Triangle Principal Agent Model
From observation, I can confidently conclude that the triangle principal agent often causes a dilemma. The service provider is usually the agent in a principal-agent relationship. It is the expectation of the agent to conform to what the principal wants, and most times the principal delegate's authority to the agent to perform some service on its behalf.
My example of the triangle approach is from witnessing others experience it. Like I have mentioned in a couple of my previous posts, I was a student ambassador at my previous school where I worked closely with the admission team to ensure that student registration went smoothly. In a school setting or even in the corporate world, there are almost always two principals. The first principle is from the executive level who makes most of the decisions on how the school or company should operate, and the second principal is the customers or clients who are getting the services. The agent is the service provider that interacts with the two principals to help them get what they want.
At Harold Washington College, the first principal is the school board of trustees. Since there are seven City Colleges of Chicago, they oversee them all. They set the rules from the district office, then send the laws the information to the staff at various schools to implement. The second principal are the students. They are mostly the ones affected by these laws. Specifically, the agent is the admission staffs that delivers implements new rules such as changes in student's registration.
For example, every student gets admitted as a student to take classes at Harold Washington College once you have completed the student application. The application usually takes about 20-30 minutes to complete, then about 30 minutes to get processed in the system. This method was quite effective because students were to apply and complete other paperwork such as proof of residency and high-school or college transcripts on the same day. Since some of the students were part-time workers, they were able to come down to the school after work to complete their application. However, this process changed as information was sent out by the district office that now students have to wait for about three hours before their application would be processed. Students did not take this likely as often times as this increased their wait time. Most times, students were able to apply the same day, and register for classes especially if they have previous college credits. This new rule made it impossible to do this, and students thought that the admission team were the ones behind this. Since the admission team were the ones directly working with students, they had to deal with many frustrated students. This problem became came worse closer to end of registration as there was a longer wait time and many angry students confused about why they had to wait for a longer time for their application to process.
The board of trustees at the district office made this new law so that students can directly submit paper works such as transcripts and proof of residency with their application. The students did not understand that as this eliminated them from speaking with admission staffs about next steps or what AP or college classes were going to transfer. It was also difficult for students because they had to submit the documents in a certain way if not it would not get processed in the system. Most times, students would take the aggression on the admssion representative, forgetting that he/she is only following orders. In fact, there were times that the admission team were not pleased with the rules passed from the district office, but they had no choice but to still implement those laws on students. The admission representative which is the agent still has to please the principal (student) by ensuring that they are able to register for classes.At the end of the day, Principal one (board of trustees) expectation was that students enrollment increased as they used data to monitor this.
The agent that is the admission team solved this problem by assigning ambassadors to help new students with their applications. Since the ambassadors had expertise and knowledge about the application process, it was easier to help students understand the new application process. This way, the admission team were able to focus on analyzing students records and ensuring that all documents were accurate so that they would be able to register for classes in a prompt manner. In this case, principal one and agent had common goals, but a different approach to achieving that goal. In the end, the agent was able to satisfy both principals because enrollment rates went up and students were eventually able to get help with their admission process.
My example of the triangle approach is from witnessing others experience it. Like I have mentioned in a couple of my previous posts, I was a student ambassador at my previous school where I worked closely with the admission team to ensure that student registration went smoothly. In a school setting or even in the corporate world, there are almost always two principals. The first principle is from the executive level who makes most of the decisions on how the school or company should operate, and the second principal is the customers or clients who are getting the services. The agent is the service provider that interacts with the two principals to help them get what they want.
At Harold Washington College, the first principal is the school board of trustees. Since there are seven City Colleges of Chicago, they oversee them all. They set the rules from the district office, then send the laws the information to the staff at various schools to implement. The second principal are the students. They are mostly the ones affected by these laws. Specifically, the agent is the admission staffs that delivers implements new rules such as changes in student's registration.
For example, every student gets admitted as a student to take classes at Harold Washington College once you have completed the student application. The application usually takes about 20-30 minutes to complete, then about 30 minutes to get processed in the system. This method was quite effective because students were to apply and complete other paperwork such as proof of residency and high-school or college transcripts on the same day. Since some of the students were part-time workers, they were able to come down to the school after work to complete their application. However, this process changed as information was sent out by the district office that now students have to wait for about three hours before their application would be processed. Students did not take this likely as often times as this increased their wait time. Most times, students were able to apply the same day, and register for classes especially if they have previous college credits. This new rule made it impossible to do this, and students thought that the admission team were the ones behind this. Since the admission team were the ones directly working with students, they had to deal with many frustrated students. This problem became came worse closer to end of registration as there was a longer wait time and many angry students confused about why they had to wait for a longer time for their application to process.
