Chair Leadership Development

We’re currently piloting a Chair Leadership Program with future, new, and relatively new academic chairs. Over the course of two semesters, participants meet twice a month for 3.5 hours, and then the program will funnel into a chair organization that will start in Spring 2015. Although both the program and organization sound like excessive burdens on precious time, the participants begged for these opportunities, and they repeatedly express their appreciation in both conversation and program assessments. The program and hopefully the organization benefit participants, contributors, and the institution enough for people to want to make that sacrifice.

Some program sessions improve campus efficiency, and not just by creating more knowledgeable chairs. After presenting on the university’s budget, the Director of Budgets worked closely with participants over multiple days, learned about the chairs’ needs, collaborated to streamline certain processes, and shared upcoming changes. Similarly, the University Attorney and her senior administrative assistant discussed the approval process for software agreements, learned about chairs’ concerns, and collaborated to streamline the process for everyone involved.

These interactions were not merely information sessions; the chairs, contributors, and institution truly benefited. As a result of these meetings, chair participants now receive monthly — or in one case, weekly — automated budget updates that help them determine when and from where to move money to prevent shortfalls, which will save the Director of Budgets from having to resolve problems on the back end. They also will acquire a PDF list of clauses that cannot appear in contracts, which chairs then can send to software and other service providers. Eliminating these clauses on the front end speeds up the approval process and reduces the Legal Office’s workload. They also make the chairs’ lives a lot easier.

All program sessions improve inter-divisional relations and mutual understanding. The Chief Human Resources Officer, Director of H.R., and Director of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action explained the hiring and firing process and participated in a Q&A that cleared potentially poisonous misconceptions. They also helped a chair develop action steps to resolve a specific problem.

As much as the participants appreciate these meetings with cross-campus representatives, they truly value the cohort-building opportunities to share freely, discuss and even laugh at their experiences, and collaboratively brainstorm solutions to their problems. They covet these experiences so much, the participants want to make these opportunities permanent, which is why we’re creating the funnel organization.

The Chair Leadership Program and its corresponding chair organization are part of our overall aim to improve cross-campus knowledge transfer, collaborations, and resource sharing. We’re building campus capacity for responding rapidly to external threats or opportunities, one program at a time.

Advertisements

Leadership from the Ranks

In the revised edition of Management, Peter Drucker (2008) draws attention to the overlay of multiple organizational structures vying for dominance, all with the shared aim of improving human productivity. The greater the crisis, Drucker argues, the greater the need for hierarchy; the more high-touch services, the more important becomes local autonomy (p. 68).

Higher education, of course, provides high-touch services. Faculty and staff serve as role models for cognitive skills, behaviors, and attitudes that can lead to success. Sustained employee-student interactions expose students to new frameworks for engaging themselves, each other, and the world. But these interactions require intentional design. Otherwise, they can crumble into lower-order thinking skills and low-value work for everyone — like what happens when academic advising deteriorates into merely course scheduling. In order to perpetually reassess, revitalize, or redesign intentional interactions, faculty and staff need a high degree of local autonomy.

Higher education also is in the midst of a crisis. Both citizenry and a growing number of work environments require the skills to navigate an increasingly rhetorical- and statistics-based world. But the social insistence on more college has expanded the number of student bodies with different needs, as well as redirected higher education’s focus to student retention and graduation rates. On one side, faculty now struggle not merely to deliver course content for diverse learning habits, but also to ensure diverse student engagement and in-depth content assimilation for an improved likelihood of continued student success. On the other side, academic professionals struggle to identify and resolve bottlenecks in the system and reach-out to previously ignored populations who could benefit from more education.

This re-imagining of higher education coincides with an economic crisis in which people need jobs and employers want higher-quality job candidates. In the face of rising student debt, students and their parents, legislators, and potential employers now question the value of higher education. Meanwhile, our computer-infused work environment demands greater technological and critical-thinking skills for even entry-level jobs — yes, even the jobs that can’t pay back the resulting debt. This conflict has resulted in new entrants in the market who then compete with at least the public colleges and universities, which have had to raise tuition to replace diminishing state funds.

Higher education is a high-touch service in crisis. On the one hand, the industry requires local autonomy. On the other, its crisis calls for strong leadership. Our university has worked to bridge the two by building campus capacity for leadership from the ranks. We have opted for professional development that pushes “thinking big” and interconnects the campus for collaborative autonomy.

Thus far, the process has worked well. Faculty and staff have created the Office of Undergraduate Research, Office of Service Learning, and Non-Traditional Student Support Center. On the organizational chart, they collaboratively relocated Career Services to improve its staffing and funding. They’re currently exploring ways of recruiting international students. They’re piloting redirect advising for students who are capable of earning degrees but who have encountered a brick wall in their current majors. They’re testing the preregistration of students before summer orientation. Faculty and staff investigate ways of designing a seamless learning environment.

