The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga: An Authentic University, Where Service Is the Basis for Teaching and Research, and Where Learning Is the Tool of Excellence

By James A. Tucker
McKee Chair of Excellence In Dyslexia and Associated Learning Exceptionalities

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
October 2, 2001

As I have listened to the discussion of  the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga's mission statement, I have been impressed by the import of the following dilemma:  Does "mission" mean change or does it mean maintaining the course?  Or both?  Is it the role of our mission to place us at the "leading edge" of discovery or at the stabilizing "trailing edge?"  Or both? 

It seems that the university's mission statement is to be a guiding doctrine that can somehow be writ large in advance to guide us through a future that is constantly reforming.  Therefore it is intended to provide both stability and dynamic adaptation.  If this is true, then the basic mission of the university is about change.

Change is  a difficult concept to deal with, especially for the academy.  Some years ago, the Carnegie commission on Higher Education (1968) reported on the basic stability of the university:

Why?

"Higher" education has long been viewed as a source for improving the quality of life in the world.  Yet it is increasingly evident that undergraduate and graduate programs of study primarily lead to the accumulation of symbolic information with little or no emphasis on applying that information to meet the real needs of people.  Educational institutions tend to train gifted manipulators of symbols instead of effective human servants.  The result is largely a symbolic agenda (holding meetings to discuss a service) rather than an action agenda (providing the service).

Every public-service agency appears to be scrambling to find symbolic solutions to the social ills of our time.  And while the information managers try to construct a "super-highway" to manage the flow of symbols, people are dying for lack of the needed service.  The term community has come back into popularity, in part because of wide recognition that we have lost the sense of unity that once held communities together against the moral and ethical evils of life.  If there ever was a time when society needed a community of human servants, it is now.

We educators have an opportunity that rarely comes to society.  If we choose to do so, we can present to the world a community of learners dedicated to service.  We can seize the moment and move forward to change the face of education, by demonstrating a dynamic action-agenda devoted to service, rather than a philosophical/symbol-agenda devoted to image.

Research, Teaching, and Service 

Dividing university work into the three areas of research, teaching, and service implies at best an artificial distinction.  When can it be said that teaching is not a service?  And are we not providing a service in research--even pure research--from which most, if not all of our cultural and scientific advances proceed. 

The word "service," itself is perhaps the problematic term.  Why else do we move so quickly and easily to question what service is and how it is defined.  Whatever service is, we have tended to demean it by giving it less value in the earning of academic perks and points.  For example, when was the last time that an academic professional was elevated in rank on the basis of service credits?  If we are a university, then we are supposed to perform research.  If performing that research detracts from the quality of our teaching or from the opportunity to perform some so-called service, then no one complains. . . well, no one but the students and the community that we serve.

Today's online report from the   Chronicle of Higher Education (Goldman, Gates, & Brewer, 2001) carries a report by the RAND Corporation which I want to "enter into evidence" at this point, because, not only does it address the very issue that our current ongoing discussion is about, but it is also particularly relevant to the dilemma that I am considering.  The title of the report is "Prestige or Reputation: Which is a Sound Investment?"  In the report, "prestige" is defined as a value relative to other institutions--standing on various rating scales, such as enrollment criteria, research funding, and athletics.  "Reputation," on the other hand, is judged by the marketable value of the services provided by the institution.

According to the authors of the RAND Report, the stock of universities who pursue prestige is "either stable or declining," because the "resources will never be adequate."  Reputation-building universities, on the other hand, are subject to the whims of their respective markets--a progressive, but certainly unstable context.  The RAND report authors conclude by stating:

The mission of a university, then, is an intensely practical matter.  One that again brings me back to my initial dilemma:  Is it our mission to seek the prestige of stability and then fight the endless spiral of ascending costs that are associated with that choice.  Or do we cast ourselves onto the sea of a changing social reality and seek to provide the services that are in demand by our community?  Or do we try to do both?

