the institution. Several questions are worth considering in relation to this organizational self-reflective process. Is the advising we perform focused on achieving any particular outcomes? Does it include some aspects of facilitating career decision making, or does it simply involve academic planning? Is there a particular area of emphasis with regard to the advising we provide? Do different types of advising take place in different locations on campus? Do different groups provide advising services (faculty, staff, etc.)? If so, how do these services differ? Is the title of adviser used similarly across campus? The answers to these questions are important to consider before developing an effective mission statement. Though administrators can derive answers to these questions, at least in part, from thoughtful analysis, to some extent they may also learn answers after responding to the next major question: Whom do we serve? To a large extent, the nature of advising services and the mission of an advising office or program depend on the audiences these services are meant to reach. As a result, there is an intricate, interactive relationship between advising services and the students they serve. The former must satisfy the needs of the latter. As Bearden, Ingram, and Laforge (1998) explain: In the development and execution of a marketing program, a company must consider consumer preferences, the motivations behind the purchase decision, and subsequent product use. Remember that the marketing concept is based on identification of consumer needs and customer satisfaction. Likewise, building customer loyalty and long-term profitability are not possible without a firm grasp of the company's current and future customers. (p. 99)While this concept is indeed important in developing marketing plans, it is even more imperative when an advising unit is ascertaining its purpose and developing its mission statement. Consequently, advising administrators need to use focus groups, surveys, and other means of assessment to identify and better understand the needs of the students they serve. Students are not the only individuals and groups served by advising centers, however. This reality is often overlooked by advising administrators and, as a result, can create potential conflicts with other campus and community entities, including faculty and staff in functionally related areas, as well as parents and other external audiences. Thus, it is important when developing effective mission statements to search out and seek to understand the perspectives of these groups in relation to the advising program. In so doing, administrators can effectively identify the key stakeholders and their needs and define the types of advising necessary to meet those needs. Thus having identified the “customers” of the advising center or program, it is easier to determine the “product.” Once they have discovered and described advising services and the key stakeholders, advising administrators can focus on the final question: How do we provide these services? Determining how a program or center provides advising services to key stakeholders is the third critical aspect of developing a mission statement. It is the third step, because providing services to students and other stakeholders becomes apparent only after knowing who they are and what they want or need. Once these initial questions are answered, research can reveal best practices in similar units with similar clientele and products. In addition, simple brainstorming and creative thinking can help determine delivery processes and procedures for developing, improving, and publicizing the services that will be provided. Once members of a unit or program know the nature of their services, whom they serve, and how to deliver and market these services to their clientele, the basic foundation for a mission statement is set. Goals and Objectives Having successfully established the foundation for an effective mission statement, administrators should further consider setting the goals and objectives of the advising unit or program. Pearce and Robinson (2000) assert that there are “three main goals” that “guide the strategic direction of almost every organization or group. Whether or not the mission statement explicitly states these goals, it reflects the firm's intention to secure survival through growth and profitability” (p. 31). These objectives represent the foundation for all the additional goals and objectives of an organization. The first objective is survival. According to Arie de Geus (1998), “the natural life span of a corporation could be two or three centuries—or more.” (p. 20). However, few companies are capable of surviving this long because, “their managers focus exclusively on producing goods and services and forget that the organization is a community of human beings that is in business—any business—to stay alive” (p. 20). In other words, they lose sight of who they are. Contrariwise, what de Geus (1997) refers to as “living organizations” maintains a long-term perspective. He wrote, “They know who they are, understand how they fit into the world, value new ideas and new people, and husband their money in a way that allows them to govern their future” (p. 20). Such companies do not fear change; instead they embrace it by maintaining flexibility in their processes while remaining true to their fundamental identity. This is particularly important in relation to advising centers and programs. Advising administrators must actively work with other campus entities and upper administration to promote and define the role of advising within the institution. Administrators who fail to do so will likely find that their programs follow the trends and fads of the institution, instead of maintaining a consistent service-oriented identity over the life of the institution. The second organizational objective is growth. Pearce and Robinson (2000) argued: A firm's growth is inextricably tied to its survival and profitability. In this context, the meaning of growth must be broadly defined. Although the product impact market studies have shown that growth in market share is correlated with profitability, other important forms of growth do exist. Growth in number of markets served, in variety of products offered, and in the technologies that are used to provide goods or services. (p. 32).In academic advising, growth takes on a different meaning. Advising programs may or may not seek to grow in the number of students served; however, they must always seek to grow and develop in relation to how they serve their stakeholders. Consequently, administrators must stay abreast of the important and effective trends related to similar types of advising programs and centers. While focusing on achieving this type of growth, it is important to recognize that “growth means change, and proactive change is essential in a dynamic business environment” (Pearce and Robinson, p. 32). Only those organizational entities that remain open to change, risk, and innovation and continually evaluate their strategic position can create and maintain such an environment. The final organizational objective is profitability. Arguably, one of the major purposes and objectives of most organizations is to make a profit. However, as Pope John Paul II stated, “Profit is a regulator of the life of a business, but it is not the only one; other human and moral factors must be considered, which in the