IFAA welcomes new members interested in improving student life at MIT. Please see our web page at http://ifaa.homestead.com for more information. MIT students may be interested in joining the Institute Foundation, a student service group affiliated with IFAA; please see http://web.mit.edu/institivte/www/ or contact resources@mit.edu for more information regarding the Institute Foundation.

1. Principles of Student Affairs Policy
1. Introduction. We begin with a set of three principles that are the foundation of IFAA’s student affairs programs, including our Notes series. We hope our readers agree that these principles are fundamental to improving student life.
2. Principle 1: Carrying out public policy (in this case, student life policy)directly affects people's lives.
1. This is the principle of public policy. Never forget that, by participating in institute and student affairs, you are affecting peoples’ lives.
2. As a first corollary, policy-makers must remember to respect the constituents in question as intelligent individuals.
3. As a second corollary, actions in the policy-making and implementation arenas should be consistent with the improvement of people’s lives, as individuals and as communities.
1. Most people acknowledge this principle intellectually, but it is amazing how many policy-related actions are taken without regard to it. We will review these other reasons later on; it is a long list.
2. Policy-makers can, and have, used the "we’re just out to improve student life" argument to justify just about any decision, regardless of the true motivation or effects. Moreover, even a well-meaning person can end up injuring the welfare of their constituents. To help ensure that one’s actions help rather than hurt, we need Principle 2.
3. Principle 2: Having appropriate respect for the impact of public policy means regarding it as an intellectual discipline.
1. This principle means that the same level of intellectual effort required in other areas of scientific research must be applied to public policy. Decision-making is an intellectually rigorous activity, as much so as science and engineering research.
2. The usual inability to calculate analytic results makes decision-making in public policy more difficult than in science and engineering research. Similarly, the scarcity of objective measures makes intellectual rigor more important in policy analysis, not less.
3. Many problems with student-affairs decision-making relate to failures to understand the gravity of the undertaking and the need for intellectual rigor.
4. Principle 3: MIT was founded as a community of scholars, comprising the students, faculty, staff, and alumni. The members of these groups all have different roles. Nonetheless, all are entitled to participate in, and are responsible for, maintaining the welfare of the Institute. Partnership in student affairs must be a hallmark of MIT.
1. Students are entitled to a role in the decision-making process because they are clients and shareholders of MIT, not employees. Students invest in MIT through their tuition and academic efforts.
2. Similarly, alumni are entitled to a voice in the decision-making process, as they also make direct investments in the Institute through their donations and volunteer work.
3. Best analogy: students should think of themselves as stockholders in MIT. As part owners, they are entitled to a role in the decision-making process.
2. Getting Things Done at MIT
1. Key Concept 1: you want to belong to the group of decision-makers, not the group of "whiny and obnoxious trouble-makers." Decision-makers are:
1. Professional: be a person of consequence who understands the significance of what they are doing, and acts like a decision-maker.
2. Knowledgeable: have the knowledge and experience needed to make positive contributions.
3. Productive: be interested in making positive contributions to both the student body and to MIT as a whole.
4. Effective: be able to keep ideas and projects on track through your organization and dedication.
2. Professionalism
1. Act in a professional and courteous manner at all times, but…
2. Never be deferential. You are entitled to participate.
3. Particular conduct to avoid: whining, rudeness, yelling, threatening, etc. One can, however, be direct and forceful.
3. Knowledge
1. Students have valuable knowledge that MIT administrators and faculty lack - the real-world knowledge of how policies may affect them. They may also have knowledge of management and decision-making techniques, other specialized knowledge, and (often) more time to seek out relevant knowledge.
2. Ways to increase your knowledge:
1. Read all of MIT’s publications, including Tech Talk and Spectrum.
2. Get to know office staff and mid-level administrators.
3. Attend faculty meetings and faculty receptions.
4. Arrive at committee (and faculty) meetings 15 minutes early, and discuss campus issues with the early attendees (usually includes the committee chair, the most important person to know).
