[This is one person’s reflection on the Campus Climate Survey Committee experience. It needs much broader airing and discussion. I thought it was a brilliant process and I will always remember my work on the committee as a peak experience in my Cal Poly Pomona career. I have a sense that others had similar experiences, but I have not confirmed it. The "Successful Characteristics" that I identify are heavily value-laden towards those characteristics that I value…they may not be yours… You may characterize it differently or place emphasis on other experiences. With all that as caveat, please offer any comments and feedback and let’s discuss where we go from here.]

"Don’t follow where the pathway goes, Lead instead where there is no path, And leave a trail."

-Sun Tzu

"We learn nothing from experience. We learn from reflecting on that experience."

-anonymous

Features of a Successful Group Experience at Cal Poly Pomona: A Reflective Learning of the Characteristics and Process Behaviors in an Intact Committee

Setting the Stage

As suggested in the title and consistent with the "experimental approach to our self-study", the goal of this section is to discuss "characteristics and process behaviors" of an intact group: the Campus Climate Survey Committee (CCSC) at Cal Poly Pomona. This chapter will use reflective learning as a means of identifying features and characteristics of a successful group experience. While this is a unique undertaking, it is nested in our WASC self-study mission "to create an account of our university that will be meaningful…inspirational…informative…[and that] will generate recommendations and new directions that have the potential to make our university a better place to study and work." (see the beginning of this chapter, 1 or; "Interesting Times" 2, Jan. 2000, Annex). It also suggests the degree to which our "experimental approach to the self-study" has taken root.

Many of us have had the good fortune of working in and being part of a great team. This is an experience in which:

• Trust, camaraderie, community, and commitment was common
• Both the task at hand (product) and process effectiveness (community, relationships, the "how") functioned side by side and at peak effectiveness
• Members drew recurrently on the deep reservoir of individual strengths while mitigating and compensating for each other’s weaknesses

• The sense of community extended beyond the project itself and where commitment to the larger goals and purpose was sustained through the life of the effort.
• Parochial and individual aspirations were subordinated to the larger effort
• Collective group conscience (a deeper dimension of consensus) was achieved, and where rich learning and insight was accessed.
• Members believed that they were carrying out a meaningful, impactful, original, and complex effort on behalf of the larger community.

In short, an experience that those involved wished could be bottled and repeated again and again in numerous other settings and with other projects and initiatives.

This has been the experience of a group of fifteen individuals from throughout the campus community, representing faculty, staff, administrators, students, who came together working hundreds of hours, over an eight month period to design an original research project on campus climate. This was the largest quantitative research project ever undertaken by the university. Over 5000 students, and the entire faculty, staff and administrators on the Cal Poly Pomona campus were surveyed. The purpose of this section is to examine the characteristics and group process behaviors perceived to be most effective in promoting peak experiences for those who participated in the project.

A Case For Reflective Learning

The recent American Council on Education (ACE) publication "Reports from the Road: Insights on Institutional Change," On Change (1999), offered the following insight "…institutions that were consistently intentional and reflective developed new behaviors and strategies that could be and were used again and again. Colleges and universities that learned from their experiences gained new ways to respond to the challenges of their environments and developed new capacities with which to face the future successfully" (1). Similar sentiments are echoed in such management literature as The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization (1990); Dialogue (1998); Fusion Leadership (1998); and Leadership and the New Science (1994).

Three recurring themes emerge from both the ACE report and management literature:

1. That complex systems, such as universities, can use reflective learning as a means of developing new insights, and new "mental models" (Senge 1990) to create, re-create, and co-create a shared vision of themselves. Senge (1990, 1999) refers to this practice as the "the learning organization."
2. That reflective learning promotes holistic as well as systems thinking in which members are better able to engage in the art of synthesis versus analysis, fusion versus fission thinking, discovering patterns versus analyzing parts, scenario planning (Jaworski 1996) versus static thinking, and integration versus segmentation.
3. That reflective learning encourages the examination of lacunae, gaps between what was expected and what actually occurred (Drucker, 1985). Examination of gaps in expectations is fertile ground for process and technical innovations.

The Campus Climate Survey Committee, which served as a group for a period of eight months (from when to when???) serves as an important area of study and investigation for WASC as well as for the University itself.

The University lives and breathes through the efforts of hundreds of various permutations of task forces, steering committees, groups, etc. It can be argued that since Committees permeate the academy they should be at the core of any transformational effort and therefore worthy of study.

The Campus Climate Survey is a large scale, innovative and original product. It is original research, which uniquely reflects Cal Poly Pomona. It is not a canned product purchased from an outside source, or adopted from the efforts of other institutions, nor is it put together by outside consultants. It is an artifact, or manifestation of the complex interaction and dynamic forces of our unique culture. Bolman and Deal (1997) define culture as "the interwoven pattern of beliefs, values, practices, and artifacts that define for members who they are and how they are to do things" (217). The Campus Climate Survey is one expression of the sum total of our Cal Poly Pomona culture manifested in four distinct questionnaires, one for each major constituent group (students, faculty, staff and administrators) on our campus. Since culture according to Bolman and Deal (1997) is both a product and a process, the study of the process that created the product should be revealing. To an educator, product, it can be argued, is less interesting than process. For it is through process that products are created.

