Twenty-seven mid-level college and university administrators
participated in the closing seminar of the 2015–2016 Senior Leadership
Academy (SLA), held at the Cosmos Club in Washington, DC, on June 23–25.
The year-long program prepares mid-level administrators from all
divisions for vice presidencies and is jointly sponsored by CIC and the
American Academic Leadership Institute (AALI).
Participants
explored such topics as expectations of cabinet officers, top legal
issues facing higher education leaders, human resources management,
accreditation and assessment, crisis communications, strategic planning,
and institutional fit.
Dan Carey, president emeritus of
Edgewood College (WI) and former president of
Benedictine College
(KS), said that as president, the qualities he sought among his vice
presidents were “integrity, willingness to work in a strong team
setting, values that match the president and the institution, and a good
sense of humor.” He also looked for cabinet officers who were
“self-starters, driven to achieve, intellectually curious, and highly
ethical.” He advised the SLA administrators to develop competence in
their area of expertise; to work hard to bring out the best in their
staff, peers, and supervisors; and to be a “big picture thinker while
still able to focus on achieving the details.” He reminded them that
their positions were intended to serve students and the institution
rather than their own agendas, and he urged them to view the institution
as an integrated entity rather than a set of silos and to seek
opportunities to bring outside perspectives into campus deliberations.
Above all, Carey said, “avoid trying to be a turf builder, a clone of
the CEO, a negative thinker, or high maintenance…. Where the executive
team is concerned,” he said, “the whole is greater than the sum of the
parts.”
In the legal issues session, Jim Newberry, attorney at
Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, predicted that “Years from now, when the
history of higher education is being written, this time will be recorded
as one of the most pivotal in American higher education.” The current
hot legal topics in American higher education, he said, begin with
issues generated by financial distress; handling accreditors, lenders,
attorneys general, and state and federal departments of education; and
compliance with Title IX, which has evolved from a mandate to balance
intercollegiate athletic opportunities for women and men to its
application regarding sexual harassment and assault and the treatment of
transgender students. Participants also explored the impact on
independent colleges of new overtime regulations, the unionization of
adjunct faculty members, and wage stagnation leading to employee
dissatisfaction. He advised institutional leaders to develop thoughtful
plans of action. For example, leaders should personally engage employees
about their work, watch for warning signs of low morale, and outsource
functions that college staff cannot manage effectively. In addition,
when dealing with risk management issues, especially around
accreditation, social media, and criminal matters, Newberry recommended
that administrators follow the advice of a good insurance agent to
ensure that the institution and its directors and officers are
covered and to engage a good public relations firm to help manage
problems and crises. To prepare for emergency situations, Newberry said
campuses must conduct drills, maintain mass notification systems,
develop working relationships with first responders, and develop crisis
communications plans.
In her lead-in to the accreditation
session, Patricia O’Brien, senior vice president of the Commission on
Institutions of Higher Education of the New England Association of
Schools and Colleges, said, “It is a fundamental truth that
accreditation achieves dual purposes: to assure quality and to foster
improvement.” Institutional accreditation certifies that the college or
university “has appropriate purposes, has the resources needed to
accomplish its purposes, demonstrates through evidence that it is
accomplishing its purposes, and has the ability to continue to
accomplish its purposes.” Yet institutions face many challenges in the
accreditation process, and the U.S. Department of Education has begun to
exert more influence over the process. “Does it really matter if the
scales get imbalanced?...If compliance becomes more important than
improvement?...If the U.S. Department of Education gets to define
quality?” Yes, O’Brien responded emphatically, especially now that the
collective understanding of quality has shifted away from measuring
inputs (How many books and databases are in the library?), toward
process (Do students use the library?), to outcomes (Have students
developed the skills of information literacy?). To improve the
accreditation process, O’Brien said educational leaders should:
- Understand and accept the responsibilities of self-regulation;
- Work on student achievement and success—and public disclosure;
- Prepare candid accreditation reports;
- Stay up-to-date on current issues in higher education; and
- Provide feedback for improvement to accreditors.
SLA participants also learned about the process of developing mission-centric strategic plans following the approach taken by
Hartwick College
(NY). President Margaret Drugovich said Hartwick’s multi-step planning
process serves as the foundation for campus improvement, identifies
priorities, and will guide campus developments for the next two to 15
years. Among the steps Hartwick took, Drugovich said, were to develop a
comprehensive campus master facilities plan; convene a cross-campus
leadership group consisting of faculty members, students, senior staff,
and former board members to "create a sustainable vision for the future
of the college"; and ask the lead faculty governance council that
reviewed all current undergraduate majors and programs to determine
whether the offerings would meet the educational needs of an emerging
generation of learners. During the planning process the college
community:
- Created a vision for, and mapped a framework to guide, the college;
- Clarified the college mission statement;
- Developed a set of organizing principles and a strategic framework for monitoring progress of board-approved strategic goals;
- Recommended facilities improvements, internationalization,
innovation, employee diversification, scheduling to enhance experiential
learning, and new approaches to student engagement;
- Recommended eliminating two academic programs, creating eight new
academic programs, and conducting an annual review of demand for all
academic programs; and
- Identified revenue-generation programs and explored funding mechanisms for innovation.
Among the “Mission Driven Innovations” that resulted were the development of summer online courses, i
nnovations within the nursing curriculum, the introduction of a three-year degree program in 22 majors, and
the opening of the Hartwick College Center for Craft Food and Beverage
that is expected to generate revenue by providing product-testing
services, advisement on marketing plan development, and business plan
development services. These services are needed in growing upstate New
York industries, and students develop marketing skills through their
active participation in them. Drugovich urged the emerging leaders to
follow established channels of governance when making change, while
setting and honoring realistic deadlines. This is especially true when
handling issues of curricular change. "If faculty do not consider the
plan to be legitimate, they will ignore it. They may even undermine it.
It will be difficult to make change happen."
The 2016–2017 SLA cohort will meet in November. For more information about the program, visit
www.cic.edu/SeniorLeadershipAcademy.