No one merely has managed these changes or explorations. They result from collaborative leadership, an empowering of the ranks to determine when and how to move forward. That level of empowerment requires aggressive professional development. But it saves institutions from sacrificing their high-touch services to crisis management.

 

Drucker, Peter. (2008.) Management; Revised Edition. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Ownership over Self-Development

This week I pitched to the Faculty Senate the idea of the faculty and staff senates’ collaboratively housing a women’s leadership program. I made a case for creating a professional-development program that is truly self-development and which fosters not only cross-campus knowledge transfer, but also inter-divisional collaborations and resource sharing that can strengthen the entire institution. Equally importantly, the university has an opportunity to visibly demonstrate its support for women in leadership. Faculty questions were limited; it was a lot to take-in. Still, through individual discussions, I learned some primary concerns.

On the one hand, we as a university suffer from both insufficient funds for new professional staff and a worry about administrative bloat. On the other, the faculty have had to harbor more and more administrative responsibilities, part of a growing trend of reframing faculty as academic professionals with a growing number of non-teaching responsibilities. Within the context of the senates’ co-owning this program, at least some senators privately expressed concern about the latter.

That’s a legitimate problem. The program I’ve proposed is not a simple one. One faculty member and one staff member would serve as co-coordinators and co-facilitators. Based on my initial cross-campus interviews, we can roll out a series of workshops on requested topics — interviewing, negotiation, building a support structure … — while fostering a sense of both cohort and campus community, the latter via diverse campus contributors. Early in the semester, each participant would shadow another participant in a different university division and report back to the rest of the group, which would improve cross-institutional cultural understanding. After meeting for 3.5 hours every other week for five sessions, the cohort should have bonded enough to pursue as a team an intrinsically-motivated charge, such as investigating a personal frustration that negatively impacts student success and is a high priority for the institution to address. The charge would enable the cohort to develop teamwork skills, learn more about the university, cultivate an understanding of institutional priority, and possibly inspire champions for their cause.

One faculty member privately expressed concern that the program’s design would overtax the faculty and staff coordinators. Although we would hope to reward the coordinators with more than a line on the C.V. — for example, by using state and institutional diversity-grant funds to support their attending a state or national leadership retreat — we wouldn’t be able to promise them anything since we’d have to secure those funds after they’ve started. This faculty member rightfully questioned what would happen if a coordinator’s interest faded in the face of a high workload coupled with uncertain or no reward.

Still, I learned through my campus interviews and private conversations that, with or without a home, this or a similar program will happen. The demand is so high that even if the senates rejected the project and the administration couldn’t take ownership of it, individual faculty and staff would assume responsibility on their own. It would become a grassroots program.

While that fact in itself is truly beautiful, an institutionally homeless grassroots initiative sends the wrong message. It implies, the institution does not value women’s leadership.

The real problem has nothing to do with campus desire to support the program. Although we can pursue university and state diversity grants, people do not want to put an organizational name on something without that specific organization’s appropriately funding it. Meanwhile, the entire campus has committed its resources to an ambitious Quality Enhancement Plan and other student-success efforts.

We have other formal avenues if the senates do not assume responsibility for the program. But I hope faculty and staff senators recognize the opportunity and seize it. A women’s leadership program co-owned by the senates has greater significance than one housed in a different area. It says, We the employees of this university have united for more than information gathering or problem-solving. We have united to act for own our destiny.

Socially Integrating Faculty and Staff

I’m in the process of rethinking new-program development. Due to organizational changes and new initiatives that might impact my time, I have been asked not to roll out additional programs. However, I had designed a Women’s Leadership Program in response to multiple requests from both faculty and staff. Not only is there a need to support women’s leadership development, but the program can begin the process of socially integrating faculty and staff, which will improve cross-campus knowledge transfer, resource sharing, and collaborations. Social integrations will make a more adaptable campus, capable of rapid response in the face of external threats or opportunities.

I couldn’t let this program die  — or the others that this program might inspire.

So long as the Center for Teaching and Learning houses all such programs, a new administration can determine their future. Although I have problems imagining administrators who wouldn’t support building campus capacity for leadership, I recognize that I’ve served under an exceptionally forward-thinking administration.

As I searched for the program’s new home, an advocate of the Women’s Leadership Program suggested the faculty and staff senates collaboratively house it. Brilliant: Ask the faculty and staff senates to collaborate in housing a program that encourages the faculty and staff to collaborate. The senates’ outgoing and incoming presidents supported the idea, and we’ve packaged a program proposal to present in this week’s agendas. Even though the new organizational home is not a done deal, we’re making progress.

