University Impossible: Communicative Solutions to Problems within Institutions of Higher Education

1

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

University Impossible: Communicative Solutions to Problems within Institutions of Higher Education Cory Young and Kathleen Tibbetts Ithaca College

Author Note Departmental Affiliations: Cory Young, Department of Strategic Communication, Ithaca College; Kathleen Tibbetts, Department of Strategic Communication, Ithaca College.

Contact Information: Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Cory Young, Department of Strategic Communication, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY, 14850. Email: youngc@ithaca.edu

2

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

Abstract Chef Robert Irvine, the host of Food TV Networks’ television show Restaurant: Impossible, aims to fix “America’s failing restaurants.” He walks into a restaurant and identifies the seemingly impossible problems facing owners, and works with them and their employees to generate solutions. Likewise, administrators at institutions of higher education are facing many seemingly impossible challenges: shrinking demographics, higher tuition rates requiring more financial aid compensation, the economic downturn, programmatic reviews and assessments, etc. These challenges necessitate creative solutions. Through an analysis of Chef Robert Irvine’s method of assessing and solving problems within restaurants, a similar University: Impossible framework is developed and translatable to all colleges and universities to solve urgent problems.

Keywords: Restaurant: Impossible, higher education, challenges, leadership, design

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

3

University Impossible: Communicative Solutions to Problems within Institutions of Higher Education The impetus for this research spawned from a conversation about Food TV Network’s Restaurant: Impossible. While discussing the slovenly and apathetic behaviors of managers of the unfortunate restaurants Chef Robert Irvine uncovered (and wrenching at some of the dirtiest kitchens in America), a light bulb went off. All of the problems Chef Irvine finds—apathy, dinginess, narrow-minded and incompetent management—can be found in any organization, especially in colleges and universities. Higher education is in rough shape and is in for some major changes in the near future, as Budig (2013) noted In a recent poll by Time magazine and the Carnegie Corp., 89% of U.S. adults say higher education is in crisis; 54% say it is moving in the wrong direction; 96% of senior higher education administrators say their sector is in crisis; 40% say that crisis is “severe.”

As a faculty member and graduate student of a college and as self-identified foodies, we began questioning what parallels can be drawn between failing restaurants and institutions of higher education that seem to be stuck in a failing environment? And, how could we use a similar approach that Chef Robert Irvine employs to fix failing restaurants to fixing institutions of higher education?

All organizations are systems. In times of trouble and failure, institutions need to look at the biggest picture possible, involving all stakeholders and employing some unconventional tactics. Communication is central to developing sustainable change within an organization. Chef Robert Irvine has developed a methodology that when taken out of the restaurant context, can be utilized as a model for external reviewers of colleges and universities. Our University:

4

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

Impossible framework, based on both Chef Robert Irvine and design thinking principles, is a powerful tool for external reviewers, change management specialists, and any individual interested in confronting the issues of the American higher education system.

This manuscript aims to creatively provide a holistic framework that guides external reviewers and other higher education professionals in identifying core problems and developing innovative, communicative solutions to such problems. By identifying seven core steps to systemic change, this manuscript takes the uproarious and whirlwind behavior of Chef Robert Irvine and distills his “two days and $10,000� into the University: Impossible framework that will revolutionize institutions of higher education. Ranging from the ever-rising tuition costs, to the technological lag institutions struggle with, this manuscript addresses the significant and seemingly impossible challenges facing the higher education industry. This manuscript will further introduce a new perspective on leadership, based on confrontation as a motivator. This perspective emphasizes the power of confrontation as a means of taking or instilling control in an impossible and chaotic environment. Leadership through confrontation is a unique but effective means for not only Chef Irvine to accomplish his mission, but a way external reviewers can take control to make change happen swiftly, smoothly, and for significantly less money than you would think.

Rationale Deloitte, a leading professional services firm, published a report in 2011 entitled Making the grade that identified the top 10 issues facing college and universities: 1. Over budget and underfunded 2. Competition due to shifting demographics, international opportunities, and taken-forgranted assumptions about brand cache

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

5

3. Lack of strategic decision making and increased decentralization and fragmentation in organizational processes 4. Technological advances and compression of time and services 5. Infrastructure asset reallocation 6. Gaps between curriculum and employment needs 7. Inability to recruit and retain a diverse and talented faculty 8. Pressure exerted to perform sustainably 9. Inability to recruit and retain a diverse student body 10. Pressure exerted to be fiscally responsible (transparent) Other challenges facing institutions of higher education include: low student interest and lack of passion from faculty (Rangnekar, 2013); high student financial aid debt, skyrocketing cost of tuition, and low return on investment for repaying loans (Budig, 2013; Carlson, 2013; Kingkade, 2013; Klemm, 2013; What Is College For?, 2013; Wiener-Bronner, 2011); shifting admissions criteria (Zakaria, 2013); and disengaged and disconnected administrators (Selingo, 2013).

Scholars and practitioners alike have been asserting that higher education has found solutions while others claim those solutions are merely temporary Band-Aids on the financial lacerations of the industry. Offering more financial aid to those who cannot afford the cost of tuition only allows students to attend the first few weeks of class without trouble. Just because a student is allowed to borrow more from the Department of Education does not mean that student will be financially capable, academically successful, or that in six months after graduation, he or she will be able to start repayment of more than $1,000 a month. Allocating money into

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

6

renovating the appearances and amenities of dormitories with the hopes more students will register and reside on campus will not secure high retention and most certainly not graduation rates.

All these problems combined create a “perfect storm,” while at the same time create “a unique opportunity for transformation. Educational institutions willing to think laterally can position themselves to outperform into the future” (Deloitte, 2011, p.1). As Selingo (2013) confirms, “Academe is in a period of profound change, and a new generation of leaders will have to change with it” (p.1).

Small tweaks in the system will not solve the higher education crisis. Jian (2007) laments, “adaptation and innovation through constant change is a requirement for organizational survival and success” (p. 6). Making changes to individual pieces of a system results in “suboptimization” and significant losses to all stakeholders of the system (Maguad, 2011, p. 772).

Administrators need a wakeup call.

According to Deloitte (2011), “University and college administrators tend to be creatures of habit. That means processes, once established, often follow historic arcs, rather than paving new ground . . . The same attitude seems to dominate institutional leadership decisions” (p. 13).

