The Culture of the College of Nursing
The Culture of the College of Nursing
Culture is unique to every place, every group and every company. All organizations have a culture that is unique to them. In this paper I’ll be analyzing the culture of the Washington State University College of Nursing in Spokane, where I work. There are at least five different sub-cultures within the College, and all play a part in the overall culture of the organization. Have five distinct sub-cultures also allows for silos to be erected within the overall group and make it hard to have one cohesive “College Culture.”
In Reframing Organizations, Bolman and Deal discuss Organizational Myths and how they serve to “provide explanations, reconcile contradictions, and resolve dilemmas. When applying this to the College of Nursing, I believe there are myths that serve to reinforce the silos that provide comfort for the sub-cultures.
In the world of academia, there are those who teach, and then there’s everyone else. Recently with the downturn of the economy, and with shrinking budgets at the State and National level, research (which is funded mostly by grants) has become the new “top dog” in the university systems. This has caused a more profound split in the facility sub-culture especially here at the College of Nursing; there are now those who research, those who teach and everyone else.
In the College of Nursing, there are two types of faculty, professors (who do research and teach a class or two) and then there are the clinical instructors (who are in the hospitals with the students teaching them the practice of being a nurse). In an effort to reconcile the differences or (more accurately) justify the division between these two titles, symbols and titles have been standardized to make one culture Magna Cum Ladude, and the other, not. In the academic world, PhDs are king, and research faculty almost always has their PhD, while clinical instructors have traditionally are at a Master’s level.
Having a PhD in the college automatically puts you above everyone else, even students in the PhD program, once donned with their new degree, think of themselves as more superior. Cohen (1969) tells how myths help legitimize beliefs and this is very evident here. What is interesting to me is in the university structure, the higher the degree the more prestigious you are and the more impact you can have. Every year the College of Nursing holds Convocation, where the newly graduated nursing students receive their nursing pin. Having gone to a few Convocations while working here at the college, I find it interesting that the stories that the students talk about are those of their clinical experiences and their clinical instructors, not the theory classes taught by the PhDs. Going one step further, few if any PhD faculty even play a role in the actual Convocation ceremony.
Clark (1975) was right in stating that all organizations rely on myths in some sort and Bolman and Deal hit it on the head when saying this is “one of the distinctive characteristics of elite.” While I do not wish to talk down to those with PhDs, I especially do not wish to create my own myth and try to elevate myself higher than I ought. When cultures have been established with a strong hierarchy as in the academic world, it is very easy to buy into this norm and except it for what it is. However, when we do, we break apart the unity that could be in the organization that we are a part of. When we could have one strong culture in the organization, we end up having several smaller sub-cultures and the organization doesn’t work as well as it could.
In addition to the division between the faculty members, there is also a separation between the faculty as a whole and the support staff that runs the daily operations of the college. Speaking from a staff perspective, there’s a huge divide between the faculty and staff, while some faculty, this divide isn’t nearly as big as other, it still remains. One reason for this divide is simple communication. For example, the semester recently ended which means it’s time for the spring Faculty Org Meeting. The first hour was a combined faculty/staff meeting where the “State of the College” was given along with awards, and then the staff was dismissed for the faculty business meeting. While I understand that staff doesn’t need to be consulted about new academic programs, general business should be a group process.
Decreased budgets have caused everyone to have to work harder with fewer resources; nowhere is the more visible that in public education. Faculty members are being asked to teach more and get more grants while staff is expected to continue to support as the burdens grow as well. But what if there was a more open line of communication and partnership when it came to the academic process? I’m reminded of the slogan by PBS, “TV’s better when we join together,” how true this is, and how true this could be when applied to the students’ academic program. When all the members of the team work together towards a common process and goal success and efficiency can be reached with so much less effort.
The WSU College of Nursing is in a huge need for a culture change. The first process in making this change I believe is breaking down the silos of sub-cultures. This has to be a desire not only for the faculty and staff, but also the college administration. Unfortunately I don’t see this happening because the administration is itself, its own subculture. When I look at the administration, it’s a combination of advanced faculty, and administrative staff. This group would be a great driving force for change and have the authority to do so. I believe an initiative from this group could change the entire feel of the college. But what would that look like?
I believe that the silos of the individual sub-cultures within the organization could easily be broken down with a new culture change initiative. David Logan, who developed the tribal leadership theory, describes five stages of culture. The first three phases he classifies as low preforming and the second two he classifies as high performance. The goal is to transfer or evolve to the high performance cultures, however, you are only able to evolve from one stage to the other, you can not immediately jump to the high performance cultures, if you’re in the first or second low performing culture, according to Logan. Stage one is the Alienated culture or the “Life Sucks” person. There are a few people in the college who I believe are in the category, however, I believe this group would need special mitigation in order to bring them into the main group faster, or be terminated.
The second tribe is the separated culture or the “My life sucks” culture. According to Logan, 25% of the workforce falls into the category. The good thing about this group is they’re one stage away from a mentality shift in life, and two stages away from being a part of a high performing tribe. Stage three where nearly 50% of the population live is the Domination tribe or the “My life is great.” While this still falls into the low performing tribe, the mindset has switching to positive thinking. I believe that at the College of Nursing, its fair to say that this is the general consensus of at least half of the workforce. I believe that the culture is generally positive but lacks the unity that would usher in a high performing culture.
The forth tribe is the Partnership Tribe or “We’re Great” Tribe. When the culture is able to unite around a common purpose and goal, they thrive and are able to accomplish so much more. I believe that this would be transformational for the College of Nursing and would not only boost productivity; it would revolutionize the environment and culture as a whole. Imagine what it would be like with everyone in the team being excited to come to work and be a part of a thriving team; I for one would be excited to work in that environment.