5. Have informal meetings with a variety of faculty and staff. One-on-one meetings work best.
6. Have meetings with people you disagree with. It is important to know what peoples’ motivations are, as it will put you in a much better position to debate them later. You may even find yourself agreeing with them (if not the position, at least parts of the rationale).
4. Productivity
1. If possible, you want to be interested in solving problems rather than in promoting conflict or assigning blame. You want others to see you as someone interested in getting things done for the good of the Institute, not as a threat to the interests of the Institute. The former is listened to and is taken into account; the latter just makes people angry and taken into account as someone who needs to be neutralized.
2. Self-sponsored initiatives. Students have a great deal of opportunity to launch their own initiatives, without having to get sponsorship from the MIT administration. These initiatives can be:
1. Programmatic: Project Negotiation, the Course Evaluation Guide, initial efforts to found the Freshman Leadership Program, Institute Foundation itself, etc.
2. Policy: Student Advisory Committee to the Chancellor , SAC Unified Report for a Residence System, Student Committee on Educational Policy class policy enforcement activities, Capital Campaign Advisory Committee, etc.
3. "One of the biggest shortcomings with today’s students is that they spend too much time asking permission." –Bob Jaffe, MIT Professor of Physics. Indeed, MIT administrators and faculty usually appreciate student initiative – it shows interest and responsibility.
4. More importantly, self-started efforts have a high likelihood of becoming influential. There currently is a "vacuum of initiative" at MIT – there are many ideas and needs floating around MIT that are not being addressed. As a result, the first group to take on a particular issue usually gets listened to and often gets to set the terms of debate. Note that with few exceptions, influence in student affairs (and even power to an extent) is not assigned: it is taken.
3. Institute Committees. If you are ever on an Institute Committee, and find yourself with the opportunity to in any way write anything significant for the committee, especially including the committee project plan, draft findings and recommendations, and the final report, do it. This recommendation includes appropriate papers you write on your own initiative. You may well become the primary shaper of the project’s results. Remember: "the road to influence is paved with paper."
4. Finally and critically, though: initiatives must be constructive, well planned and presented in a professional manner.
5. Effectiveness
1. Much of the detail on becoming effective will be in the following papers. For now, we present some quick tips that apply to meetings with administrators and faculty.
2. "Speaking the Language"
1. Make sure you have studied the issue on which you are working carefully. Be sure to know any relevant developments, documents, case histories, etc. Try to learn at least the last ten years (and twenty is better) of history - you will impress older members of the Institute with your historical awareness and better understand the reasons why your issue has not been addressed thus far.
2. Further, you should understand the terminology faculty and administrators use when speaking the issue, and be able to use that terminology yourself. It is important to get a feel for the code words (like "choice" and "community") and subtexts that are used, and using those devices correctly yourself. We call this ability "speaking the language."
3. Preparation for meetings
1. Plan out what you want to have happen at the meeting. Writing down your desired objectives can be a useful method.
2. If making a proposal, write up the proposal, along with supporting material. Proposals should be brief (no more than 3 pages), and should begin with a summary. Be sure to have enough copies for everyone present, plus a few extras.
3. If the meeting covers multiple issues, prepare an agenda, summarizing what the issues are, and what you want done for each issue.
4. Consider possible arguments and topics that might come up in advance, and how you will deal with them. Prepare answers to possible questions. Drafting a FAQ-style document for your own reference can be helpful.
4. In meetings
1. We reiterate the importance of being constructive and professional.
2. Meeting should begin with a summary of what the purpose of the meeting is, and what you want the result of the meeting to be. (Is it an information session? Do you want information on how to get something done? Do you want a commitment to do something?)
3. During the meeting, be sure to stay on topic – avoid being sidetracked. Remain aware of your goals for the meeting.
4. Answer any questions clearly. If you do not know the answer to a question, it is fine to say "I don’t know – I’ll get back to you." Do not guess the answer; you will not look good if your guess is wrong (and it will often be wrong). Most critically, do not guess the desires of the student body – staff members will often extrapolate the views of all students based on talking to a few. Indeed, you may need to explicitly remind the attendees that you do not represent the student body.
