Why I'm Voting No on Consolidation
This viewpoint against consolidation was previously posted on Kristen Abell's "Kristendom Talks Tech" blog on March 7, 2011. Kristen is the Associate Director for Residential Life at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and currently serves as the IT Coordinator and Technology KC Representative for NASPA Region IV-West.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I truly believe everyone should inform themselves about this topic and vote the way that makes the most sense for them. With that in mind, this post is absolutely not meant to persuade anyone to vote one way or another, but it is instead a chance for me to provide a different perspective on consolidation than some of the other ones I've seen floating around out there. I will be the first to admit - in many ways, this is a very personal decision for me - I think you'll see this reflected in my reasons below.
When I first heard about the idea of consolidation, it only made sense to me - one conference for all of us? Duh - end of thought process. Today, I am very glad that the vote wasn't held then. It has given me the opportunity to think of so many other aspects - aspects that are much more important to us as a profession, to our students, and to me - that are crucial to how I plan to vote. However we move forward, I am on board - it may be difficult for me to be a part of a consolidated organization, but if that's how we vote as an organization, I will do my best to make it the best organization it can be, just as I have done with NASPA over the past three years of my membership. But today, right now, my vote is a firm "NO." Why?
- There has been a lot of discussion about how consolidation is a move for change, and that those against consolidation are afraid of change. Well, while I am sure that fundamentally most of us are afraid of change at some level, I don't believe that this is my concern - I tend to be more of an agent of change at my institution than a tradition-keeper. My question here is, WHY are we changing? Is there something absolutely and positively so wrong with the two organizations we have currently that we have to completely extinguish them and create something totally different? Is there enough wrong with them that we're trying to change to something new? In my experience with both of the organizations, I don't feel this way. I would truly like to know what our profession feels is wrong with these institutions - if for no other reason than to make those changes moving forward, whether it's as one organization or two.
- Involvement - I belonged to ACPA for two to three years as a young, new professional. I loved the energy there, the type of professionals I met, and the general atmosphere of the conference. But that was as far as I ever got with ACPA. For someone who struggles with her E(xtrovert), getting involved was like a maze to me. I've been more fortunate with NASPA because of my connections, but I've heard that it sometimes goes the opposite way. We are already two very large organizations that sometimes struggle to involve our new (and even long-time) members at some times. What happens to getting involved when we become twice as large?
This is probably the most personal reason I have for voting no. My NASPA involvement has often been a career lifesaver for me when I've struggled with my job. The network I've managed to create and maintain over the few years I've been a member is one of the main reasons I look forward to attending our regional conference every year. In addition, the experience I've been able to gain by doing technology work for the region is something completely different than I've been able to gain from my current position - so it's also been a career lifesaver for me there, as well. I LOVE my involvement - and maybe this is the change I AM scared of - how am I possibly going to get involved in that much larger organization when I am several steps down the ladder? How are we going to make sure we continue to involve people at all stages in their careers? How can we possibly involve ALL our colleagues that want to be involved?
- Representation at the national level - you may have seen this one before. As outlined in the proposed plan (not the one we're voting on, but the proposal put forward by the working committees that will be used as a blueprint should we vote for consolidation), there is a long distance between the governance of the new organization and little old member me. Right now, I can contact staff in the national office and get major changes made on the website - now some of this is because of the time and effort I've already put into the organization, I know this. But some of this is also because they recognize my name from being on a regional advisory board, because my RVP (Regional Vice President) attends the national board meetings, and because I can tell him to tell the national board and national office that our website has some issues. There is no such clearcut line of communication proposed in the new governance.
- I'm just not convinced that there is the vision for a new organization. In the proposed plan for consolidation, there was not a darn thing that was really "different" or "new" about the consolidated organization. It was merely a little bit of ACPA here, a little bit of NASPA there. Well, if we're already doing those things well, then why would we change? (Did I just get circular there? Maybe). Why, instead, don't we build on those strengths, and collaborate with each other? If NASPA has a strong placement exchange, why don't we work with ACPA to either strengthen theirs or build one larger, stronger one? If ACPA has great publications, why don't they show NASPA what they're doing and why it works so that NASPA can learn from them? Is there really a need to restrict it to one organization so that even fewer people can get published?
- And finally, One Voice - this is a common "pro" put forward for consolidating our organizations. My problem with this is that I don't want just one voice available to me as a student affairs professional. What if I disagree with that "one voice?" What is left to me then?
For an example, I just want to go back to the ACPA National Conference that was held in Boston last year. As you may or may not know, the theme, "Innovative Ideas, Revolutionary Results," was illustrated through a number of channels with imagery of the Boston Tea Party. There are some major problems with this both from an understanding of ethnic issues (specifically Native American issues), as well as gender issues. I could spell all these out for you, but I found this document that does quite a good job already out on the internet. This document also details some of the conflict that occurred surrounding this problematic marketing of the conference theme. In addition to some of the actions documented here, the Native American Network, or NAN, was able to go to another organization who was more receptive of their concerns. Although they did not eventually desert ACPA because of this issue, I think it's important to note that the option was there. What happens if we only have one organization that turns a deaf ear?
