Using MBO to Create, Develop, Improve, and Sustain

Learning Assistance Programs

Frank L. Christ, University of Arizona

Introduction. In 1972, I designed and coordinated one of the first, if not the first comprehensive learning assistance program at a postsecondary institution. This program, called a Learning Assistance Support System, LASS, was implemented at California State University, Long Beach [Christ 1980]. LASS not only served the learning assistance needs of CSULB, but became a model program for the other eighteen colleges and universities in the California State University System and assisted more than 100 postsecondary institutions to adapt LASS to their institutional needs and resources through consultation and training. Looking back over eighteen years of service to students, faculty, staff, and administration of CSULB, I can state unequivocally that one of the major reasons for the growth, persistence, administrative support, and quality of LASS programs and services was due to a management approach called Management By Objectives (MBO). Later in this paper, as I outline and describe five steps in initiating and implementing MBO for learning assistance programs, I will discuss specifically how MBO was instituted, modified, and implemented at CSU Long Beach. In addition, I have reproduced, in Appendix A, two mission statements used by the Learning Assistance Support System (LASS) at CSU Long Beach. The first, for the academic year, 1982-83, contains that year's primary mission statement and its seven goals.

But first, we need to look at tasks that learning assistance program managers perform, some management styles of learning assistance managers, and what models for learning assistance program management are available to learning assistance program managers. Then, after offering some definitions of MBO and describing MBO as a five-step process, I will list the advantages and disadvantages of using an MBO approach and conclude with reasons why learning assistance program managers should consider using MBO as a useful management approach for successful learning assistance programs.

Tasks of Learning Assistance Program Managers. In 1959, a nationally recognized management consultant and trainer created a chart outlining what managers do (Oncken, 1959). Adapting Oncken's ideas for learning assistance programs, a list of nine managerial skills emerge that managers must develop and use in dealing with people, resources, methods, and facilities as planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, controlling, and modifying a program's development, marketing, finances, and research occurs to achieve results that are specified in the program's managerial objectives. Describing what managers do, not only dramatizes the complexity of management and the many competencies that a manager must master to perform effectively, but also emphasizes that all of these skills focus on a program's managerial objectives.

Types and Styles of Learning Assistance Program Managers. Since achieving managerial success depends mostly on the program manager and his or her competencies, let's look at some different types of learning assistance managers and their managerial styles.

There are some learning assistance program managers who will be hired or promoted because of prior effective performance in other administrative areas. Some will require new knowledge and skills that they did not possess at the time of their hiring. Some will learn to manage by managing and others will be fortunate to have a mentor to assist them in becoming successful managers. Many will learn as they manage. This last group of learning assistance managers can be characterized as "day to day" or "seat of the pants" managers; as "trial and error," "crisis to crisis," or as "do it myself" types. Then there are the

[page 43]

apathetic and unmotivated managers who are frequently burned out; and finally, there are managers who have found or developed a management approach and are systematically using it to manage their programs.

Management Models. Assuming that an ideal manager is one who uses a management approach, what choices are there? There are a number of management models that learning assistance program managers can choose from. All come from the business sector and, since education is a public not-for-profit organization, must be adapted for use in public educational institutions. The latest two models are called Reengineering and Total Quality Management (TQM). Other models are Quality Circles (QC), Management By Objectives (MBO), and Management By Results (MBR). Reengineering, TQM, and QC are all derived from the original work of Edward Deming as adapted by others. Adaptations of MBO and MBR for use in the public sector, specifically in higher education, can be found in Brenneman (1975), Deegan and Fritz (1975), Harvey (1974, 19760, and Shatzberger (1972). Although TQM and QC will not be discussed in this paper, a brief list of recommended readings is included at the end of this paper.