There needs to be a raucous confrontation and acknowledgement of these core organizational problems to stir up change. The need for this confrontation is articulated by Lerbinger (2012): When a crisis follows this slow, accumulative pattern, the danger is that a manager may be unaware that the accumulated total of the increments has reached a crisis threshold. A manager may have had weak or sporadic early warning signals that consciously or unconsciously were ignored . . . managers tend to lose their normal mental reflexes or framework in thinking about a problem . . . It is

7

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

human nature that when everything seems to be going well, there’s no incentive to look for trouble. That task is left to outsiders—a government official, a whistleblower, a public interest group or the media. (p. 11).

In utilizing the University: Impossible framework, external reviewers and other administrators can identify, triage, and remedy the prevalent issues in institutions of higher education. As Christina Dorfhuber (2011), Principal for Deloitte in the U.S. states, “Ultimately, the victors will be those who . . . take a good, hard look at their organizing principles…and assess…the strength of their systems and processes” (p. 32).

Assumptions As it goes for any research, there are primary tenants on which to base the analysis and implications of the findings. The most significant theory that supports our communicative framework is organizational systems theory. Interpersonal communication theories like cognitive dissonance theory and uncertainty reduction theory additionally help to explain why organizations like restaurants and universities fail, and why the people in those organizations behave the way they do. The design thinking model further supports the basis of our University: Impossible framework, along with a new leadership perspective we have developed as an outcome of this research.

Systems Theory On its most basic level, a system is a “complex of interacting elements” (Mele et. al, 2010, p.127). This concept is derived directly from the work of Von Bertalanffy, one of the predominant theorists of system thinking. Maguad (2011) defines a system as “a network of interdependent components that work together” and most importantly to achieve a common goal (p. 769). The system relies upon the interactions of multiple parts or components, and is

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

8

analogous to these interactions because isolated management of the separate components of the system will result in sub-optimization and even failure (Maguad, 2011). Therefore, communication and collaboration are key principles in the success of a system.

In systems theory, there are two types of systems—opened and closed. Organizations are considered open systems because they “exchange energy, matter, people, and information with [an] external environment.” The interaction with the system’s environment is what maintains and “reactivates” the system (Mele et. al, 2010, p.128). Consider the human body. We have numerous internal functions. We interact and take from the immediate environment to survive, but we also influence the larger system in which we live (Boggs, 2011).

There are several elements found in all systems, the first of which is an organization’s framework or model through which it operates. For a restaurant, the basic elements are: employees in the front of the house (FOH); for example, host/hostess and servers; employees in the back of the house (BOH); for example, chefs, line cooks, and dishwashers; customers; and managers. Within a university, the essential elements are: admissions personnel—front of the house; faculty and staff –back of the house; students and administrators.

Another element of a system is an “adaptive mechanism” which maintains proper functioning. This concept is called self-regulation, which is a method to keep all things “in check” (Mele et. al, 2010, p. 129). In a restaurant, the adaptive mechanism would be the Point of Sale system that tracks how much is being sold within an hour, day, or month. This information allows a manager to adjust sales strategies to account for low selling items. Within a university or college, the Board of Trustees and alumni function as a system of checks and balances by offering feedback about curriculum and vision/mission of the institution.

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

9

All systems also experience instances of entropy, where the system falters or stagnates. In a state of entropy, systems can take one of two routes: demise or change. Change is essential in a system to combat failure and demise (Katz & Kahn, 1978). To remain viable or effective, a system must incorporate self-regulation patterns to prevent entropy. To combat entropy in a restaurant, the head chef might change the menu or offer incentives for people to come. A university might rebrand itself or provide more scholarships to incoming students.

The system of a restaurant parallels that of a university in that they both rely on the interdependence of its elements to achieve the system’s goal. Additionally, they experience or possess the characteristics previously noted, the most significant of which is change. Maguad (2011) stipulated that the management of such change in a system like a restaurant or university requires the “same principles that are used to improve any process” in any other type of open, organizational system (p. 769).

Cognitive Dissonance Theory Change is a mechanism for improvement and rescue from systemic failure and entropy. In managing change, it is important to acknowledge the outcomes and reactions to change.

Cognitive dissonance theory explains the aversion people have to viewpoints that differ from their own (Griffin, 2012). Because each person has unique life experiences and has developed his/her own world view, interpersonal communication can result in conflicts of perspective. Our understanding and interpretation of why a restaurant is failing will most certainly differ from what Chef Irvine perceives it to be. Likewise, understanding and interpreting why a college or university is failing will be different based on employees’ and consumers’ positions. Cognitive dissonance happens when there is a collision of two differing perspectives. Outcomes can be

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

10

aversion and argument, but more positively, this dissonance can also lead to change in beliefs or perspective (Griffin, 2012).

Cognitive dissonance is an underlying assumption of our University: Impossible framework that aids in explaining the emotional and psychological reactions to Chef Robert Irvine’s process. He strategically utilizes the principles of cognitive dissonance to initiate change within the restaurant. Predominately, Chef Irvine is successful in his efforts is because he deliberately causes cognitive dissonance between the restaurant’s management and himself. He forces the management and staff to acknowledge their erroneous and malignant perspective and behaviors. In doing so, Chef Robert Irvine faces his fair share of negative reactions—anger, excuses, and plain old defiance. But typically, by the second day of the show, most of the restaurateurs have modified their perspective to accommodate Chef Robert Irvine’s more realistic (and profitable!) view.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory Before Chef Robert Irvine makes any decisions, he gathers information by asking poignant and direct questions of the owners to assess their level of denial and to determine what exactly he is getting himself into. This investigative method is explained by uncertainty reduction theory. When people meet for the first time, it is instinctual to reduce the “unknowns” in the relationship. Griffin (2012) explains it “as verbal output, nonverbal warmth, similarity, and shared communication networks increase, uncertainty decreases” (p. 125). The more uncertainty there is the more questions and information seeking behavior there will be.

In vulnerable organizations like restaurants and universities, uncertainty reduction is essential to managing change. People need to know what to expect, and to know what is expected of them. One of the most significant issues Chef Robert Irvine intuits, which can be

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

11

applied to the higher education industry, is the lack of a well-established network of communication. Unintended consequences occur when people are unsure of outcomes of certain situations, especially involving the management of organizational change (Jian, 2007). In these instances, a change agent or mechanism, like Chef Robert Irvine, is needed to facilitate an effective process.

Leadership by Confrontation Most, if not all, failing restaurants suffer from poor management. On all of the episodes of Restaurant: Impossible, management plays a key role in preventing the restaurant from thriving. That’s when Chef Robert does what he is most notable for—he barges in, confronts the owners and takes over the restaurant for two days. Chef Robert Irvine is exceedingly confrontational, and as such, is highly successful in establishing leadership in an organization that lacks it. Tension and disagreement are key elements in instigating planned organizational change (Jian, 2007). Leadership through confrontation is a method that has developed from the research of this article and forms the basis the University: Impossible framework.

