Community College Leadership

A Multidimensional Model for Leading Change

Pamela L. Eddy

• Publisher: Stylus Publishing
• Year: 2012
• eBook ISBN: 9781579225087
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Two-year colleges are facing major change. The majority will undergo a turnover in college presidencies in the next ten years, at a time when they are being asked to be engines for economic growth, enable more students – and a greater diversity of students – to gain 21st century qualifications, and provide a pathway to higher degrees, all with reduced state and local funding. Recognizing that future community college leaders – at all levels– will manage increasingly complex organizations, and face very different challenges than their predecessors, this book provides a multidimensional model of leadership suited to these new demands and environments. The model addresses issues of leader cognition, race and gender, the importance of culture, and the need for more collaborative modes of communication and decision making to frame and implement change. It recognizes that there is no longer any one way to lead, and that the next generation of leaders will be more diverse, possess experience and qualifications from a wider variety of careers, and follow new pathways to their positions. Leaders in the future will possess a cultural competency that is fostered by being lifelong learners.Through over 75 individual interviews with leaders and campus members, Eddy is able to provide examples of the model's components in practice and to illuminate which experiences proved the most relevant for these leaders on their route to upper administration. She shows how her model intersects with the leadership competencies defined by the American Association of Community Colleges, and proposes strategies for future leadership development. This book is intended for anyone considering a leadership position, at any level, in a community college; for college administrators and boards responsible for leadership development programs; and for individuals in corresponding organizations who conduct training programs for aspiring leaders. Likewise, those employed at four-year universities may find value in the model as a developmental tool.

1
THE NEED TO RE-ENVISION COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEADERSHIP

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.

John Quincy Adams

Higher education leadership is a popular topic for research and discussion and has inspired numerous books and articles over the years. An electronic search on the phrase community college leadership alone yields close to 3,000 hits. Heightened interest in the subject has been spurred recently by predictions that as many as 84% of community college presidents will retire over the next 10 years (Shults, 2001; Weisman & Vaughan, 2007). These pending retirements, as well as severe cuts in state funding and other external pressures, mean that community colleges currently face leadership changes and challenges not seen since the massive expansion of 2-year colleges in the 1960s.

As community colleges prepare for a mass changing of the leadership guard, several questions emerge. Who will make up the next generation of community college leaders? What new ideas and experiences will they bring with them? How can community colleges prepare for new leaders who may break with traditional, male-dominated leadership models? What sort of training and leadership development programs should be put in place to prepare future community college leaders? The current period of transition provides an opportune time to re-envision community college leadership.

Given these changes and challenges, today’s community college leaders, including presidents, chief academic officers, vice presidents, deans, and chairs, as well as those seeking such positions, continuously seek guidance on how to improve their leadership skills and effectiveness. Some borrow from industry and attempt to apply business-based theories to a collegiate setting, but for various reasons, these efforts are not always successful (Birnbaum, 2000). Within the community college sector, several sources of support for leaders have emerged. In 2005, the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) released Competencies for Community College Leaders. This monograph was the result of a 2-year effort to provide a set of competencies that can guide future leaders. In particular, the AACC hoped that emerging leaders would use the framework to measure their development and prepare for high-level leadership positions in community colleges.

In addition, many professional organizations, state associations, and individual colleges have created formal leadership development programs. Some of these specifically target the AACC’s leadership competencies, whereas others focus on developing leaders to meet the contextual needs of their college (Eddy, 2009; Jeandron, 2006). Although developing leaders by measuring specific competencies and emphasizing the importance of context and culture in leadership development are not mutually exclusive, the two approaches are based on differing conceptions of what a leader is and should be, and perhaps on competing ideas of who should be recruited to campus leadership positions. The emphasis on competencies underscores a set of skills acquired irrespective of the particular needs of a community college. For instance, the specific traits of communication and resource management focus on becoming adept at the process of relationships and the balancing of competing needs for resource allocation. Attention to contextual needs, on the other hand, focuses on the specific culture, history, and challenges facing a particular college. The unique constellation of an individual campus’s situation means that communication and resource managements operate within contextual boundaries. It is important for leaders to understand their college’s situation to best meet challenges.