Learning-and-Leadership

Perhaps it is time to cease the differentiation of the big-three primary university-valued behaviors (research, teaching, and service)  and to integrate them into a meaningful holistic mission of university service-delivery that includes excellence in teaching and excellence in research, all within the context of the larger community that we call home--our institution, our town, our county, our region, our state, our nation, our continent, and our planet.  The word "service" captures very well the dedicated and collaborative effort that a university family can provide.  It would take far too long here to explore the full reach of such a concept, but perhaps we have time to simply mention and briefly discuss one point relative to the idea:  The relationship between learning and leadership in an integrated university, a redefinition of the universal aspect of service as it can be applied within the academy.

In this presentation, I am proposing that leadership is the application of learning to achieve and cope with change--using known principles of learning in order to change what is to what can be.  And I am proposing that it is the mission of the university to provide such leadership.

The idea of applying the concept of "learning" to leadership and organizational dynamics is not new, but it is a relatively recent idea and, as such, is still being refined.

In 1992, an edited treasure trove of organizational wisdom was published under the title of New Traditions in Business.  In this book, Willis Harman noted the following:

As the new millennium approached, the world was ripe for change, and organizations needed a new way of adjusting to the future.  In that same volume, Peter Senge added his insights on organizational learning.  I will return to a development of his perspective shortly. 

But "learning" as we knew it prior to the 1990s was more of a stale discipline studied in laboratories of psychology.  In order for the concept of learning to work within the organizational context, learning had to come out of the laboratory and into the workplace, into the community, into the home.  In other words, learning had to become authentic--related to real-life situations such as one's vocation, one's faith, one's family.

To be authentic, learning has to be adapted to at least three other concepts:

I will now deal briefly with each of these three aspects of authentic learning.  I will do so within the context of organizational leadership.

Self-Directed Learning

In the learning organization, the individual learner is key.  And that learner begins with a vision--his or her vision.  There may or may not be an organizational vision, but there will be no achievement of corporate mission if the individual learners in the organization do not identify their own visions with those of their colleagues.  In other words. . .

In 1990, in his book The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge brought the organizational world to the realization that an organization can also learn.  Since then, corporate leaders have taken seriously the idea that the corporate organization functions much like an individual learner, albeit a living, learning human organism.

Building on the works of such pioneers as Knowles (1977), those who explore the application of learning theory have steadily increased our realization that adult-learners--and, within the context of this discussion, especially those responsible for organizational leadership--learn best when presented with options that engage their own personal styles, motivations, and context for learning.  Here us what W. Edwards Deming had to say about this.

These ideas are greatly expanded by the thoroughly researched and therefore quite disturbing conclusions of Alfie Kohn in his now classic books: No Contest: The Case Against Competition (1992) and Punished by Rewards (1993).

Cooperative and Collaborative Learning

  If we have learned anything about learning in the past twenty to thirty years, it is that we learn best in social situations.  Human relationships become the context for effective learning.  This is especially true when there is a common focus for the learning, such as a shared vision, as well as common standards for accountability. 

It may have been inadvertent, but we have even discovered that social learning theory is consistent with the basics of our current knowledge of natural science.  For example, one might wonder what the concept of a learning organization has to do with quantum physics.  Margaret Wheatley in her now classic book, Leadership and the New Science provides the answer:

The value of performing effective work in teams has been more than well-established. After decades of careful research, we are all familiar now with the practical application of Gestalt learning theory.  In psychotherapy, it has become known as "group therapy."  In pedagogy, the application is now called "cooperative learning."  In corporate management, the application was first referred to as part of the application of "total quality management," or "TQM" but is now known more often as "teams."

In 1993, In their book, The Wisdom of Teams, Katzenbach & Smith wrote that . . .

In Channon and Ray's (1992) words:

I hope that it is not necessary to point out that the word "team" is not synonymous with the word "committee."  The cooperative effort is not about having meetings, it's about getting things done. 

Learning Results

As the concept of the "learning organization" began to take hold, organizations--especially for-profit corporations--moved away from the tired concept of "management by objectives," (which was--and still is, in fact--also a product of learning theory--the once-popular theory of radical behaviorism).  Management by objectives, or MBO, has been replaced, or is being replaced by one or another form of what is often called "Results-based Management."  In addition to the more traditional and hierarchical management divisions and departments, we now hear of horizontal forms of management that are built around teams.  These teams operate within what are sometimes called Key Results Areas, or KRAs.  The KRAs are managed by teams of professionals from across the traditional departmental structures, and are called into accountability on the basis of results data, that are often referred to as Key Performance Indicators, or KPIs.

