Running head: WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

Work Site/Environment Analysis Paper: EDLD 6545

Lisa Newhouse
Western Michigan University

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

Work Site/Environment Analysis Paper

My work site is at Western Michigan University (WMU) in the College of Arts and
Sciences (CAS) undergraduate advising office. CAS is one of eight colleges within WMU and is
the largest, providing approximately half of the total student credit hours for the entire student
body. We have approximately 80 majors within our college and represent the liberal arts
curriculum at WMU. Our academic departments bridge the humanities, social sciences, and
natural sciences. Our mission is to promote involved global citizenship by providing high
quality education that fosters involvement, discovery, distribution of knowledge, and promotes a
desire for continuous discovery and learning (Western Michigan University College of Arts and
Sciences, 2014). I have been a graduate assistant in this office for approximately 14 months and
my responsibilities include advising undergraduate students in regards to their liberal education
curriculum requirements.
For this paper I will utilize specific campus components; physical environment, human
aggregate, structural/organizational, and constructed, to analyze my work site environment. I
will then attempt to apply this knowledge to determine my personal degree of fit within my work
site based on how I interact with these components. Lastly, I will relate how my degree of fit
affects my attraction, satisfaction, and stability in this work environment.
Physical environment
It is easy to become overwhelmed when analyzing the physical environment. There are
many things that can be considered; geographic location, features, designs, space, size, layout,
landscapes, territory, soft vs hard architecture, and the list could go on and on. Therefore, in
order to gain a better understanding of the causal relationships between the physical environment
and those that interact with it; I approached my analysis with a few parameters that would assist

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

me in maintaining a focus. According to Strange and Banning (2001), the physical features are
often among the most important factors in creating a critical first impression of an institution (p.
12). With the concept of first impressions prominent in my mind, I decided to approach my
analysis by narrowing my attention to the hallway, entranceway, and reception desk area of the
CAS undergraduate advising office. I then decided to focus my attention further and look
primarily at the design element and the physical artifacts utilized in my work site.
Prominently displayed in the hallway adjacent to the entranceway to our office is a sign
indicating that you are in CAS (see appendix 1). A sign that is almost identical in design is
located directly behind the reception desk once you enter our office (see appendix 2). Strange
and Banning (2001), indicate that signs are an example of physical artifacts that can convey both
functional and symbolic messages to observers. I would suggest that both of these signs are
clearly functional. They tell you exactly where you are and they are also telling you what occurs
in this campus environment. Furthermore, I would submit that both signs convey nonverbal
messages through the design element that is symbolic. Both signs are undeniably modern in
design, and typically modern design is associated with being new and innovative. The symbolic
message that may be conveyed through this modern design is that this environment is superior
and of higher quality, and therefore it is an environment that you may want to interact with.
This modern design element is carried over in the entranceway and hallway (see
appendix 3 & 4). As can be seen from the photos, the glass element utilized to fabricate the
entranceway and hallway allows individuals to see directly inside, making the space completely
visible. Being highly visible from the hallway allows individuals to find our work site easily,
serving a functional purpose. However, the glass element also provides a nonverbal message by

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

invoking images of transparency and accessibility. Perhaps providing a symbolic message that
there are no hidden agendas in this space and that it is welcoming and accessible to all.
The above examples suggest an approach to the physical environment which is
reminiscent of environmental probabilism. According to probabilism, physical environments are
intentionally designed to lend itself to the probability that certain behaviors will be more likely to
occur within them (Stange & Banning, 2001). The physical signs and design element utilized in
my work site suggest that the environment was intentionally designed to increase the probability
that individuals would be able to find our work environment. Additionally, they serve a
symbolic function by providing a nonverbal message that would encourage individuals to stay
and interact with us. In both instances the physical elements within the environment have
encouraged the likelihood that certain behaviors would occur.
Human Aggregate
For my analysis of the human aggregate within my work environment, I chose to focus
on Kolbs (1983) theory of learning styles. The foundational approach underlining his theory is a
cognitive approach which focuses on how individuals think, reason, make meaning, and connect
it to the learning experience (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). He defined learning
into four distinct styles; convergers who prefer problem solving and decision making rather than
social and interpersonal tasks, divergers who prefer meaning and value and are people and
feeling oriented, assimilators who prefer ideas over people and have strengths in reasoning and
observation, and accommodators who are action oriented, adapt to change, and at ease with
people. I utilized this framework of learning styles to obtain a general idea of the primary
learning styles of the advisors in my work site. My analysis was based strictly on observations
of staff behavior and interactions amongst each other, with students, and in staff meetings.

