Let the games begin!

"Let the games begin!" as some may believe the final bullet point on ACPA President Heidi Levine's Consolidation vote blog post may mean. She wrote, "Collaborate with NASPA when appropriate, and compete with NASPA when appropriate." While the tone of the overall post was a little on the self-righteous side, it was the latter half of that statement which elicited great response on the #NASPACPA Twitter conversation, especially the word "compete."

In student affairs, we know collaboration. We collaborate with our colleagues, we collaborate with faculty, and we collaborate with students. Student affairs as a profession adheres to the maxim, "Two heads (or more) are better than one." Our graduate preparation programs particularly promote this doctrine, claiming it sets us apart from other programs which are (as we see it) more competitive and foster less trust. And with that context, it was a huge surprise to see the word "compete" in a post by one of our association presidents.

To me, it was refreshing. While it feels countercultural to say it, deep down we already know that our associations compete. But someone finally acknowledged that fact publicly. And that's okay. I think it's even more healthy that this "bad word" has been brought out into the light. I think it's a concept to bring more openly and more often into our student affairs lexicon. One great outcome from the result of this consolidation vote could be a broader discussion of the role competition plays--and could play--in student affairs.

Another "bad word" which emerged from the conversation which ensued following the announcement of the results was "confrontation." This one was not expressed as openly, but it definitely happened through the #NASPACPA Twitter feed. Many people expressed exactly how they felt about the vote--often in uncensored, unrestrained, and uncompromising ways. To some, particularly Stacy Oliver, this was seen as unprofessional and antithetical to the values of our profession. To me, it was another rare--and refreshing--moment where we abandoned restraint and spoke our minds exactly the way we were feeling.

Our profession could use a huge, healthy dose of confrontation. Of raw, unadulterated, even uncensored emotion. Sometimes I think we work too hard to be people pleasers, to make everyone happy, often to our own (and our students') detriment. I can agree with Stacy that using insults (like "stupid" or "selfish") is not productive in discussion and can damage relationships. But I don't agree with her that voices were "marginalized" in this discussion.

Now that I've had a little time to reflect on this matter, I think I can articulate myself a little better than I attempted via Twitter in 140 characters or fewer. The main reason I don't agree with her that people were "marginalized" is that everyone did speak their minds through the vote. (Frankly, the only marginalized voices were those of graduate students in NASPA, but that's for another time.) What happened on Twitter was not a marginalization but rather an outnumbering. I can see how it might have been intimidating to jump into the conversation when your viewpoint is the distinct minority of your community. But, in this instance, it was that minority that was able to speak the loudest--38% of NASPA was all it took to block consolidation--those voices were hardly marginalized.

(Side note: I will state that I agreed with the process. I think for such a major change to take place we should have been expected to reach a higher hurdle than a simple majority. I was disappointed with the outcome, but that's separate.)

Competition and confrontation happen in our field all the time, and most often we try to mask that fact for the sake of the comfort of our colleagues. The job search is competitive, but we try to cover that up by talking about "best fit." Student conduct is confrontational, but we try to hide that behind "opportunity for growth." Maybe every now and then we could name these for what they are--and learn and grow from those moments!

As someone who works in multicultural affairs, it reminds of the "safe space" problem: are we trying to create a space where it's safe to speak your mind, or an emotionally safe space that's concerned more about participants' comfort? To me, a safe space is a space where you can speak your truth, even if it's a difficult truth to hear. One of the major problems with diversity trainings and workshops is that we get too concerned about "safety" for the sake of "going there" and having a truly transformative learning experience. Maybe we ought to be open as professionals to being uncomfortable and being called out more often in our training and development. It may look and feel ugly to begin with, but letting it out could lead to far more productive dialogues in our field than "safety" and "politeness" ever have.

To me, the major lesson from this vote is that we as a profession have a problem with conflict. Perhaps if we could invite more (healthy) competition and confrontation into our professional development (either structured or unstructured), and into our work, we will reap the benefits that come from the tremendous growth that follows conflict.

And as for #NASPACPA, it's coming. If 81% of ACPA and 62% of NASPA in 2011 believe in consolidation, those percentages are sure to increase. And the next time it comes to a vote, we will unite. Perhaps the lessons from this consolidation vote will make the actual consolidation that much greater.