MBO: Some Definitions. Management By Objectives (MBO) was defined by Dale McConkey as "a systems approach to managing an organization." (McConkey, 1983). Brenneman (1975), writing in a book devoted to higher education management, defined MBO as "a dynamic process, designed to enable institutions and people to operate in terms of results." Mali (1986), defined it as "a participative system of managing in which managers look ahead for improvements, think strategically, set performance stretch objectives at the beginning of a time period, develop action and supporting plans, and insure accountability for results at the end of the time period." James Harvey (1974), in a text specifically concerned with MBO in postsecondary programs, defined it as "both a broad concept and a system. MBO as a concept simply connotes the setting of goals and objectives, the determination of the best way to accomplishing evaluation of whether those goals and objectives are accomplished... a method whereby an administrator and his subordinates identify areas of responsibility in which a person will work, set some standards for performance in quantifiable terms and measure the results against these standards within a specific time frame all within the context of the mission, goals, and objectives of the organization." Deegan and Fritz (1975), in their classic postsecondary text, MBO GOES TO COLLEGE, defined MBO as "a total system of management, an attempt to incorporate all the things a manager ought to be doing into an organized effort. Deegan and Fritz go on to state that MBO is "not any one of the many tools a manager will find helpful from one situation to the next; it is the whole toolbox." For Deegan and Fritz, MBO is planning by objectives, organizing by objectives, directing and supervising people by objectives, motivating by objectives, and evaluating by objectives.

MBO Process: Five Steps. The MBO process can be divided into five steps: 1) ownership, 2) goal setting, 3) monitoring the process, 4) evaluating the process, and 5) revising the process. Each of these steps will be described as they were implemented by the Learning Assistance Support System at CSU Long Beach.

Step One: Ownership. To develop a sense of ownership, the entire LASS staff participated in the writing of the mission, goals, and objectives statements that formed the basis for program management. Staff included a director, assistant director, facilities manager, volunteer learning skills facilitators, and student aides. In addition to an all day meeting each semester, weekly staff meetings were used to get staff suggestions and approval as the MBO statements were written. Since the program was relocating to a larger area, staff was also involved in the design of the new Learning Assistance Center. When the first MBO document was ready for implementation, a meeting was scheduled with the Vice-president who had oversight for the learning assistance program. At that meeting, the Vice-president was given a copy of the program's MBO and briefed on its contents and its congruence with the mission and goals of the

[page 44]

division. Although it was anticipated that there might be changes to the document, the Vice-president accepted it as written. He commented that this was the first and only MBO document submitted by anyone of his program sectors. Each year thereafter, the director met with the Vice-president to submit the goals and objectives for the new program year and to review the results of the goals and objectives of the past year. Ownership of the learning assistance program was established not only with LASS staff through participative planning, but also with the university through its acceptance by the Vice-president to whom LASS reported.

Although both Deegan and Fritz (1975) and Harvey (1974) advocate a readiness survey before embarking on an MBO process, this was not implemented at CSU Long Beach. In retrospect, it appears that the director and staff fortunately were ready for managerial accountability and participative management. Such a survey, however, is strongly recommended for any program manager considering an MBO process.

Step Two: Goal Setting. The most time consuming step in the MBO process is the development of a program's mission and goals statement and then writing objectives along with the individual tasks, timelines, and staff oversight responsibilities of each objective to accomplish a program's mission through the completion of program goals. In writing a program's mission statement, the mission statement of the institution should be read carefully so that a program's mission and goals are congruent with it.

Examples of a learning assistance program mission, along with concomitant goals and selected objectives are reproduced in Appendix A from the mission, goals and objectives of the Learning Assistance Support System at CSU Long Beach for the years 1990-91 and 1982-83. The documents are different because they were written under two different directors. However, both mission, goals and objectives statements were approved at the division and university level with copies filed in the Vice-president's office.

LASS statements of its objectives followed the Deegan and Fritz (1975: 162-164) classification of objectives into three distinct categories: 1) routine, 2) problem solving, and 3) innovative. In addition, a fourth category, professional development, was added. Routine objectives are the regularly recurring operational concerns that learning assistance program managers deal with on a daily basis. These include facility development and maintenance, support of learning skills and tutorial services, management of program materials, and implementing public relations activities. Problem solving objectives are based on staff observations, as well as administrative, faculty, and student concerns. Some typical problem concerns are tutor training and other support personnel, demonstrating program efficiency and effectiveness to faculty and administration, and updating a program's five-year plan to reflect institutional changes. Many of these objectives are the result of feedback from program staff, faculty, and administration. The third type of objective, innovative, reflects new projects such as developing a five-year plan, creating a web presence for the program, offering learning assistance programs and services to fraternities, sororities, alumni, and other special populations, and developing on-line teaching/learning skills programs for student and faculty use. Finally, professional development objectives focuses on opportunities for individual LASS staff members to develop their academic potential through self study, attendance at conferences and workshops, participation on institutional committees, and in professional associations such as the College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA).

