Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bielicki Amy Oapsjp
Bielicki Amy Oapsjp
Bielicki Amy Oapsjp
Amy Bielicki
This paper will attempt to engage a theory to practice analysis, linking different lenses
found in the text Images of Organization by Gareth Morgan to a specific situational occurrence
from my practicum site in Student Judicial Programs (SJP). My analysis will include three
lenses with which the specific situation will be viewed from: the lenses of mechanical, culture,
and political systems. The overarching aim of connecting these different lenses to a situational
analysis of Student Judicial programs is to promote an all-encapsulating view of the office and of
what my experience working in this office has been over the last semester.
Descriptions
The Organization
Timothy Sheridan is the current Director of the Office of Student Judicial Programs and
has fulfilled this role for close to thirty years. Jennie Hemingway is a Hearing Officer within the
office and has been with the office for approximately three years. Michema LaFontant is a
Graduate Assistant in the office and there are three student workers whom work in SJP, one of
The mission of Student Judicial Programs (SJP) is to fairly and reasonably develop,
disseminate, interpret, and enforce regulations while protecting student rights, addressing
In other words, SJP oversees student discipline at Western Illinois University (WIU).
Reports of alleged student misconduct are reported to SJP who then delegates the misconduct out
cases which are less severe (i.e. first time Code of Conduct violations vis-à-vis underage
drinking). During these conferences, students will meet one on one with a Hearing Officer, have
a chance to convey their side of the incident, and the student and Hearing Officer work to
develop appropriate sanctions for the student depending on the situation which transpired. At
any point during a Disciplinary Conference, or if a student and Hearing Officer cannot
reasonably agree on a sanction, students may ask to have their case reviewed by the UJB
University Judicial Board. The UJB is comprised of students, faculty, and staff
members whom gather to hear, review, and analyze evidence regarding alleged cases of student
misconduct. For all UJB hearings (as well as Disciplinary Conferences) a preponderance of the
evidence standard exists – this means that an incident need only more likely to have occurred
than not for a student to be found in violation of the Code of Student Conduct (CSC). UJB
Hearings typically occur for cases that are more severe – Title IX, Fighting, or cases where
suspension or expulsion from WIU may be considered. However, UJB Hearings can include any
aspect of the CSC and students can be charged with multiple codes at once (same for
misconduct (FAQ), can be assigned at all levels and vary depending on the severity of the
incident with the least intrusive sanction being Disciplinary Reprimand (close to a Verbal
Warning) and the most intrusive being Expulsion. Overall, the goal of SJP is to foster student
The Situation
Recently, Tim and Jennie instructed myself and Michema that we would be the Chairs of
a UJB Hearing. The Hearing was regarding a Code 22g violation, which is: “failing to comply
with a sanction imposed under the Code of Student Conduct” (Code of Student Conduct). The
sanction which was marked as incomplete was a Step 1 AOD Assessment with the Alcohol and
Other Drugs Office. This is a standard sanction required for first time alcohol/drug policy
currently in good judicial standing but has a previous record of violating the drug or alcohol
policy. In this case, the student had a prior case history with drugs and alcohol as well as a prior
When setting up the Hearing and printing out the appropriate documents necessary for
the UJB Hearing, Michema consulted Jennie. Jennie stated that the Code 22 incident report
would be helpful, and that no other documentation was necessary. Tim then sat in on the UJB
Hearing to observe our procedure. Three UJB members sat in on the Hearing. After waiting for
fifteen minutes after the recorded start time, the student did not appear for the Hearing, which
means that the UJB heard the board In Abstentia and determined appropriate sanctions based on
After the UJB Hearing, Tim stated that we should have printed out more documents.
Having a complete record of all incidents from the past would have helped the board members.
Further, we should have tried to draw more information out of each UJB member to understand
their thought processes, as the deliberation was quite quiet at times. During the deliberation
process as well, Tim interjected the consensus decision of the UJB to offer a different option.
The UJB ultimately ended up selecting this option, though he was keen to interject where he felt
OAP SJP 5
we were messing up during the Hearing and continuously offer his own expertise on prior or
similar situations.