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

There are 9 advisors within our office, two of which are graduate assistants. Since the
graduate assistants are part-time and temporary positions, they were eliminated from the
analysis. It was my belief that positions that are full-time and permanent are more indicative of
being influential upon each other. From my observations I concluded that the advisors are
comprised of two convergers, two assimilators, two divergers, and one accommodator. This
would suggest that there is not a dominant personality characteristic or learning style, but rather a
fairly equal degree of learning styles present with the exception of the accommodator, which was
represented by one. The lack of a dominant personality characteristic amongst the advisors is
what I believe heavily influences the dynamics within the environment.
I have worked in this environment for over a year, and during this period of time I have
rarely seen behaviors or characteristics that relay the message that we are a team with a common
purpose. During interactions amongst the advisors it is quite common to witness visible signs of
friction and verbal comments of dissent. Rarely are these obvious signs of disagreement
resolved through productive means. Not only does this affect working relationships and
collaboration on projects, but it inhibits engagement with team members towards a common
purpose. From a personal viewpoint, small friendships have developed among likeminded
individuals, but it does not carry over to the aggregate as a whole. I have observed advisors
proceeding through an entire day without acknowledging each other at all. I personally can attest
that days could go by without anyone acknowledging me unless I make the first overture. All of
these behaviors reinforce my initial impression that there is not a team or community present
within this work environment, but rather just a physical space where individuals come to work
each day independently from each other.

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

According to Strange and Banning (2001), a low degree of congruency could cause
members within an aggregate to feel excluded and unwelcome, and therefore unlikely to engage
with other members within the environment. Keeping this concept in mind is helpful when
analyzing my work site environment. For the past fourteen months I have been able to observe
the behaviors of the advisors within my office, and during this period of time there has always
been a feeling of discontent. However, in the last few months the discontent has noticeably risen
and is now almost palpable amongst some individuals. This could be due to a variety of events
that have occurred, but I believe that the real origin of dissatisfaction within the work
environment can be directly related back to the human aggregate and the lack of congruency.
Due to the fairly equal degree of differentiation amongst the learning personalities within my
work site, there is a low degree of congruency which contributes to a lack of inclusion.
Ultimately it is the lack of inclusion that hinders the ability of those within the environment to be
engaged with one another and to work towards a team or community.
Structural/Organizational
Understanding an environments organizational dynamics provides insight regarding how
decisions will be made, how and to what degree rules will be enforced, whether or not there is an
emphasis on quality, quantity, or efficiency, and whether or not routinization or complexity will
be present within work roles and job duties (Strange & Banning, 2001). Therefore by gaining
greater insight into organizational dynamics, it is possible to comprehend the role it plays in
shaping the behavior of the individuals within a work site environment. In my worksite I
analyzed the organizational dynamics to determine if the dynamics were similar to the
characteristics and behaviors exhibited by the individuals within it. I then tried to analyze

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

whether or not the dynamics facilitated a dynamic or static environment and how that related to
the overarching mission of the institution.
Utilizing the organizational questionnaire we were given in class, I was able to map out a
useful profile of the dynamics of my work site environment. Based on my responses to the
questionnaire, my work site has a high degree of centralization, formalization, stratification, and
routinization. This suggest that the environment would be characterized by egalitarian
procedures versus democratic, formalized regulations, and clear role delineations. Behaviors that
may be exhibited by individuals within this type of environment may include rigidity,
inflexibility, passiveness, and a lack of initiation (Strange & Banning, 2001). In the article First
Encounters of the Bureaucratic Kind: Early Freshman Experiences with a Campus Burea
Godwin and Markham (1996), indicate that in bureaucratic organizations staff members used
informal but fairly rigid scripts to structure interaction (p. 680) and that staff coping behaviors
when dealing with students primarily consisted of a businesslike attitude when dealing with
studentsemphasizing following the rules (p. 686). It is this formalization and routinization in
the organization that I have consistently observed in the interactions of advisors with students
and with each other in my work site. These characteristics and behaviors foster an environment
that I believe is static, and is in complete opposition of the mission of the university.
The mission statement of the university, indicates that we are learner centered, discovery
driven, and globally engaged. These pillars describe a dynamic organization that fosters
innovation, flexibility, and a willingness to take initiative and respond to change. In order to be
responsive to the individual and diverse needs of the student body it is necessary to build a
foundation, which begins with the faculty, staff, and workers in every environment on campus.
Building a dynamic foundation in all campus environments encourages creativity, diversity, and