For all objectives, action plans were developed. These action plans detailed the tasks to be undertaken to complete each objective and included both a completion date and the name of the staff member responsible for completing them.

Step Three: Monitoring the Process. Instead of filing the mission, goal, and objectives document in a cabinet in the director's office, LASS displayed them prominently on the walls of the LASS staff

[page 45]

meeting room. In this room, nicknamed the "war room" by an ex-military faculty member who was touring the center, anyone: students, faculty, administrators, and visitors, could see a large wall display of LASS' mission, goals, and objectives statements and how much progress was being made toward completing the tasks for each objective (Christ, 1979).

Another wall display labeled "LASS Departmental Interrelations," showed the type and number of interactions between LASS and the sixty-five academic departments and service sectors of the university. Some of the interrelations that were monitored for each of these departments and programs included number of liaison contacts, program mailings, faculty meeting presentations, center tours, number of course support activities, tutor representation, and both student referrals from and to LASS.

A third display was a 2x4 foot wall chart that graphed center usage so that at a glance one could see daily attendance, weekly totals for the current semester, similar totals for the preceding year, and semester by semester tallies for the past five years.

Weekly staff meetings were held in the "war room." As part of the agenda for each meeting, staff were updated on any progress or lack of progress that was made toward fulfilling its annual objectives and in maintaining its interrelationships with departments and university programs. In addition, fluctuations in center attendance were immediately noted. Thus, any problems that surfaced each week were recognized, discussed and actions taken to remedy them.

Step Four: Evaluating the Process. At the end of each academic year, the entire staff of LASS, including all student aides, reviewed its progress toward meeting that year's objectives. This feedback became the basis of the following year's objectives.

In addition, an outside evaluator was invited to evaluate the managerial rationale and processes of LASS (Christ, 1978).

Through this systemic process of monitoring and evaluating the goals and specific objectives of each academic year, LASS was able to refine and revise its objectives for each successive year and thus allocated its resources to reflect the new set of objectives.

Step Five: Revising the Process. This step is an inevitable outcome of steps three and four, following logically from regular feedback and staff discussion. It is the cybernetic aspect of a systems approach to learning assistance (Christ, 1971) and leads to better client service and program accountability.

Advantages and Disadvantages of MBO. Using MBO has both advantages and disadvantages. Among its many advantages for the institution are the following:

1) each staff member's responsibilities are clearly defined resulting in less supervision of subordinates and increased morale among staff

2) communication between management and staff if ongoing with participative planning a reality as problems are identified and solutions are tried

3) appraisal of managers and subordinates is based on results

4) service to LASS clients (students, faculty, administrators) becomes overtly accountable and is congruent with the division and institutional mission and goals

5) greater satisfaction from improved managerial efficiency and effectiveness

Among the disadvantages associated with MBO are the following:

1) MBO process takes time in initiating, planning monitoring, evaluating, and revising

[page 46]

2) it has the potential to be a paper shuffling exercise, especially when the process is not monitored and evaluated

Why MBO for Learning Assistance Program Managers? Since all learning assistance program administrators are interested in serving the teaching/learning needs of their institutions and since accountability and cost-effectiveness is becoming increasingly more important in these times of shrinking budgets and downsizing staffs, using MBO as a management tool will assist program managers to design and implement more accountable services to students and faculty. This can result in a better match between resources and program needs as well as increased satisfaction from students, faculty, staff, and administrators. Using MBO can assist the inexperienced manager to achieve program accountability and coincidentally gain the confidence of higher administration.

Next Steps: Becoming an MBO Manager. If you decide that MBO is useful to you as a management process, the following nine steps will help you to develop and implement it successfully

1) Orient your staff to MBO, its potential, its advantages and disadvantages

2) Locate your institutional mission and goals statements

3) Develop your program mission, goals, and objectives collaboratively with your staff

4) Get administrative approval to use MBO

5) Develop tasks for each objective with timelines and staff responsibility

6) Monitor your MBO progress weekly

7) Evaluate your progress at the end of each semester and academic year

8) Consider using an outside evaluator

9) Revise your objectives annually.

Appendix A 

Mission & Goals Statement of the Learning Assistance Center at California State University Long Beach: 1990-91

The Learning Assistance Center is a comprehensive university service established to impact proactively the effectiveness and efficiency of student learning in order to enhance the retention of all students, traditional and under-represented, and to strengthen their academic performance.