long term are at least equally important to the life of a business” (Maslow, Stephens, & Heil, 1998, p. 52). When profit is not balanced against the objectives of growth and survival, the result is often an overemphasis on short-term profitability at the expense of people, resources, and even the customer. Such a myopic perspective leads only to short-term viability. Hence, the solution is to pursue long-term profitability in addition to growth and survival by investing trust and financial support in employees, public relations, research and development, etc. Obviously, the issue of profitability in relation to academic advising is problematic. Arguing that advising programs or units contribute to universities as profit centers would be futile, even if advising fees contribute to the existence of such centers. Nonetheless, the principle of short-term versus long-term focuses on outcomes is absolutely relevant as is the need to invest in employees' growth and development, public relations, and research and development. Just as a short-term focus on profitability can jeopardize the long-term profitability of an institution, so too can an overemphasis on short-term objectives in advising units or programs. Such a focus distracts from the central purpose of advising, which is to serve and assist students, and often places too much emphasis on assessment metrics, such as number of students visited, length of advising sessions, satisfaction surveys, overemphasis on simple retention figures, etc. While none of these is necessarily a poor measure of effectiveness, it is imperative that such outcome measures complement procedural assessment processes such as adviser portfolios, observation of advisers, specially constructed surveys to assess the quality of advising interactions with students, etc. Including both forms of evaluation helps maintain a balanced focus on both short- and long-term objectives and facilitates organizational learning. As Lynch (2000) explained, The two approaches operate in a complementary manner. Where outcomes fall short of desired levels, results from the process evaluation may offer suggested causes. In those cases where outcomes are achieved, results from the process evaluation may suggest avenues for even greater success or possible efficiencies through the identification of nonessential processes, policies, or procedures. (p. 328)As a result, assessment processes help the advising center achieve and reflect its mission and values by intertwining goal-oriented processes with the mission of the organization. Once objectives are clear and they intertwine with the organization's mission, the final feat is to disseminate this information among key stakeholders and throughout the organization. The communication process is simpler when purpose, mission, and goals are developed collaboratively with key internal and external stakeholders. Even when this is the case, however, it is critical to continually discuss the purpose and communicate the mission and goals. Freiberg and Freiberg (1996) explained: Access to information is essential to [organizational] agility. Poor communication creates complexity, and the organization becomes sluggish and lethargic while people sort things out. When employees have access to good information and everybody is working form the same page, the company can make decisions and take action more quickly. (p. 82)In order to properly and sufficiently communicate the purpose, mission, and goals of an advising center or program, its leaders must provide both the right quantity and quality of information to key internal and external stakeholders. To provide the appropriate quantity of information, administrators need to ensure that they are constantly referring to the mission and goals of the organization. In addition, these statements need to be posted where everyone can see them and refer to them frequently, and administrators need to use them as resources and guides when making decisions and discussing processes in collaboration with stakeholders. Quality information is information that has value. To reflect value, mission statements and goals must emerge from the advisers' values and collective sense of purpose within the unit or program, and their meaning must resonate with key stakeholders. Thus, as mentioned previously, the mission, vision, and value statements must develop through collaboration and change through iterative feedback processes. Once the documents are created, however, advising administrators can help advisers and stakeholders continue to value the organization's mission and goals by living by them and rewarding those who do the same. Stated simply, the mission statement and objectives of an advising center or program must be developed collaboratively and communicated through word and behavior if they are to be accepted and internalized. If this fails to occur, the whole process of devising a mission statement with accompanying objectives is futile, because they will not be used. Conclusion In conclusion, it is absolutely imperative that advising administrators work to collaboratively develop mission statements that delineate the services they provide, the customers they serve, and manner in which they provide the service(s) to key constituencies. Whether or not mission statements include the key objectives of survival, growth, and profitability is unimportant, as long as leaders recognize and actively pursue these long-term goals. Finally, once leaders have completed the mission statement and established objectives, they must communicate, embrace, and publicize them throughout the organization, or the advising program or unit will never develop a cohesive sense of who it is, why it exists, and what it will become. References Bearden, W. O., Ingram, T. N., & LaForge, R. W. (1998). Marketing: Principles and perspectives (2nd ed.). San Francisco: McGraw-Hill. University of Phoenix. (1999). Course module: MGT/590: Planning the organization's future. de Geus, A. (1998). The living company. In J. Craddock (Ed.), readings for MGT/563: Managing change (University of Phoenix). San Francisco: McGraw-Hill. Freiberg, K., & Freiberg, J. (1996). Nuts: Southwest Airlines' crazy recipe for business and personal success. New York: Broadway Books. Lynch, M. L. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of the advising program. In V. N. Gordon & W. R. Habley (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 324–338). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Maslow, A. H., Stephens, D. C., & Heil, G. (1998). Maslow on management. New York: John Wiley. Pearce, J., II, & Robinson, R., Jr. (2000). Strategic management: Formulation, implementation, and control. (7th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin. White, E. R. (2000). Developing mission, goals, and objectives for the advising program. In V. N. Gordon & W. R. Habley (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 180–191). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. About the AuthorJeffrey L. McClellan is assistant director of career and academic counseling at Utah Valley State College. He can be reached at mcclelje@uvsc.edu or 801-863-7184. Published in The Mentor on June 28, 2007, by Penn State's Division of Undergraduate Studies Available online at www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/ Privacy and Legal Statements | Copyright | © The Pennsylvania State University | All rights reserved | |