Handbook of Research on the Changing Role of College and University Leadership 9781799865605, 9781799865629

Citation preview

Handbook of Research on the Changing Role of College and University Leadership Michael T. Miller University of Arkansas, USA

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

G. David Gearhart University of Arkansas, USA

A volume in the Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series

Published in the United States of America by IGI Global Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2021 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Miller, Michael T., editor. | Gearhart, G. David, editor. Title: Handbook of research on the changing role of college and university leadership / Michael T. Miller and G. David Gearhart, editors. Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “This handbook provides important research on the topic of college and university leadership, especially focusing on the changing role of the college president both now and in the future”-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020052337 (print) | LCCN 2020052338 (ebook) | ISBN 9781799865605 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781799865612 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Universities and colleges--United States--Administration. | College presidents--United States. | Educational leadership--United States. Classification: LCC LB2341 .H3216 2021 (print) | LCC LB2341 (ebook) | DDC 378.1/11--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020052337 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020052338 This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) (ISSN: 2327-6983; eISSN: 2327-6991) British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series Jared Keengwe University of North Dakota, USA

ISSN:2327-6983 EISSN:2327-6991 Mission

As world economies continue to shift and change in response to global financial situations, job markets have begun to demand a more highly-skilled workforce. In many industries a college degree is the minimum requirement and further educational development is expected to advance. With these current trends in mind, the Advances in Higher Education & Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series provides an outlet for researchers and academics to publish their research in these areas and to distribute these works to practitioners and other researchers. AHEPD encompasses all research dealing with higher education pedagogy, development, and curriculum design, as well as all areas of professional development, regardless of focus.

Coverage

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

• Adult Education • Assessment in Higher Education • Career Training • Coaching and Mentoring • Continuing Professional Development • Governance in Higher Education • Higher Education Policy • Pedagogy of Teaching Higher Education • Vocational Education

IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts for publication within this series. To submit a proposal for a volume in this series, please contact our Acquisition Editors at [email protected] or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.

The Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series (ISSN 2327-6983) is published by IGI Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase individually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-higher-education-professional-development/73681. Postmaster: Send all address changes to above address. Copyright © 2021 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.

Titles in this Series

For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit:

http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-higher-education-professional-development/73681

Coaching Applications and Effectiveness in Higher Education Ziad Hunaiti (Knowledge Well Group Limited, Chelmsford, Essex, UK) Information Science Reference • © 2021 • 310pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799842460) • US $195.00 Improving Scientific Communication for Lifelong Learners Gulsun Kurubacak-Meric (Anadolu University, Turkey) and Serap Sisman-Ugur (Anadolu University, Turkey) Information Science Reference • © 2021 • 288pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799845348) • US $195.00 Enhancing Higher Education Accessibility Through Open Education and Prior Learning Carolyn N. Stevenson (Purdue University Global, USA) Information Science Reference • © 2021 • 252pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799875710) • US $195.00 University-Industry Collaboration Strategies in the Digital Era Durmuş Günay (Maltepe University, Turkey) Tuncer Asunakutlu (Izmir Bakircay University, Turkey) and Orkun Yildiz (Izmir Democracy University, Turkey) Information Science Reference • © 2021 • 431pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799839019) • US $195.00 Cultivating Entrepreneurial Changemakers Through Digital Media Education Leslie Simone Byrd (Alabama State University, USA) Information Science Reference • © 2021 • 273pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799858089) • US $195.00 New Models for Technical and Vocational Education and Training Moses Makgato (Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa) and George Afeti (Skills Initiative for Africa, Ghana) Information Science Reference • © 2021 • 305pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799826071) • US $175.00 Overcoming Fieldwork Challenges in Social Science and Higher Education Research Abir El Shaban (Innovate Your Classroom (IC) Consulting, Canada) Information Science Reference • © 2021 • 306pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799858263) • US $195.00

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Transforming Curriculum Through Teacher-Learner Partnerships Pradeep Nair (Taylor’s University, Malaysia) Michael James Keppell (Taylor’s University, Malaysia) Chee Leong Lim (Taylor’s University, Malaysia) TamilSalvi Mari (Taylor’s University, Malaysia) and Nurhanim Hassan (Taylor’s University, Malaysia) Information Science Reference • © 2021 • 378pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799864455) • US $195.00

701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA Tel: 717-533-8845 x100 • Fax: 717-533-8661 E-Mail: [email protected] • www.igi-global.com

This book is dedicated to the countless individuals and their families who have held the role of the college president. The role is often unforgiving, yet makes a tremendous difference in the lives of so many college students. This book is also dedicated to those who take the time and make the effort to study the American college and university. Whether students or faculty, their introspective nature helps narrate one of America’s greatest success stories.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

And finally, this book is dedicated to our spouses and families who have made so many sacrifices for our professional lives.



Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

List of Contributors

Aylett, Ashley / University of Arkansas, USA.................................................................................... 285 Borland Jr., Kenneth Wayne / Bowling Green State University, USA.............................................. 313 Breaux, Arleene P. / The University of Alabama, USA...................................................................... 296 Bresciani, Dean L. / North Dakota State University, USA................................................................. 236 Brumfeld, Randall W. / Louisiana Board of Regents, USA.............................................................. 322 Conner, Andrene Kaiwi / California Polytechnic State University, USA.......................................... 259 Cooney, Matthew A. / Governors State University, USA..................................................................... 18 D’Amico, Mark M. / University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA................................................ 85 Deggs, David / Texas A&M University-Commerce, USA................................................................... 274 Deggs, David M. / Texas A&M University-Commerce, USA.............................................................. 175 Engerman, Kimarie / University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands....................................... 186 Fincher, Mark Edward / Mississippi State University, USA............................................................. 120 Flores, Rigoberto / San Jose State University, USA.......................................................................... 259 Francis, Kula A. / University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands.............................................. 147 Freeman, Jerrid P. / Northeastern State University, USA................................................................. 236 Gearhart, G. David / University of Arkansas, USA................................................................... 175, 210 Grover, Kenda / University of Arkansas, USA.................................................................................. 285 Hendrickson, Kenny A. / University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands.................................. 147 Kacirek, Kit / University of Arkansas, USA...................................................................................... 285 Maddox, Jim / University of Arkansas, USA..................................................................................... 134 Manns, Derrick / Texas Southern University, USA........................................................................... 102 Martin III, Quincy / Governors State University, USA...................................................................... 18 McKayle, Camille / University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands.......................................... 186 McNeely, Stanton / University of Holy Cross, USA.......................................................................... 102 Miles, Jennifer M. / Widener University, USA..................................................................................... 50 Miller, Michael T. / University of Arkansas, USA...................................................................... 175, 210 Miller, Ryan A. / University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA...................................................... 85 Morris, Adam / Crowder College, USA.............................................................................................. 36 Nelson, Stephen J. / Bridgewater State University, USA & Brown University, USA............................. 1 Paape, Johnathon E. / University of Arkansas, USA........................................................................... 64 Reckmeyer, William J. / San Jose State University, USA.................................................................. 259 Simmons, Regina / Pfeifer University, USA....................................................................................... 85

 



Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Smith, Everrett A. / University of Cincinnati, USA........................................................................... 245 Tolliver, III, David V. / Southwest Minnesota State University, USA................................................ 175 Tucker Blackmon, Angelicque / Innovative Learning Center, LLC, USA........................................ 186 Wolcott, Gregory V. / San Jose State University, USA...................................................................... 259 Zoromksi, Keith / Crowder College, USA........................................................................................... 36

Table of Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................xviii Preface................................................................................................................................................... xx Chapter 1 The College Presidency: An Enduring Pulpit, a Constant Perch in Changing Eras, and Calculated Prophesies for What May Come.............................................................................................................. 1 Stephen J. Nelson, Bridgewater State University, USA & Brown University, USA Chapter 2 Pathways to the Presidency.................................................................................................................... 18 Matthew A. Cooney, Governors State University, USA Quincy Martin III, Governors State University, USA Chapter 3 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century............................................. 36 Adam Morris, Crowder College, USA Keith Zoromksi, Crowder College, USA Chapter 4 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders: Exploring the Relationship Between College Presidents and Student Government Association Presidents................................................................. 50 Jennifer M. Miles, Widener University, USA

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 5 The Community College Presidency: Roles, Responsibilities, and Challenges.................................... 64 Johnathon E. Paape, University of Arkansas, USA Chapter 6 From the Playing Field to the Executive Ofce..................................................................................... 85 Regina Simmons, Pfeifer University, USA Ryan A. Miller, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Mark M. D’Amico, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA

 



Chapter 7 Leading During a Crisis: A Case Study of College Presidents During Unprecedented Times........... 102 Derrick Manns, Texas Southern University, USA Stanton McNeely, University of Holy Cross, USA Chapter 8 Navigating the New Normal: Strategic Higher Education Leadership in the Post-Covid Shutdown World.................................................................................................................................................... 120 Mark Edward Fincher, Mississippi State University, USA Chapter 9 The College President as Change Agent.............................................................................................. 134 Jim Maddox, University of Arkansas, USA Chapter 10 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting: Investigating Student Perceptions.............................................................................................................................. 147 Kenny A. Hendrickson, University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands Kula A. Francis, University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands Chapter 11 Presidential Leadership and Building a Pipeline to Increase Diversity: Considerations for Community Expectancy....................................................................................................................... 175 David V. Tolliver, III, Southwest Minnesota State University, USA Michael T. Miller, University of Arkansas, USA G. David Gearhart, University of Arkansas, USA David M. Deggs, Texas A&M University-Commerce, USA

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 12 Presidents’ Role in Broadening Participation in STEM...................................................................... 186 Kimarie Engerman, University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands Camille McKayle, University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands Angelicque Tucker Blackmon, Innovative Learning Center, LLC, USA Chapter 13 The College President and Fundraising: Perspectives on the Responsibilities and Challenges of Fundraising.......................................................................................................................................... 210 G. David Gearhart, University of Arkansas, USA Michael T. Miller, University of Arkansas, USA Chapter 14 Institutional Niche: Defne or Die........................................................................................................ 236 Jerrid P. Freeman, Northeastern State University, USA Dean L. Bresciani, North Dakota State University, USA



Chapter 15 Contemporary Urban University Presidents and an Emerging Paradigm for Strategic Planning and Civic Engagement................................................................................................................................ 245 Everrett A. Smith, University of Cincinnati, USA Chapter 16 Becoming a Champion of Orientation................................................................................................. 259 Gregory V. Wolcott, San Jose State University, USA William J. Reckmeyer, San Jose State University, USA Andrene Kaiwi Conner, California Polytechnic State University, USA Rigoberto Flores, San Jose State University, USA Chapter 17 Setting the Vision for Campus Outreach and Engagement.................................................................. 274 David Deggs, Texas A&M University-Commerce, USA Chapter 18 Succession Planning in Rural Community Colleges........................................................................... 285 Ashley Aylett, University of Arkansas, USA Kit Kacirek, University of Arkansas, USA Kenda Grover, University of Arkansas, USA Chapter 19 The Public Institution Presidency: Navigating the Legislature............................................................ 296 Arleene P. Breaux, The University of Alabama, USA Chapter 20 Second Founding Presidents................................................................................................................ 313 Kenneth Wayne Borland Jr., Bowling Green State University, USA Chapter 21 The President and the Board: Leveraging Systemic Collaboration for Strategic Governance in the Modern Higher Education Landscape................................................................................................. 322 Randall W. Brumfeld, Louisiana Board of Regents, USA

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 332 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 372 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 380

Detailed Table of Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................xviii Preface................................................................................................................................................... xx Chapter 1 The College Presidency: An Enduring Pulpit, a Constant Perch in Changing Eras, and Calculated Prophesies for What May Come.............................................................................................................. 1 Stephen J. Nelson, Bridgewater State University, USA & Brown University, USA This chapter explores the defning events and leaders in American higher education during the past 75 years. Special attention is directed at the defning events and leaders of the 1960s and 1970s that have shaped so much of the current landscape of higher education. The chapter begins by exploring the idea of a ‘career president’, a recent trend during the past four or fve decades, and includes both infuential leaders who have spent signifcant time at one institution, to those who move to diferent institutions throughout their career entirely in the role of president. The chapter concludes by ofering critical questions about the future of the academy. Chapter 2 Pathways to the Presidency.................................................................................................................... 18 Matthew A. Cooney, Governors State University, USA Quincy Martin III, Governors State University, USA

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

There is no singular way to prepare for the unique challenges of a college or university presidency. College and university presidents, as well as those who aspire to the position, utilize a myriad of professional experiences as they navigate the complexities of the role. The purpose of this chapter is to review the traditional and nontraditional career pathways of college and university presidents, discuss the preparation practices utilized by higher education leaders to be successful in the presidency, and ofer advice for aspiring college and university presidents. Chapter 3 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century............................................. 36 Adam Morris, Crowder College, USA Keith Zoromksi, Crowder College, USA The college presidency is in a state of disarray in the 21st century. In the past, community college presidents could focus their eforts on academic programs, community relations, and donor engagement. College 



presidents could be the visionary leaders of their communities by providing educational programs to help students transfer to a university or allow them to enter the workforce. The job has become more of a reactionary role in which they are required to make quick decisions in a crisis. They are now forced to focus on cybersecurity, pandemic outbreaks, faculty unions, local and state governance issues, and little-to-no state funding. Chapter 4 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders: Exploring the Relationship Between College Presidents and Student Government Association Presidents................................................................. 50 Jennifer M. Miles, Widener University, USA This chapter explores how college presidents and college student government association presidents interact and communicate, including how they can build strong working relationships and how they can collaborate to address and meet the needs of the student body. Drawing on existing literature, the chapter provides an overview of the college presidency, student involvement, student government, student government leadership, and expectations college presidents have of student government association presidents. Chapter 5 The Community College Presidency: Roles, Responsibilities, and Challenges.................................... 64 Johnathon E. Paape, University of Arkansas, USA The breadth of issues faced by community college presidents today cannot be overstated. While the importance of the position has remained since the creation of community colleges, the roles they play, types of challenges they face, and how they infuence and lead their institutions have changed throughout the decades. The roles of presidents today can be examined under four categories: fnancial ofcer, community representative, political representative, and academic ofcer. Through each of these lenses, this chapter explores how presidents lead their institutions under these roles, the responsibility of each role, and the challenges facing contemporary and future community college presidents.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 6 From the Playing Field to the Executive Ofce..................................................................................... 85 Regina Simmons, Pfeifer University, USA Ryan A. Miller, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Mark M. D’Amico, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Small, private colleges are run by a president, who sets strategy, while working with senior-level staf and faculty to fulfll mission. The president of a small, private college must set the tone for leadership and communication, devise strategic plans, and appoint staf to accomplish those initiatives, raise funds, and attend campus events and cheer on students. Athletics in the small, private college setting is an important component for enrollment, campus life, and budget. NCAA Division III institutions, largely small, private colleges, incorporate athletics into campus life and position the student before the athlete. The presidents of these institutions are keenly aware of how athletics infuences the small, private college landscape. This chapter explores the convergence of the unique role of the small, private college presidency and the infuence of athletics. The authors explore the extant literature and present key fndings from a case study of one small, private college president and their view of the infuence of athletics on the institution and the role of presidency.



