Reframing Organizations

For President Satterlee, the words trust, stability, compassion and hope required a fairly specific recipe.  The first two words required open and transparent communication, something employees felt was lacking with the previous administration. He instituted a campaign that encouraged faculty, staff and students to submit ideas via email — any idea was welcomed. Later, he instituted Coffee With Kevin, an opportunity to come, chat, and ask questions about anything. These types of forums aren’t uncommon in a workplace environment, but sometimes they can be an echo chamber- it was vital that President Satterlee follow through with answers or a response to concerns, and, for the most part, he did.  It was also important to Satterlee that his communications to his employees reach them. This became especially apparent when two years into his tenure, the University moved all operations online due to COVID-19. During this time, the University sent out 127 emails to faculty, staff and ...

In the years before President Satterlee, President Arthur Vailas operated within the structural framework, utilizing a fairly strict top-down structure. The university operated under a strict top-down structure, with little room for dissent. As Lee Bolman and Terrance Deal point out in their textbook “Reframing Organizations,” structural frameworks tend to work well in organizations that rely on repetitive work, or work that is more automated. At University, which by nature has a wide variety of professionals, this framework can lead to resentment. And, in Idaho State University’s case, it certainly did.  After several months of public arguing between the faculty and upper administration, and just one week after faculty overwhelmingly blasted President Vailas in a vote of no-confidence, President Vailas asked the state board of education to disband the faculty senate, a clear signal in the faculty members’ minds that their voices would not be heard.  This was the environment P...

  Even before he was named president of Idaho State University, Kevin Satterlee was crafting a message for his future team- one that created a sense of togetherness and a need to work together for student success.  “People ask why I want to leave Boise State,” he said at his candidate open forum. “The answer is, “I don’t. I don’t have job applications out everywhere. I have one. I see the potential here. I see the good I can do here.”  In the years prior to this transition, Idaho State had taken some hits, both internally and externally. Internally, the president and other top officials had faced votes of no confidence. The faculty senate had been disbanded, prompting a sanction by the American Association of University Professors. Externally, the University faced declining enrollment, exacerbated by a perception of mistreatment of international students. The previous president, Arthur Vailas, had left under less-than-ideal circumstances, and, before him, the previous pre...

  We’ve talked a bit already about the impact of Chris’s legend on his career. Today, let’s delve a little deeper.  Throughout his career, Chris has maintained good relationships with the city council and other government officials, both before and after the myth. The myth was believable because, although it was an embellishment, it was still the embodiment of his personality and leadership style.  It could be argued that Chris’s success in relationship-building and leadership was in part due to the myth, but the myth alone could never carry him through an entire career. His path, like the paths of most people, is a combination of both his actions and people’s perception of him. It’s difficult to say how much his omission of the truth shaped people’s perception, because it is one piece in many aspects of his career.  We can safely say, however, that there is an impact as people continue to tell the story. And the impact would be even greater, if, now, Chris were to t...

  In our last post, we talked about the impact the Legend of Chris had on his colleagues, and on the atmosphere in his department. So far, it’s a myth that hasn’t caused any trouble- it’s just one of those stories people like to tell.  But should the story ever have ever come into being? Chris unknowingly had the opportunity to stop the story before it began by fully disclosing that he had saved the positions by simply uncovering a mistake. And really, he should have, because being transparent and open with your colleagues is an important way to build trust.  Chris didn’t really purposefully lie, but he wasn’t transparent either. Still, in the end, that one act could have been like many in the office environment and faded away from memory. In the beginning, it’s easy to see Chris’s motives. He liked the attention that came from being a hero, and it seemed harmless— funny, even.  Fast forward several years, however, and Chris is now in an unenviable position. Like all...

  For as long as humans have interacted with each other, we have told stories. It’s a part of nearly every cultural tradition, and it’s more than just a way we communicate necessary information.Through stories, we live shared experiences and we learn about others. It’s never just about the story itself. It’s about what the story tells us about the characters’ values, personalities and motivations (Bolman and Deal, pg 248).  And, in what became the Legend of Chris, we were able to learn that Chris, a city government director, is a fierce defender of his department and employees. According to the story, Chris was so passionate about defending his department from position cuts, he chained himself to a city council member’s chair in a flamboyant act that saved the positions in his department.  That’s not what truly happened. In reality, Chris behaved professionally as well as passionately, and was ready to fight for his department. But in the city council chambers, he learned...