• Phase I – 18 months with 6 workshops
• Design conference for overall concept of 6 workshops
• Planning session in May 1998
• Idea was to have another planning session after workshop 4 to plan Workshops 5 and 6
• First three workshops was to get a lot of capacity built within the groups
• Workshops 5 & 6 was to be more focused on designing proposal for Phase II
• Originally was to end July 1999 with award of $$ in later 1999; wanted it to be a seamless transition from Phase I to Phase II
• Phase II – 24 months
• Now changed: 5^th workshop moved to July 1999 and the 6^th workshop moved to January 2000
• Original idea was to have 6 national workshops and 6 workshops back home to grow a community of individuals learning about institutional change. This would equal about 60% commonality in learning. The remaining 40% would be outside this arena for integration.
• As Phase I moved along, LINC was to identify other connections that related to institutional change, leadership, etc that would be a broader base of support back home.
• Other intentions: sustainability – develop something that was not totally dependent on outside funding. Second, transfer – how to transfer the design and delivery of the workshop from external facilitators to more integral within the projects. A shared responsibility that has more wide spread support within and outside of the institutions.
  

Defining issues:

• Progress that is occurring within the projects has created two issues and the projects are being pushed up against these issues:
• We will have to at some point confront the issue of power.
• We are targeting the essence of what land grant institutions are all about, their audiences, etc. Getting into an area of civic responsibility and moving this into public discourse. This will eventually come down to discussing what is "out of integrity" within the university.
• What mediums can we call upon to make meaning of all of this? Art has been demonstrated as one potential medium. What are the general integrative agents? How can people come from all areas to be a part of this change process?
• The power of using art can be a dangerous tool unless we have a purpose for using it and integrating it.
• The integration needs to be a two way street – how is art integrating what we are doing?
• WorkSpan needs to be attentive to
• We cannot trivialize public art. We must use the arts to articulate what we are trying to accomplish through a different medium where everyone can come together to discuss the issue(s). It is the common ground where everyone can dialogue through imagery. What we have done to this point is not art making.
• Evaluation wheel – reflects what the groups’ input was and now need to share with the evaluators to see if it is valid, describes what the LINC initiative is all about, etc.
• Suggestion to integrate evaluation throughout the wheel
• Put an evaluation ring within the wheel
• The wheel is a living model and will evolve with time.
• Evaluators want copy of all of the statements that were used to develop the components of the wheel.
• The center portion needs to indicate institutional change for what….
• This could be where civic responsibility is included
• We come close to meaning, community, art, etc. but we never enter them. We have left out the human element. We watch others but we never really deal with the issues that we will deal with in making change. We don’t seem to be comfortable in making change ourselves – we always seem to be on the outside look in (an audience member) rather than a participant.
• We lose the opportunity to really learn from one another due to the changing participants at the national workshops.
• We need to move beyond the show and tell; move into addressing the real problems;
• How should we be in workshops 5 & 6?
• Identify interesting failures
• Frustration becomes part of the process; institutions will have natural resistance to change. Our frustration is not with our institutions – we inherited this frustration. Our frustration is with the process that we have created within these national workshops. We must get to action and move from the abstract to the concrete. Concerned that we have another year before we can do this. The national workshops must change their context. We are losing people back home due to inaction. Lack of understanding of the project.
• Suggestion that each project bring a short synopsis of what is occurring back at their home institutions and share / discuss them together.
• The idea of moving from audience to actor/participant is not to share with one another what is occurring back home but rather to come together as a community and discuss the undiscussables. The national workshops should be a place to wrestle with these hard issues.
• Discussing WKKF’s purpose statement would have been a wonderful issue to discuss as an undiscussable. This would have allowed us to go back home with something to share with others around what the LINC initiative is all about.
• The Dan Forth Leadership Institute is a wonderful example of what might be done. The national workshops need to be more participatory rather than just lecture.
• The Monday morning meeting discussion around the purpose statement should have been continued. The group felt that they were not being heard and that the statement did not incorporate the group’s input.
• The structure of the workshops have been inhibiting the essence of what needs to happen. They have been too time bound.
  