Chapter 7 Leading During a Crisis: A Case Study of College Presidents During Unprecedented Times........... 102 Derrick Manns, Texas Southern University, USA Stanton McNeely, University of Holy Cross, USA Being a college president is hard enough, but when you add to it a crisis, it makes the task of leading even more of a challenge. Whether that crisis is isolated like Virginia Tech, regional with situations like hurricanes and natural disasters (Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Harvey, wildfres, tornadoes), or now a national issue with the coronavirus (COVID-19), leadership has defnitely been a hard thing to do. For the frst time in history, we are all dealing with the same situation at the same time. While there is research about leading during a crisis, this new pandemic is unprecedented. The purpose of this research is to gather a perspective from college and university presidents in working through this. This will add to the literature on crisis leadership, and how some current college presidents are addressing this issue. Public and private 2-year and 4-year college/university presidents/chancellors were interviewed about their thoughts on this topic. What is gleaned from this information will add to the leadership information in dealing with the “new normal.” Chapter 8 Navigating the New Normal: Strategic Higher Education Leadership in the Post-Covid Shutdown World.................................................................................................................................................... 120 Mark Edward Fincher, Mississippi State University, USA The higher education world within the US changed markedly and permanently with the COVID-19 shutdown in March of 2020. The exact impact of this change will vary by institution and be evolving for years, but higher education leaders will need to negotiate this changed environment in the most efective way possible for their individual institution. Unlike previous major changes, the COVID-19 shutdown greatly restricted options and resources at the disposal of higher education leaders. This presents an unprecedented challenge to those who are tasked with preserving and furthering their institutions. However, in the midst of this unexpected challenge to the very existence of some institutions, many now have developed the necessary capabilities to carry out their missions more broadly than ever before. It is the purpose of this chapter to explore the changes that are infuencing colleges and universities in the US and to propose ways that chancellors and presidents can navigate these conditions to allow their institutions to survive and even thrive.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 9 The College President as Change Agent.............................................................................................. 134 Jim Maddox, University of Arkansas, USA The college president as a change agent is explored. Higher education is undergoing disruptive change, and guiding an institution of higher learning requires senior leadership that understands change and how to guide it. This chapter provides a description of what a change agent is and how the college president can best serve in this role. In addition to the relevant literature, data was gathered from 11 senior leaders as to their perceptions around the concept of change and being a change agent. The chapter makes the case for college presidents to understand and appreciate the important role they can and should play as change agents.



Chapter 10 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting: Investigating Student Perceptions.............................................................................................................................. 147 Kenny A. Hendrickson, University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands Kula A. Francis, University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands This chapter examines caring university administrative leadership within a bureaucratic reality of authentic university academic caring (AUAC). AUAC is regarded as a university’s formal intent to provide genuine academic caring: caring about (emotive attention; motive), care for (disciplined nurturing), caregiving (institutional guardianship), and care receiving (student as customers). In the bureaucratic realm, caring administrative leadership is an administrative capacity to guide, infuence, inspire, and motivate an institution to achieve the goals of AUAC. This chapter opens by providing scholarly support for caring administrative leadership as a critical element of AUAC. This chapter also includes an account of a research study and empirical analysis that investigated the association between caring administrative leadership and AUAC at the University of the Virgin Islands, a Historically Black College and University (HBCU). Ultimately, this chapter identifes direction for future research in authentic caring university leadership. Chapter 11 Presidential Leadership and Building a Pipeline to Increase Diversity: Considerations for Community Expectancy....................................................................................................................... 175 David V. Tolliver, III, Southwest Minnesota State University, USA Michael T. Miller, University of Arkansas, USA G. David Gearhart, University of Arkansas, USA David M. Deggs, Texas A&M University-Commerce, USA

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

One of the hallmarks of American higher education is the opportunity given to all types of students to learn and advance themselves as citizens, whether in employment or engaging in civic activities. The academy has historically struggled to enroll and employ diverse populations, and if this is to change, presidents must play an important and vocal role in building a pipeline for diversity. The chapter explores past eforts at diversity recruitment and considers the complex issue of diversity characteristics, resulting in attempting to understand cultural transformation from the perspective of community expectancy. The chapter concludes with a discussion of specifc strategies for college presidents to heighten the diversity of their campuses. Chapter 12 Presidents’ Role in Broadening Participation in STEM...................................................................... 186 Kimarie Engerman, University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands Camille McKayle, University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands Angelicque Tucker Blackmon, Innovative Learning Center, LLC, USA To represent its population, the nation should have a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. It is known that Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) serve as key producers of minority STEM graduates. As such, HBCUs have contributed to the diverse workforce. Therefore, this chapter examined the role of presidents at HBCUs in broadening participation in STEM felds. Presidents at four HBCUs participated in a semi-structured interview. The four academic leadership frames (structural, human resources, political, and symbolic) were used to explain the factors that have contributed to HBCUs’ success rates. Identifed factors were providing students with research



and internship opportunities, having an adequate STEM curriculum, having appropriate faculty and personnel at the institution, having fnancial resources, and creating an environment that was nurturing and supportive of students. Chapter 13 The College President and Fundraising: Perspectives on the Responsibilities and Challenges of Fundraising.......................................................................................................................................... 210 G. David Gearhart, University of Arkansas, USA Michael T. Miller, University of Arkansas, USA This chapter describes the changing role of the American college president, focusing on responsibilities and duties in fundraising. In addition to covering the evolution of higher education fundraising, the chapter explores the historical and current role of the president in fundraising. These responsibilities are contextualized by including a description of the major elements of university fundraising. In particular, the chapter provides a highlight of the stresses of university fundraising on the college president and how time- and attention-consuming the process can become. Chapter 14 Institutional Niche: Defne or Die........................................................................................................ 236 Jerrid P. Freeman, Northeastern State University, USA Dean L. Bresciani, North Dakota State University, USA Never before in our contemporary era has higher education experienced such intensity of competition for students, and a shift to consider higher education a private rather than as traditionally considered social good. Those tensions have resulted in not only a broadening defnition of marketplace borders, but also a move toward organizational survival in terms of how institutions currently operate and exist. Historically, higher education’s response to both marketplace pressures and opportunities has been to institutionally expand and attempt to accommodate a broader market niche. That strategy appears to be changing rather dramatically and quickly. The new model of institutional self-defnition is to create and articulate a defned, narrowed, and consistent institutional scope with the intent of mastering that niche. Successfully branding that niche and demonstrating how an institution not only fts its niche, but also excels in it, is becoming a means to, at the very least, stabilize, if not ostensibly grow, enrollments and public support.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 15 Contemporary Urban University Presidents and an Emerging Paradigm for Strategic Planning and Civic Engagement................................................................................................................................ 245 Everrett A. Smith, University of Cincinnati, USA The purpose of this chapter is to examine the elements of urban university presidents’ strategic planning and priority-setting. The chapter attempts to profle the contributions of urban universities to their cities, and the specifc agenda that urban university presidents establish in order to do so. The author considers two primary ideas for presidential strategies: visible presidential leadership in urban environments and the prioritization of civic-based initiatives. The chapter explores shifting patterns in strategy, leadership, and civic involvement at urban universities in the United States, setting the analysis in context to better understand how college presidential planning and leadership infuence postsecondary education in America’s urban core.



Chapter 16 Becoming a Champion of Orientation................................................................................................. 259 Gregory V. Wolcott, San Jose State University, USA William J. Reckmeyer, San Jose State University, USA Andrene Kaiwi Conner, California Polytechnic State University, USA Rigoberto Flores, San Jose State University, USA Efective presidential leadership is vital to enabling the success of higher educational enterprises under the complex conditions they are likely to face for years to come. But college presidents must address a lot of competing leadership demands that collectively afect their ability to pursue strategic priorities, navigate a morphing variety of polarizing socio-political issues, please their boards of directors, and transform their institutions so students are better prepared for living and working in an increasingly global world. One of the most consistently pressing concerns expressed by many of these presidents in recent years has been the need to balance budgets in an era of declining revenues and increasing costs. The focus in this chapter is to help college presidents understand the evolving importance of orientation programs in higher education, especially how those programs can strengthen the long-term fnancial and academic vitality of their institutions in the rough times ahead. Chapter 17 Setting the Vision for Campus Outreach and Engagement.................................................................. 274 David Deggs, Texas A&M University-Commerce, USA Outreach and engagement are essential functions of American higher education. Despite having historical commitment and missions aligned to community engagement, many colleges and universities struggle to prioritize community engagement eforts within and across institutions. Community engagement is often viewed as a lesser priority behind teaching and research and is thus an afterthought. This chapter explores the development of community engagement in American higher education in the 20th century and key initiatives that underscore its importance to fulflling college and university missions and goals. Motivation and rewards for faculty along with student benefts are also explored. Finally, actions that should be taken by college and university leaders to ensure that community engagement is prioritized are discussed.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 18 Succession Planning in Rural Community Colleges........................................................................... 285 Ashley Aylett, University of Arkansas, USA Kit Kacirek, University of Arkansas, USA Kenda Grover, University of Arkansas, USA Competent leadership is essential for institutions of any size to respond to the challenges facing postsecondary institutions. However, rural community colleges are especially vulnerable to the forces of change due to aging infrastructure, accelerated retirements, and geographic isolation that often limits competent and diverse applicant pools for future leaders. As senior administrators retire at rapid rates, geographic location and scarce resources can hamper leadership continuity. Few studies have explored how the leadership pipeline is established and maintained in rural community colleges and how institutional and community values shape that process. The study highlights the extent to which the co-dependent relationship between community stakeholders and the rural community college shapes its institutional culture and leadership development.



Chapter 19 The Public Institution Presidency: Navigating the Legislature............................................................ 296 Arleene P. Breaux, The University of Alabama, USA Public college and university presidents must navigate the political and social structures associated with state legislatures to ensure that policymakers provide acceptable levels of institutional funding and develop policies benefcial to higher education. Yet, few presidents are prepared for their political and institutional advocacy roles. This chapter presents an analysis of the challenges facing public institution presidents and how advocacy strategies can be used to advance their institutional agendas. Chapter 20 Second Founding Presidents................................................................................................................ 313 Kenneth Wayne Borland Jr., Bowling Green State University, USA A comparison of contemporary changing college presidents in a specifc microcosm of 163 Christian colleges and universities is made, framed by 10 newer or newly emphasized roles and engagements recently observed among college presidents. Contemporary changes and challenges specifc to contemporary presidents in the microcosm are clarifed. Historical presidents, primarily founding presidents and ones presiding at critical points in institution sagas, are described relative to the framework of roles and engagements. Discussion of the comparison between the historical and contemporary presidents leads to a conclusion: the changing college president in this microcosm is a “second founding president.” Chapter 21 The President and the Board: Leveraging Systemic Collaboration for Strategic Governance in the Modern Higher Education Landscape................................................................................................. 322 Randall W. Brumfeld, Louisiana Board of Regents, USA

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

As governing and coordinating boards continue to appreciate the unique missions of the public institutions, they also share an increasing focus on how they can collaborate to expand educational delivery, synthesize costs, strengthen operational sustainability, and deliver a common voice on behalf of higher education. To those ends, boards are looking to presidents to focus less on competition and more toward partnerships that can leverage the collective potential of the higher education community and business enterprise. However, to achieve this, presidents must lead their campus communities to adopt network-centered philosophies and practices. In doing so, campus leaders must balance their board’s growing vision for expanding interconnectivity with those of a campus constituency accustomed to independence and autonomy. With a public that is increasingly skeptical of the value of higher education, college presidents are uniquely, though perhaps uncomfortably, positioned to strategically address such matters. Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 332 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 372 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 380

xviii

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Foreword

Has there ever been a six-year old who fantasized about growing up and becoming a president? More telling, how many individuals have embarked on a career path with the sole ambition of becoming a college or university CEO? Though I am certain that there are examples, most presidents with whom I have spoken attained the position without a clear plan. A few will even admit the position found them, through random opportunities and experiences, rather than them finding the position through pre-planned actions. In truth, there is no clear or best pathway to becoming a president of a modern postsecondary institution. Despite their previous professional roles, honest leaders will acknowledge that they were not fully prepared for all of the unique challenges that they have had to face as president. That is especially accurate in a decade which began in economic recession recovery and enrollment surge in postsecondary education, and ended in the midst of a global pandemic with a general enrollment decline across the nation. Even those presidents who may have pursued a terminal degree in higher education administration never studied for the unpredictable and sometimes counter-intuitive environment of postsecondary education. That is why this book is so appropriate as well as timely. Gearhart and Miller have pulled together a broad collection of topics, written by a diverse group of scholars and practitioners, with the intention of creating a useful tool for current CEOs as well as those aspiring to a presidency. It combines the latest research (theoretical) with a practical application, identifying and dissecting important issues for consideration – without drifting into the all too familiar “how-to” formula. Each chapter stands alone. And yet, they fit together well for the reader to understand concerns of the modern college presidency. As such, the book can be referenced as a didactic resource or read as a narrative text, making it an important and valuable contribution for those seeking to further research the modern college presidency. For the seasoned university CEO, the theme which most resonates in nearly every chapter is the responsibility and importance of serving as a change agent at each respective institution. Whether it is through crisis management, certainly on everyone’s mind with the continued impacts of the pandemic, or strategies to address issues of diversity and justice in a time of social unrest, from the very first chapter it is clear that a successful president must recognize the need to step up to the pulpit and lead, not react or hesitate. Further, because it is easy to become overwhelmed with the daily demands on the office, the integral impact a president has upon students, in recruitment, orientation, mentoring and oversight, especially with regard to academic integrity, is reinforced contextually throughout. Maybe most importantly, the book does not dwell solely on the present state of the modern presidency but provides thoughtprovoking glimpses into what could be possible, even probable, in the years yet to come. For those of  