5. Do not leave the meeting until you have agreed on an action plan for next steps following the meeting.
1. After the meeting, write up minutes and send them to the other attendees, including ‘next steps’ and who is responsible for each. Doing so makes sure everyone is in agreement on what happened, and reminds them what they have committed to.
2. Be sure to follow up with the other attendees as appropriate (example: if they’re supposed to send you information in a week, make sure you contact them at the end of that week.)
6. Key Concept 2: Sustainability. Most likely, you will only be at MIT for a few years. You want to make your contributions last after you have gone. Sustainability is especially important because of what is known as the "Administrative Carousel" – it is an admitted technique of ‘permanent’ members of the Institute that those opposed to your efforts may delay action until you graduate, at which point your issues will disappear for many years. Thus, it is important to do the following:
1. Reflect and document the work you have done, including lessons learned. Make sure that your documentation is in a place that is easily accessible known to the relevant individuals or groups. (This step will improve your own effectiveness over time, as well.)
2. Put procedures in place to pass on your efforts to students who will be in place after you leave. These can be written lists of to-do’s or automated Athena scripts.
3. Intentionality: Understanding Why Decisions Are Made
1. Intentionality. Everything you see around you happened because of someone’s decision. These decisions are made for reasons. In trying to get things done, your first job is to understand who is making the decisions, and why they are making those decisions.
2. Who: you need to deal with the people who actually have the ability to implement your goals. It can take some work to identify the decision-makers and gain access to them, but it is usually doable. The big trick simply is to keep asking.
3. Why: you need to know what the priorities are if you are to make your goals conform to those priorities, or try to change the priorities themselves. Note that many will be disingenuous about what the real priorities are. Thus, you need the following methods to deduce the real priorities of the organization.
4. How to find why: "See what people do, not what they say."
1. Follow the money. Money is spent on the real priorities of the organization.
2. Follow the time. Leaders spend time on the real priorities of the organization.
3. Note: you will often hear an administrator or faculty member make claims about MIT’s priorities that do not match the Institute’s real money and time commitments. These claims often are not disingenuous; the person making the claims usually believes them. Do not think ill of them, but do remember that deeds signify the underlying priorities, not good intentions.
5. Some reasons why that "you won’t find in annual reports." The public justifications for decisions generally are logical arguments claiming that the decision will meet certain needs. Often, these arguments are both coherent and accurate. Yet, sometimes the logical arguments do not make sense. At other times, a decision will be made with no discernible "rational" reasons at all. Below, we explain some other reasons why particular decisions are made.
1. Self-preservation. The most powerful force in politics there is. Almost identical to Group-preservation, which includes the desire to defend the Institute as a whole, a part of the Institute, or groups of individuals. Note: do not expect people to be honest about group-preservation motivations; honesty about these motivations is associated with severe political punishment.
2. Ignorance. Often, administrators do not know about the existence of problems, or their importance, meaning they are not addressed. Related: reasons relating to first impressions, emotions and "common sense." Example: ask any non-MIT undergraduate what they think about Rush.
3. Incompetence. It does happen. It’s oftentimes not a personal failing, either – people can have too much work to do and be overwhelmed, or be incompetent in a limited area (especially project management and / or communications). As a corollary, reasons also include a willful desire to cover up incompetence.
4. Tradition / Outdated Policy. A policy was put into place to address a particular problem in a particular environment some years ago – the particular problem and environment has changed, but the policy has not.
5. Inertia (also "laziness"). A combination of iii) and iv), it comes from people simply not wanting to do the work necessary to fix a problem that does not appear that severe. Note that if the problem is severe, people will sometimes invent excuses why it is not. Also, in fairness, this problem is often caused by overwork rather than laziness. MIT has a rather small student life administration compared to its peer universities
6. Ego. Ego compounds the effects of ignorance and incompetence, as those affected do not listen to others, miss critical information, and do not recognize their mistakes.