As I explained to the senate presidents, this new organizational home is a starting place for even more collaborative programs directly in the hands of faculty and staff, where only they can determine their futures. The whole point of professional development is to foster agency to strengthen the institution, and only collaboration empowers. It’s time we cultivate collaborative agency — directly in people’s own hands.

New Faculty Orientation for Faculty and Institutional Success

In redesigning the orientation program, I am struggling to envision from a new faculty’s perspective, how to decipher our university’s distinct student bodies, our students’ role models for successful attitudes and behaviors, their unique challenges on their time, their preconceptions of what it means to learn, their preconceptions for what it means to teach, their expectations for their courses and professors, their reasoning for choosing their majors, their thoughts and emotions when they no longer can progress in their majors, their potential for isolation from the campus and its opportunities, the factors that impact their opportunities when they graduate, …. and how the university operates as a system to improve the likelihood of student success.

Here are some of the campus-led program topics I’m imagining:

  • student demographics and their retention and graduation rates
  • teaching students with different at-risk characteristics
  • classroom management strategies for diverse student bodies
  • how to structurally prevent the likelihood of academic dishonesty
  • how to leverage the course-management system for student success
  • collecting course data for more effective changes
  • how to interpret student evaluations
  • student pathways, bottlenecks, and the system of student movement
  • the philosophic trajectory of academic advising: where we are heading
  • how and why the university connects with the community
  • RTP as a tool for student, faculty, and institutional success
  • campus as a collaborative community with a shared purpose: student success
  • emotional intelligence and conflict management with colleagues
  • retention to the second year and beyond

I’m also hoping to brand each year with, for instance, an “Incoming Class of 2014” T-shirt. Depending on the number of new faculty, perhaps we can provide them with individual teaching consultations.

We’re still early in the design process, and a lot of people will play a role in the program’s ultimate shape, but I truly believe we can orient new faculty to a systems-thinking paradigm that will help the institution stay proactive and innovative in fostering student success, while bolstering faculty retention and success.

Rethinking New Faculty Orientation

 

We’re in the process of rethinking the New Faculty Orientation Program. First and foremost, we’re rethinking it as a program, not a series of events. But equally as importantly, we’re rethinking “orientation.” What does it mean to orient a new faculty member for success in an educational climate that, as seen in Congressman Miller’s above video, is reimagining student movement through the educational system?

Incentivized by a funding formula that rewards retention and graduation rates, APSU staff, faculty, and administrators routinely pilot innovative retention efforts in teaching, advising, support services, predictive analytics, course scheduling, co-curricular activities …. Increasingly, Austin Peay employees investigate student experiences that negatively impact student success and are a high priority for the institution to remedy. But how do you do that, and what do you do once you’ve done that? And how do you orient new faculty to this burgeoning way of thinking?

Whether we’re teaching, advising, or brainstorming systemic obstacles to student progression, we’re first and foremost thinking from diverse student perspectives: online students, military students, nontraditional students, first-generation college students, low-income students …. From their perspectives, what impedes their abilities to access course content, acquire skills, make appropriate choices, or progress efficiently through degree pathways?

Whether proposing a course redesign, rethinking advising as redirecting students from inappropriate majors, or creating a seamless learning environment, we’re thinking from diverse stakeholder perspectives: students, faculty, academic deans, staff, administrators, regents, accreditors, politicians, parents — complete with common misconceptions that can undermine the change process. Student perspectives are the starting point, but a successful faculty member has to think from still other perspectives.

If we’re determining the appropriate staffing for a new initiative, then we have to benchmark what peer institutions have done, use existing research to estimate the initiative’s impact on student retention, calculate that impact at $8500 a student, and justify the additional staffing costs per the return on that investment. Because we don’t like to reduce human beings under our charge to dollars and cents, this interpretive frame is an icky one that makes a lot of us cringe and need a shower.

But in order to succeed, our faculty need to be able to access that interpretive frame — and others. To orient new faculty, we have to provide them with opportunities to enhance their capacities for shifting between interpretive frames. That skill is the foundation for innovation — and essential for student, staff, faculty, and institutional success in today’s educational climate.

So how can a New Faculty Orientation Program help faculty develop their skills for changing interpretive frames?

Although the answer to that question is more complex, an orientation program should disorient. It should provide sustained engagements with diverse perspectives so as to undermine stable vantage points with their stubborn preconceptions. It should facilitate in-depth conversations with diverse student bodies and other key stakeholders. It should fit new faculty with radically different interpretive lenses to wear each day.