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

risk taking amongst all learners and ensures an alignment with the overarching mission of the
university.
Constructed
Constructed environments are comprised of factors consisting of the collective views,
norms, perceptions, and experiences of individuals within an environment and how the
individuals then make meaning of these factors (Strange & Banning, 2001). Through this
process an image begins to form regarding the culture of an environment and we can begin to
answer the questions of: Who are we and what do we stand for? Prior to obtaining my position
within the CAS undergraduate advising office, I had worked in the healthcare industry for twenty
years and I found myself having what could accurately be described as culture shock upon
entering my current work site. Whitt in the article Dont Drink the Water?: A Guide to
Encountering a New Institutional Culture (2001), indicates that prior employment settings
affect newcomers understanding of, and response toassumptions encountered in the new
institution (p. 517). Initially, my prior work experience made it difficult to ascertain what the
work culture within my new work environment was and therefore I had to rely heavily on the
cues that the environment provided.
There were many cues in my new work environment that I noticed during my initial
months in my new position. There were the murals on the walls of the hallway leading to the
work environment (see appendix 5), the stickers on each door in the building (see appendix 6),
the mural on the wall of the office (see appendix 7), and the display case in the hallway (see
appendix 8). All of these visual cues were providing a nonverbal message that indicated that we
were the community of CAS and we stood for global diversity, engagement, creativity,
innovation, and excellence. These concepts continued to be reinforced through the language

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

utilized in department meetings, during promotional events, and by the Dean of the college
during the state of the college address. The messages and experiences espoused an
environmental press that indicated to me that this is what we stood for and I should try to
espouse behaviors that corresponded with this ideology (Strange & Banning, 2001).
Initially, I was comfortable with the message that I received, however as the year has
progressed I find that there is an increasing dissonance within myself. It is difficult to isolate
with accuracy what has influenced my perceptions the most, but I believe it is related to the low
congruency that I perceive from the environmental press that is expressed and the actions of the
individuals within my work environment. I was fortunate to have previously worked in an
environment that continually manifested through its day to day actions a constructed
environment that matched its image, while at the same time matching my values and needs. This
previous work environment contributed to a high level of congruency within myself and may
cause me to hold my current work environment to a higher standard.
On the other hand, I believe that my perceptions of my current work environment are
accurate and reveal a significant degree of incongruence within the environment. This
contributes to the intensified dissonance within myself. It is through the constructed
environment that individuals learn how to externally adapt and navigate an environment and
maintain interpersonal relationships within the environment. However, in an incongruent
environment there are no clear message that provide a framework for navigating the
environment. Therefore feelings of uncertainty are present, which contribute to feelings of
dissonance.
Person-Environmental Interaction Analysis

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

10

In my previous career as a therapist, I was often asked what I enjoyed most about the
work I performed. Often I would answer that I enjoyed helping people and gained a personal
degree of satisfaction knowing I made a difference in somebodys life. When I decided to
change careers and pursue a degree in student affairs, I was often asked why I was making such a
drastic change and I answered these questions with the same response: I enjoyed helping people
and I gained a personal degree of satisfaction knowing I made a difference in somebodys life. I
continue to be attracted to environments that provided these type of experiences, however I also
have a greater insight in regards to what is needed to satisfy and provide stability for me.
I have come to realize that an additional factor that is essential to my satisfaction within
an environment, is related to relationships. I need to be able to engage with others and
participate in relationships that provide me with a sense of community. I have discovered that I
thrive on building meaningful relationships in all dimensions of the human aggregate. Therefore,
I not only require meaningful relationships with the students that I come in contact with, but I
require it with my co-workers as well. Lastly, in order to gain stability within an environment, I
require a culture that demonstrates a high level of congruency between its verbal and nonverbal
messages and its actions. This is what provides me with a framework of stability that encourages
deeper commitments.

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

11

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

12

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

13

Appendix 5

Appendix 6

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

14

Appendix 7

Appendix 8
References

WORK SITE/ENVIRONMENT

15

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D. & Renn, K.A. (2010). Student development
in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Godwin, G. J., & Markham, W. T. (1996). First encounters of the bureaucratic kind: early
freshman experiences with a campus bureaucracy. The Journal of Higher Education,
660-691.
Strange, C., & Banning, J. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning environments
that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Western Michigan University College of Arts and Sciences (n.d.). [Data File]. Retrieved from
http://www.wmich.edu/arts-sciences/about.
Whitt, E. J. (1997). Dont drink the water?: A guide to encountering a new institutional
culture. ASHE reader on college student affairs administration, 516-523.