Foreword

us who have been serving in a presidential role for some time, it is especially important to be reminded that our actions must be tempered by the past and present but guided – even inspired – by the future. For the new college leader, or even those who are simply aspiring administrators, the book does not gloss over the tests that await every president. For example, assessing the divide between rural and urban institutions and how leaders must be prepared to navigate very different challenges. For someone like me whose first presidency was at a remote, rural college, this book would have served me well – and saved more than a few moments of interpersonal strife. Also, the importance and impacts associated with fundraising/friend-raising is presented, something that a current dean or vice-president may not have considered carefully or even experienced first-hand prior to pursuing or assuming the role of university president. Moreover, the discussion on the evolution of the current CEO position and the chapter on various, often non-traditional, pathways which lead to the presidency are enormously helpful to the new leader who finds herself inexperienced and uncertain in many areas in which she must lead experts in their fields. After reading this book, the savvy administrator will reflect on the skills necessary to face these challenges as well as the cost of pursuing a presidency. Gearhart and Miller have carefully selected monographs that not only highlight the challenges of the modern college presidency, but thoughtfully remind us that expectations have never been higher for academic leadership. The internal and external college community, especially boards of trustees, place an inordinate amount of trust in a president. That is right and appropriate. It is not a position in which one will be happy or successful, though, without consideration of the totality of responsibilities demanded by the constituents of higher education. Just as every institution of higher learning is unique, so is every president (current and future). I so appreciate the editors’ work to bring this collection together. Knowing the opportunities and dangers is critical. But in the end, it is how you respond to the challenges, without a script or rehearsal, that will determine whether you make a positive, lasting impact on your university or not. May serving as a president, if that is your professional goal, be as exciting and rewarding for you as it has been for me.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Stephen M. Vacik Hinds Community College, USA

xix

xx

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Preface

The college and university president is one of the most difficult professional positions in today’s modern world. As governing boards have become more akin to watchdog agencies, it has placed tremendous strain and stress on the senior campus executive. Boards are looking for a person who can be all things and do all things and perform the job duties without creating discord, disagreement, or controversy. The president (also called chancellor in some cases here) must be able to galvanize the faculty, providing the resources for the academic enterprise and tackle numerous challenges to the academy in general, while at the same time creating an atmosphere for students conducive to a premium learning environment. And that is certainly not all that is on a president’s agenda by any means. The individual must also appeal to alumni, local community leaders, legislators, state government officials, benefactors, and local, statewide and national media. The president is charged with the responsibility of finding funds to run the organization and the students to fill the classrooms. The president’s position is one requiring superhuman skills in an unforgiving world of intense social and electronic media. The president lives in a glass house where virtually no privacy exists, and the job seems to be all encompassing 24 hours a day seven days a week. It requires a person with enormous energy and stamina and the ability to handle numerous issues and problems every hour and every day of their tenure. It is, in short, an impossible job. No wonder so many presidents survive in the position for only a few years and in some cases a few months. The number of presidents in recent years who have been ousted, resigned or retired early in their tenure is astounding. Governing boards are not hesitant or reluctant to make a presidential change at even the slightest mishap, mistake or error in judgement. Sometimes it is not even a president’s fault that something went wrong. The proverbial “buck stops” at the president’s desk while cause and effect does not even enter the equation. The president is released from duties to accept a tenured position on the faculty or leave the institution altogether. Often, the parting of ways is shrouded in secrecy and includes a rather generous severance package so all will maintain confidentiality. The list of colleges and universities where this has happened is long for both public and private institutions. This has been the case, most particularly, in the last 5 to 10 years. Given the enormous recent pressure on college presidents and the general scrutiny of governing boards, it is most appropriate that an academic treatise about the college presidency be created. As former academic administrators at the dean and chancellor level, as well as tenured senior faculty members in higher education, we believe we are in a position to engage the expertise of numerous academicians on the nature of the job responsibilities and duties of the college president and share those perspectives with the higher education community. We believe we have assembled experts in numerous fields that  

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Preface

touch the office of the president. These experts have written on all aspects of the college presidency, including pathways to the position, leading crisis, affecting change, and strategic planning to name a few. This is a book about the college or university president in a modern society. The book should be of great interest to the higher education community in general and even of interest to any faculty member of any discipline who wants to learn more about the nature of academic administration. The book would be an excellent tool for classes in higher education programs and particularly those concerned with the presidency. Any young or even more senior faculty member or graduate student in education who has interest in pursuing administration is encouraged to acquire this book. Certainly, if a person expresses any interest in becoming a college or university president, the content of this handbook will be of significant value. The book is also written for current college presidents/chancellors. Several the chapters will resonate with sitting presidents and they can gain knowledge from other administrators who have faced many of the same issues. The book can also be a tremendous resource for alumni, corporate leaders, benefactors and governing board members who may not completely understand the nature of an academic institution. It goes without saying that the operation of the academy can be completely foreign to many lay persons and this book can serve to educate those who must interface with academic administrators. Governing board members who read the book may gain more understanding, respect and empathy for their CEO’s and the many tough issues they face. Chapter 1, written by Dr. Stephen Nelson of Bridgewater State University and Brown University, gives an overview of the issues affecting the college presidency over the last 60 years, touching on many of the most well-known college presidents and the problems they faced. Dr. Nelson discusses the age of intercollegiate sports emphasis, the 24/7 news cycle and intense media scrutiny and the numerous and substantial issues they present to presidents. He also points out many matters that continue to plague the academy such as issues of race, affirmative action and equity and pressures from the conservative right and the liberal left that make it difficult to navigate in a polarized society. He pays particular attention to the modern issues of fiscal management and institutional resources. He gives excellent advice to sitting presidents to maintain a perspective on the “big picture.” Chapter 2, “Pathways to the Presidency,” is authored by Dr. Matthew A. Cooney and Dr. Quincy Martin from Governors State University. The chapter begins with an excellent historical perspective on the evolving college presidency and then analyzes the many career pathways that can lead to the president’s chair. Drs. Cooney and Martin also explore how a person can prepare for a presidency and advice to give persons aspiring to be a college president. Chapter 3, “The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century,” written by Dr. Adam A. Morris and Keith Zoromski of Crowder College, explores the tremendous upheaval at community colleges that has taken place the past 20 years and how it affects the presidency of community colleges. The authors give an excellent historical accounting of leadership of community colleges in previous years and how this leadership has dramatically changed for current presidential roles. The authors explore the core qualities of effective presidents and the many stresses that can have a debilitating impact on leadership including the strains of COVID-19 on the institutions and the precipitous decline in enrollment. They further explore some of the difficulties recruiting community college presidents that reside in remote areas. The critical importance of fundraising to the modern community college is also discussed as well as other alternative revenue sources. In Chapter 4, Dr. Jennifer M. Miles from Widener University explores mentoring the next generation of leaders and the important relationship between the college president and the student government xxi

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Preface

president. She writes about the critical need for college presidents to seek partnerships and collaboration with students and to send a message that students have a place in campus governance. The Student Government Association is one way to mentor students and make them feel a substantial part of the institution. Dr. Miles also lays out the importance of extracurricular activities to involve students in the life of the institution which develops responsibility in life in general. An education takes place not just in the classroom but also outside the classroom interfacing with students through a myriad of social activities. Johnathon E. Paape from University of Arkansas writes about the community college president in Chapter 5. This chapter, entitled “The Community College Presidency: Roles, Responsibilities, and Challenges,” explores the unique issues and problems that face community colleges and the presidents that run them. These presidents face barriers different than four-year college presidents that requires constant change and strict accountability. Paape gives an excellent overview of the community college in today’s society. Policy makers and legislators are deeply concerned with the cost of a higher education and community colleges can provide an alternative at a much lower cost. The various proposals for free community college tuition is also discussed in this chapter as well as statistical data about serving minority and at-risk students. Paape also explores the many and diverse roles of community college presidents and the contributions their institutions make to society at large. Chapter 6, entitled “From the Playing Field to the Executive Office,” is written by Dr. Regina Simmons of Pfeiffer University, and Dr. Ryan A. Miller and Dr. Mark M. D’Amico of the University of North Carolina - Charlotte. It explores the relationship of intercollegiate athletics and institutional viability and enrollment management and the role the president has in leading key priorities. The authors share a case study from a small private college and the influence of athletics on the institution and the CEO. They further write about the hands-on role small college presidents have in managing and leading their institutions which can impact all operations. The authors give an excellent overview of athletics at a small private college. They conclude that intercollegiate athletics can play an important role at small colleges depending on several factors. In Chapter 7, “Leading During a Crisis: A Case Study of College Presidents During Unprecedented Times,” written by Dr. Derrick Manns of Texas Southern University and Dr. Stanton McNeely of the University of Holy Cross, is a lesson in leadership during crisis situations. The authors begin the chapter with an overview of crisis leadership and the important role of the president. Using a qualitative case study, they then explore presidential leadership during the Covid 19 Pandemic. They conducted a series of interviews using 11 questions to discover the thought processes and decision making used by presidents during the crisis. The chapter concludes with solutions and recommendations useful for any academic administrator facing crisis management. Chapter 8, “Navigating the New Normal: Strategic Higher Education Leadership in the Post-COVID Shutdown World,” by Mississippi State University’s Dr. Mark E. Fincher, explores ways that the CEO must navigate the Post-COVID-19 era and the challenges presented to colleges and universities far into the future. Dr. Fincher hypothesizes that the world changed in 2020 because of the Pandemic and presidents must recognize this new normal and navigate the many pitfalls and issues before them. The author explores the impact of Covid 19 on the academy and the long-term issues it presents to all CEO’s of academic institutions including, financial constraints, often severe, social issues, and retention. The serious impact of a limited college social experience during COVID-19 is explored by Dr. Fincher. The author concludes with a discussion of the leading role presidents will play in navigating the new normal. Chapter 9, “The College President as Change Agent,” is authored by Dr. Jim Maddox of the University of Arkansas. It explores the very crucial need to recognize when change is called for and the leadership xxii

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Preface

necessary to bring change about. Senior leadership must understand change and how they can ensure their institution can benefit appropriately from necessary change. The college president must be an agent for change, guiding and leading others to embrace change rather than reject it. Leadership styles are explored that can bring about healthy change while also preserving the institutional culture and mission. The author recounts the competencies needed by presidents to be a change agent. Dr. Maddox shares information on a mandated change at a large public university. Chapter 10 explores academic leaders at HBCU institutions. The authors are Dr. Kenny A. Hendrickson and Dr. Kula A. Francis of the University of the Virgin Islands. In “University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting: Investigating Student Perceptions,” the authors explore the issues of authentic caring in academic services. They contend there is a scholarly gap among university staff in providing a caring, nurturing and supportive environment. The chapter begins with a literature review of colleges and universities that espouse a caring environment versus those that are more bureaucratic in nature. Research was conducted at the University of the Virgin Islands, an historically black college and university. The authors devised a questionnaire used for data collection that contained 49 items. The conclusions of the study are outlined in the chapter and verifies the urgent need for administrators to be caring leaders that place considerable significance on the quality of their relationships with students. Chapter 11, “Presidential Leadership and Building a Pipeline to Increase Diversity: Considerations for Community Expectancy,” is a collaboration of 4 authors, Dr. David V. Tolliver III of Southwest Minnesota State University, Dr. Michael T. Miller and Dr. G. David Gearhart, both from the University of Arkansas, and Dr. David M. Deggs, Texas A&M University – Commerce. This chapter discusses the idea that institutions should have a vital role in developing a pipeline of students from diverse backgrounds and the work should begin early in a potential student’s development. The chapter acknowledges the difficulties in recruiting underrepresented populations to colleges and universities, but suggests it is a long process that takes time and energy and incorporates multiple strategies and relationship building. The campus visitation program is explored in some detail. Campus presidents have an important role to ensure that their campus is perceived as a welcoming place to persons of all colors and creeds. Chapter 12 is an analysis of a president’s leadership in STEM. The chapter is entitled “Presidential Leadership and Building Participation in STEM” and is a collaboration by three authors at the University of the Virgin Islands. Dr. Kimarie Engerman, Dr. Camille McKayle, and Dr. Angelicque Tucker Blackmon. The chapter begins with the premise that the United States needs a diverse STEM workforce and should look to Historically Black Colleges and Universities as key producers of alumni with STEM backgrounds. The authors give an excellent overview on HBCU’s from an historical perspective as well as statistical information on the production of STEM degrees from HBCU’s. The president must drive this production more than any other single individual. The chapter lays out 4 frames of leadership that can strengthen the production of STEM degrees. Using a survey instrument 16 accredited HBCU institutions were contacted with 50 persons participating in the study. Chapter 13, “The College President and Fundraising: Perspectives on the Responsibilities and Challenges of Fundraising,” by Dr. G. David Gearhart, University of Arkansas, and Dr. Michael T. Miller, University of Arkansas, lays out the critical importance of fundraising to presidential leadership. The primary role of a president is to provide the resources for the academic enterprise. This chapter explores the many elements needed for a CEO to succeed in garnering private gift support. The authors give an historical perspective on philanthropy in America and its early importance to building great institutions of higher education. A case is made for the president as the chief fundraiser of the institution who must spend considerable time and effort cultivating potential benefactors. The chapter also discusses how xxiii