7. Limited Agenda. Unless an organization uses sophisticated planning and execution tools (MIT does not), it can usually focus on only a few things at a time. Which issues are focused upon is a function of the issues of concern to the most important constituents, to the public (i.e. public relations problems), and to particular people in charge. For example, note how Congress and the American news media tend to focus heavily on a few issues at a time.
8. Corollary: Windows of Opportunity. Because of agenda limitations, pressures behind a certain issue can build for a long time, then suddenly explode to become a major priority.
1. "When faced with an exploding situation, don’t try to explain the spark that caused it. Sparks happen all the time. Instead, try to explain why 100 gallons of kerosene were poured around the room." -- Stephen VanEvera, MIT Professor of Political Science
2. A well-known example of a "Window of Opportunity" at MIT was the public outcry following the death of Scott Krueger, followed by the eventual decision to house all freshmen on campus. Institute and Boston anger at the FSILG system and the desire to move freshmen on campus had been building for decades prior to Krueger’s death. Had these pressures not already existed, Krueger’s death would have been seen as a tragedy, but not as a condemnation of the FSILG system.
3. Upshot: Try to recognize pressures building up, and get other people to recognize them. The goal is to get the "window" or "crisis" to appear in a controlled manner which allows for a rational and positive solution.
9. Evil. It is popular to assume that opponents are evil, wicked, tyrannical, etc. While there are some bad people out there, most egregious behavior can be explained by the above reasons, especially when mixed with ego. Rarely will you find an "evil" person at MIT.
1. Always try to remember the all-important Principle of Human Decency: "Most people are okay people who want to help others most of the time."
2. Be very careful about demonizing people. Without going into a lengthy sermon, it is fundamentally wrong to attack a person’s fundamental decency without solid evidence. Among other problems, demonization has probably been one of the biggest causes of bloodshed over the centuries, and ill-will at MIT.
3. There’s another, directly practical problem with demonizing people. It makes the accuser look whiny and immature. Godwin’s Law comes to mind: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. At this point, the argument ends, and no one will take the accuser seriously ever again."
4. To reiterate an earlier point though: well-meaning people can do just as must damage to the community as someone with heinous intentions. The most deadly combination is a mixture of ignorance, arrogance, and a refusal to listen to, and or respect, those raising concerns. (Example: "the students are a bunch of whiny and obnoxious children who don’t need to be consulted." Bad sign, this.)
5. Also, be aware of a recent, highly negative development: the abuse of the Principle of Human Decency, in which a person will accuse a critic of demonizing him when the critic has done nothing of the sort. The person may then follow up by demonizing the critic. The best way to counter this attack is to directly identify the behavior and ask for it to cease.
6. Some reasons why that you will find in annual reports. While the preceding reasons are important to understand, we assuredly do not want to overemphasize them. Very many decisions really are based on logical reasons strictly for the purpose of improving student life. We strongly suggest entering discussions on policy decisions with an open mind.
4. Understanding Power and Influence
1. "Power" and "influence" are terms often heard and often misunderstood. To become effective at improving student life, you need to understand what power and influence are, and how to use them.
2. Power is the ability to make decisions and have them be followed. People do what you say because they have to.
1. There are three base ingredients required to wield power: people, ideas, and money. Historically, the various branches of MIT and its community members have had these three in large quantities. However, they have tended to lack the key ingredient to bind the three base ingredients: organization, required to convert people, ideas, and money into getting things done that benefit the community. Thus, much of the content in IFAA’s Notes Series is devoted to organizational methods.
2. If you lack one of the three base ingredients, you must focus your attention on getting it. Fortunately, you can usually use one base to get the others, provided you are organized.
3. Influence is the ability to use other people’s power for your own goals. Powerful people do what you say because they want to.
4. Goal-Directed Strategies Based on Power and Influence
1. We suggest thinking carefully about strategies to get a project done at MIT, based on a proper understanding of what opportunities for power and influence are available. In compliance with Principle 1, the strategy chosen should be objectively chosen to work towards a goal of improving student life.