Chef Robert Irvine self-identifies as the catalyst for change, and as such, he must take control of the restaurant. He becomes the leader through immediate and emphatic confrontation.

By asserting himself as an authority, the restaurant’s internal stakeholders listen, respond, and change. Jian (2007) acknowledges that change occurs when a catalyst deliberately “creates interventions” through a planned process, with the intention of producing a new state of “behavior, structure, and/or conditions” (p. 7). One of the key organizational principles established through leadership by confrontation is accountability. Accountability on part of both management and their employees is usually lost when management does not show leadership and it is a significant contributor to the entropy of a system.

12

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

Not everyone can employ this method of confrontation. Leaders who gain their role through confrontation and a deliberate taking over of control must be knowledgeable, trustworthy, and respected. These leaders must also be an industry authority and foster an environment of mutual trust and respect. They also have to be an external agent, such a Chef Robert Irvine or an external program reviewer in the higher education industry. While this perspective supports what happens during the employment of the University: Impossible framework, key stages of the framework is based on principles of the design thinking model.

Design Thinking Model The design thinking model is a problem-solving strategy that is utilized to transform an organization’s current state of being into a preferred one (Corcorran & Scott-Webber, 2013). In this effort, the model is always directly linked to developing an improved future for an organization. In design thinking there are 5 steps—Empathy, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test.

Empathy

Define

Ideate

Prototype

Test

During the Empathy stage, the external agent gathers as much information about the situation as possible. Through observation and asking questions, the external agent is able to understand the needs of the organization of which it is helping (Corcorran & Scott-Webber, 2013). In the Define stage of design thinking the external constituent identifies the core problems or needs of the organization. It is important for the external constituent to frame these challenges and hurdles as opportunities for potential growth (Corcorran & Scott-Webber, 2013).

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

13

In the next stage, Ideate, the external reviewer must collaborate with stakeholders of the organization to generate a range of potential solutions.

Once these solutions are developed, the external agent distills the variety of solutions to the core elements. This takes place during the Prototype stage where the external agent and other stakeholders work together to develop a way to incorporate the core needs of the solution into one cohesive strategy. The final stage, Test, is where the organization implements the prototyped solution, evaluates the success of it, and makes adjustments accordingly (Corcorran & ScottWebber, 2013). This model can also be perceived as a looped cycle, where an organization can routinely assess its needs to develop an improved future.

Overcoming Impossibility Our last fundamental assumption comes from the mouth of Chef Robert Irvine. “You take any one of [the designers,] they will tell you that by doing this show, we have become way better at utilizing money, we’ve become better designers. Because I push them to their limits. And Tom has become a better builder by…coming up with new ideas and pushing himself to the limit” Chef Robert Irvine strongly believes that he and his team members are so successful in their Restaurant: Impossible efforts because they are given limited resources to complete a major job. If forced to be efficient, a significant challenge will only improve your skill set and ultimate outcome. From dire constraints comes opportunity to exceed expectations. The current climate of the higher education industry can be perceived as a resource-constraint, impossible environment that has the potential to make administrators, faculty, and staff better and more effective at what they do.

14

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

Methodology In an effort to develop a creative and communication-based solution to the problems facing higher education, we anchored this project methodologically within the qualitative realm.

Lindlof (1995) believes that qualitative inquiry is “personal” and “involved,” (p. 5) and that “qualitative inquirers strive to understand their objects of interest” (p. 9) through various methodologies such as participant observation, intensive interviews, and visual-media recording.

Participant observation is the means by which researchers “understand the lived experience of human beings,” and gain “insight into the constraints, motivations, emotions, and meanings that the members experience” (p. 4). We participated as audience members by watching 20 newly recorded episodes of Restaurant: Impossible, over a five month period (March to July). These episodes varied by air date and season, type and style of restaurant, and by core problems Chef Robert Irvine identified and aimed to fix: • • • • •

• • • • •

Apathy Loss of Passion Distrust/Disrespect Absence of Leadership Ineffective Communication

Dysfunctional Relationships Lack of Cleanliness Incompetence Lack of standards and procedures Outdated Technology

As we observed the videos, we “documented behaviors [and] captured members” perspectives” (p. 5), using the following categories as our guide: Management • Micromanage all duties in restaurant • High Owner Absentieeism • Blaming others for mistakes

Front of House • Servers lack knowledge about the menu • Customers have to wait a while for food

Back of House • Kitchen staff handling food improperly • No recipes or kitchen hierachy

Questions & Observations • How much money do you make/lose?

• Why are you failing?

Décor & Design • Taxidermied animals on the walls • Dusty, fake flowers and greenery

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

15

The last research method, rather unexpected and surprising, was the opportunity to conduct an interview over the phone with the stakeholder most closely related to the Restaurant: Impossible methodology, Chef Robert Irvine himself (See Appendices A and B for HSRB proposal, informed consent, and interview questions). Focusing specifically on his style, his communicative methods, and his general mindset when going through the process of fixing a dilapidated restaurant, we were able to identify significant aspects of his process that would not necessarily have been identified in the next step of the process, which was the actual coding of episodes. This step “resembled conversations between equals. Most of what is said and meant by both interviewer and interviewee emerges jointly in interaction” (Lindlof, 1995, p. 5).

Restaurant: Impossible Method Restaurant: Impossible is a reality Food TV Network show that aims to “fix America’s most desperate restaurants.” The host, Chef Robert Irvine takes two days and with $10,000, heavy-duty elbow grease, and a lot of yelling, he restores the restaurant to a clean, trendy, welltrained establishment. Tackling problems ranging from distrust among owners to filth that makes even the former British navy man queasy, Chef Robert Irvine assesses and overhauls the weak points in each of the restaurants. Unabashedly he renovates menus, dining rooms, and most importantly the attitudes and knowledge of the management and staff of each restaurant. He may seem familiar if you ever watched Dinner: Impossible, Worst Cooks in America, or The Next Iron Chef. Restaurant: Impossible is one of Food Network’s most popular shows, now into its 5th season. Chef Robert Irvine says the best part about his show, and why it’s more than just a TV show is because he works with “Real people, real problems, real solutions” (Robert Irvine, personal communication. June 2013).