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Preface

presidents can become proficient in fundraising skills and the care in making a gift solicitation. The chapter concludes with an analysis of fundraising specialties, including major gifts, planned giving and annual giving. Chapter 14, entitled “Institutional Niche: Define or Die,” is authored by Dr. Jerrid P. Freeman, Northeastern State University, and Dr. Dean L. Bresciani, North Dakota State University. The chapter is concerned with a common issue of higher education institutions wanting to be all things to all people. Colleges and universities must play to their strengths and find the niche that serves them best with their constituents. The authors define a new model of self-definition that creates and articulates a more defined and articulated niche and market that niche to prospective students. It is imperative that the president help define the niche and bring campus leaders together in setting priorities. Chapter 15, “Contemporary Urban University Presidents and an Emerging Paradigm for Strategic Planning and Civic Engagement,” by Dr. Everrett A. Smith, University of Cincinnati, tackles the issues that impact America’s urban universities. Presidents have the opportunity to set goals and agendas around issues that also are most relevant to the cities where they are located. Supporting and reengineering innercity neighborhoods can be one issue of collaboration. The chapter fully explores strategic planning by presidents that incorporate civic oriented issues into those plans. The author sees collaboration with city officials on issues of mutual interest as an important objective of presidents of urban institutions. City leaders are important stakeholders for urban universities and presidents must give clear communication to this vital sector. Chapter 16, “Becoming a Champion of Orientation,” is a collaboration among Dr. Gregory V. Wolcott, San Jose State University, Dr. William J. Reckmeyer, San Jose State University, Dr. Andrene Kaiwi Conner, California Poytechnic State University, and Dr. Rigoberto Flores, San Jose State University. This chapter explores the importance of orientation programs to colleges and universities in enrollment management. Presidents must be aware and involved in these programs and provide leadership to ensure they are on the cutting edge. They must encourage wide participation in orientation programs and include faculty participation in particular. The authors give an overview of the history of orientation programs as well as the essential elements. While often overlooked by presidents, an institution’s orientation programs are a vital component of student learning and president’s need to give it the attention it deserves. Chapter 17, “Setting the Vision for Campus Outreach and Engagement,” authored by Dr. David M. Deggs, Texas A&M University-Commerce, explores the development of community engagement in higher education. The author posits that many institutions do not prioritize community engagement efforts nor make them a priority and presidents should take actions to ensure prioritization. The relationship between higher education institutions and their communities is complex and not always positive but even more critical in today’s complex society. Numerous benefits can inure to colleges and universities that take such engagement seriously and provide the necessary resources to ensure success. The author discusses the threats to community engagement including political, social, and economic threats and concludes that such engagement has a direct, positive, measurable impact on students and faculty. Chapter 18, “Succession Planning in Rural Community Colleges,” is a collaboration with Dr. Ashley Aylett, University of Arkansas Community College at Cossatot, Dr. Kit Kacirek, University of Arkansas, and Dr. Kenda S. Grover, University of Arkansas. One of the most difficult tasks in the community college world is recruiting competent candidates to lead community colleges. This study explores the leadership pipeline for rural community colleges and how it is shaped by institutional and community values. The authors used a case study method of 6 rural community college presidents to determine how they grappled with leadership continuity. Salaries are not always competitive with urban institutions and xxiv

Preface

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

the homogenous nature of rural communities may inhibit diversity of candidates. The study examines how rural colleges go about identifying, recruiting, and preparing individuals for leadership roles. Chapter 19, “The Public Institution Presidency: Navigating the Legislature,” by Dr. Arleene P. Breaux of the University of Alabama, is concerned with how presidents and chancellors can successfully navigate the political structures and processes of the state legislature. State government support for higher education has undergone a tremendous erosion over the last several years. Students and families have suffered due to this significant erosion. Dr. Breaux explores the need for presidents to command a skill set that can effectively communicate with policymakers and negotiate the political landscape to improve their ability to garner much needed public support for programs. With falling state support for public colleges and universities presidents must be able to develop authentic relationships with legislators that may lead to an increase in appropriations. The chapter presents an overview of the tough political environment faced by presidents and the strategies used to advocate for one’s institution. The author explores the trends in state appropriations. Chapter 20, “Second Founding Presidents,” authored by Dr. Kenneth W. Borland of Bowling Green State University, looks at the microcosm of 163 Christian colleges and universities and signals three distinct changes that should be of significance for their college presidents. These changes are labeled by the writer as “movements, truth, decisions, restoration,” “endurance versus departure,” and “declining denominationalism and trust.” He suggests that an institution needs to revisit its values, vision, mission, and strategy for its continuing identity. The final chapter, Chapter 21, “The President and the Board: Leveraging Systemic Collaboration for Strategic Governance in the Modern Higher Education Landscape,” by Dr. Randall Brumfield, Louisiana Board of Regents, explores the insistence by governing boards to require presidents of public institutions to focus on entrepreneurial spirit that develops partnerships with other institutions for the benefit of faculty and students. It is the responsibility of presidents and chancellors to champion collaboration within postsecondary systems to reduce costs and continued reliance on state appropriations. Also, continued reliance on tuition and fee increases is simply not sustainable in the long run and colleges and universities are forced to find new ways to contain costs which necessitates collaboration with other institutions as well as private enterprise partnerships.

xxv

1

Chapter 1

The College Presidency:

An Enduring Pulpit, a Constant Perch in Changing Eras, and Calculated Prophesies for What May Come Stephen J. Nelson Bridgewater State University, USA & Brown University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter explores the defning events and leaders in American higher education during the past 75 years. Special attention is directed at the defning events and leaders of the 1960s and 1970s that have shaped so much of the current landscape of higher education. The chapter begins by exploring the idea of a ‘career president’, a recent trend during the past four or fve decades, and includes both infuential leaders who have spent signifcant time at one institution, to those who move to diferent institutions throughout their career entirely in the role of president. The chapter concludes by ofering critical questions about the future of the academy.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION No times are easy times for college presidents. Even in the most static, non-controversial times, the responsibilities and duty expected of those in the pulpit of the presidency create unending, seemingly infinite challenges. College presidents are supposed to be grand and most magnificent leaders. They are measured by super-human standards. However, all times are not equal. Many eras have characteristically confronted presidents with greater, at times overwhelming trials. In such periods, roadblocks to even the most minimal, marginal successes are profoundly daunting, sometimes almost impossible to overcome. The 1960s to the mid-1970s and the first two decades thus far of the twenty-first century are two such eras, and they share striking similarities. They both feature equal parts of chaos and change, revolution and recovery, dashed dreams and unflagging hopes. They are decades marked by events that have shaken the foundations of colleges and universities, as well as society as a whole. The issues at stake have stirred DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6560-5.ch001

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College Presidency

passions in and outside the gates. These times have served up confounding contests for presidents, and for supporters and critics alike within and surrounding the Ivory Tower. Though by no means unique and extraordinary in the long history of America’s colleges and universities and their presidents, the era comprised of the last six decades is one filled with its share of magnificent promise and alarming gravity, of lofty hope and humbling despair. College presidents are often thrust willy-nilly into the controversial and contentious public arena. The resulting exposure can create a severe testing ground. Many presidents have been able to exert leadership that both stood immediate tests and endured over time. They have been able through wisdom and good fortune to answer the call and demands of the day. Despite rancorous polemics, they have displayed the ability to secure the foundations of the university during their tenures and for years to come. But in other dramatic cases, there are presidents who have been exposed as weak tea by the controversies they confronted. Needless to say, the times from 1960s to the present end of the second decade of the 2000s have featured traumatic events and trials inside and outside the gates of the academy. Ours are not simple times. Like Dickens opening lines of A Tale of Two Cities, these were “the best of times,” they were “the worst of times.” The challenges of the latter twentieth and early twenty-first centuries created turmoil for college and university presidents, for their boards of trustees, especially members and administrators charged with stewardship of endowments and financial wherewithal, and for faculty who along with presidents assume the “first principle” (in Cardinal Newman’s words) responsibility for the intellectual and academic core of these institutions. However, historical perspective is ever the judge and jury The same that might be said about the history of the last sixty years can easily be said for college presidents and their institutions, as well as for American society in epochs such as the Revolutionary War; the religious fervor of the First and Second Great Awakenings; the roils and tragedy of slavery and the run-up of those contentions boiling into a Civil War; the challenges of advances in science and technology coupled as they were with industrialization and urbanization as the nineteenth century closed and the next century beckoned; and the numerous wars and civil, human, racial and women’s rights battles, especially as they played out in the twentieth century. In large measure, the more things change, the more they stay the same. That certainly presently seems the case with echoes from the not-too-distant past embodied in the return of a fulsome focus on race, racial inequities and racism, anti-immigrant tenor and bias from the White House and sectors around the nation against almost any non-white foreigner, and the exposure wrought by a national and global pandemic of issues of basic fairness rooted and overlapping in health care access, race, class, and economic upheaval. College presidents are already being challenged mightily by the events thus far in 2020 and it is reasonable to think there may well be more to come. The world and least of all our colleges and universities have not stood still over the last sixty years. While many things have stayed the same for college presidents, today’s denizens of the presidential pulpit and their circumstances differ in both small and also in dramatic ways from predecessors of decades and even centuries before. In the last 50 plus years, we have witnessed the advent of the “career president” as new development, though we must hasten to acknowledge long-term, single presidency leaders of previous eras, figures like Nicholas Murray Butler, Theodore Hesburgh, James Conant, and even in our own, Norman Francis at Xavier University (Louisiana) from the day the Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968 to 2015. Today’s career presidents are those who have paid significant dues in upward and increasing administrative appointments over a goodly period of time, sometimes decades. This gets them to a first 2

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College Presidency

presidency and subsequently to multiple presidencies as opposed to spending many years in the same slot. This phenomenon is traceable to around the 1980s and continues to the present. Examples include Stephen Trachtenberg, Ruth Simmons, Gordon Gee (a record seven presidencies including two returning to a university in which he previously served), Robert Carothers, Gordon Haaland, David Skorton, James Freedman, Mary Sue Coleman, John DiBiaggio, and Lee Bollinger to name just a few. However, the normal portfolio of academic bona fides (the Ph.D., some years teaching and researching), personal traits, and overall professional experience expected of presidents has changed very little. The evolution of higher education in America since World War II, especially the continuing growth of size and scale of almost every college and university, is the backdrop, and even a cause for, the development of the career presidency era. A maturation of the whole of higher education in this country is occurring at a slightly greater pace than in the years prior to the mid-twentieth century. Evidence of these changes includes, but is not limited to a number of signs: expanded enrollments; the rapid rise followed by almost as steep a fall (and continuing reductions) in Federal and State support; a “keep up with the Jones’” contest to overreach with grander plans and enlarged facilities (especially in the student life competition of more and more glitzy spaces and places); and highly sophisticated, now the “continual campaign,” nature of fund-raising and development from foundations, corporations, individuals, alumni, and any other supporters that can be lured to contribute financial largesse. As evidence, one need go no further than schools that over-built in the 1950s and 60s with the incentive of Federal dollars, arrays of research faculty heavily dependent on grant support to fund their positions and to add institutional support through “overhead,” and first time major development campaigns that began to be undertaken in the 1970s. The sleepier, smaller-scale college and university scene of the 1950s and even 1960s is now overrun by the entrepreneurial, global, more highly professionalized institution. Stanford University was a good, mostly regional, but not particularly highly recognized university until the early 1970s. Duke, Vanderbilt, Brown, and Emory, to name a few, and many others could be similarly characterized. Contrast this today with President John Duderstadt (1995) of Michigan’s description of his University as a “multi-national, entrepreneurial conglomerate.” Attached to this evolution in the scope and reach of America’s colleges and universities is a sub-set problem and issue: the rise, prominence, and accompanying and expanding indiscretions of intercollegiate athletics. This problem is most obvious and pronounced at the major Division I sports factories (though it can infect other schools in that Division as well as the smaller fish in the Division II and III ponds). Examples of sports scandals abound. Suffice to say that the microscope under which university sports programs function and the scrutiny of them today have changed dramatically compared to that encountered by their predecessors in the 1960s and 70s and in even earlier times. That is not to say that there were no problems then. As intercollegiate sports programs have grown by gigantic proportions and the money associated with them (legal and otherwise) has expanded at an equal if not greater pace, the potential for disastrous behavior and consequences have also been substantially, in many cases justly, magnified. The major university presidents of today, and any one of the many sports factories, confront enormously complex and complicated challenges in an effort to run athletic programs with some patina of integrity. And when crises hit, even small college and smaller university presidents face challenges that their predecessors either did not have to confront at all or were able to avoid by bobbing and weaving away from much less intensely severe scrutiny. Another recent major change in society with certain and unavoidable effects on college presidents is the reality of the 24/7 cycle of news, pervasive and invasive media coverage, the explosion of social 3