2. Using power strategies. Do you have power? If not, power-based strategies may backfire. Here are some possible sources of power for students and alumni:
1. Initiative power. Students and alumni running their own initiative to improve student life have near-exclusive control over that initiative.
2. Statutory power. Student government leaders enjoy certain statutory powers and guaranteed relationships with administrators.
3. Power of the purse. Especially for alumni, targeted donations or restrictions of donations are important tools to cause MIT to make desired decisions.
4. Power of choice. In many student life cases, you will want a high-ranking MIT official to do something. If you have a good alternative should the MIT official not do what would you like, this is an important source of power. This alternative is called the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), and plays a major role in integrative negotiation (to be discussed in a later IFAA note).
3. Using influence strategies. Do you have influence? If not, influence-based strategies may backfire. In particular, ask yourself whether there are powerful people whom you could influence. Note that most forms of influence act like a bank – you need to invest in your sources of influence before you can spend them.
1. Influence of relationships. If you have a strong, trusting relationship with someone, you will have a great deal of influence with him or her.
2. Influence of reputation. Your reputation is one of your strongest forms of influence on people who do not know you personally. A careful cultivation of your reputation as a responsible student activist can give you instant credibility with new people you meet. Be careful not to seek a particular reputation too directly – your efforts may backfire if people believe you are grandstanding.
3. Influence of logic. The clarity of the argument you present can be very critical, especially with faculty members.
1. However, be aware of the limitations of logic. The power of logic is inversely related to the importance of the issue to the listener
2. For example, a veteran logger is very unlikely to accept logical arguments that he needs to be laid off (and his family’s source of income cut off) in order to preserve old growth forests for future generations...
3. The best way to deal with these situations is to offer arguments that mitigate the listener’s concerns and point out benefits to the listener. For example, if the preservation plan allowed the logger to become a forest ranger at equal or better salary, the other logical arguments will be accepted quickly. Of course, this assumes the policy being discussed actually offers benefits to the person. (Designing policies to minimize negative impacts and maximize positive ones will be discussed in our upcoming IFAA Notes on Policy Design.)
4. Influence of allegiance. Belonging to a similar group as another individual – fraternity members, women scientists, or minority staff members, for example – can give you greater influence over that person.
5. Influence of potential gains. If the person believes that building goodwill with you will result in future gains then you will have more influence with that person. The gains are typically political, material, or an expectation of reciprocal influence in the future. This is similar to relationship influence but is not personal in nature.
6. Influence of sympathy. This does not mean acting or being pathetic to get what you want - it means letting the person express their own generosity and munificence by granting you a favor.
4. Below, we present a menu of goal-directed strategies based on assertion or non-assertion of power and influence.
5. Aggressive-competitive strategies
1. Assertion of power, non-assertion of influence
2. Assertion of self as decision-maker
3. Marked by appeals to legitimate authority, reward/punishment schemes, or the ability to coerce or impel behavior
6. Passive-cooperative strategies
1. Assertion of influence, non-assertion of power
2. Acknowledgment of other party as decision-maker
3. Attempts to get own goals adopted as other party’s goals
4. Marked by persuasion, suggestions, and the use of ideas.
7. Integrative strategies
1. Assertion of influence and assertion of power
2. Focus on mutual goals while ensuring that own goals are included
3. Work with other party in a partnership toward solving problems
4. Must have enough influence to persuade; must have enough power to keep negotiation integrative and other party at the table
5. Marked by "win-win" negotiation, to be discussed in a later IFAA Note.
8. Avoidance strategies
1. Non-assertion of power, non-assertion of influence
2. Restriction or curtailment of involvement in the issue
3. Can be permanent avoidance: "giving up"—not a goal-directed strategy per se, but avoidance of minor goals to protect a major one could be goal-directed
4. Can also be temporary avoidance: "try again another time"; "wait it out"