In another turn of events, the NASPA national convention is being held in Arizona in 2012, a decision that was upsetting to a number of organization members. If there were only one convention being held next year, where would our colleagues and students be able to go for professional development, networking and placement? At least now there is the option of another national convention.
Do NASPA and ACPA frequently clash when it comes to their voices? No. But is it so awful to have two voices raised in our profession instead of one? I guess I question that. Feel free to give me reasons why it might - I haven't found one that's convinced me yet, but I'm open to hearing new ones.
So, there you have it folks - I'm going to be voting for two pretty darn awesome organizations to...stay two pretty darn awesome organizations but learn to strengthen how we work together.
Again, I'm curious to hear other thoughts on my arguments above. I can't guarantee you'll change my mind, but I'm always open for some civil conversation (isn't that the buzz word these days?) around consolidation. And as long as it stays civil, I'll keep the comments open.
Which way will you vote?
Let’s Get Real About Consolidation
This is a pro-consolidation viewpoint by Dwayne K. Todd, Vice President of Student Affairs and Dean of Students at Columbus College of Art and Design.
I am a long-standing member of both NASPA and ACPA and support the plan to consolidate both associations. While I see some subtle differences between both organizations, it is clear to me that both associations now have the same mission and purpose, and as such, should finally join their resources and efforts together to more effectively serve our profession and students.
The alternative, in my mind, is more competition and duplication. Previous ACPA/NASPA consolidation discussions have ended with a feel-good mandate of “more cooperation and collaboration," and yet most of what we have seen involves more competition and duplication. This is the reality when you have two organizations marketing to the same potential members, trying to retain the members they have, vying for a voice in the public sphere, seeking new sources of revenue, courting the same corporate partners, coordinating similar professional development events, and so forth. ACPA and NASPA compete against each other and duplicate each other’s programs, services, structures, and initiatives because at this point, they have to.
It’s interesting to see how arguments some have made against consolidation have changed in a short period of time. Some initial arguments were based on an assertion that NASPA is strong while ACPA is weak. Let’s get real about this point. There are ways NASPA leads our profession, and there are ways ACPA does so. Those who do not acknowledge this reality are not looking at this honestly. “Leadership” and “strength” are manifested in more than simply dollars and numbers…this is a basic lesson we often try to teach our students. Additionally, some have suggested that ACPA needs to consolidate with NASPA more than NASPA needs to consolidate with ACPA. Let’s also get real here…ACPA doesn’t need NASPA in order to be successful, and vice versa. Each association is successful in both similar and dissimilar ways. The question of “who needs who more” comes from a place of competition, the very competition that hinders our profession from achieving its full capacity. From my vantage point, why not combine the strengths of both associations to work together within one organization? If your answer is “because my preferred association doesn’t need the other one to succeed,” I’m the first to agree with you! But my follow-up question will be, “What greater potential would we fail to achieve if we remain separate?”
More recently, arguments against consolidation have shifted away from a “stronger vs. weaker” basis, perhaps because those positing this perspective have learned that such comparisons haven’t resonated well with those in our profession. Instead, the “collaborate instead of consolidate” mantra has returned. While I appreciate the spirit of this idea, we also need a dose of reality here. Given the current identical missions of both associations, they simply must compete for members, sponsors, recognition, and other important assets. If we don’t consolidate, the only way to end the competition is for one or both associations to fundamentally change their mission to clearly distinguish one association’s purpose from the other, and both organizations may have to formally agree to not compete in designated ways. If this sounds easy enough to do, ask the leadership of either association who wants to go first! And for those who don’t think that such competition has been destructive to both associations at times, I’m confident most leaders of both associations would agree that their organization is spending money and energy (or have often done so in the past) in ways they wish they didn’t have to just so they can remain competitive with the other association. Our money and energy can be used more effectively in strategic ways to advance our professional and institutional needs, rather than simply doing something because we feel we must in order to remain competitive.
Collaboration can provide real benefits to organizations at times, but let’s get real about the unlikely prospect that collaboration will increase if the vote to consolidate ACPA and NASPA does not pass. Both associations are going to feel renewed pressure to gain members, sponsors, and recognition, and the environment is likely to be pretty unfriendly toward lots of new collaborations. So forgive me if I don’t jump on the “collaborate instead of consolidate” train, because our past history and the current climate tell me this is a pretty unlikely alternative outcome.
I value both NASPA and ACPA because of the ways they have served our profession and because of the colleagues I’ve come to know and love through my associational experiences. The thoughts of multiplying my opportunities to meet more colleagues and of uniting the best efforts in the profession to advance our agenda in a unified fashion make me almost giddy! If we let this opportunity pass us by, let’s not kid ourselves into believing that increased collaboration between these two separate organizations is likely to happen and is the most effective way to meet our future. These two associations will continue to be in competition, and that will only increase if they remain separate but identical in purpose. That’s certainly not how I want my professional associations to spend their money and energy. Instead, I hope we will meet our professional future in a new way with unified resources, rather than continuing to hold onto structures and frameworks that have offered unnecessary limits on our professional creative capacity.
No comments:
Post a Comment