This book is based on the premise that leadership is not composed of a prescribed list of traits or skills. Rather, leadership is multidimensional, with the various dimensions existing on continua that reflect the evolution of a leader’s understanding of what it means to lead, as well as his or her ability to respond to leadership opportunities in new ways. Key to a multidimensional understanding of leadership is recognition of the fact that all leaders rely to some extent on their core beliefs and underlying schemas (i.e., ways of understanding the world) in making leadership decisions. However, leaders also possess a variety of other leadership dimensions, which interact in ways that are obscured or oversimplified by traditional, two-dimensional theories and models of leadership. Intended as a foundation to the ideas presented throughout the book, this chapter describes the challenges of community college leadership, briefly details the evolution of leadership philosophies, and provides background information on the nine case studies from which empirical data were drawn. The chapter concludes with an overview of the rest of the book.

Challenges of Community College Leadership

Scholars and policy makers often talk about the community college’s historic tripartite mission of transfer education, vocational training, and community service. Yet this idea often oversimplifies the many functions of community colleges. True, the colleges serve as points of access to higher education and lower-cost paths to a bachelor’s degree for students who cannot or choose not to matriculate directly at 4-year universities. And yes, community colleges offer vocational training and apprenticeship programs that lead to direct employment, as well as courses that fulfill local community desires and needs. However, in recent years community colleges have also become the primary institutions responsible for providing remedial education to students who are unprepared for college-level work. In addition, they increasingly offer contract training for employees of local businesses, as well as a wide range of adult learning programs. Furthermore, because of their literal and figurative locations between high schools and 4-year universities, community colleges have become the nexus of educational partnerships forming what policy makers envision as seamless educational pathways from kindergarten through the baccalaureate (Amey, Eddy, Campbell, & Watson, 2008; Cherry Commission, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Even with serving all of these functions, many community colleges have sought to confer applied bachelor’s degrees in areas such as teacher education, nursing, and technology (Floyd, Skolnik, & Walker, 2005; Townsend & Ignash, 2003).

The central challenge of community college leadership is thus balancing these multiple missions and functions in a way that best meets the demands of the community, the state, and the nation. In doing so, leaders must be responsive to changing regional needs and business demands, as well as student aspirations and limitations. Gumport (2003) frames this balancing act as a continuous struggle by community college leaders (as well as those at other public institutions of higher education) to straddle an industry logic that puts a premium on economic priorities and a social logic that prioritizes meeting students’ educational needs. This balance is clearly a difficult task, and some believe that it may be impossible to give equal weight to each mission. Boggs (as cited in Evelyn, 2004) argues that community college leaders must navigate internal and external demands and prioritize some institutional goals over others. Such leadership decisions necessarily mean that certain college functions go unfilled. However, by connecting college priorities to community needs and enacting specific strategies to fulfill institutional objectives, leaders can help campus constituents make meaning of their roles at the institution as they focus on improving college outcomes (Eddy, 2003; Neumann, 1995).

The ways in which community colleges are funded provide another leadership challenge. Historically, local taxes were the primary source of revenue to the colleges, which meant that leaders often prioritized regional needs and demands in order to secure a steady stream of funds. However, since the early 1960s state apportionments have outpaced local contributions; in 2000 the states provided 45% of public community college revenues, compared to 20% from local sources (Cohen & Brawer, 2008). This dependence on state apportionments not only complicates the ways in which college leaders make decisions about institutional priorities, but also means that cutbacks in state funding have disproportionately affected 2-year colleges (U.S. Department of Education, 1980, 1995, 2007). In an attempt to stabilize revenues, community colleges have increasingly sought investments from business and industry, particularly in vocational programs. However, most community colleges derive less than 10% of their income from private sources, and thus contributions from local businesses go only so far in easing the institutions’ financial woes. Moreover, some argue that greater collaboration with business and industry puts pressure on college leaders to prioritize narrowly tailored vocational courses and workforce development programs over transfer education. Needless to say, dependence on state apportionments, variable funding streams, and variable expectations from businesses and local communities complicate planning and make budgeting difficult.

Student demographics at 2-year colleges also pose a leadership challenge. The average community college student differs greatly from the traditional 4-year university student. Perhaps most important, community college students are older; the average age of a community college student is 27, compared to an average age of 24 at 4-year institutions (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). Community college students are in various life stages and often must balance multiple work, school, and family responsibilities. The mission of community colleges as institutions of second chances and open access creates additional challenges for community college leaders. Public community colleges enroll a full 45% of students in the lowest household income quartile (Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2005). Low-income students are constantly pressed by financial concerns, which often results in their placing a premium on work over class attendance. Thus, community college leaders must consider providing flexible scheduling, accelerated degree programs, alternative content delivery options, on-campus child care, and financial support systems to help bridge the funding gap for students.