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

16

Empathy For each show, Chef Robert Irvine knows nothing about the restaurant or the owners until he arrives at the location (Robert Irvine, personal communication, June 2013). Once there, he tries to gain as much information about the situation as quickly as possible. He tries to determine what he is getting himself into, and tries to reduce his uncertainty of the project. Taking note of the first impression, Chef Robert immediately tries to identify the level of cleanliness and whether the restaurant appearance communicates a strong, clear identity. Typically he will note the smell of the dining area, how old the furniture and fixtures seem to be, and how well the ambiance of the restaurant is composed. Once he has captured an adequate snapshot of the customer’s first impression, he meets the owner(s) and major stakeholders of the restaurant, which are usually family or good friends who have invested money into the business.

Similar to the stage in the design thinking model, Chef Robert tries to be empathic to the restaurant owners’ needs. Every time he enters a new restaurant and meets the owners, he always thanks them for letting him into their restaurant. By doing this, he expresses humility, respect, and starts the relationship on a comfortable note. He then quizzes the owners about their finances and other administrative information. He tries to determine who plays which role and who is in control. The questions vary, but are mostly about the finances and what the owners believe to be the reasons why they are failing. Chef Irvine asks, “Why am I here?”

He asks about the history of the business, which most owners can easily explain, but when it comes to discussing the numbers, they tend to falter. In the majority of cases, the owners try to justify their lack of immediate recall of financial details with inane excuses. Chef Irvine tries to prove to the owners that while they may think they know everything about their business, they do not. This interview is only the beginning of Robert’s confrontational leadership and the

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

17

cavalcade of uncomfortable emotions the owners will experience over the course of the next two days.

The other assessment method he employs in his empathy stage is the observation of a regular dinner service. During the service, Chef Robert Irvine watches how the restaurant is run, how the kitchen staff cooks, how they all clean, and how the patrons are treated. In this exercise, Chef Robert is able to notice shortcomings in the front of the house, back of the house, and how the two systems interact. “Front of the house” refers to the part of the restaurant that customers see. The dining area, the servers, bartenders, and host are all part of the front-of-the-house domain. The “back of the house” refers to the staff-only areas of the restaurant. The kitchen, storage, cooks, expediters, and dishwashers are all part of the back-of-the-house domain.

Every initial service Chef Robert Irvine observes is haphazard and poorly executed in many ways. Servers do what they normally do, which typically yields criticism from Chef Robert. Under stress and anxiety, management cracks. Some of the owners try to take control of the situation, disrupt the system, and try to make up for poor performance. The initial service is the next step toward major confrontation. “Who showed you how to do that?” Chef Robert asks servers when they make a mistake or get confused. And when Chef Robert Irvine confronts the owner or owners about these performance issues, they either try to justify or argue. Chef Robert asks, “Do you keep your house like this?”

The final step of Chef Robert Irvine’s assessment is trying the food. When it is safe to do so, and there many occasions where that is not the case, Chef Robert tastes the food himself. He chooses a number of dishes to sample, and then gives an honest yet unsparing review of each dish. Chef Robert contorts his face, spits out disgusting bites, squishes over-cooked vegetables as a way to visually express his severe discontent with the food. And while it is a slightly

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

18

sensational way to express his distaste, Chef Robert Irvine will give credit where it is due. There are instances where Chef Robert will applaud a dish, but these success stories are rare.

Rupture Once Chef Robert has seen enough, he takes control over the restaurant. We call this part of the process the Rupture. Up until that point, Chef Robert has been a third party observer, unable to create or instigate change because of his lack of authority. The rupture is the point at which Chef Robert Irvine confronts management, asserts himself as the leader for the next two days, and takes control over the staff and all operations of the restaurant. This step is integral to the success of the entire process. By taking control, he institutes leadership that will later be transferred to the management after two days of renovation and training.

The rupture starts during the assessment or Empathy stage, typically during the initial meal service, when he begins to confront the ownership and staff about their behavior and perspectives of the organization. In one episode, a patron complained about bugs crawling on her seat and table. The owner was brought to the table where she did not apologize. When she went back to the kitchen, she accused the patron of planting the all of the bugs. Unfortunately for her, Chef Robert overheard her talking in the kitchen and confronted her. He went out to the dining room, tore off a ceiling vent and shook the dust and dirt from it onto another patron’s table. He then asked the owner if they thought he had also planted the dust in her restaurant.

“People in denial, you have to shock them,” Chef Robert Irvine says. This shock-thedenial-out-of-people approach resonates throughout each episode, and is a major reason why Chef Robert Irvine is so successful in changing people’s perspectives and behaviors. During the Rupture stage, Chef Robert is the most confrontational. He aggressively pinpoints the problems he sees, most of which relate directly to management. “My being harsh is a way to cut through

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

19

all the garbage,� Chef Robert Irvine says. He uses confrontation as a way to produce responses that point to the real problems within the restaurant.

The owners of these restaurants react similarly when Chef Robert confronts and contradicts their perception of good restaurant service. Denial is the most common response, followed by shame and embarrassment. When confronted, these individuals yell, walk away, cry, and behave quite erratically. All of these reactions are defense mechanisms used because these owners are experiencing severe cognitive dissonance. Chef Robert aggressively negates and invalidates what they have always thought to be the best and only way to run a restaurant. By Chef Robert confrontationally pulling people out of their delusion, these owners can begin to perceive change in their restaurant as an opportunity for improvement.

Define After Chef Robert has performed his assessment, and gained control of the restaurant, he is able to begin work on solving the problems he finds. This stage in the process is where Chef Robert Defines the core problems of the institution. He has a sit-down, face-to-face meeting with the major stakeholders of the restaurant, and addresses the top five or six areas that need revamping. The popular items Chef Robert lists are: Management, Menu, Service, Identity/DĂŠcor, Food Quality, and Cleanliness. The important aspect of this Define stage is Chef Robert frames these problems as opportunities for positive change and improvement. Without the proper perspective of change, the desired future state of the restaurant is unachievable.

Ideate The next step in the process is the development of strategic solutions to these problems. It is at this stage in the episode where Chef Robert Irvine incorporates his designers, the restaurant’s staff, and the owners in working together to solve the problems previously defined. A

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

20

cathartic moment of the Ideate stage is when everyone removes all of the furniture, fixtures, and decorations from the dining area. He then meets with his designer and builder to brainstorm a new identity for the restaurant. While the renovation crew gets to work, Chef Robert engages the staff to hear what they think are the contributing factors to the core problems. Most often, if not every time, all of the problems stem from management.

Respect, Trust, Competence, and Passion are the four most common topics that surface when the staff has issues with management. Without educated leadership, employees do not respect or trust their leader. When a leader seems like he or she is dispassionate about their restaurant, employees become apathetic which results in poor service. In order to identify these managerial consequences, Chef Robert has to develop an open and safe environment for candid communication. Chef Robert employs communicative methods to cultivate open communication and problem solving among staff. In utilizing these techniques, participants work together to identify the potential solutions.