Lenses
Mechanical Lens
By just looking at the overall structure of SJP, it appears very mechanical. A student
messes up, they go to a conference of a hearing, they are found not in violation or in violation,
there are “standard” consequences for each code violation in the CSC, which get assigned,
student leaves. Theoretically, the department should operate smoothly, churning out students
who have learned great life lessons through messing up and speaking with a Hearing Officer or
the UJB. However, much like machines rarely function perfectly every time, SJP does not either.
Reflecting on the situation presented, ideally what would have happened was that the student
would have shown up for the hearing and the UJB still would have recommended the sanctions
which they did. However, the student did not show up. There was information missing when
questions were asked which meant that someone had to leaving the deliberation to obtain the
documents for everyone. A pre-established procedure for Code 22g UJB Hearings would have
been in place and Michema and myself simply would have had to follow a guideline to complete
As evident in the situation, the machine starts to malfunction when there are
lens. No set procedure is exactly in place of how things should be run, and thus, when left up to
interpretation, things can go wrong. In a department where everything seems very mechanical,
there is a large room for error. Humans are complex, which in turn suggests that there is no one
right way to approach a UJB Hearing or a Disciplinary Conference. Mechanical implies a rather
OAP SJP 6
mindless thought process, which does not work effectively when dealing with humans, yet,
having established procedures in place which can be followed accordingly would help SJP run
more smoothly and provide fewer inconsistencies based on subjectivity (Morgan, 2006, p. 11-
31). In other words, in the office which appears super mechanical but is not, a more mechanical
structure or lens would benefit those outsiders who are trying to learn or integrate into the SJP
office.
Culture Lens
A lot of policies and knowledge about the SJP office is held by Tim. Tim has been a
consistent member with the SJP office for close to thirty years, so he was around when most of
the policies currently in place were either created or implemented. Further, Tim has often had a
hand in creating and shaping the policies relevant to the SJP office. This drastically influences
the offices culture, as Tim is mostly a walking encyclopedia of knowledge, often relating current
cases to prior cases from years ago. From the outside, as mentioned, SJP appears to be a
machine. Inside the office, however, one can see the impact that the cultural lens has on the
office.
Since Tim was around for most of the policies or major shifts within the office, he
understands the changes that were made, the historical context as to why they were made, and
how they improved SJP and conduct at the time. However, his deep investment in the office
makes change or brining up opposing viewpoints difficult. Tim has a counterargument or story
for most points that are brought up. Thus, it is extremely difficult to separate the culture of the
Further, there are subcultures which exist within SJP. Jennie infuses more humor into her
conversations, Tim incorporates continual questions, I rarely see the student workers within the
OAP SJP 7
office at all. As evidenced by the situation, different subcultures will produce different results,
especially when those subcultures are overlapped (Morgan, 2006, p. 115 - 147). Jennie started
assisting with the UJB hearing, then the observation piece was transferred to Tim creating
dissonance and tension within the overall SJP culture. The culture of the office, and the
subcultural differences which exist between individuals in the office, creates an atmosphere
where one is not sure whom to follow or which process will result in a better outcome.
Looking at the outlined situation through this lens, the real power of the SJP office lies
within the Associate Vice President for Student Services Jason Woods, and even perhaps further,
the Vice President for Student Services Ron Williams. Observing strictly the UJB Hearing which
played out, Tim was in a position of power and dominance over the UJB Hearing even though
Michema and I were chairing the Hearing. Further, the UJB members listened to Tim’s opinions
on recommended sanctions over their own recommendations or the ones that Michema and I
tried to guide them towards. Tim then had Michema and I draft the outcome letter to be sent to
Jason Woods, though he edited the letter to better suit his style and conveyance of the UJB
Hearing. Jennie’s opinions and way of running UJB Hearings were disregarded when Tim
stepped in to observe. Finally, myself, Michema, Tim, the UJB panel, Tim, and Jennie all had
more power than the student who did not show up to attend the conference, and we would have
retained that power if the student did show up (the UJB sits on one side of the table while the
student who allegedly violated policy sits on the other). Hence, even the layout of the room was
setup in a manner to convey power and respect. (Morgan, 2006, p. 149 - 206)
Tim knows and understands the politics which occur at levels higher than his own – for
example, that SJP obtains all their funding through University Housing and Dining Services.
OAP SJP 8
Thus, Tim may have a better grasp of understanding which sanctions may be more appropriate or
readily approved at a higher level. Within the SJP office, it is basically whatever Tim says to do,
that is what is done. Jennie and Michema push back on points where they feel they may win or
create a change, though this does not happen very often. Politics is all about connections, and
Tim, having been at WIU for a very long time, has a lot of connections to and at WIU that he
may need to work with or cater to which are unknown to the rest of the SJP staff.