 The College Presidency

media usage, and other sources of information (and rumor) flow. These forces can be greatly useful. But they can also create crushing demand for instant reaction to everything, regardless scope and scale. John Sexton (2005) of New York University describes this as a primary cause of a “gladiator culture.” To Sexton, “We have created a coliseum culture that reduces discourse to gladiatorial combat. Viewpoints are caricatured in their most absolute form, with moderated, nuanced, or mixed positions given little or no voice. Propositions incapable of simple explanation in catchy, easily labeled phrases are ignored” (n. p.) Today’s presidents must figure out ways to use the advantages of an increasingly intense media appetite and the capacity to promote communication, along with understanding more fully the innumerable downsides of this culture, especially as used on them and their campuses by critics and opponents. The present cascade of events in 2020: a virus pandemic, racial upheaval, and economic collapse show us, lest we need to be reminded, the power of constant media coverage and the demands for instantaneous responses sparked. While changes have occurred over the sixty years from 1960 to present, a number of constant, in some cases recurring themes and trends persist, even as they have been re-shaped and refashioned. These include issues of race, affirmative action, and equity; concerns about institutional endowment and financial portfolios coupled with questions about divestment and overlapping connections with the corporate and industrial sector; ideological pressures from the Right and the Left; attendant threats to free speech and academic freedom; and international controversies, first as war in Vietnam and fears surrounding the Cold War, and later as concerns about terrorist threats, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; and First and Third World development and competition, now very heightened by US fears about the financial power and economic engine that is China, Korea, and India, among others today. Regardless historical eras, both the long history and the more recent half century plus of college presidential leadership, one critical dimension has not and is unlikely to change. Any assessment of the role of presidents and their leadership in any time cannot be divorced from citizens and communities, comprised of supporters and critics, driven often by the voices of protesting youth out to change society. These forces and context contribute mightily, even if at times unfairly, to judgments about the “success” of college presidents. Simply put, we are always forced to sit in the middle of a still shifting target that is by no means a finished product.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1960s Retrospective (I) Turn back the clock to June 4th, 1968. It is commencement day at Columbia University. Columbia and many campuses around the country had experienced, and in some cases barely survived a strident, revolutionary spring spawned from seeds of tension sown in the fall 1967 and even longer ago. In those spring months nothing less than all hell broke loose. Lyndon Johnson, facing plummeting popularity and confidence in his leadership driven by outrage over what had become his war, shockingly told the nation he would not run for reelection. Days earlier, and no doubt pushing LBJ over the brink, Robert Kennedy announced his belated entrance into the presidential sweepstakes as a Democratic primary challenger. Days later Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. Within weeks George Wallace, then running for president supporting the war, lashing out against protestors and youth culture, and vowing to return the South and the nation to states’ rights, fell victim to an assassination attempt that left him paralyzed for the rest of his life. Throughout the academic year, Columbia experienced student unrest, protests, and building takeovers. Just less than two weeks prior to commencement an arson fire set in an academic building destroyed 4

 The College Presidency

more than a decade of a politically targeted professor’s research and writing. The nation had rarely in its history faced such a tumultuous time of chaos and revolution compressed as it was in a few short months. The esteemed historian Richard Hofstadter, long-standing son of Columbia, first as a graduate student and then faculty member, had been asked to deliver the university’s commencement address. Fittingly given his revered reputation as a thinker and man of ideas, Hofstadter delivered a timely, probing address. Pushing back against the dissemblers and anti-establishment rhetoric of the day, Hofstadter’s leitmotif was simple. He argued for the high value and fundamental heritage of the university. He refused to shirk the major questions facing the academy of that time: Why should a university exist? What must a university be and do? How does it stay on track to fulfill its purpose as one of, if not the most significant institution in a democratic and civil society? What must the university stand for? Can, and if so how, does the academy straddle competing and increasingly polarized constituencies? Amid the din and rapidly diminishing rationality of the times, Hofstadter called for a time-out, a time to examine fundamental considerations of critical importance to Columbia and any university worth its salt. He personally refused to bend from reliance on the power of an intellectual tradition and of grounding in rational thought. Relevance to Hofstadter meant depending exclusively on foundational roots. What has gotten us to where we are? How will that sustain us in the face of seemingly overwhelming contentions, destructive tendencies, and odds? Hofstadter sided with classic conservative claims that the university must transcend petty though unavoidable but ultimately distracting political, social, and cultural battles in society in and outside the walls of the academy. Even though many no doubt were angered by his message, Hofstadter’s was a firm steady hand in a very unsteady, tumultuous time. His argument based as it was in long-standing, traditional arguments about the university, was “right” even if the most radical listeners would accuse Hofstadter of being antiquated and wrong-headed. He was certainly not what we years later would describe as politically correct. But he stood in and took the heat, nonetheless. Less than twelve hours after he finished speaking and the annual commencement exercises had concluded, three thousand miles away and following his dramatic California primary victory, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. It was an abrupt and violent end to his brief presidential campaign. Hofstadter had argued that we step back from the abyss. But now events once again inched us closer. Where was the bottom? What possibly could happen next? Indeed, these were scary and damning times. For college presidents as well as their fellow citizens there were few places to hide.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

OUR STORY CONTINUES History has marched on over the last 60 years since 1960. Colleges and universities are not the same institutions with the same cultures that they were even at the turn of the twentieth century, let alone in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, the foundation and beliefs of the academy have changed very little. Core principles of the university have been challenged and threatened. But they have successfully weathered even the most significant storms. Much of that good fortune can be credited to college presidents. Though the presidency has also not stood still, overall it is much the same institution of fifty plus years ago. The office has been remarkably unaffected by winds of social change and by questions about what we want and should expect of our presidents. The bottom line is that the caliber, capacity, and temperament, the personal profiles and

5

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College Presidency

stature of the men and women who have served and continue to serve as presidents over the last more than half century and even much longer, have changed little, if at all. However, college presidents do not serve in a vacuum, and colleges and universities do not exist in a vacuum. The beliefs and values attached to politics, culture, social norms and thinking, and to the body politic inside and outside the gates of the academy are intertwined with everything that goes on. Cause and effect abound. External forces press on colleges and presidents with evident and unavoidable effect. Throughout this era of the last half of the twentieth and the first two decades of the twenty-first century the reality is that many public issues have had surprisingly long shelf life. Persistent in American society and the university have been racial politics, the strains of racism, and equal opportunity dreams and dashed fortunes; war (i.e., Vietnam, Iraq twice, Afghanistan-Pakistan, and many smaller but still upending fires) and international controversy (i.e., apartheid in South Africa, oppressive regimes dotted all over the globe, the exodus of refugees from war torn trouble spots); questions about equity and equal opportunity for women in hiring, sports, access to the graduate school and the corporate sector; environmental degradation and concern; and nearly chronic economic ebbs and flows, maybe more ebbs. Presidents have no choice but to recognize a fact of life: colleges and universities are expected to tackle the political and cultural rhetoric, debates and propositions of the time and all the issues generated. In the meantime, some sands leading to the present era have shifted. The most sweeping revolution, by and large undeniable, is the fact that the times themselves have changed (Lembcke, 2010). However, judgments about the differences between the 1960s and ‘70s or even earlier eras, and the first decades of the twenty-first century for colleges and universities, let alone for the national landscape, are ultimately highly subjective. At the same time, we can gain informed perspective from presidents who served in the 1950s, ‘60s, and ‘70s and lived long enough to comment with hindsight. One exemplary figure was Douglas Knight who served two presidencies at Lawrence College and Duke University spanning much of the 1950s and nearly all the 1960s. Reflecting on that era he takes us to undercurrents born out of the ‘50s that surfaced in the ‘60s. Trouble began in the form of two “major hazards for higher education in the expansionist fifties. The first came from our participation in the power structures of the nation, the second from successes which dulled our self-critical senses.” The result was that “we moved dramatically in new directions but without much awareness of the move” (Knight, 1989, p. 16). Knight depicts his cohort of ‘50s and ‘60s presidents as suffering delusions of grandeur about how long the Federal faucet would hold up as an uninterrupted fiscal spring for scholarship and financial aid funding (mostly GI Bill and precursors to Pell grants, and other grants and aid); for building construction support through government bonds; and for research dollars to boost U.S. fortunes in Cold War battles on the ground in proxy wars, underground and undersea in nuclear weapons technology, and in the Space Race. Coupled, in Knight’s view, with these fallacies was the delusion that everything was going swimmingly. Beginning with the Free Speech Movement and the earliest civil rights rumblings of the early 1960s, that fantasy world began to come crashing down. Things may have been going well on some fronts, but protest and upheaval, revolution and chaos began to hedge in the authority and power that presidents and their institutions previously enjoyed. And as we have seen, the economic crunch that set in at the dawn of the 1970s popped the 1960s balloon of financial good times. These were times of rude awakenings for presidents and higher education. Happy days were not here again. The world of college presidents and the realities of leading these institutions have not changed dramatically during the last more than 60 years. Nonetheless, there are seductions to view matters to the contrary, especially on the fiscal affairs and fundraising front. Financial snares embedded in the swings 6

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College Presidency

of economic fortune are difficult to anticipate. Other fiscal issues can be more blatant and on the surface for all to see: the ever-present lure to mortgage the future for current but short-term gain, failure to be sound stewards of inherited resources produced by generational sacrifice, and groveling at the feet of donors regardless the asking price for their largesse. Presidents and their institutions are forever running smack into both the patently obvious and the protractedly obscured dilemmas that these fiscal, ethical, ‘is your house in order’ challenges regularly present. However, even in the face of swings of economic fortunes, by and large there is little that is fully brand new. College presidents have faced these difficulties and temptations for centuries. Further and mercifully, previous challenges reasonably successfully met, can provide roadmaps for when fiscal challenges are encountered, such as is presently the case in the 2020 economic turmoil and uncertainties amid and caused by a national and global pandemic. Knight’s capsule fashions a warning for college presidents of any era. His message: “We had been,” prior to facing the overwhelming upheaval that was to come, “secure in our conviction that the work we were doing was important, in the public good, respected. Suddenly . . . we found we were all thumbs. Our ‘certain certainties,’” as Knight aptly characterizes them, “were anything but; we found, not only that we could not control events, but that we could not even control our own participation in events.” Knight personalizes this state of affairs: “The loss of innocence for us came in a very special form; we lost the power to perform adequately in our jobs. A fair number of us had the unusual experience of being pushed beyond normal limits and into the uncontrolled flux of events.” What had happened to college presidents was that “We were disciplined to look for patterns of order, and then to articulate them; that was our trade. Quite suddenly,” Knight confesses, “we found that we were Kings of Misrule instead. Those of us in senior universities felt we stood high in our profession; then one fine day we found that like Dean Rusk or LBJ we were powerless. Nothing would come right, and we lost our innocence in a singularly painful way even as we lost our careers” (Knight, 1989, p. 81) Knight was dispatched from his presidency within months of a 1969 black student take-over of the main administrative building and the president’s office at Duke. The University was a conservative place, located in a conservative part of the country. However, Knight is not a whiner. His thoughts distilled to their simplest form argue a reality that while juggling many forces and pieces of an ongoing puzzle, presidents must maintain finely tuned self-awareness about who they are in the job and what it is they are trying to accomplish. The stakes for presidents and their institutions are high in normal times. The stakes readily become astronomical in times of crises such as the 1960s and the reprise we witness and is being currently faced in 2020. In the middle of all the distractions and pressures of the 1960s it was those colleges and universities that had greatest degree of “inner coherence” that Knight believes fared best (p. 156). But “inner coherence” was not an exclusive aspiration of the ‘60s and ‘70s, rather it is an enduring ingredient equally critical in prior generations and certainly today. If Knight is right, his injunction about “inner coherence,” becomes a first principle for presidents. Inner coherence means that colleges and universities and their presidents must be about the business of mission, purpose, and institutional saga. Distinctiveness sets institutions apart, and presidents and their colleges have to be able to pass the distinctiveness test. Maintaining this focus is no simple task. External forces cannot be ignored, but presidents need to refuse to kneejerk in response to every external issue thrown at them. or at least to push back more frequently and harder against them. That is easier said than done, but the bottom line is to be wary of distractions,

7

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College Presidency

of being trapped by every petition that comes the university’s way. That means core purpose has to be sustained and not overwhelmed by the fashionable, the “in vogue” in the swirl of competing ideologies. Knight’s demand for “inner coherence” makes New York University president John Sexton’s notion of the university as sanctuary even more compelling. Sexton (2005) urges the Ivory Tower to be at its best and most forceful. To do so the university must exert oversight of the content and substance of ideas that will be part of the marketplace inside the gates. It must exert its liberty and duty to assert how, when, even whether, especially in the case of the most extreme and intentionally polarizing, external ideological ideas and pressures should be permitted in and when they must remain outside the gates. The university as sanctuary draws a line of demarcation between the legitimate concerns of the university and the equally legitimate concerns of society, the nation and the global order. In that mix it is the university and its presidents must decide, in light of mission and purpose and for no other reason, where the twain shall meet. This stand doesn’t guarantee that issues and advocates, whether rank ideologues or coalitions with more noble intentions, will be kept outside the gates. However, the university as sanctuary can assert the authority to define how issues will be discussed, who will represent factions and interests, and the grounds of the debate and dialogue with which they will be permitted to engage. This dividing line between the core purpose of the university and the press of social concerns was obscured in the 1960s and ‘70s. When confronted by ideological pressures, Knight believed he and fellow presidents were guilty of collapsing in the face of the noise box that surrounded them. They failed to keep their eyes fixed on “inner coherence.” But the ideal then and now is not to prevent discussion of these concerns inside the gates. Rather the ideal is to assert plainly the essential and wise limits on the university’s authority to do much about these questions by taking stands or issuing proclamations. Getting sucked into the quagmire of social and political upheaval can erode the stature of the university. Presidents today have the same incumbent responsibility as their predecessors to counter this threat and to defend the gates and preserve the university as sanctuary. At the end of the decade of the 1980s, and with the perspective of his two presidencies, Knight took a shot at forecasting national and international events that have in some cases had a subsequent substantial impact on colleges and universities (note: A full reading of Knight’s Street of Dreams: The Nature and Legacy of the 1960s will confirm this estimation and provide the detail about his insights that they deserve. He synthesizes with rare aplomb and eclectic thought elements of culture, politics, social forces and upheaval, religion, and global concerns in analysis that is illuminating and edifying). Knight unravels the major issues of the 1960s and their legacy on the 1970s and ‘80s. For example, he discusses terrorism and the ends to which those who are most desperate will go to make political points. Protestors of the ‘60s, who bombed buildings and destroyed the research and personal papers of professors and presidents could well be labeled “terrorists.” While he by no means predicted the magnitude of the September 11th attacks, Knight paints a picture that includes the great havoc terrorism can wreak. On another front, Knight warned of economic bubbles, and roller coaster fiscal cycles and volatility. He virtually predicted the tech bubble burst financial crisis of the 1990s. the more disastrous collapse of 2008-2009, and now the pandemic created economic travails of 2020. Finally, as early as the 1980s Knight identified an erosion in political and cultural life in and outside the academy as a direct result of two unfortunate and continuing trends. Their contemporary seeds took root in his time but have propagated and some believe intensified in the latter twentieth and first two decades of the twenty-first centuries. One is the increasing emphasis on image over substance. The second is the emergence of highly polarized camps that rely almost exclusively on superficial and reductionistic 8