Bryce

Are there lessons to learn AFTER the consolidation vote?

I found myself in the midst of an impromptu discussion about the upcoming NASPA/ACPA consolidation vote this morning when I posted two items to my Twitter account: "What happens if the membership of one organization votes to consolidate, and the other no?" and "And are we prepared to break down votes by demographics, to see who's voting 'yes' and who's voting 'no'?" I had recently read a thought-provoking post by Kristen Abell on her Kristendom Talks Tech blog stressing the importance of an informed vote on the consolidation matter, and I think this is why it was still ruminating in my mind over the weekend. So I threw it out there to the Twitterati to see if it might catch a response, and possibly lead me to deeper thought on the issue.

And it did. In fact, Kristen and I engaged in a brief discussion about whether breaking down the vote by demographics or comparing the results between NASPA and ACPA would even be productive or lead to greater tension and discord (and thus my decision to expand my thoughts here in this post). Some other posts echoed my question about breaking down the results to get a glimpse of who voted which way on the matter, and one from Chris Conzen that read, "I heard 1 official say in this situation, org that votes no tends to lose members if the other votes yes," a post that resonated with what I had originally been thinking--what happens if one membership votes no and the other votes yes? What does that say about each group, their belief in their own organization, their belief in the other organization, and how collaboration moves forward in the future?

Currently my only active membership is in ACPA. As a graduate student, I joined both (since the membership was much more affordable). I had a glimpse into what a joint organization might look like attending the 2007 joint meeting, and attended regional and national NASPA conferences before graduating. I haven't had a chance to participate as much since I took my current position as a spending freeze went into place in the fall of 2008 that prevented any out-of-state travel on state funds.

My interest in the first question was me wondering some of the reasons people are voting one way or another, and how it relates to their perceptions of both organizations. Perhaps many want to vote "yes" on consolidation so they no longer have to pay two membership dues. Perhaps some are not as interested in consolidation out of concern about losing the identity of their professional association(s). For me, I'm semi-passionately in favor of consolidation--not particularly enthusiastic about it, but from what I've read it could be a move forward toward a unified voice/vision for our field moving into the future. I'd love to retain memberships in both organizations again, but without being able to travel to participate in either organization's professional development opportunities, it hasn't seemed cost-effective to maintain both memberships.

As for my interest in my second question, that comes from my background in diversity. Mostly I imagined the biggest difference in the vote would be along the lines of age or years in the field--newer and younger professionals would be more open to consolidation while older and more seasoned professionals might be more hesitant to charge forward with such a dramatic restructure. But I also wondered if we might see significant differences in opinion along other demographic lines. And Kristen made a good point that often these types of breakdowns can be used in harmful ways, but I also see exploring the "why"s behind these differences as providing some excellent information regarding how our associations--or association--move forward. Perhaps there are unmet needs that some people believe might be addressed through consolidation that, though it may not pass, are uncovered through the learning process after the vote. Research like this would have to be conducted skillfully, aimed at moving forward beyond the vote, and done in a way that respects the memberships of both organizations (whether still intact or combined).

What I found provocative about Chris's Twitter post was the thought that a discrepancy in the vote, one organization voting in favor of consolidation and the other voting against, might sway members of one or the other to switch memberships. Not that I've ever believed there is some sort of "competition" between NASPA and ACPA to bring in the highest number of members, but could it cause someone to view their professional association in a different manner? I'm not sure it would cause me to up and realign my affiliations, but a discrepancy between the two could be a surprising result.

And then, of course, we return to the question of what our reasons are for voting one way or another. Which is in the best interest of our professional development? Which is in the best interest of our students, our ability to serve them well? Which might be more fiscally responsible both for our associations and our employing institutions? Which is a more efficient system? Kristen hit the nail on the head in driving home the point that we need to approach this vote as informed as possible--and deeply reflect on our reasons for voting either way.

Should we examine the demographics of the vote, or should the ultimate decision be allowed to stand alone? Would the opinions of your colleagues on the consolidation issue cause you to reassess your professional association?