The Center serves students and faculty by providing a wide range of learning assistance services including: skills assessment, learning strategies and techniques, course tutoring, Supplemental Instruction, self-paced tutorials, development of learning materials, training of learning assistance personnel, and referral to other services and programs as appropriate.

The following seven goals reflected specific management emphases of the Learning Assistance Center:

1. to function as an information clearinghouse for and referral service to all campus programs and services that can assist students to achieve academic success;

2. to assist learners to learn by providing accessible environments for a dynamic interface with LAC personnel, equipment, materials, and learning facilities;

[page 47]

3. to prevent learning failures and increase learning sophistication by providing programs and services for learners to "learn how to learn" for long-term retention and application;

4. to publicize LAC programs and services to all students, faculty, staff, administration, alumni, and parents of students;

5. to adapt the LAC to the needs and expectancies of the institution consistent with the written goals and available resources of the institution;

6. to demonstrate the viability of the LAC as a campus change agent in developing and implementing approaches to learning and instruction; and

7. to provide training to Learning Assistance professionals.

Mission Statement for Learning Assistance Support System (LASS) of CSU Long Beach for the year 1982-83

Primary Mission/Goals

To mobilize for effective use by students, staff, faculty, and administration, all existing campus, community, and CSU resources-including people, facilities, equipment, materials, programs, research, and information-to support individuals, departments, and other campus groups who desire to learn more in less time with greater ease and confidence.

Specifically, the Learning Assistance Support System has six goals:

1) To assist learners to learn by providing accessible environments for a dynamic interface with equipment, materials, and learning facilitators

2) To prevent learning failures and increase learning sophistication in personal learning skills by providing programs and services in "learning to learn"

3) To recruit and train personnel for LASS programs and services

4) To publicize programs and services of LASS to the campus community including students, faculty, staff, and administration

5) To continue to adapt LASS to the needs of the institution consistent with the articulated goals and available resources of the institution

6) To demonstrate the viability of LASS as a campus change agent in developing and implementing approaches to learning and instruction that are individualized, personalized, cybernetic, mathemagenic, and accountable.

Objectives:

[Key, based on Arthur Deegan and Roger Fritz, MBO Goes To College, 1975. R=Routine; PS=Problem Solving; I=Innovative. Year in parenthesis following the objective indicates first year of its statement]

Based on the mission and goals of the Learning Assistance Support System, the following 37 objectives are stated for 1982-83:

(R) 1.1 To continue the physical development of the Learning Assistance Center (1976)

(I) 1.2 To develop and begin the implementation of a five-year plan for computer stations in the

LAC (1982)

(R) 1.3 To support campus-wide tutorial services (1973)

(I) 1.4 To update and computerize Learning Assistance Center catalogues of materials in Personal

Lrning Skills, Academic Aids, Personal Efficiency Skills, Standardized Test Preparation, and LASS Training (1980)

[page 48]

(R) 1.To refine the LAC materials collection (1975)

(I) 1.6 To collaborate with Associate Deans of School-Based Programs to develop learning

environments that meet the needs of students at each school (1982)

 

(PS) 1.7 To explore with foundations and other funding agencies way and means to get resources

(1976)

(R) 2.1 To present 75 learning skills workshops and orientations each semester (1975)

(R) 2.2 To collaborate with minority program personnel in designing and providing learning skills

programs for EOP, Upward Bound, and Student Special Services (1982)

 

(I) 2.3 To further computerize the diagnostic/prescriptive study skills survey used by the LAC

(1973)

 

(I) 2.4 To develop special learning skills programs for Native Americans, MESA (Engineering),

and Indo-Chinese students (1982)

(R) 2.5To continue working with the Adult Re-entry Program (1980)

(R) 3.1 To recruit and train at least five potential adjunct facilitators for the LAC (1974)

(R) 3.2 To offer learning assistance training and experience to students in the M.S. Counseling

Program (1974)

 

(I) 3.3 To collaborate with Associate Deans of School-Based programs in recruiting and training

students from each school as tutors and peer learning skills facilitators (1982)

 

(R) 3.4 To offer learning assistance training, experience, and/or special project work to students in

both the undergraduate and graduate course offerings of Directed Studies through the

Instructional Media Department (1975)

(PS) 3.5 To recruit and train students as LAC aides, support personnel, and tutors (1975)

(PS) 3.6 To explore the feasibility for alternative staffing to present use of financial aid students as

support personnel and tutors (1982)