The board of trustees at the district office made this new law so that students can directly submit paper works such as transcripts and proof of residency with their application. The students did not understand that as this eliminated them from speaking with admission staffs about next steps or what AP or college classes were going to transfer. It was also difficult for students because they had to submit the documents in a certain way if not it would not get processed in the system. Most times, students would take the aggression on the admssion representative, forgetting that he/she is only following orders. In fact, there were times that the admission team were not pleased with the rules passed from the district office, but they had no choice but to still implement those laws on students. The admission representative which is the agent still has to please the principal (student) by ensuring that they are able to register for classes.At the end of the day, Principal one (board of trustees) expectation was that students enrollment increased as they used data to monitor this.
The agent that is the admission team solved this problem by assigning ambassadors to help new students with their applications. Since the ambassadors had expertise and knowledge about the application process, it was easier to help students understand the new application process. This way, the admission team were able to focus on analyzing students records and ensuring that all documents were accurate so that they would be able to register for classes in a prompt manner. In this case, principal one and agent had common goals, but a different approach to achieving that goal. In the end, the agent was able to satisfy both principals because enrollment rates went up and students were eventually able to get help with their admission process.
Your story suggest in interesting issue (which I believe happens at universities quite a lot) which is that the rules of how things get done - what Williamson calls governance - are often treated as arbitrary and don't get explained to the participants. They just take them as given. When the rules are changed, even if that is for the better, some of the participants are going to be angry about it, because they were used to the old way of doing things. So there will be a cost of adjusting to the new rules.
ReplyDeleteIn the case where the new rules are not explained, the adjustment cost looks punitive. There is an additional issue of whether the Board could have explained the new rules in a way to rationalize them to the students, where the students would agree on the rationale. In larger organizations, that sort of communication can be challenging. Some of the examples I've given in class reflect those sort of challenges.
Your example also typifies any government workers in an agency that supports a lot of consumers, but where the agency's rules are set in some other place (Springfield for state of Illinois agencies) rather than where the agency's office is. Most of my interactions with DMV have been online as of late, and pretty reasonable. But, for example, why vehicle registration is annual rather than once every few years (like the driver's license) I really don't know. Likewise, the University requires ethics training that I think it should perhaps require of new employees but then not repeat it, yet we have to do it annually. When the consumers don't think the rules make sense, those implementing the rule might get a mouthful, and then some.
I totally agree that things are hardly explained. So many times, new rules were sent from the district office with an expectation that staff members immediately implement it on students. For example, students were allowed to register for classes up until the first day, but I recently found out that this was no longer the procedure. Students are now required to complete their class registration a week before resumption. The board of directors from the district office believe that this would help students prepare better for classes. That is, they would have ample time to review their syllabus, purchase books and even read course materials in preparation of the first class session. This rule was hard to follow to the core because students wait till the last minute to register for classes. This rule ended up becoming a problem because students thought that the admission team made this law without fully understanding that they were only following orders. Some times, school authority need to look at things with student's perspective and not just administratively. Student advisors, professors and staff members are usually aware of student's demand, but higher authority does not consider their point of view on their staffs before imposing new laws.
ReplyDeleteMost times, these new rules are to the student's advantage, but the lack of explanation makes it unclear. Students automatically conclude that the rules are only set to make things difficult. I remember the admission team always saying that the people from district office are able to make new rules and change their way of governance because they are not physically present in the school or directly work with students
I also think it might be difficult in larger organizations, perhaps this is where workers start to feel like outsiders. This can happen if they do not agree with the new system of governance, and they feel like their voices are not heard. This can cause tension and pressure, especially if workers begin to feel overwhelmed.
It is very interesting to learn and understand about college admissions from this point of view. I remember back in high school I applied to over 20 schools and following each college's instructions while trying my best to be an attractive candidate was so frustrating. It gave me a very negative view about the college admissions process. But reading from your point of view kind of puts certain things in perspective.
ReplyDeleteYour situation with the rules changing is akin to the saying "don't shoot the messenger". Being an agent like that can be difficult because even though you may not agree with the new rules established, it is still your job to enforce them, and yet you're seen as a representative of the principal, being the school board and administration, so the students take out their frustrations on you while you're just the "messenger".