In one episode, Chef Robert gave each employee two lemons. There were four buckets labeled Management, Service, Menu, and Food. Each employee placed their lemons in whichever bucket they thought was the most severe problem. At the end of the exercise, Chef Robert revealed that most everyone thought Management was the most severe problem, which led to a discussion about what the staff needed from management. If consensus can be derived organically, people will be less uncertain about how their behavior or opinions may negatively affect them in the future.

Another example was when Chef Robert took the owner and his son, the head cook, and created a responsibility scale. There were two buckets on a scale, one representing the owner and one representing the son. There was an additional bucket full of lemons. Each lemon represented

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

21

some task in the restaurant. Dependent on the task, the owner or his son would throw it into the basket of whoever most frequently performed it. By the end of the exercise, it was clear that even though the son performed the majority of the duties, he was not considered management nor given the proper authority. This last exercise was effective because it was a visual, interactive, and communicative way to address unbalanced power dynamics in an organization.

Other methods Chef Robert employs is what he calls homework for the owners. At the end of the first day, it is clear what the major problems are and what kinds of emotional tensions exist among the restaurant’s ownership. Assignments are given by Chef Robert Irvine to the owners or major stakeholders to open their minds and prepare them for the major change in the restaurant. People are assigned to write apology letters, essays about how they think they can change, as well as more logistical assignments. Chef Robert Irvine assigned one owner to assess all of the hours she works, reduce them, and delegate certain tasks to appropriate employees.

Kitchen managers are tasked cost out dishes on the menu. One episode, Chef Robert had an owner read aloud his 180+ item menu. It took an astonishing 20 minutes! This exercise showed the owner that having such a large menu is detrimental to his restaurant because it reduces the number of times a table can be reused in one night.

Prototype Once Chef Robert Irvine has worked with the management and staff to determine what kinds of solutions the restaurant needs, he gets to work on those solutions. The Prototype stage of the process is where Chef Robert Irvine communicates the core elements of the solution(s) to the stakeholders, providing training and tools to front of the house, back of the house, and management. This is where Chef Robert Irvine communicates what needs to happen and how.

He always says, “You need the tools to make the restaurant succeed.� By tools, Chef Robert does

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

22

not mean just the tangible kind. While he installs new point-of-sale equipment and updates other restaurant technology, he also provides training. Managers need to know how to run the business, delegate, and exhibit passion and reliability. Kitchen staff needs to have the technical capability to prepare profitable dishes while maintaining a clean and safe kitchen. The service staff needs to effectively tend to the needs of customers and maintain the front of the house’s appearance.

After developing the new menu Chef Robert trains the kitchen staff on how to cook the new items, trashing their frozen-to-fryer method to fresh and flavorful (and cost effective). The front of the house is quizzed on the new menu items and the servers are not allowed to work if they do not pass. He also sits with management to train them how to run a business and how to hold their employees accountable for their performance. Training the current staff, eliminating those who contradict the vision, and bringing in new people if needed are essential to proper change management. Every employee gains lessons in customer service, restaurant fundamentals, and most importantly they all learn the level of expectation now in place.

Transition Before the reveal of the newly renovated restaurant and the start of the first new dinner service, Chef Robert has a pep talk with all of the management and staff of the restaurant. Just as he took control and established leadership in the beginning of the episode, he must now transfer his authority to the newly trained, reinvigorated leader of the restaurant. At this stage of the process, the problems have been addressed, solutions have been created and implemented, and it is now time for the owner(s) to take over their restaurant and lead their staff. In the form of an all-employee meeting, Chef Robert starts the conversation. He recaps the events of the past day and a half, and provides positive words about the future. He then transitions the leadership spot light to the owner or manager to finish the pep talk. “I know you’re all like my kids, but I’m not

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

23

your momma anymore,” one owner said. “I am your boss.” The owners take the reins and start the evening off with an explanation of future expectations. While each employee knows Chef Robert Irvine’s level of expectation, this point in the process is where the owner asserts their new leadership position.

Test The Test stage of Chef Robert Irvine’s process is the “reveal” of the renovated dining area followed by the initial dinner service. Powerful emotions surface when the owners open their eyes to see the prospect of new opportunity. “There’s so much to look forward to,” one owner said. After tears are dried, the owners invite the waiting customers, and the hard work of the Test phase begins. The new dinner service is where all of the solutions start to impact the restaurant.

The restaurant’s ownership and staff utilize their new training and procedures to produce a better outcome after Chef Robert has helped them. But the first meal of the new restaurant is not where it ends. If the restaurant does not continue to manage change and evolution, they will regress to their former degenerative state. In the Test stage, stakeholders must implement strategic and communicative solutions to continually learn what does and does not work and make adjustments accordingly.

Impact Once Chef Robert has left, it is the restaurant’s responsibility to maintain the changes he made. If properly managed, the restaurant can see a significant impact. According to Chef Robert Irvine, there has been about an 85% success rate of all of the restaurants he has helped. Aside from the financial success of these restaurants, the emotional impact is enormous. Owners exhibit passion and enthusiasm about their restaurant while the staff takes pride and ownership in

24

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

their work.

DEFINE

EMPATHY

RUPTURE

OUTCOMES

leads to a

that produces

that

problems for which to

PROTOTYPE

TRANSITION

TEST

training and tools to

internal leadership to

new solutions that

IDEATE solutions to

IMPACT the success of the org

University: Impossible Framework According to Rob Barrass (2011), manager at Deloitte Canada, colleges and universities require “a wholesale assessment of how they can use their assets more effectively (p. 17).

Through the use of our University: Impossible framework external consultants are able to perform that type of holistic review, obtaining the most detailed yet focused picture of whichever institution they investigate. A university is a giant system that supports the interoperability of smaller systems. The University: Impossible framework relies on the understanding that all constituents of a system need to function together, and systemic change management is key to solving the organizational issues.

Empathy Just as Chef Robert Irvine starts his assessment by becoming empathic to the restaurant’s needs, so too must external reviewers. In an effort to understand the state of the institution and the scope of the organizational problems, external reviewers should thoroughly interview a variety of stakeholders. Employees of the institution including faculty, staff and administrators

25

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

should all have an initial say in what they think is happening in the institution. Talking with senior administrators, external reviewers should identify the financial situation of the institution.