Critical Evaluation
SJP, like anything run by humans, has its inherent flaws. The examination of the office
through three different lenses provides a basis for viewing the SJP Office in a wider worldview.
By approaching the same situation through different lenses, one can see the different intricacies
at play which cause the SJP office to function how it does. This section of the paper will
evaluate which lenses are most dominant within the SJP office and will also identify an action
plan which may help the SJP office run more smoothly.
Dominant Lens
Reviewing the outlined description of the SJP Office as well as the situation which was
analyzed for this paper, I believe that the Culture lens plays the largest role in how the SJP office
functions. Tim is the office and the office is Tim. Tim is so ingrained into the SJP Office that the
two almost blur together. Policy creation, violation, sanctions, Tim knows and has a story for it
all. His identity has become closely linked to the SJP office which is why the culture within the
office so strongly gravitates towards whatever Tim says goes. Even other established identities
within the SJP office, such as Jennie or Michema, do not have as much weight or say in how
Secondary Lens
The other lens which I believe strongly affects the SJP office is political systems, and it is
a secondary support to the culture lens. Tim understands and deals with the very fine details and
relationships which influence the SJP office. Further, when tricky UJB hearings arise, Tim is
always the one to facilitate them as well as lead the board to the outcome he believes is most
beneficial. Having been in the SJP office for so many years, Tim understands the power
dynamics he can manipulate to achieve the outcomes he desires, or to be able to appease those at
Recommended Action
Analyzing the dominant and secondary lenses which affect the SJP office, one may
conclude that the common denominator is Tim. Seemingly, Tim is the person who runs the
office, makes all the decisions, and whom the office cannot function without. Thus, my
recommendation is to create a process for the different aspects of SJP that do not require Tim’s
knowledge or opinion to function. One way this can be achieved is through concretely outlining
all documents necessary for a UJB hearing, creating a script of how conversation should flow
during deliberation, and creating a checklist to go along with UJB Hearings and Disciplinary
The outline of documents for the UJB Hearing will help the chairs and board members be
able to have a reference as to which documents they are looking at and how these pertain to the
hearing. Conversation flow during a deliberation greatly varies on who is on the UJB that day.
Sometimes it is no trouble for conversation to occur during deliberation. However, for those
instances in which deliberation is slow, key phrases to spark discussion (which Tim may be able
to provide), would be beneficial to those who have not chaired UJB hearings in the past. Tim, on
OAP SJP 10
this deliberation sheet, may also be able to include a variety of sanctions for different incidents
which have been used in the past – almost like a reference guide for UJB cases as this could also
help the Hearing flow more efficiently. Finally, creating a checklist for Disciplinary Conferences
and UJB Hearings will help all Hearing officers, UJB members, and UJB chairs to have a way to
double check that every step of the process is being followed accordingly. This checklist may
almost occur more as a flow chart, informing each party what to do during meetings if the
conversation flows positively, negatively, or not at all since a student did not show up. Thus, my
recommendation for the dominant cultural and political lenses is to impose a more mechanical
structure onto the office to provide guidance and direction autonomously of individuals within
the SJP office. Now, the SJP office should not maintain a mechanical lens during the
engagement and conversational aspects of Disciplinary Conferences and UJB Hearings, though
rather the process should be more concretely set so that anyone could come in and successfully
Conclusion
Overall, the SJP office has a lot of work to do. Though the office has provided me with a
pleasant work experience and some wonderful skills, I understand how SJP is often frustrating to
others and now better understand why it runs the way it does. Fostering a sense of separation
from Tim’s identity as a person as being tied to the SJP office I believe is the first step which will
help the office run more efficiently. So long as college is expected to be a learning process and
to encourage growth and development, the SJP office will still be around and hopefully serving
students and guiding them into better and more relevant life decisions.
OAP SJP 11
References
Code of Student Conduct. (2015, September 15). Retrieved April 24, 2018, from
http://www.wiu.edu/student_services/student_judicial_programs/codeofconduct.php
http://www.wiu.edu/student_services/student_judicial_programs/faq.php
http://www.wiu.edu/student_services/student_judicial_programs/