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College Presidency

arguments about issues, rather than keeping open minds and basing opinion on evidence. Both trends damage in the academy, particularly when unchained and unleashed inside the gates. What is the message for today’s presidents? A couple of things are pronounced and critical. First, presidents must avoid becoming riveted exclusively on the issues of the moment, especially those lurking outside the gates. Persistent concerns and petitions urging presidential response cannot be neglected or ignored. But things change and college presidents need to stay ahead of that curve. Presidents need to maintain the big picture view within which all the ebbs and flows happen, avoiding knee-jerk responses in the moment. That advice connects to a second: presidents need to pay close attention to Knight’s injunction about “inner coherence.” Presidents and their institutions need to have a rudder, have a compass in order to address and to contend with the slings and arrows that will come. This sense of rootedness, of heritage is absolutely critical if the academy’s fortunes are to be secured in the future as they have been in the past. The dangerous course that many colleges and universities today fall into by design or default is to run in reverse from “inner coherence.” That is, they assess what they have become and are, and then proceed to backfill that reality as the mission and purpose of the institution. In this way, rather than having a firm sense of mission and saga about who and what they are, some (how many could be argued) colleges and universities allow what they have willy-nilly become to dictate mission and what they stand for. Any judgment about the last sixty years and more in the life of America’s colleges and in the leadership that presidents bring to the table pivots on a continuing theme. It is one shot through the history of American higher education back to the Colonial Colleges: the symbiotic relationship between education and democracy. The stability and strength of this bond is front and center to any hope of stanching the corrosion and coarsening of discourse and debate in the public square inside and outside the gates of today’s academy. College presidents as primus inter pares leaders are crucial figures in these battles. Robben Fleming, president of the University of Michigan (1968-1978, and previously at the University of Wisconsin), was like Knight a veteran survivor of the swings of political pressures in the 1960s. By the middle of his ten-year tenure at Michigan, Fleming’s perspective began to be somewhat separated from the immediacy of 60s. Even at that early point, Fleming declared that the 60s era actually ended in the fall 1970. He believed that fighting yesterday’s battles on the flawed assumption that things remained as in the 1960s would be a shortsighted losing strategy. Becoming riveted on this tumultuous past, Fleming believed, was the way that democracy had ironically caused problems for higher education in America. However, having made that allegation, he quickly added that the foundation of our colleges and universities in a democracy is something he would not trade for anything. The way Fleming saw things (and he has company from a successor, Harold Shapiro president of Michigan and Princeton in the 1980s and ‘90s as well as Sexton, John Kemeny at Dartmouth, and many others), “Democracies are often untidy, and in some ways inefficient. They depend a great deal upon compromise, much as purists hate that word.” Fleming’s take is that this democratic conundrum is engrained: “Given our commitment to democracy, it is quite likely that some of our problems,” and presidents need to understand that they have no choice but to deal with this, “will never be resolved, if for no other reason than that we will have a continuing desire to ‘have our cake and eat it too.’ Nevertheless, ‘muddling through’ is not an altogether bad way to live, and few of us would exchange it for a more authoritarian regime” (Fleming, 1975, p. 15) The relationship of America’s colleges and universities to democracy took a radical turn in the 1960s. A romanticized naïveté and social contract agreements no longer obtained. That change persists today. Prior to the 1960s and 70s the role of higher education vis a vis democracy was one of mutual support. 9

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College Presidency

In the early to middle decades of the twentieth century presidents such as Nicholas Murray Butler at Columbia and James Conant at Harvard mounted their pulpits to argue that their institutions joined by any and all colleges and universities were duty bound to use their forces--faculty, students, administrators, trustees, even alumni, and the institutions themselves--and resources to secure the future of democracy and the nation. But then came the tumult of the 1960s and criticism questioning the nation and its creed. Did the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the sacred texts at the foundation of the American nation, mean anything if blacks and women still were locked in endless losing struggles to gain a minimal piece of the economic pie and of participation in the government itself? Why did colleges and universities and their presidents, supposed symbols of ethical action and moral suasion, shirk what many believed was their duty and responsibility to stand up individually and institutionally against the Vietnam War and the racist structures that systematically suppressed blacks and other minorities? This was not the world of Butler and Conant or Hesburgh and Fleming, or of the overwhelming majority of presidential colleagues of the time. However, the academy is always drawn to its tradition, bona fide at points and petulant at others, of recalcitrance, opposition, and negativity toward government, its actions, and the body politic of the nation. In many cases these are simply knee-jerk reactions of academics behaving to stereotype. Sometimes the behavior for better and worse is rooted in nothing more than Left wing litmus tests. Returning to Fleming, it would easy to conclude he had given up, had reached a point of surrender about the state and future of colleges and universities in America caught, as they are, in the morass of democratic culture in their internal affairs and their relationship to the nation. Colleges and universities function as democracies inside the national and local democratic political structure. Frequently they make their institutional lives more complicated by relying on consensus for decisions and direction. Is that a world that anyone would want to live in, let own lead as a president? What is so attractive about choosing the messiness of democracy and “muddling through” as the only reasonable alternative to rule by an “authoritarian regime?” To his credit Fleming’s advice appears as though crafted yesterday, circa 2020: “If the foregoing sounds pessimistic, it is intended to be simply realistic. The world is very different from what it once was, by an order of magnitude to which we are not accustomed” (p. 15). To this Fleming adds the critical thought that presidents of his time and even more so today must live by. “If the events of the last ten years have proved anything about universities, it is that they cannot be isolated from the society in which they exist, and that they are enormously resilient institutions. They will survive” because of their role as critic and servant, “the frustrations of government controls and financial adversity, and they will come to terms with egalitarian pressures and the philosophical debate over their relevancy to the manpower needs of the society” (p. 15). Everything in this litany applies to the challenges and difficulties of today’s academy: government influence, not always for the better; the disasters of economic woes and tumult; how to be a meritocracy and still be places of access and inclusion; and the constant juggling to fit the ideals of education to the practical needs of society’s structure and demands. What is the hope in Fleming’s mind? Nothing more or less scintillating than that, “In the last analysis, whether they are better or worse institutions will probably rest in the eye of the beholder, which is perhaps the way it must always be in a democracy” (p. 15). To whatever degree Fleming’s assessment was true in the early 1970s, it appears even more so today. The university and its presidents have a far-reaching responsibility to make contributions to society, itself based on the political system we know as American democracy, despite all its flaws. The major 10

 The College Presidency

path to fulfill that duty is for the university to embrace its role, as Harold Shapiro described, as ‘critic and servant’ (Shapiro, 1987). The tenets of the university--scholarly inquiry, full discourse and debate, and the search for knowledge and truth--require criticism. The untidiness of democracy results from the body politic constantly engaging in debate and discussion in the public square and that entails criticism. And college presidents must lead through it all. The relationship between the university and the nation, and its leaders and the government are subject to swings of the pendulum. These swings are to be expected, and they are clearly part of the territory of college presidents. Further, the relationship of the academy to society is a clear work-in-progress. Echoing across the decades from when he wrote them are the words of John Sloan Dickey, president of Dartmouth. Dickey’s admonition that “conscience and competence” are twin pillars undergirding a liberal arts education fits hand-in-glove with Shapiro’s ‘critic and servant’ (Dickey, 1955). The public outside the gates, as well as those within the gates must be reminded over and again that the academy’s purpose is to instill in students both “conscience and competence,” and thus to prepare them to serve society as both critics and servants.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1960s Retrospective (II) Grayson Kirk, president of Columbia University in the maelstrom that was the late 1960s, was on one of the hottest seats in the land in the spring 1968. His situation and how he handled it speaks volumes about the presidency historically up to his time, but also to today. The month from a late March building takeover and occupation of the president’s and provost’s offices (and subsequent University disciplinary action against the six student leaders involved) to the massive student protest of April twenty-third was a profound time (Keller, 1968). Student Mark Rudd was Kirk’s agent provocateur. Rudd and his Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) compatriots marched inexorably toward the planned April twenty-third demonstration in Columbia’s academic quadrangle and on the steps of the Low Library, essentially Columbia’s Lincoln Memorial. A counter group, Students for a Free Campus, mustered support in opposition to Rudd, his tactics against the University, against Kirk, and against the country. They distributed a leaflet the day before the rally urging pushback against Rudd and his forces. They fired their own salvos at the university and its administration just as Rudd did. However, their position was that Columbia was aiding and abetting the students protesting the war and creating turmoil on the campus. They alleged the university was taking stands that actually favored Rudd and his anti-war, disestablishment crowd. Their leaflet asserted that, “the question is not one of liberalism vs. moderation. It is a question of whether democracy can survive on a campus dominated by one faction victorious only through physical coercion” (Keller, 1968, p. 15). Kirk was in many ways boxed in by these warring factions. Kirk had been long scheduled to deliver an April twelfth address to the Founder’s Day celebration of the 225th birthday of Thomas Jefferson at the University of Virginia. As it turned out, the address came just over a week after the assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. During that tumultuous week, life in the nation and at Columbia was clearly coming apart at the seams with only more to follow in the next ten days in the ramp up to the April twenty-third rally. Scanning the current state of the United States and its relationship to the global world at the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century, Kirk’s words eerily address our time in this century. He focused on the domestic upheaval and on the international, foreign policy holes that America found itself in during the late 1960s. Despite all the confusion and competing loud voices, Kirk tried to lift 11

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College Presidency

the shadows cast from tumultuous events that citizens across the country and denizens of the university were confronting. Though one might argue with the specifics (definitions of a “generally affluent society” could differ wildly) of Kirk’s evaluation of where the country stood, he delivered an inarguable account of what was happening. He claimed that while “Our sense of national direction has become blurred and indistinct because some of the old unifying goals, such as the winning of the West and the creation of a generally affluent society, have been largely achieved,” the problem was that “others, such as the encouragement of the spread of our political institutions to other lands, have been abandoned because we have had to accept the fact that they were the product of a time when our enthusiasm exceeded our sophistication” (Kirk, 1968, n. p.). What had become of the nation was that “our newer announced goals -- to eliminate the pockets of poverty remaining in our country, to assure, full equality of opportunity for all Americans, and to mount vast efforts against the menace of Communism wherever it arises -- these either have failed to kindle our imagination or they have evoked” as the Vietnam war in particular had “more disunity than agreement.” Kirk’s assessment of the time, one that applies equally today, was that the nation had suffered a loss of “Jefferson’s faith in the inevitability of progress and we have not as yet found a new unifying faith for our time.” Regarding the international scene, Kirk contended “Our posture abroad offers us little compensating comfort. The image which we have had of ourselves in the world as a highly moral, altruistic, peaceloving and progressive people has never been as widely accepted by other nations as we have believed or hoped.” The problem was “Other nations on occasion have tended to conclude that we have greater power than responsibility and greater impulsiveness than mature judgment. And some of our recent foreign activities, however much they may have been founded in a belief that they were vital to our national interest, have stirred other peoples in the free world into violent and belligerent opposition.” Kirk was buffeted by the assaults he, Columbia, and the country endured through much of the decade of the 1960s. For Kirk the problem was that “At the moment, this house is in disrepair and while the vandalism done to it understandably has been encouraged by those who count themselves as our enemies, it would be an act of folly on our part if we were to ascribe all foreign antagonisms to their machinations.” Concerning the damage we had done to ourselves Kirk targeted the likes of his prime opponent in Mark Rudd as well as many of the student protestors at Columbia and around the country. Kirk’s response to the problems facing society was evident: “We have always said proudly that though our democracy may be a clumsy form of government, we accept this inefficiency as a reasonable price for the protection of our liberties. But today, though we cling to our liberties with appropriate passion, we demand from our government a degree of efficiency that our system was designed to make almost impossible. I do not conclude that we should now abandon our liberties in the interest of efficiency; the price would be far too great.” Thus, Kirk argues, “we should not be afraid to remember Jefferson’s counsel that each generation should be prepared to re-examine its political institutions and to re-shape them as might be necessary in order to meet more adequately the needs of the time.” All this run-up leads to Kirk’s piece de resistance. Like many presidents of the day, Kirk had been characterized as weak for failure to oppose the Vietnam War. Now, rhetorically answering what America needs most urgently to address, Kirk stated unequivocally that the war is the sticking point on which all the rest of the nation’s problems hinged: ”First on, my list, in timing and importance, is the need for this country to extricate itself as quickly as possible from its current involvement in Vietnam. No other item on the national agenda can be dealt with effectively until this has been done. Not one of our great social, economic or political problems can be made manageable until this conflict can be brought to an 12

 The College Presidency

end.” This was as unambiguous a stand as anyone could expect of a college president. The blockades to Kirk getting to this point, he cashed chips of his bully pulpit to declare his stand. Kirk concluded quoting Jefferson’s Third Annual Message to Congress. “There he spoke eloquently ‘of cultivating general friendship, and of bringing collisions of interest to the umpire of reason rather than of force.’ In the years ahead we shall have need to remember this counsel,” Kirk warns. The tragedy lying in the future is that, “If we fail to heed it and drift further into sterile and divisive conflict, we shall all be the poorer for it, and we shall not, in the end, be worthy of our heritage.” Kirk crafted the remarks for consumption by the Columbia community. The student newspaper covered them in their entirety. But for his efforts unsurprisingly Kirk did not move Rudd one inch. Within ten days Rudd circulated his response to the university community in an open letter addressed to Kirk. Skating over Kirk’s positions, especially his clear call for exit from the Vietnam War, Rudd sank to the depths so often associated with this era. His unmistakably blistering closing point: “You call for order and respect for authority; we call for justice, freedom, and socialism. There is only one thing left to say. It may sound nihilistic to you, since it is the opening shot in a war of liberation. I’ll use the words of LeRoi Jones, whom I’m sure you don’t like a whole lot: ’Up against the wall, motherfucker, this is a stick-up.” (Keller, 1968, p. 14).