The vast number of community college students requiring remedial coursework also presents a challenge to community college leaders. Nationwide, 44% of first-time community college students enroll in at least one developmental course (Cohen & Brawer, 2008). Moreover, the percentage of public 4-year institutions that provide remedial education dropped from 85% in 1994 to 76% in 2007, thus pushing a greater number of students who are unprepared for college-level work to community colleges (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). Successfully moving students through remedial courses and into transfer and vocational programs presents a significant pressure for community college leaders, as does the growing percentage of operating budgets necessarily devoted to remediation.

Clearly, community college leadership requires a delicate balancing act. Today’s leaders must navigate multiple demands from college and community constituents, uncertain funding streams, challenging and changing student demographics, and increased demands for accountability. Furthermore, an increasing number of community college presidents face these challenges on their own, as a vast number of faculty retirements and a greater reliance on part-time faculty diminishes collegial governance. Contemporary community college leaders thus require skill sets and life experiences that differ from those needed in the past and that allow them to successfully navigate 21st-century challenges.

Traditional Thoughts on Leadership

Leadership theories have become more complex as the contexts in which leadership occurs has evolved. At the inception of the industrial revolution, when researchers were grappling with understanding organizational and corporate structures, classical leadership theory centered on the concept of a “great man” who could rely on his inherent talents and skills to direct others in newly formed organizations (Heifetz, 1994). As leadership philosophies were expanded beyond large industrial models, the limitations of a one-size-fits-all mode of leading gave way to a more humanistic approach to leadership in which relationships between leaders and followers were acknowledged and valued (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939; Stogdill & Coons, 1957).

As different types of people began to enter the leadership ranks—women and minorities, for example—leadership theorists began to consider how the culture of an organization affects the ways leaders lead. Critical to this expanded understanding of leadership were the ways in which leaders helped followers make meaning of culture and changes (Smircich & Morgan, 1982; Weick, 1995). This perspective emphasized how leaders learn to lead (Amey, 2005; Davis, 2003) and highlighted how leaders’ underlying mental maps influence their actions (Senge, 1990). Recently, higher education scholars have called for a different way of thinking about leadership that calls attention to ethics, globalization, and accountability (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006).

Although philosophies of leadership have evolved and become more nuanced in response to changing organizational structures and the addition of female and non-White leaders, a reliance on trait-based and hierarchical models of leadership remains. Recent research on emerging conceptions of leadership at community colleges underscores this reliance (Eddy & VanDerLinden, 2006). Nonetheless, some leaders—in both industry and institutions of higher education—are beginning to demonstrate different conceptions of leadership that focus on collaborative relationships, team building, and shared governance. As community colleges face replacing their leadership ranks, search committees should identify the specific needs of their campus to obtain the best fit. Those desiring a more collaborative leader can focus on questioning potential applicants about specific instances that portray the candidates’ leadership approach. These types of conversations are telling because past behavior and experiences predict what to expect when the leader arrives on campus.

The ways in which individuals construct their own understanding of leadership (Amey, 1992, 2005) may help further expand philosophies of leadership and may put into practice new conceptions of leadership that are not oriented toward individual leaders. This book uses this broader philosophy of leadership as its starting point and relies on the voices and experiences of current community college leaders to untangle some of the complexity surrounding concepts of leadership.

Case Studies and Methods

To understand better the challenges of leadership in the field, a variety of community colleges were studied and supplemental individual interviews conducted. These case studies serve as examples of leadership in action and offer individuals an opportunity to see how others dealt with common campus issues, including missteps and learning from these mistakes. Aspiring leaders can learn from these examples and contemplate how they would have responded under similar circumstances. Likewise, students in graduate programs can analyze these cases using the theories they acquire in their classes and what they bring to their understanding from their own practice.