The questions need to be thorough yet detailed enough so the external reviewer can test the knowledge of the administrators he or she interviews. Chef Robert Irvine asks questions to not only gain information about the institution, but also to see where the owners” knowledge is lacking. It is important to ask questions that not only aid in determining the financial scope of the university’s problems but to also ask questions that stimulate further questioning. Examples of these questions are below.

•

What is the cost of tuition?

•

•

What were the net and gross tuition revenues for the last 5 years?

What is the organizational hierarchy/structure at this institution?

•

How many clicks on the university’s website does it take for students to find the Communication Program (or any other program)?

•

What are the levels of experience/education required of administrators, faculty, etc.?

•

How many steps does it take to process an individual’s admission application (online or paper copy)?

•

Have you taken satisfaction or climate surveys? If so, what are the results?

•

How much financial aid does each student receive?

•

How much money is discounted in scholarships and grants?

•

What are the demographics of the student body, the staff and faculty?

•

What are the admission, retention, and graduation rates of the students?

•

What are the budgets of the different departments, schools, programs, and events?

•

What are your most popular degrees and how many students enroll in those majors?

•

Why do you think the institution is failing?

In addition to interviewing a broad range or stakeholders, an external reviewer should

observe classes, meetings, and other types of interactions where the university is providing its

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

26

service. In taking an admission tour, an external reviewer can witness what it is like to be a prospective student interested in attending the school. By analyzing the significant points where the university interacts with its potential “patrons,” the reviewer can observe the customer experience.

Rupture From these observations and questions, the external reviewer will more than likely encounter some emotional reactions. The Rupture stage for the external reviewer is where he or she begins confronting the internal stakeholders of the university, particularly the administrators, about the problems he or she finds. In identifying the shortcomings and inconsistencies of the organization, an external reviewer can experience some significant push-back from the university’s members. The outcomes from the confrontational rupture differ, but most are emotionally motivated. External reviewers can anticipate confusion, anger, frustration, and more negative reactions to the confrontation. The predominant reaction to confrontation is embarrassment. For example, in one institution, there was not enough housing for incoming freshman. A student services administrator contracted with a local hotel for the overflow. Later the institution rescinded the contract after admittedly realizing the housing calculation was incorrect. Just like Chef Robert ruptures the restaurant owner’s thinking, so too must the external reviewer to the university’s administration. In large organizations there is a tendency to misappropriate responsibility. This problem leads to myopathy, where employees blame someone else, or claim that the duty is not their job, rather someone else is responsible. Confrontation may reveal incompetence on part of faculty or staff, which is a problem Maguad (2011) states is found often in higher education. The most common reaction to confrontation is denial which

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

27

supports their deluded perspective. Only through confronting the “delusion” can any organization move forward with healthy and profitable change management.

Define The Define stage is where the external reviewer synthesizes his/her findings, addressing them to the internal stakeholders of the university. In analyzing the outcomes of confronting the institution’s shortcomings, an external reviewer should be able to determine the main causes of these organizational malfunctions. More than likely, the external reviewer will find in general a lacking organizational structure and protocols. There may be poor or broken communication channels in some or all of the university’s departments. He or she may find a lack of change and maintenance or he or she may find just the opposite, where there has been too much change in too short of a time period. All of these organizational issues point to the shortcomings the external reviewer observed or identified previously in the Empathy and Rupture stages.

Ideate The Ideate stage is where the external reviewer incorporates the university’s internal stakeholders to develop creative and communicative solutions for the university’s problems. In this stage, Chef Robert uses communicative methods and what he calls homework to initiate change management, and to reduce stakeholder uncertainty about both the change management process and the future after these changes. An external reviewer can institute assessment summits, round table discussions, and faculty listening sessions as a way to foster communication about these problems among the major stakeholders of the institution. The external reviewer should also conduct organizational surveys across all levels of the institution, with feedback loops to discuss the results of these surveys and other communicative methods. In

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

28

working together to examine the issues within the organization, the administrators, faculty, and staff can develop ideas that will benefit the entirety of the organization.

Prototype The ideas developed in the former stage have the potential to yield a number of creative solutions. During the Prototype stage, the external reviewer works with the institution’s stakeholders to utilize the ideas developed in the previous stage to create actual solutions to these problems. The Prototype stage is where the external reviewer takes the key elements of the solution needs and helps the institution administrators develop them into a solid solution to be implemented and tested. He or she develops training and provides the necessary tools for the faculty, staff, and administration of the university. Implementing or updating a database system may be a solution that helps to repair the poor communication channels. The external reviewer may hold training sessions for different departments or employees so they know how to do their jobs more effectively.

An example of a communicative solution is a president-level commission that is dedicated to developing and maintaining the organizational health of the institution (Blumenstyk, 2012). By working together to consciously develop solutions, awareness and mindfulness can be powerful means of self-regulation. Knowing, understanding, and appreciating the interconnectedness of the different departments (systems) of the university, can reduce the myopathy, and strengthen the communication channels among those departments (Maguad, 2011). In an effort to improve efficiency, one institution is centralizing their bureaucratic functions (Cooper, 2012). As a way to reduce the percentage of under qualified/under educated faculty, and to redirect the focus of universities to education over profits, Klemm (2013) says to

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

29

stop paying people commensurate with how much money they bring into the institution. In doing so, there is natural alignment with the university’s mission.

Transition The Transition stage is where the external reviewer brings together all of the information, solutions and feedback, to show to the university’s administrators, and returns to being an external stakeholder in the organization. This is the point at which the external reviewer takes a step back and transitions the control and leadership back to the administrators. Chef Robert Irvine usually has a restaurant-wide meeting, where he talks about the process of change, and offers a pep talk to the employees. And while he starts the pep talk, he has the owner of the restaurant finish it. Metaphorically, the external reviewer needs to start a pep talk with the highest administrator to finish it. This “pep talk” can be in the form of an all-employee meeting, or it can be more figurative. The point of this transition is to communicate the expectations and standards that are now in place for everyone to uphold. This change management process is a way for the external reviewer to institute control in a chaotic environment, and then step back so the administrators can maintain that level of control.

Test The Test stage is where the university implements the solutions they have developed and evaluates the success of them. By evaluating the efficacy of these solutions, administrators can determine whether to make adjustments. The Test stage is cyclical, where the solutions must be evaluated on a routine basis, with changes or modifications made regularly. What may work in one year, may not work in five. This stage is where the administration maintains change. Jian (2007) says that administrators must “routinely monitor their action and environment and…have

30

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

their own continuous grasp of the grounds for what they do—their practical consciousness” (p.

10).