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Epilogue America’s colleges and universities are not today what they were in 1960, let alone what they were at the founding of Harvard in 1636, at the end of the colonial college era in 1769 with the founding of Dartmouth, or the halcyon days of the major research universities such as the founding of Wisconsin and Stanford in the late nineteenth century. However, neither have they and their presidents changed so remarkably as to be unrecognizable compared to their architecture of that earlier time. College and university campuses are generally larger, have bigger footprints, most of that attributable to more students attending and greater demand for more facilities, and are generally much better groomed--appearances now counting for more in the eyes of the beholders--than their more modest forebears. Public attention, especially to the foibles, scandals, and ever-escalating cost of a higher education is more riveted in civic consciousness today than in the distant past of six decades and longer ago. However, presidents still sit in perches overseeing it all. Some to a great degree than others more readily mount the bully pulpit to rally forces to the cause of the college they lead, to address this or that social, political or cultural issue, and to defend the gates of the academy against assaults from within and without. By contrast, some comrades are more reticent, retiring, happy to steer away from the limelight and to keep their heads down in the hope to evade public targeting of their leadership. Many of the seminal issues born in the 1960s and 1970s have not only refused to go away but linger, some in more insidious guises. The intransigence of these issues could well have been predicted, despite idealisms then and now and naïveté that hoped-for change was always around the corner. The reality has been that issues and concerns bearing on principles essential to the well-being of the academy were either kicked down the road to presidents of the latter twentieth and the early twenty-first centuries, or simply proved to be too large, too engrained to be readily “solved.” We well know the litany: equal opportunity and affirmative action (including what will eventually be its end-game) and what to do about socio-economic factors that limit access, equity, and equality; the never-ending struggle of stewardship and funding of colleges and universities, difficult in even the best economic and financial times and simply tougher in times like the recessions of the early 1970s, the 13

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College Presidency

post-September 11th economic challenges, and 2008 Great Recession of the last decade, and the recession, maybe arguably to depression levels of the present 2020 pandemic world; and ideological battles and critics demanding the curricula and the public stances of their dreams, and their ready targeting of professors and presidents over their political pedigrees, ethical and political positions; what it takes to sustain freedom of inquiry and research that must be the foundation of the university; and if concerned parties are not careful, a university that failing essential presidential leadership and as a result of being a political football, could easily become unrecognizable from that of its centuries-old foundation. With all this as prologue, what do we know or at least think we know about the college presidency and the institutions presidents try mightily to lead and serve? What issues loom that must be addressed in order for the university to remain the university? What will the college presidency be? What will it look like? How will presidents navigate and lead in and outside the gates, and in and out of their bully pulpits in the next eight or so decades that will take us to the end of the twenty-first century? Despite the already-stated admonition to beware of predictions, especially about the future, with that past as prologue a number of points of view serve as guideposts (Nelson, 2007; Nelson, 2009). College presidents have always been protean figures. This stature is in any era a terribly needed quality. Presidents who have tended to survive, even thrive especially in tumultuous times, are always the most versatile leaders and personalities, the ones who are able to display moxie that meets the times. Understandably, we look to these successful presidential pathfinders to lead the way, to help us figure out how the greater good can be located and served, and to keep the college and university on its essential keel. In any foreseeable future, the men and women (the breaking of the gender barrier to college presidencies a major breakthrough of the last sixty years) who ascend to the office and pulpit of the presidency will have to be equally protean when compared to the best predecessors of any era. This hope is no different from Charles Eliot’s classic characterization half a century before the 1960s. Upon his retirement from forty years in office at Harvard, Eliot, comparing leaders in other professions to college presidents, concluded simply that there “is no equal in the world.” The complexities of the college presidency and of the expectations that its multifaceted and competing constituencies bear on it are bottomless. As our journey with presidents shows, this is as it ever has been. The presidents who got through the 1960s and ‘70s most successfully, and I would argue in prior eras as well as their successors in the last four decades, were those who managed to steer a middle course. These presidents were the ones able to moderate, to modulate, and to serve as interlocutors in the center of warring and protesting parties operating from polarized silos, their nativist cruxes well outside the mainstream of what the academy demands. To name just a few, presidents like John Sexton, Lee Bollinger, Judith Rodin, Amy Gutmann, Hannah Gray, Jim Freedman and many others have grabbed the undertaking, in Stephen Trachtenberg’s words, to be “balance wheels,” presidents who display the courage required to stand, more than a bit ironically, nowhere grander than in the middle (Trachtenberg, 2003). Presidents must understand that their most important duty of stewardship for the future of the academy is not about them. As they fulfill the calling to be persuaders-in-chief, with all the power they can muster in the bully pulpit, presidents still and always have to acknowledge that they stand on the shoulders of others. They must embrace the saga, the legacy of their institutions, and foster the greater good of the academy. Presaging Trachtenberg, what is required of presidents is to embody Hofstadter’s university: “best minister[ing] to society’s needs not alone through its mundane services but through the far more important office of becoming an intellectual and spiritual balance wheel” (Hofstadter, 1968, p. 583). This is one of the great paradoxes of the college presidency. On one hand, we expect leaders who will get out front and be courageous. We don’t applaud leading in the middle. But on the other hand, we 14

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College Presidency

need profound appreciation of how presidents must locate and hold the center. How else can the future of the university be made secure? But can we have it both ways? John Sexton at New York University did both. He argued for the center, worked tirelessly to craft a center that holds and challenged those willing to respect the university as a sanctuary to be part of that community. At the same time, Sexton shined a bright light on the damaging polarization, political correctness, and warring camps demanding that the university side with their political idiosyncrasies. What does it take to get to the position that he and many other presidents hold? Max Weber provides a label for the poles of the leadership conundrum college presidents confront: two countervailing ideals, “the ethic of responsibility’” and “the ethic of ultimate ends” (Gane, 2002, p. 65). He distinguishes leaders, as well as citizens, who “’act from a sense of practical consequence and those who act from higher conviction, regardless of consequences’” (Packer, 2011, p. 24). The problem with either pole, absent a dose of the other, is that “On its own, the ethic of responsibility can become a devotion to technically correct procedure, while the ethic of ultimate ends can become fanaticism.” I would argue that the most successful presidents are those who merge an “ethic of responsibility” with that of “ultimate ends.” A judicious balance of responsibility and conviction is the prescription to pave a middle road and to hack out a center that can hold. The eras of the university when the stakes have been most high are also the times when the risks and rewards, coupled with failures and successes, are also of greatest consequence for presidents. The 1960s and early ‘70s were profoundly such difficult times for presidents, and for colleges and universities. The convictions, the tactics designed to make the university a proxy in cultural and political wars, and the out-sized rhetoric of university critics were at seeming all-time highs. But that climate did not end then. Much of the tone-setting of those days put in place the style of critique and architecture of campus culture that persists to present day. Presidents could not simply argue from the standpoint of responsibility. Presidents then, now, and always have to show their beliefs, tote out the convictions of their office, and be utterly determined to establish their duty to the office and to the foundation of the university. Viewed optimistically, the actions of such presidents, especially when critical matters are under significant siege etches a considerable legacy on the important issues of liberal education, the place of democratic principles in the academy and the nation, and the capacity for the university to be sustained as the university. We cannot know the arc of history that will mark the future of the college presidency and the academy (Parker, 1853). Throughout history college presidents have fought for the survival of their colleges and universities. They have solidified the office of president as a revered platform and pulpit for the constituents of the university and the body politic of society. Likewise, the university has survived for centuries and will endure led by those, including the best of its presidents who, committed to its fundamental principles, will continue to protect and defend it. Does that arc of history bend toward an enduring presidency and an academy that will be sustained as an irrevocably instrumental foundation of society and culture? Some snapshots from history provide hope for a positive prospect. How future decades for the college presidency and the college and university will unfold will be for those of the future to witness and to judge. We can only guess at what choices and aspirations college presidents will be able to invoke and inject in the face of naysayers, contrarians, and critic. What will be at stake in that future is written in our history thus far, and that is the outcome of their endeavors will indisputably continue to determine the soul of the university and the soul of the college presidency.

15

 The College Presidency

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1960s and 70s Retrospective (iii) On Sunday, April 26, 1970, just a few days before President Nixon’s announcement about expansion of the Vietnam War by incursions into Cambodia, Robben Fleming, then president of University of Michigan, Sol Linowitz, trustee at Cornell and Hamilton College, and a student representative from Stanford, Patrick Shea appeared on “Meet the Press” to discuss the about to be released American Council on Education (ACE) Report of the Special Committee on Campus Tensions. Linowitz had chaired the committee and Fleming and Shea were members. Sparked by the disastrous events of the spring 1968 and through the 1968-69 academic year at numerous campuses around the country, ACE believed causes and possible solutions had to be found and brought to public attention. The group had been meeting for seven months to assess what was going on and what the higher education community and the country could do to prevent things from spinning even more out of control than they had been. These three representative members came before the country on national television to reveal the depths of dissent evident at colleges and universities and in the nation, and to present what they thought might be ways out of the abyss. Early in the discussion one panelist asked about the Report’s conclusion that there had been “exploitation of campus problems by some politicians” and that this had been a “source of polarization.” The questioner wanted to know whether the Committee had specific “politicians in mind.” Linowitz jumped to the bait. “Certainly the students with whom we talked did. They frequently mentioned Vice President Agnew, they mentioned Governor Reagan. They told us time and time again,” Linowitz went on, “that as a result of some of the charges and the name calling, polarization was increasing on campus, and there was a feeling that lines were being drawn between generations, and exacerbating the situation” (Meet the Press, 1970, p. 2). As the discussion proceeded, presenting the student voice and perspective Shea mentioned that a group at Stanford had announced that campus protests were going to shift from the non-violent approach of the ‘60s to a more “violent mobile tactics” (Meet the Press, 1970, p. 4). Aware of the ominous possibilities, another “Meet the Press” panelist pressed the question of what this portended. Linowitz again spoke up, agreeing with the contention his student member had made. He added that the report highlighted concern that “we may be running into heavier weather than we have encountered in the past.” The Committee’s judgment was based the grave assessment that “because some young people on campuses now feel if they want to get attention, they are going to have to turn to violence” (Meet the Press, 1970, p. 5). Toward the end of the interview, Linowitz re-visited the same theme, noting that if the war were to expand--rumors about the Cambodian invasions were already circulating--then trying to restrain or expect even some moderate students not to shift to the radical side would become even more difficult (Meet the Press, 1970, p. 10). Eight days later National Guard troops shot and killed four students in the chaos at Kent State University. Author’s Note: This chapter is a condensed, edited, and updated compilation of the Prologue, Chapter One, and Epilogue from Stephen J. Nelson, Decades of Chaos and Revolution: Showdowns for College Presidents, ACE Higher Education Series (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2012).

16

 The College Presidency

REFERENCES Dickey, J. S. (1955). Conscience and the undergraduate. Atlantic (Boston, Mass.), 195(4), 31–35. Fleming, R. W. (1975). Reflections on higher education. Daedalus, 104(1), 8–15. Gane, N. (2002). Max Weber and the post-modern theory: Rationalization versus re-enchantment. Palgrave. doi:10.1057/9780230502512 Hofstadter, R. (1968, Fall). The 214th Columbia University commencement address. The American Scholar, 583–589. Keller, G. (1968). Six weeks that shook morningside. Columbia College Today, 15(15), 4–96. Kirk, G. (1968). Speech at Founds Day celebration and the 225th birthday of Thomas Jefferson at the University of Virginia. University of Virginia. Knight, D. M. (1989). Street of dreams: The nature and legacy of the 1960s. Duke University Press. Lembcke, J. (2010, April 30). The times, they changed. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved online at https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-times-they-changed/ Meet the Press. (1970, April 26). Transcript. Meet the Press, 14(17), 1–10. Nelson, S. J. (2007). Leaders in the labyrinth: College presidents and the battleground of creeds and convictions. ACE/Praeger. Nelson, S. J. (2009). Leaders in the crossroads: Success and failure in the college presidency. ACE Higher Education Series. Packer, G. (2011, July 25). Empty wallets. The New Yorker, p. 24. Parker, T. 1853). The arc is a long one. Sermon delivered in Boston, MA. Sexton, J. (2005, August 2). Dogmatism and Complexity: Civil Discourse and the Research University. New York, NY: President’s Office, New York University.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Shapiro, H. (1987). Tradition and change: Perspectives on education and public policy. University of Michigan Press.

