Will Barratt, Ph.D.
Organizational mission and structure are complexly intertwined. We can look at mission in the light of structure, and we can look at structure in the light of mission. Structures imposed on student organizations on campus are often opposed to the learning mission that is supposed to be central to campus life. (First, I will assume that at some level campus leaders have articulated a student learning mission. Second, I will leave aside the discussion of the difference between teaching mission (transmitted knowledge) and learning mission (received knowledge)).
Boxes as metaphor for organizational structure.
The size and shape of the box has an impact on what can be contained, and what is contained has an impact on the box size and shape. In shipping this relationship is physical. Many readers have had the experience of a large box containing a small order. This mismatch causes puzzlement.
Student organization structures, as well as student affairs division structures, should be seen in relation to institutional mission. If the student affairs and campus mission relates at all to learning then it follows that structure will be closely related to learning. However when we look at student organization structures we should be as surprised as opening a big box to find a small order. There is a misfit. Student organizations are typically required to have rigid hierarchies and specific structures. This limits what can be done within the organization, and consequently what can be learned.
Structures in bureaucracies are built for efficiency, which is of questionable value in a learning organization. Hierarchies in student organizations - President, Vice President, and so on - are not designed for learning but for efficiency. By requiring specific student organization structures and an official hierarchy we are oppressing other structures that may be more effective for learning.
Do student organizations need rigid structure and hierarchy?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Student organization hierarchy and rigid structure match university hierarchy and rigid structure, student organization microsystems fit within within the campus macrosystem. Cough cough Eurocentric 19th century efficiency centered bureaucratic nonsense.
But -
Students need to learn about hierarchies and structure because that is how the world works.
Maybe, maybe not. There is a load of literature on formal and informal structures in organizations, on Dunbar number limited organizations, and on learning organizations. The world works in complex ways that are often irrational. Cultural assumptions, like the US and west-European cult of efficiency, drive what we think about organizations and rationality.
But what about traditional family structures and hierarchy?
Really? How is the traditional family structure working out in the USA? The hierarchy model of families, even nuclear families, has a poor success rate in the USA. Traditional hierarchies are reflections of a top down flow of power and a bottom up flow of respect. Consequently the power and knowledge of those on the bottom is disrespected, as is their autonomy.
Governments are hierarchies, so student organizations should be too.
Um, governments have different missions than student organizations. Mission and organization structure are related, remember?
Student leaders need to be accountable and responsible.
The idea of student leaders as being in charge and accountable comes from a hierarchical worldview. The reliance on structure has already affected our thinking about leaders. The students who do things can be held accountable whatever the structure is.
Structures and hierarchy are efficient.
And? If a mission is related to learning, then efficiency has a secondary role to learning. Many times inefficiency leads to powerful learning experiences.
But what are the alternatives to structure and hierarchy?
Really? Did we learn nothing in school, or are we so locked into traditional efficiency models that we can't even imagine things that are different. Did our multicultural class not cover relationships to social networks, families, and formal organizations?
Many campuses have templates for student organization structures. One size does not fit all, and missions differ. Wouldn't it be interesting to have 10 different templates for alternative forms of student organizations.
tl;dr One size does not fit all, one shape does not fit all. Imposing one organizational shape prohibits all other shapes.
Notes
Amazon uses a complex algorithm to determine box size and shape, and includes things like packing the delivery trucks efficiently. Amazon has a rational reason for the occasional big box.
Dunbar number is related to the maximum size of hunter gatherer groups and is related to the number of relationships that are easy for humans to maintain. Small groups often operate without structure, although Eurocentric anthropologists can find structure by asking loaded questions.
Shipping is largely containerized and therefore efficient, however some people need to move things that don't fit into a standard container. There are people who specialize in moving things that don't fit the standard container, and that requires professional knowledge and skill. Should student affairs be about container traffic or about traffic that doesn't fit in containers?
Peter Drucker has wonderful material on the relationships between organization mission, strategy, and structure.