Impact By implementing creative and communicative solutions to the problems that institutions of higher education encounter, there is potential for significant impact. By instituting creative methods to make a university more efficient, the institution can experience not only financial improvements, but emotional and psychological improvements as well. Higher employee satisfaction is one of the biggest impacts in effective change management. An example of significant impact is Georgia State. The president provided mini grants to approximately 200 students that had been dropped for nonpayment. In doing so, the students were able to attend classes, and the university generated more than $660,000 in additional tuition and revenue that it would not have gained without those scholarships (Selingo, 2013).

Conclusion Lundquist (2012) says this about higher education, “a mass of good intentions, fueled by seemingly endless resources, set the enterprise on what has become an unsustainable trajectory” (p. 3). Tuition costs are unsustainable, students are not receiving the education they need to be competitive, and more and more, schools are treating education as a business investment (Wiener-Bronner, 2011). While some universities have tried to combat these issues, the underlying problems still exist.

Currently, the methodology for external reviewers is to assess partial segments of an institution. In doing so, external reviewers have a limited perspective on the core problems that are affecting the operations of the institution. Piecemeal reform results in sub-optimization of the

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

31

system. Only by confronting the entire institution’s practices can an external reviewer develop effective solutions.

The University: Impossible framework from start to finish considers all aspects of the university and fosters an environment of communicative collaboration across boundaries to implement global yet specific solutions. An external reviewer can utilize the University: Impossible framework to holistically improve an institution. It is integral to the success of the university that an external reviewer evaluates the system in its entirety, incorporates all stakeholders in developing solutions, and confronts and holds accountable the leadership of the institution.

While all of the problems in higher education seem at times too large to tackle, this framework emphasizes that all of the problems are opportunities for growth and positive change.

Just like Restaurant: Impossible, the problems seem impossible to grapple and the resources are extremely limited. This change management process frames these circumstances as a challenge with the potential to have profound outcomes. Chef Robert Irvine always says that by pushing everyone to their limits, they are forced to be efficient. Universities can take their dire situations and through hard work, transparency, and collaboration, can transform into a stronger, more effective institution. The most important aspect of this framework is that it can turn an impossible situation into that of profit and sustainability, by making the internal stakeholders accountable for their actions and ideas. Change is not easy as Chef Robert Irvine says: “It takes change. Every company in the world doesn’t like change, whether they’re a Fortune 500, whether they’re a military changing commanders…We don’t like change. And that goes from the top down. We fight change. So the way in which you fight change effectively is accountability.”

32

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

References Blumenstyk, G. (2012). Carnegie leader calls for presidential commission to guide higher education’s future. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 59(14), A17.

Boggs, O. M. (2011, August 2). Addressing the graduation dilemma in technical and community colleges. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED522366.

Budig, G. A. (2013, January). Beating America’s college crisis. USA Today. Retrieved online at http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/06/college-student-loans-highereducation/1812275/ Carlson, S. (2013). How to assess the real payoff of a college degree. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(33), A26-32. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Is-ROI-the-RightWay-to-Judge/138665/ Connors, J. V. (2013). Systems theory and interpersonal relationships. Academia.edu. Retrieved 29 July 2013. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/4130515/Systems_Theory_and_ Interpersonal Relationships Cooper, K. J. (2012). View from the top: Community college leaders reflect on keys to success.

Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 29(7), 24-26. Retrieved 22 May 2013. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ968371 Corcorran, S. & Scott-Webber, L. (2013). Design thinking: theory and practice. Steelcase Education Solutions. PowerPoint. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/.

Deloitte LLP. (2011). Making the grade 2011: A study of the top 10 issues facing higher education institutions. Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomCanada/Local 20Assets/Documents/ca_en_ps_making-the-grade-2011_041811.pdf Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory. (8th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

33

Jian, G. (2007). Unpacking unintended consequences in planned organizational change: A process model. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(5), 5-26. Retrieved from http://mcq.s agepub.com/content/21/1/5. DOI: 10.1177/0893318907301986.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. (1978). Organizations and the systems concept. The social psychology of organizations. In J. Shafritz and P. Whitbeck, Classics of organization theory. (pp.161172). Oak Park Illinois: Moore Publishing Company, Inc. Kingkade, T. (2013, May 23). Class of 2013 student debt reaches new heights. Huffington Post.

Retrieved at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/21/class-of-2013-studen...

Klemm, W. R. (2013, March). Why are we screwing up the world’s best higher education system.

Psychology Today. .Retrieved at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memorymedic/20 1303/failing-college.

Lerbinger, O. (2012). The crisis manager: Facing disasters, conflicts, and failures. (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. (Current Communication: An Advanced Text Series, Vol. 3.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lundquist, D. (2012). When trying harder doesn’t work. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(15), 13. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/When-Trying-HarderDoesnt/136063/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en Maguad, B. A. (2011). Deming’s “profound knowledge”: Implications for higher education.

Education, 131(4), 768-774.

Mele, C., Pels, J. & Polese, F. (2010). A brief review of systems theories and their managerial applications. Service Science, 2(1/2), 126 – 135.

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

34

Moerschell, L . (2009, May). Resistance to technological change in academia. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 11(6). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume11/number6/ Rangnekar, A. (2013, May 23). Can consumerism save education? Huffington Post, 1-3.

Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ashish-rangnekar/can-consumerizationsave-_b_3307459.html.

Selingo, J. (2013, March 4). As colleges evolve, so must their presidents. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(26), 1-3. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/As-CollegesEvolve-So-Must/137635/ Selingo, J. (2013, May 20). How a little data can solve one higher education’s biggest problems.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(37), 1-15. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/ How-a-Little-Data-Can-Solve/139347.

What is college for? (2013, April 22). The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.ithaca.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/13409 46913?accountid=11644.

Wiener-Bronner, D. (2011, May 9). What’s wrong with American higher education? Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/whats-wrong-with american_n_853640.html#s246451title=Focus_on_Elite Zakaria, F. (2013, April 15). The thin-envelope crisis. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.time.co m/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2140209,00.html

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

35

Appendix A: Human Subject Research Board Proposal 1. General Information: a. Funding: N/A b. If externally funded (federal or state funds), please list CITI certification date of ALL researchers: (Please note that the proposal will not go to committee without CITI certification) c. Location: Ithaca, NY d. Time Period: June 2013 to August 2013 e. Expected Outcomes: Submission of manuscript to an academic journal or conference.

2. Related Experience of Researchers: Cory Young is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Graduate program. As Chair, she is the faculty of record for independent studies. In addition to having this oversight, she has collaborated with graduate students on various research projects that have been published.