(PS) 3.7 To complete the LASS Administrative Handbook (1978)

(R) 4.1 To implement at least 20 PR activities that reach campus personnel as learners (1980)

(R) 4.2 To brief all section heads of the university on LASS programs and services (1975)

(I) 4.3 To develop wireless tours of the LAC for special target populations (1976)

[page 49]

(R) 4.4 To update existing LAC audio tour (1982)

(PS) 4.5 To design, print, and distribute skills mini-bibs to appropriate campus personnel and offices,

as well as academic departments involved in general education requirements (1981)

 

(I) 4.6 To familiarize Associated Student leaders with LASS programs and services and to explore

ways and means of working together (1981)

 

(PS) 4.7 To give faculty an opportunity to inspect and instructor/verify existing and potential

program materials (1982)

 

(R) 5.1 To support campus International Students with special learning assistance programs and services (1975)

 

(R) 5.2 To continue to offer learning assistance support to veterans and military personnel (1975)

 

(R) 5.3 To continue to support faculty development with workshops, new faculty orientation, and

instructional/learning strategies (1975)

 

(R) 5.4 To continue to assist schools and departments in individualizing their course offerings through the use of

the LAC (1973)

 

(I) 5.5 To explore learning assistance support of Extended Education students (1981)

 

(I) 5.6 To explore learning assistance support of campus fraternities and sororities (1981)]

 

 

(R) 6.1 To continue to demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness of LASS through an evaluation of its programs

and services (1976)

 

(R) 6.2 To further define and elaborate an evaluation plan for LASS including a recurring needs assessment system

(1975)

 

(R) 6.3 To continue to have at least one evaluation of LASS by an outside consultant (1973)

 

(PS) 6.4 To update the LASS five-year plan (1975)

References

Brenneman, D. Sonders, "Management by Objectives: A Process for Educational Administration" in C.P. Heaton (editor) Management by Objectives in Higher Education. Durham, NC: National Laboratory for Higher Education, 1975.

 

Christ, Frank L. "An Audio Tour of a University Learning Assistance Center," Technological Horizons in Education Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (January, 1979), pp.50-51.

 

Christ, Frank L. "Learning Assistance at a State University: A Cybernetic Model," in Kurt Lauridsen (editor), New Directions for College Learning Assistance: Examining the Scope of Learning Centers, No. 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980, pp. 45-56.

[page 50]

Christ, F.L. "Management is Evaluation," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. 23, No. 8 (November, 1978), pp. 26, 62.

 

Christ, Frank L. "Systems for Learning Assistance: Learners, Learning Facilitators, and Learning Centers, in F. L. Christ (editor) Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference of the Western College Reading Association, Vol. 4, 1971, pp. 32-41.

 

Deegan, Arthur X. and Roger J. Fritz, MBO Goes to College. Clearwater, FL: Art Deegan and Associates, 1975.

 

Harvey, L. James, Managing Colleges and Universities by Objectives. Littleton, CO: Ireland Educational Corporation, 1976.

 

Harvey, L. James, Management by Objectives in Higher Education: A Guide to Implementation. Washington, D.C.: McManis Associates, Inc., 1974.

 

McConkey, Dale, How to Manage by Results (4th ed.). New York: Amacom Book Division, 1983

 

Mali, Paul, MBO Updated: A Handbook of Practices and Techniques for Managing by Objectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1986.

 

Oncken, William Jr., "Appraisal of Managerial Performance," Frontiers of Industrial Relations. Pasadena, CA: California Institute of Technology, 1959.

 

Shatzberger, Martin, "Some Reflections on Higher Education Administration" in Paul Hamelman (editor), Managing the University: A Systems Approach. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972.

Quality Management Readings

Baldridge, J. Victor and Michael L. Tierney. New Approaches to Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979.

 

Capezio, Peter and Debra Moorehouse. Taking The Mystery Out of TQM: A Practical Guide to Total Quality Management. Hawthorne, NJ: Career Press, 1993.

 

Deming. W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis (2nd ed.). Boston: MA MIT Press, 1986.

 

Heterick, Robert C. (editor) Reengineering Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Sheltered Groves, Camelot, Windmills, and Malls. Boulder, CO: CAUSE, 1993.

 

Hubbard, Dean L. (editor) Continuous Quality Improvement: Making the Transition to Education. Maryville, MO: Prescott Publishing, 1993.

[page 51]