|
What have we learned?
- Accomplishments
- Disappointments
- Surprises
- Things I'd never do again
What haven't we learned?
- Expected to, but didn't
- Still want to learn
What contributed to success?
Accomplishments:
- Values statements ® adopted as part of institution's vision
- Partnerships that might not otherwise occur - and changing the nature of the relationship in a partnership
- Capacity for interdepartmental and inter-institutional work
- Clarity about meaning of "leadership" translated to specific new behaviors by staff
- Enhanced view of "agriculture" - broader scope
- Bring constituencies from across campus together
- Linking institutions and communities
- Better communications within and among institutions
- Created and atmosphere of learning
- Listening to diverse groups - different places on continuum
- Identified need (importance of institutional support)
- Effects on broader institutions in tangible ways
Disappointments:
- Senior leadership within in the institution shifting.
- Failure to focus on community building aspect.
- Inability to integrate the ARTS at home.
- Our treatment of WKKF and consultant staff.
- Need more involvement of faculty.
- Nothing substantive to bring back from workshops
- Too many FSPE carry-over people confused the project - muddled things.
- Limited diversity: pulled discussions toward agriculture rather than more broadly.
- Excessive time spent in Phase I.
- Not enough time to get the partnerships together.
Surprises:
- That Phase II was never in doubt.
- Struggle to find a focus, both at home and nationally.
- Participants drawn narrowly in institutions, in light of broad goals.
- Staff members that were most committee stayed and honored the process.
- Such a strong connection within agriculture.
- Convenor group didn't build a more generative community.
- Maintaining momentum was so difficult.
- Hostility toward formal leadership training (faculty).
- Capacity for dialogue around Bosserman Model (positive).
- Lack of continuity in national workshops.
- Bonding among team members connections.
- Unanticipated spin-offs.
- Level of firm commitment by a handful of people.
Things We'd Never Do Again:
- Never assume we have the right answers, values, expectations (We = team members; those working on a particular initiative; we and the communities we were reaching out to.)
- Need higher connections in the university.
- Too many things to do for the money involved.
- Don't commit without knowing the time frame.
- Don't agree to be the convenor without negotiating institutional relief from/support for other job responsibilities.
- Never set the national expectations as high.
- Never rotate workshop participants as much.
What Haven't We Learned?
- How to develop leadership internally.
- How to deal nicely with partners.
- How to use collective leadership vs. committees.
- How to take leadership models back and fit to institutional culture.
- Efficient and effective collaboration (is it possible?).
- How to identify and bring together existing isolated teams/efforts related to our work.
- Converting ideas and learnings into action.
- Didn't learn as much about the concepts of community/community building leadership as we thought we should.
- Didn't learn as much about other projects as was expected.
- How do things get done at different places?
What Contributed to Success?
- Dramatic improvement in communication as a result of the project.
- Enhanced awareness of people outside the agricultural areas about agriculture.
- People accepted ownership - because they could create it themselves.
- We were there to support others and help them get money, rather than get it ourselves.
- Energy and destination.
- Apparent support of leaderships led to support from others.
- Used the skills of external partners as facilitators.
- Engaged key change agents in the university - they knew how to get into the formal system.
- Attracted kindred spirits - frustrated as individuals, but inspired together.
- Kept focused on the goal/vision rather than the complaints.
- Continually re-identify and bring in new participants to keep a core of 40 - 60.
- Perceived and actual independence of the project - not embedded in a single area.
- Disparity among resources of partners affects collaboration.
- History/culture of the institution affects how broad the project can be.
- Is NOT knowing the constraints better than knowing them? Can only "do naively"?
Back to LINC Retreat
|