Organizational mission and structure are complexly intertwined. We can look at mission in the light of structure, and we can look at structure in the light of mission. Structures imposed on student organizations on campus are often opposed to the learning mission that is supposed to be central to campus life. (First, I will assume that at some level campus leaders have articulated a student learning mission. Second, I will leave aside the discussion of the difference between teaching mission (transmitted knowledge) and learning mission (received knowledge)).
Boxes as metaphor for organizational structure.
The size and shape of the box has an impact on what can be contained, and what is contained has an impact on the box size and shape. In shipping this relationship is physical. Many readers have had the experience of a large box containing a small order. This mismatch causes puzzlement.
Student organization structures, as well as student affairs division structures, should be seen in relation to institutional mission. If the student affairs and campus mission relates at all to learning then it follows that structure will be closely related to learning. However when we look at student organization structures we should be as surprised as opening a big box to find a small order. There is a misfit. Student organizations are typically required to have rigid hierarchies and specific structures. This limits what can be done within the organization, and consequently what can be learned.
Structures in bureaucracies are built for efficiency, which is of questionable value in a learning organization. Hierarchies in student organizations - President, Vice President, and so on - are not designed for learning but for efficiency. By requiring specific student organization structures and an official hierarchy we are oppressing other structures that may be more effective for learning.
Do student organizations need rigid structure and hierarchy?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Student organization hierarchy and rigid structure match university hierarchy and rigid structure, student organization microsystems fit within within the campus macrosystem. Cough cough Eurocentric 19th century efficiency centered bureaucratic nonsense.
But -
Students need to learn about hierarchies and structure because that is how the world works.
Maybe, maybe not. There is a load of literature on formal and informal structures in organizations, on Dunbar number limited organizations, and on learning organizations. The world works in complex ways that are often irrational. Cultural assumptions, like the US and west-European cult of efficiency, drive what we think about organizations and rationality.
But what about traditional family structures and hierarchy?
Really? How is the traditional family structure working out in the USA? The hierarchy model of families, even nuclear families, has a poor success rate in the USA. Traditional hierarchies are reflections of a top down flow of power and a bottom up flow of respect. Consequently the power and knowledge of those on the bottom is disrespected, as is their autonomy.
Governments are hierarchies, so student organizations should be too.
Um, governments have different missions than student organizations. Mission and organization structure are related, remember?
Student leaders need to be accountable and responsible.
The idea of student leaders as being in charge and accountable comes from a hierarchical worldview. The reliance on structure has already affected our thinking about leaders. The students who do things can be held accountable whatever the structure is.
Structures and hierarchy are efficient.
And? If a mission is related to learning, then efficiency has a secondary role to learning. Many times inefficiency leads to powerful learning experiences.
But what are the alternatives to structure and hierarchy?
Really? Did we learn nothing in school, or are we so locked into traditional efficiency models that we can't even imagine things that are different. Did our multicultural class not cover relationships to social networks, families, and formal organizations?
Many campuses have templates for student organization structures. One size does not fit all, and missions differ. Wouldn't it be interesting to have 10 different templates for alternative forms of student organizations.
tl;dr One size does not fit all, one shape does not fit all. Imposing one organizational shape prohibits all other shapes.
Notes
Amazon uses a complex algorithm to determine box size and shape, and includes things like packing the delivery trucks efficiently. Amazon has a rational reason for the occasional big box.
Dunbar number is related to the maximum size of hunter gatherer groups and is related to the number of relationships that are easy for humans to maintain. Small groups often operate without structure, although Eurocentric anthropologists can find structure by asking loaded questions.
Shipping is largely containerized and therefore efficient, however some people need to move things that don't fit into a standard container. There are people who specialize in moving things that don't fit the standard container, and that requires professional knowledge and skill. Should student affairs be about container traffic or about traffic that doesn't fit in containers?
Peter Drucker has wonderful material on the relationships between organization mission, strategy, and structure.