A meaningful reflection on group characteristics and process, generates learning which forms building blocks for what Peter Drucker refers to as "process innovations." Process innovations, he suggests, can be far more transformative than technical innovations. Two such examples from the 20^th Century are the GI Bill of Rights and the credit card. Each is an example of process innovation and both are, in part, responsible for fueling the greatest economic and educational expansion in the history of humankind. For example, Drucker observed that the process innovation leading to the explosive use of credit cards was the "thinking behind the thinking," - that most of the people are honest most of the time. This shift in mental models is a central feature of process innovations and an important dimension of what Senge (1990, 1999) calls the "learning organization." A shift that is fundamental to transformation and to co-creating new and innovative futures rooted in shared vision. A recent example of a process innovation in Cal Poly Pomona was President Bob H. Suzuki’s decision to formally appoint to his cabinet the elected Chair of the Academic Senate. This process innovation has far-reaching, positive, and transformative implications to the future of the academy and for the concept of shared governance and shared vision.

The goal of this chapter is to move beyond the visible, the product, and uncover what Drolet (1995) suggests is the "power beneath the surface," the norms, characteristics, and process behaviors of one group’s experience at Cal Poly Pomona. Perhaps in the process, we might, as Sun Tzu commands, "leave a trail" for others to follow and replicate.

In particular, we are interested in the following research questions over time:

• Can our findings find traction in other work groups and committees?
• How common are our experiences as it regards our campus community?
• Can peak group experiences (product and process) be replicated? In what groups, or settings?
• Is it conceivable that over time, and with additional research across the academy, we can come to identify our own unique models of peak experiences, rooted in the shared experiences of a Cal Poly Pomona model?

While this one experience is far too narrow and limited in its ability to predict, much less suggest a model for Cal Poly Pomona, it is a useful beginning. Its value may be in providing a space for further testing, additional experimentation, broader inquiry, and perhaps "a process revolution." While the questions posed above will not be answered in the section to follow, they are a beginning.

The CCSC worked together with intensity, and a sense of urgency, over an eight-month period to create an unique and experimental campus climate survey. The successful characteristics and process behaviors that were perceived to have contributed to our "peak experience" are grouped thematically and include implications for the future, and are described in the sections that follow. There are XXXXXX (a #) themes. Each theme is heralded with the phrase "Successful Characteristic," followed by a description. Each theme also explores "Implications for the Future," testing and prompting interest and possibilities.

Membership in the group reflected vertical, horizontal as well as diagonal representation from across the academy. It included student leaders, support staff, tenured faculty, a cabinet member, and several administrators of varying rank. Positional authority was rarely if ever considered as a source of influence or power in group discussions or decisions. From the outset, it was evident that ideas were the source of currency within the group. Members felt free to share their perspective(s), experiment with ideas and nuances, disagree, build on ideas, reject ideas, change minds, resurface and re-engage the group on "decided" issues. Group "norms" permitted it. The operating norm of valuing ideas over position power was never stated explicitly, yet was implicit, people "felt" it. It seemed to be in the character or the culture of the group.

Implications for the future: Groups may wish to consider experimenting with explicit as well as implicit norms that feature valuing power of ideas over positional power. This may have the benefit of:

• Expanded group learning
• Increase in the number and diversity of ideas generated
• Increased experimentation
• Increased commitment to group members as well as the project
• Expand the sense of community
• Promote risk taking
• Reduce group think, especially under conditions of complexity, where divergent voices are essential.

Successful Characteristic: CCSC valued "collective wisdom" in making decisions

Collective wisdom grew through the practice of dialogue. Dialogue, according to Senge (1990) is a "free flowing of meaning through a group, allowing the group to discover insights not attainable individually" (10). It is, observes quantum physicist David Bohm, the essence of creating shared meaning. Paradoxically, warns Danah Zohar (1997), dialogue does not necessarily mean reaching consensus. Dialogue can and does generate complexity as well as contradiction. To underscore this Zohar relates a famous Sufi story about the Mullah Nasruddin. Nasruddin was a wise man or a fool, depending on your point of view. In this particular story, two men have come to the mullah with an argument. The first man puts his case, and Nasruddin says, "I perceive that you are right." Then the second man puts his own contradictory case, and once again Nasruddin says, "I perceive that you are right." A third man looking on objects. How can Nasruddin say that both men are right when they entirely disagree? To him Nasruddin says, "I perceive that you also are right." The richness of the dialogue under conditions of complexity generated learning that elevated collective wisdom. Collective wisdom was an important dimension of the group experience.

A. Implications for the future

Groups may wish to incorporate open-ended dialogue throughout the tenure of their effort. Dialogue uncovers "the thinking behind the thinking" revealing the rich tapestry of cultural patterns, beliefs, as well as mental models that exists in complex communities. Metaphorically, "thinking" is the tip of the iceberg, while "the thinking behind the thinking" begins to reveal the hidden, deeper, and richer dimensions of the cultural thought patterns and mental models that float beneath the surface. This deeper understanding, or collective wisdom, has significant implications when large-scale efforts are being considered. Benefits include a deeper appreciation and understanding of the many dynamic forces that interact and bring complexity to the effort. Dialogue promotes collective learning and knits together shared meaning.

Successful Characteristic: CCSC operated as an integrated, interdisciplinary entity working simultaneously within and respectful of the organizational structure AND outside it, free from the constraints (self or other imposed) of divisional, departmental, bureaucratic, and hierarchical boundaries. (THIS IS TOO LONG)

Interdisciplinary, cross-functional, and seamless coordination of effort was a key feature in the CCSC’s effort. This was important for two reason: first it promoted innovation both in process and product, and, second, in moving ideas into action. Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1983) and Boyer (1987) suggested that integrated cultures are more effective at creating climates conducive to change and innovation. Our experience was that the CCSC operated in a highly integrated, coordinated, seamless fashion, moving ideas and projects across divisional and departmental boundaries. Ideas did not get "stuck" or "caught" in unnecessary bureaucracy. The experience of this group was that ideas and decisions could move through the system with minimum loss of time and energy. The groups efforts seemed focused on creating the best possible product not in overcoming and circumnavigating turf, boundaries, and other bureaucratic impediments.