Management decisions are made by teams instead of by individuals, and are based on authentic results rather than on proposed objectives.  Even the job titles have come to reflect an awareness of the importance of learning in an organization.  Perhaps the best example comes from Xerox Business Services, where Chris Turner was given the title of "Learning Person."  Her insight into just what her job entailed is shown in the following 1997 quote:

And this is only one of the many principles of learning. 

To recap, then:

Dynamic Learning Environments

The disclosure of such learning realities has created a dynamic environment within the world of organizations.  Entire issues of some of the most widely read business journals have been dedicated to the issues involved in learning and in creating a learning organization. 

Even Peter Senge, showing that he is able to adjust to the ever-changing landscape of organizational reality, recently suggested the following metaphor:

It is easy to see the relationship between the word "organization" and the word "organism."  What has been developing is not only the concept of a learning organization, but the extension of that concept to include the stewardship of our society through its member organizations:  a garden of learning organizations, if you please.  One where the university grows as a part of the whole, serving the whole.

Imagine with me for a moment the extent to which we can take the concept of a "learning organization."  Such an entity can be thought of as a "learning organism" to be nurtured and developed into a contributing member of the global family of service-support systems.

Today we can describe the elements of learning, and we can apply them to our organizational structures at all levels.  At the micro-level, we are living human learners, with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and its application.  At the macro-level, our institutions and organizations represent learning teams with the power to change the world.  When the known elements of learning are applied, they represent a powerful set of tools for leadership.  The university represents the ideal bridge between the micro- and the macro-, a community of learner/scholars whose leadership agenda is to proceed with bold caution in defining reality, projecting the future, and facilitating the learning needed to support the community at large.

To that end, I suggest that the mission of the University is learning and leadership. ready at all times to meet any demand that may arise in the community at large.

I will close with a statement attributed to Eric Hoffer (American philosopher, 1902-1983):

References

Carnegie Commissionon Higher Education.  1968.  Quality and Equality: New Levels of Federal Responsibility for Higher Education.  New York: McGraw-Hill.

Channon, J. & Ray, M. L.,  1992.  In Rensch, John (Ed.) New Traditions in Business.  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publisher.

Deming, W. Edwards.  1992.  Quoted by Peter M. Senge in "The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations."  New Traditions in Business.  In Rensch, John (Ed.) New Traditions in Business.  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publisher.

Gladwell, Malcolm.   2000.   The Tipping Point:  How Little Things Can make  a Big Difference.    Boston: Little Brown and Co.

Goldman, Charles A., Susan M. Gates, and Dominic J. Brewer.  2001.  "Prestige or Reputation: Which Is a Sound Investment?"  Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 48, No. 6.

Greenleaf, Robert K.  1977.  Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness.  New York: Paulist Press.

Harman, Willis.  1992.  New Traditions in Business.  In Rensch, John (Ed.) New Traditions in Business.  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publisher.

Katzenbach, J.R. & Smith, D.K.  1993.  The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization.  New York; Harper Collins.

Knowles, 1977.  A History of the Adult Education Movement in the United States.  Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co. 

Kohn, Alfie.  1993.  Punished by Rewards.  Boston:  Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kohn, Alfie.  1992.  No Contest: The Case Against Competition.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Senge, Peter.  1999.  "Learning for Change."  Fast Company, May issue

Senge, Peter M.  1990.  The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.  New York: Doubleday books.

Senge, Peter M.  1992.  "The Leader's New Work:  Building Learning Organizations." In Rensch, John (Ed.) New Traditions in Business.  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publisher.

Turner, Chris 1997.  Fast Company, Issue No. 7, p. 106

Wheatley, Margaret.  1994.  Leadership and the New Science: Learning About Organization From an Orderly Universe.  San Francisco:  Berrett-Koehler