Kathleen Tibbetts is an Ithaca College Graduate student and communications professional. She is responsible for the planning and exacting of strategic communications plans and contributes to her organization by improving operations and productivity. Academically she is learning and practicing how to diagnose and solve organizational issues, as well as conduct thorough research for studies.

3. Benefits of the Study: Researchers: The researchers will have greater knowledge and understanding regarding the current issues facing higher education, and will have a strong well-developed infrastructure for analyzing organizational problems in higher education. The student researcher will also gain experience in higher education reform, and will be able to apply this experience toward developing a career in higher education development.

Participant: Chef Robert Irvine will benefit from this study in the sense that we will give credit to you for inspiring this academic and professional research project.

Industry: Administrators in institutions of higher education will benefit from our communicative framework for solving problems.

4. Description of Participants a. Number of participants: One, Robert Irvine of Restaurant: Impossible b. Salient Characteristics: As the host of the show, he is in the best position to speak about his approach to solving the problems.

5. Description of Participation Chef Robert Irvine will participate in a telephone interview about his approach to the show. The interview should last approximately 30 minutes, and will be transcribed.

6. Ethical Issues: a) Risks of Participation: Serious physical or psychological effects are not anticipated.

Given Chef Irvine’s high media profile, his agents will be given a copy of the informed

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

36

consent form for him to sign, and be given a copy of the questions in advance. We will ensure that he does not violate the confidence of any of his clients, and that he does not reveal anything that would be considered intellectual property of the Food TV network. b) Have you attached an Informed Consent Form or Tear-Off Cover Sheet for anonymous surveys? Yes. 7. Recruitment: a) Procedures: Chef Robert Irvine will be contacted through his agents via E-mail. b) Inducement to Participate/Extra Credit: N/A 8. Confidentiality/Anonymity: In order to maintain confidentiality, all transcripts and audio files of the interviews will be secured as digital files on a password protected computer that only the Chair of the Graduate program will have access to.

9. Debriefing: N/A 10. Compensatory Follow-up: N/A Proposed Date of Implementation: Sometime during the month of June 2013, depending upon Chef Irvine’s schedule.

Signature of Principal Investigator: ________________________________________________________________ Electronically submitted protocols must be sent from an Ithaca College e-mail account. Original signatures are not required. Ithaca College e-mail IDs have been deemed by the College to constitute a legal signature.

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE UNLESS COPIES OF ALL INSTRUMENTS TO BE USED (SURVEYS, ETC.) AND INFORMED CONSENT FORM (IF NECESSARY) ARE SENT TO hsrlog@ithaca.edu.

37

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

INFORMED CONSENT FORM University impossible: Communicative solutions to problems within institutions of higher education 1. Purpose of the Study To generate creative solutions to challenges facing institutions of higher education. The information we gather will be used to create a manuscript to be submitted to an academic journal or conference.

2. Benefits of the Study For the subjects: You will benefit from this study in the sense that we will give credit to you for inspiring this academic and professional research project.

For the scientific community and/or others: Administrators in institutions of higher education will benefit from our communicative framework for solving problems.

3. What You Will Be Asked to Do Amount of time it will take: 30 minutes Tasks and procedures: You will be asked to participate in a telephone interview to answer questions about your approach to helping restaurants. This interview will be recorded and transcribed.

4. Risks Serious physical or psychological effects are not anticipated. Given your high media profile, we will ensure that we will not violate the confidence of any of your clients, nor the intellectual property of the Food TV network. We will ask for your permission to quote anything. We will also send you the draft of the final manuscript for you to read before submitting it to a journal or conference.

5. Compensation for Injury: N/A

6. If You Would Like More Information about the Study After the interview is completed, your responses will be analyzed and compiled in order to complete the requirements for the Master’s thesis. Once the thesis is approved and completed, you may request a copy, which will be delivered via E-mail. You will have the option to include your E-mail or physical mailing address. Otherwise, you may contact us using the information below at any point in time.

Kathleen Tibbetts, Graduate Student E-mail: ktibbet1@ithaca.edu

Dr. Cory Young, Graduate Program Chair, Communications E-mail: youngc@ithaca.edu Telephone: (607) 274-3698 Fax: (607) 274-7076

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

38

Address: Department of Strategic Communication. Roy H. Park School of Communications.

Ithaca College. 953 Danby Road. Ithaca, NY 14850 7. Withdraw from the Study You have the right at any point in time to refuse to complete the interview, skip any questions that you feel uncomfortable answering, or withdraw from the study.

8. How the Data will be Maintained in Confidence In order to maintain confidentiality, you will not be asked to identify your name. If desired, you may provide a pseudonym. All transcripts and audio files of the interviews will be secured as digital files on a password protected computer that only the principle investigators have access to.

I have read the above and I understand its contents. I agree to participate in a telephone interview which will be recorded. _____________________________________________________ ____________________ Signature Date

Note: To return this form, please scan, fax, or E-mail it, using the contact information listed above.

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

39

Appendix B: Interview Questions Introductions Any questions before we begin?

Questions about the show itself: How did you get this idea? Was it your idea? Or did you just fit the ‘bill?’

What kinds of characteristics/factors do you look for when choosing a failing restaurant?

Do you do prior research? (on family, biz, logistical, is there something about the person’s story that makes you decide?)

Do you use a formula, any mnemonic devices, models when assessing the restaurant? What are they?

What is the follow up process/mechanism? How do you keep tabs, what data is maintained? Do you ever have to go back to a reformed site, and feel like you need to reform it again?

What are the top three issues you find consistently in the failing restaurants?

When restaurants aren't as successful as they should be after you've helped, what are the different kinds of reasons?

How are you different in your approach from all of the other reality show revampers (Ramsay, Restaurant Stakeout, and Bar Rescue)? What sets you apart?

What are the top three solutions you arrive at consistently for failing restaurants?

Questions about you: How do you define yourself? How do you perceive your role? Consultant, restaurateur, etc.?

Tell us about you perfectionist/demanding that style? How do you think that behavior/attitude benefits the restaurant you are helping?

To the benefit of the restaurant, you are unabashedly honest with your feedback. Has there ever been an instance where you've had to censor yourself/opinion? Why/Why not?

In what ways do the restaurant stakeholders react to this perspective? What happen to/with the people that don't respond well to your approach?

What other means of consulting have you done?

Running head: UNIVERSITY IMPOSSIBLE

Have you thought about consulting for other types of organizations, like failing schools, universities and colleges? If not, how would you say your ideas could help failing schools, universities and colleges?

Closing: Anything else you would like to add?

Thank you so much. We would like to send you a thank you card. How can we get it to you?

Through food network???

40