Best use of space / time between now and January 2000 (small groups put on flip chart)

Group 1:

• Projects:
• Inter-project dialogue
• Fear of power
• Definitions
• Fear of reprisial – now and/or later
• Power between higher education and community
• Systemic colonialist process and power
• Tenure
• Abuse of graduate students
• Fear of losing power
• Power struggles between 1862’s, 1890’s & 1994’s
• Getting outside the box – institutional change
• Civic responsibility
• Conference:
• Sharing dialogue around power issues – dialogue, personal perceptions
• WKKF’s commitment
• Expectations
• Promises to others
• Spirituality / soul
• Land Grant’s covenant
• guiding principles and values
• What does it mean to me?
• Expectations – leadership – between 1862, 1890, 1994
• Relationships – humanity of or between community and higher education
• Access
• Diversity
• Creation of support and safety network zones. Safety zones – how to move out of them?
• Need to establish the national workshops as the safety zone where these issues can be discussed. This would then allow us to go home with some experience about how we might begin the dialogue at home institutions.
• How to develop evaluation instruments to identify undiscussables
• Student interaction
• Inter-project safety zones / issue networks
• What needs to be done in the next year
• Safety zones around various issues, power, etc.
• More dialogue among projects
• More information about WKKF’s commmitment
• Defining mission of LINC
• Explore spirituality and soul
• Explore land grant covenant: social and individual integrity, and equity (1862, 1890, 1994)
• Expected outcomes of the initiative and the individual projects
• Access
• Relationships between educators, educating systems (media, etc.) and people in communities
  

Group 2

• Focus on projects
• What’s working / what’s not
• Benefit team among
• New participants
• Project sharing
• Connection between leadership and institutional change
• Strengthen connection between leadership and institutional change
• Let someone also worry about national program
  

Group 3

• Workshops 5 & 6
• Have multiple tracks: one for first-timers and one for those acting already / ready to act
• Avoid mystery, "insider" language4
• Talk about leadership for what
• "experienced" attendees want to move on to action
• Topic: Getting formal and informal system (admin and faculty, powerful and not powerful) to collaborate
• Another possible topic: how do we have mutually respectful discussion about our core values? (e.g. basic and applied scholarship, faculty & admin, …)
• Between and At Workshops
• Build national LINC community
• Write vision statement for national level – LINC
• Develop resource activity inventory (what’s working, who to call)
• Begin working on this before workshop, have task forces at workshop (representation from different consortia)
• Pre-proposals ahead of time (before workshop 5)
• Use pre-proposals to identify other groups they want to network with
• Begin development of resource inventory
• Have each project come back with a pre-proposal
• Use workshop to review proposals – open time (purposeful)
• Possible process: Open Space Technology
• Let people move from topic to topic
• No field trips (beyond that)
  

Group 4

• Continue rotating attendance?
• Different modalities of learning (case studies, simulations)
• Power and conflict
• "What we need to change" (President’s Commission documents)
• Common issues across nation in higher education
• Dialogue between LINC / President’s Commission
• "Pre-proposal" review
• Homework
• Mission statement
  

Summary of Groups

Workshops:

• 1^st timers session – the plan, the jargon
• topics
• How to get formal and informal engaging
• Real problems, core values, issues on campuses
• Format
• Open, participants choose topics, "Open Space"
• Continue vision definition
• Review pre-proposals
• No field trips
• More open time with "connect" information – areas of interest
• Rotating attendees – works against risk?
• Get out of lecture mode – role play, etc.
• Address power and conflict
• Review pre-proposals
• Have a mission statement
• Safety zones – everything discussable
• Power, civic responsibility
• Dialogue among projects
• WKKF unknowns
• Need mission statement
• Spirituality and soul- Land Grant covenant
• Dedicated to social purpose – walk the talk
• Expected outcomes for LINC and projects
• Discussion / relationships between educators and communities
• Access of community / influence by community
• Issue-focused (database) network
• Expectations reconciled with outcomes – outcomes owned by everyone
• On-going pulse during the day – multi-track
  

Back Home:

• Need a vision statement for LINC – start a process
• Network re: action inventory
• Do pre-proposal
• Interview presidents
• Get presidents here
• Pre-proposals
• Be ready to have a mission statement
• Kellogg President’s Commission papers – pull off of the web site (under resources on WorkSpan web site) or on NASULGC web site
  

Why Workshops:

• Focus on projects – yes
• The collective doesn’t work as well
• Major variability at the institutions
• Emphasis on networking
• If focus at local level, Why #5 and #6?
• Maybe there is no meaningful focus or generality at national level
• Proposal review – one to another?
• Why shared leadership?
• Strengthen project interconnection
• Maybe no national mission
  

Additional Comments:

• Use the President’s Commission issues as a framework for the LINC projects
• Have a dialogue with the Presidents
• Have Presidents listen to proposals to get buy-in
  

Synthesis of What Has Been Heard for Design of

Group 1

• Announce project events to others nationally so others can visit
• Build an inventory of who is doing what so we know our resources
• Get online resources linked to LINC
• Projects define their mission and activities and share that before next workshop
• Invite Presidents
• Or bring presidents in, not at workshops, but in other Kellogg moment
• Earlier to address issues?
• Later so we have our acts together on project and on national level so we aren’t dismissed
• Build slots for president’s visit at each?
• Each team should share pre-proposal with President before it hits a public venue
• Build such a groundswell locally so that a president could not / cannot ignore this effort
• Key questions
• How do we engage
• Our presidents?
• Key constituents / stakeholders
• How do you do this with multiple institutions?

Group 2

• Objectives #5
• Pre-proposal presentations
• Orientation/socialize/networking for new people
• Conveners/evaluators meet
• Refine mission statement
• Presidents participate in some portion of the work open space
• Project to project interaction and sharing
• Site visits – project to project (regionalize workshop #6 $$$)
• Seek out / learn from other projects
• Institutional challenges (meta-analysis)
• Critical national indicators as outcome
• Resource inventory

Planning through January 2000

Between Now and Workshop #5

Home Teams - action items for each project

• Form home teams
• Orientation of new people
• Review draft of workshop #5 agenda
• Identify project mission
• Projects define their mission and activities before the next workshop
• Explore core values at home
• Identify institutional challenges
• Discover key issues at home
• Identify project resources - who know and does what
• Explore power issues at home
• Develop pre-proposal

Sharing what we are doing with others

• Share project mission
• Share project resources - who know and does what
• Share mission and project activities before the next workshop
• Announce project events to others nationally so others can visit
• Build an inventory of who is doing what so we know our resources
• Get online resources linked to LINC
• Kellogg raise discussion about timing to integrate PresidentsŐ Commission,
• FSPE, and LINC

Day One of Workshop #5 (before 2:00):

• Conveners/Evaluators meet

Workshops should have 3 major sets of activities

1. building project team capacity (possible topics: facilitating discussions of core values and power, including stakeholders in project)
2. learning about other projects (including PresidentsŐ Commission)
3. project development (moving the project along)
   

Day One of Workshop #5 (starting at 2:00):

• Home Team time to check-in
• Brief project information
• Orientation/socializing of new people
• No content after dinner
• Mixers and fun get-acquainted activities for introductions - There are great resources out there (recreation folks) ItŐs another way to learn!
  

Day Two of Workshop #5 (morning):

• Engage our community in a real experience with another community (eg Native American reservation)
• Project to project interaction
• How to generate own power
• Technique for exploring core values
• Issue discussions:

• Power
• Core values
• Institutional missions
• Process/leadership modesl
• Civic responsibility

Day Two of Workshop #5 (afternoon):

• Trouble shoot each other’s projects
• Review/discuss pre-proposals
• Coffeehouse/Chatauqua
• Participants Chatauqua
• Rube Goldberg projects
• Have fun!
  

Day Three of Workshop #6:

• Home team - pre-proposals
• Sharing
• Reflection
  

Between Workshops #5 and #6:

• Regional workshops
• Invite Presidents’ Commission members to home discussions
• Read Presidents’ Commission Reports
• Link Presidents’ reports to LINC
• Visits to other projects instead of Workshop #6
• Clear purpose for Presidents to attend
  

Day One Workshop #6:

• Visits to other projects instead of Workshop #6
• Presidents meet with participants
• Invite Presidents for discussion #6
• Integrate themes from Presidents’ Commission to Workshop
  

Day Two Workshop #6:

• Visits to other projects instead of Workshop #6

About Kellogg LINC Workshop Series  Discussion Groups  Resources

Copyright 1998 WorkSpan