Colleges were selected based on change efforts underway on campus and the presence of a new president—one who had been on campus less than 5 years. Additional minority presidents were interviewed to provide a broader appreciation of issues emanating because of race and color. All of the names used in this text for individuals and colleges are pseudonyms. The logic for the selection criteria was twofold. First, new leaders bring to campus fresh ideas and practices. Observation and study of these early initiatives can provide insight into the influence of leadership development on actions and campus reactions to shifts in leadership. Second, change, by its very nature, destabilizes the existing equilibrium of the culture. How campus members react to these changes and, in turn, how the new president considers this feedback can provide examples for best practices and critical elements leading to success. Campus selection also included a variety of regional locations throughout the United States. The range of locales included rural, suburban, and urban colleges, as well as colleges of various sizes. A detailed outline of the methodology underpinning the information reported here is located in Appendix A.

The following is a brief overview of all the case sites included in this study. The cases presented embody a good cross section of institutions that readers may encounter or lead. Appendix B contains expanded versions of the case studies for the sites; each case includes a series of questions at the end for use in reflection regarding how to handle the given situations and prompts for tactics to frame understanding of the complex scenarios facing the case study presidents. These questions provide an opportunity for readers to reflect on their responses to the same challenges the site presidents faced. Additionally, each case intersects with the six competencies put forth by the AACC as important for leadership development and provides a mechanism for contemplating possible solutions and actions.

Technology Community College

Technology Community College (TCC), located in the Northeast, is a residential 2-year technical college that serves as the de facto community college for the region. The main campus is in a rural part of the state, and there is a branch campus 35 miles away. Because TCC draws students from a broad swath of the state, the student body is more diverse than either the faculty or the local population. TCC has received national recognition for its use of technology.

Before taking the helm at TCC, President Chris Jones was president of a 2-year college in the Midwest. Before that, Jones taught in and led a community college manufacturing engineering technologies department, as well as a computer-aided design department. He also brought to TCC experience as a business consultant, designer, small-business owner, and Vietnam veteran. Jones’s main focus since arriving at TCC was the initiation of ThinkPad University at the college, a college program in which each entering student was required to purchase a ThinkPad computer for use in his or her college program. Financial aid was available to underwrite the costs for the computers; because the students owned the computers, they kept their laptops after graduation or transfer from the college.

Hunkering Down Community College

Like TCC, Hunkering Down Community College (HDCC) is a residential 2-year campus located in a rural area of the Northeast. It, too, is the only 2-year college in the region. The campus is situated on 625 acres of land and offers targeted courses tied to the needs of area businesses. HDCC’s premier academic programs include golf management, hospitality, and veterinary technology curricula. President Lynne Pauldine had previously served as vice president of enrollment at a midwestern community college and continues to consult for a national enrollment management firm and teach online courses in strategic planning. She holds a doctorate in higher education administration and a bachelor’s degree in communications. Early in her career, she taught in communication departments at both 2- and 4-year colleges. After taking the reins at HDCC, Pauldine initiated a campuswide program review that resulted in the elimination of 14 academic and vocational programs.

Bifurcated Community College

Bifurcated Community College (BCC) consists of a main campus, two branch campuses, and four outreach centers in the western United States. It is one of four community colleges in a relatively large state; its service area encompasses 18,000 square miles. In order to increase full-time enrollment, one of the college’s current goals, BCC has targeted outreach to area high schools and instituted bridge and dual-enrollment programs to introduce students to the college. BCC also serves as a cultural resource for the city in which it is located, hosting community theater events and lectures. Tensions exist at the college, with the branch campuses seeking more autonomy, which runs counter to the current push for centralization of functions and standard operating procedures across the campus.

BCC President Karen Fields followed a traditional path of leadership ascension within community colleges. She taught physics at a community college for nearly 20 years and occasionally held administrative leadership positions within the division. She then worked for 4 years as vice president of academic affairs at a college in the East before assuming her first presidency at BCC. One of Fields’s initial goals when arriving on campus was to create a ladder curriculum in which students could easily move from a certificate to an associate...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• 1. The Need to Re-Envision Community College Leadership
• 2. Multidimensional Leadership
• 3. Learning To Lead
• 4. Communicating and Framing Information On Campus
• 5. Leadership Competencies
• 6. Gender, Leadership, and The Community College
• 7. Planning for The Future
• Appendix A: Empirical and Theoretical Foundations for Multidimensional Leadership
• Appendix B: Case Studies in Leadership
• References
• Index