17

18

Chapter 2

Pathways to the Presidency Matthew A. Cooney Governors State University, USA Quincy Martin III Governors State University, USA

ABSTRACT There is no singular way to prepare for the unique challenges of a college or university presidency. College and university presidents, as well as those who aspire to the position, utilize a myriad of professional experiences as they navigate the complexities of the role. The purpose of this chapter is to review the traditional and nontraditional career pathways of college and university presidents, discuss the preparation practices utilized by higher education leaders to be successful in the presidency, and ofer advice for aspiring college and university presidents.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION One of the greatest strengths of higher education in the United States is institutional diversity. There are approximately 4,300 degree granting postsecondary institutions that serve over 19 million students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). These institutions differ greatly in funding structures, degree programs; geographic location, and student population served. One of the few commonalities across these institutions is the designation of a key official who is responsible for carrying out the mission of the institution. This individual may have a variety of titles depending on governance structure including president, chief executive officer, or chancellor (terms used interchangeably in this chapter). Regardless of the title, the person who fills this position is responsible for being a public steward and leader for the institution. The current chapter begins with a historical examination of the evolution of the higher education presidency and a detailed analysis of career pathways that lead to the presidency. Next, the chapter expands on the career pathways and explores common preparation practices of college and university presidents. Finally, the chapter concludes with advice for aspiring presidents.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6560-5.ch002

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Pathways to the Presidency

CAREER PATHWAYS Since higher education’s founding at Harvard University in 1636, the role and responsibility of higher education presidential candidates has evolved primarily from the clergy to academic leaders of the19th century whose influence and authority extended well beyond the campus locally, statewide, and nationally (Beardsley, 2017; Geiger, 2015; Mrig & Sanaghan, 2015; Rabovsky & Rutherford, 2016; Shapiro, 1998; Wartell, 2016). Overtime, the roles, responsibilities, leadership qualities, skills, and path to the presidency has evolved since the inception of higher education in the US As the institutions became more complex, boards began to seek leaders to preside over the campuses. After the Second World War, there was an increase in student enrollment requiring more space (Selingo et al., 2017). The president’s primary role was building more formal and more prominent administrative structures. Funds streamed in through the student aid and federal science research, and they enabled presidents to expand the academic and physical plant to exceptional levels (Selingo et al., 2017). The economy would be affected in the last quarter of the twentieth century affecting state and federal financing of higher education. Students’ grants would change to the federal government’s loans, while small appropriations were provided by the states (Selingo et al., 2017). Presidents had to deal with a financial shortage, and they became their institutions’ financial agents. They focused on looking for partnerships, developing new streams of revenue, and fundraising. An institutional president’s current role is multidisciplinary due to the multitude of challenges necessitating multidimensional leaders to establish and navigate outside partnerships, institutions, and academic disciplines (Selingo et al., 2017). Accordingly, the president of an institution should act on strategies dependent on the needs of the institution. And, as each institution requires its own style of leadership from their top executive, it is essential to ensure a good match, as presidents may or may not come with a traditional background.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Traditional and Nontraditional Pathways Although early studies on ascending to the presidency documented that the traditional pathway was progression through the academic hierarchy (Cohen & March, 1974; Salimbene, 1982), often overlooked are professionals who hail from outside the ranks of academia or who have taken a modified route within the confines of the academy (Beardsley, 2017; Birnbaum & Umbach, 2001; Horgan, 2014; Martin, 2010). Unlike their predecessors, it is becoming more common than in the past for new presidents to hold positions outside the ranks of chief academic officer (ACE, 2017). Accordingly, a declining interest in the presidency from academic affairs administration has broadened to include new opportunities and advantages for those candidates from nontraditional backgrounds (American Council on Education [ACE], 2017). Hence, the movement of hiring nontraditional presidents may be an attempt to respond to a rapidly changing environment. Though there are multiple avenues one may achieve to the role of president, a variety of studies (Birnbaum &Umbach, 2001; Cohen & March, 1974; Moore et al., 1983; Wessel & Keim, 1994) purported that pathways to the presidency may be categorized into two main areas: traditional (normative) or nontraditional (administrative). In 2016, approximately 85% of presidents held previous positions within higher education and 15% held previous positions outside of higher education (ACE, 2017). As the normative pathway is gradually becoming less common and the nontraditional pathway continues to increase--especially within the academy--it is necessary to view the multiple pathways to the presi19

 Pathways to the Presidency

dency both within and outside the walls of higher education. Considering the significant responsibilities assigned to presidents of institutions of higher education, it is essential to understand from where they may come and the requisite skills they bring to shape their pivotal roles.

Pathways Within Higher Education Though not a conclusive list of pathways to the presidency within higher education, some of the most common paths taken include leaders in academic affairs, student affairs, development/fundraising, enrollment management, and finance/business (ACE, 2017).

Academic Affairs Most individuals who lead as presidents of institutions are more likely to have served as a vice president of academic affairs or provost of an institution (ACE, 2017). The routine progression was maintained for some time until recently, where it is observed that more individuals are utilizing the dean’s office as the springboard to the president’s office. The phenomenon is observed in most colleges, with no more than five thousand students (Selingo et al., 2017). A similar case is observed in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) where faculty members who once served as chief academic officer rose through the ranks to the presidency position (Doman, 2016). The change in pathways is attributed to the changing roles and dimensions of the provost and the president. In some cases, the provost is not regarded as the second in command on campus. Instead, the current provost possesses a skill set that compliments the president’s roles, rather than duplicating them. The provost focuses on working with students and faculty on the academic front. Meanwhile, the president focuses on relations with alumni, the public, the governing board, and in most cases, political leaders (Selingo et al., 2017).

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Student Affairs The student affairs profession has grown and evolved with higher education to become a more central and essential component of college administration (Edwards, 2006; Martin, 2010; Selingo, 2017). While the development of students and student relations functions are maintained, senior student affairs officers’ (SSAO) managerial functions continue to increase and have become significantly multifaceted. Accordingly, it is common for SSAOs to have sharpened skills including leadership development, strategic planning, conflict resolution, collaboration and developing a sense of community with students, faculty, staff and other campus stakeholders that align with the skills necessary for a successful college presidency (Galloway, 2008; Martin, 2010). In addition, SSAOs are charged with overseeing the services that aid in creating a welcoming and safe environment for the entire campus community (Taylor, 2001). Moreover, key institutional issues such as retention, financial aid, enrollment, and recruitment require institutional backing and have become increasingly important (Kinnick & Bolheimer, 1984). SSAOs increasingly are being asked to provide perspective and insight on topics that are not necessarily connected to student affairs (Doman, 2016; Martin, 2010). Such examples include how to handle legislators, which direction the college should take with regard to technology, and possible fundraising strategies. These variables are important aspects of the presidential position as it continues to evolve.

20

 Pathways to the Presidency

Development/Fundraising The typical role of a college or university chief development officer entails promoting the institutional mission through developing goals and strategies for all fundraising, public relations, and alumni relations. Ranked immediately below budget/financial management, fundraising is listed as the second area presidents spend their time (ACE, 2017). Further, Selingo et al. (2017) assert fundraising, alumni relations, and donor relations as the most important responsibilities in a president’s day-to-day job. When asked about their preparedness to provide oversight on a range of campus issues, presidents ranked fundraising sixth out of ten (Selingo et al., 2017). Accordingly, presidents indicated that fundraising was the most important skill for their professional development. Both studies (ACE, 2017; Selingo et al., 2017) underscore the significance of fundraising skills and their vitality in assuring presidential and institutional success. Fittingly, chief development officers possess desirable skills and qualities to lead an institution to financial success.

Enrollment Management The functions of chief enrollment officers are undergoing seismic shifts. Such operations include, but are not limited to, admissions, financial aid, academic advising, recruitment, and registration. Higher education grapples with extreme challenges that may negatively impact student enrollment; thus, enrollment leaders are experts in creating solutions (Niles, 2016). It is well-coined that the chief enrollment officer position requires a responsible person who can navigate diverse complexities across the organization and bring a large assortment of various skills and competencies to pursue tasks they encounter. Deviations in student demographics, anti-college movements, unsustainable financial models, and divisive political rhetoric are not uncommon issues enrollment management leaders are prepared to successfully address. Finance/Business. The chief financial officer (CFO) is the higher education institution’s key advisor on financial issues providing oversight and leadership on an institution’s financial plan, debt management, money flow optimization, and capital strategies (Beardsley, 2015). As one of many experts on the president’s cabinet, exercising fiduciary responsibility with funding and providing strategic leadership on administrative operations of the institution is key for the CFO (Bess & Dee, 2008). The CFO may be a positive choice for a presidency role as “the responsibilities of the presidency have shifted away from managing an institution’s academic program to questions of strategic planning, marketing, and fundraising” (Kiley, 2020, para. 15). In a national study of community college administrators who aspire to the presidency, 17% of the sample served as senior finance and administrative officers (Cooney, 2018).

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Pathways Outside of Higher Education U.S. higher education has been in a constant transformation, leading to a more complex and different skill set and experience level that is fundamentally important for presidents to acquire. According to Skinner (2010), strategic resource management, accountability, entrepreneurship, collaboration, change management, globalization, and board relations were necessary requirements. Studies reveal that executives from outside higher education who hold presidencies at colleges and universities have demonstrated they are capable of leading complex organizations (ACE, 2017; need another). Oftentimes, these leaders are introduced to higher education institutions as college and university presidents from government,

21

 Pathways to the Presidency

politics, business, or other nonacademic positions without having previous experiences working at higher education institutions (Birnbaum, 2018; Birnbaum & Umbach, 2001). According to Adams (2018) and Barden (2016), the administration boards and trustees responsible for hiring and recruiting college presidents are optimistic because they believe nontraditional college presidents have the ability to initiate change and offer additional expertise that a traditional college leader might not have. Moreover, governing boards believe that these nontraditional leaders have past experiences that benefit them for the college president role. Although some campus stakeholders may be reluctant, supporters of nonacademic presidents with business and political experiences believe in their capabilities to innovate, control costs and manage complex organizations similar to a college setting. As a result, government and business are the leading pathways to a presidency outside of higher education (ACE, 2017).

Government and Politics

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Throughout the history of U.S. higher education, one can find examples of politicians who served in senior leadership positions in higher education institutions. For example, former U.S. presidents Thomas Jefferson and Millard Filmore founded the University of Virginia and the University of Buffalo, respectively. Before becoming the 28th U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson served as president of Princeton University. Cabinet level officials who held college and university presidential appointments include Donna Shalala, who served as the Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Clinton. She served as the President of Hunter College (1980-1988) and the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin- Madison (1988-1993) before her tenure in the Clinton administration. She then returned to academia and served as the President of the University of Miami (2001-2015). Wilson and Shalala followed the traditional career path of college presidents by obtaining doctoral degrees and advancing through the academic ranks. Conversely, other politicians who transitioned into the college and university presidency without higher education experience found themselves facing challenges navigating the university environment. Sam Olens served as Georgia Attorney General before becoming the president of Kennesaw State University and was immediately met with faculty resistance due to his lack of experience in higher education. He resigned from the position after 16 months based upon fallout from his handling of student athletes who kneeled during the national anthem. The appointment of political leaders to the college and university presidency can be seen as a positive step as they may be able to advocate for the institution due to their experience in government. In a 2017 study, college and university presidents reported that the four of the top five constituent groups that do not understand challenges facing higher education include state legislators (40%), Governor’s Office (28.9%), federal agencies (24.6%), and members of congress (23.4%) (ACE, 2017).

Business Business executives, especially the chief executive officer (CEO), come with a depth of knowledge and provide strategic direction and oversight of diverse areas that typically include marketing, investment planning, and finance. Depending on the size and scope of the organization, business executives are mandated with responsibilities that entail making major corporate decisions, serving as the primary liaison between corporate operations and board of directors managing the company’s resources and functions, and becoming the organization’s public face. Due to their proficient financial management 22

 Pathways to the Presidency

skills, budget management, day-to-day decision-making, and useful resource allocation, they may appeal to higher education institutions that seek leaders who may bring an unconventional approach to addressing budget declines (Beardsley, 2017). Accordingly, due to the increase in higher education institutions that struggle with finances and their need for paradigm shifting, it is anticipated that a rise in demand for the expertise of business executives to lead colleges and universities will continue (Selingo, 2017). Presidential turnover has created concerns for the stability of higher education institutions. As presidential candidates and appointments increasingly come from a broad range of career paths inside and outside higher education, additional emphasis should be placed on preparation of new presidents. This is certainly true for aspirants who come from inside higher education institutions, but particularly for those who will likely enter presidencies from outside higher education (Smerek, 2013; Song & Hartley, 2012). Regardless of the pathway used to enter the presidency, preparation for the position is essential.

PREPARATION FOR THE PRESIDENCY One of the most difficult challenges for aspiring and current college and university presidents is preparation for the position. Given the complex nature of the role, there is no single way to prepare to lead an institution. Aspiring and current college presidents should consider the preparation practices described in this chapter as a guide rather than a checklist for a future position. Research on college and university presidencies highlight four important preparation practices including participation in formal leadership development programs, learning through previous positions, engaging in mentorship, and obtaining a doctoral degree.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Formal Leadership Development Programs There are numerous opportunities for aspiring and current college and university presidents to participate in formal leadership development programs created by professional organizations dedicated to leadership in higher education. These formal leadership programs serve a variety of leaders in the presidential pipeline including aspiring presidents who currently serve in senior leadership positions, new presidents who are transitioning into the role, and experienced presidents who are committed to their professional development. There are also targeted formal leadership development programs designed to prepare aspiring presidents from racially minoritized groups in higher education to diversify the presidential pipeline. For example, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities hosts La Academia de Liderazgo which is designed to prepare future leaders of Hispanic Serving Institutions and Emerging Hispanic Serving Institutions. Similarly, the Millennium Leadership Initiative (MLI) hosted by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities “provides individuals traditionally underrepresented in the highest ranks of higher education the opportunity to develop skills, gain a philosophical overview and build the network needed to advance to the presidency.” (AASCU, 2020). Sixty-five MLI graduates have been appointed as presidents as of 2020. While some formal leadership programs focus on all presidents regardless of institutional sector, for example the Institute for New Presidents sponsored by the American Council on Education or the Seminar for New Presidents sponsored by the Harvard Graduate School of Education, others focus on presidents from specific institutional sectors such as community colleges (Presidents Leadership Academy by the American Association of Community Colleges), state colleges and universities (New Presidents 23

 Pathways to the Presidency

Academy by AASCU), Hispanic Serving Institutions (La Academia de Liderazgo by the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities), and faith-based institutions (Institute for New Presidents of Catholic Colleges and Universities by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities and 2020 New Presidents Institute by the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities). In addition to considering the institutional type, aspiring and current presidents should consider the delivery format for these professional development programs. Aspiring and current college and university presidents can select a formal leadership development program that coincides with their schedule. There are shorter, three-day retreat style programs that focus on skill development, networking, and specific hot topic issues. Conversely, there are year-long programs that are designed for preparing aspiring and new presidents through project-based learning under a more senior president and a formalized mentoring experience. Table 1 highlights a select few of these leadership development programs. Participation in formal leadership development programs is beneficial; however, there are numerous critiques. Researchers have noted the high cost associated with these programs which deter aspiring and current presidents from participating (Hull & Keim, 2007; McNair, 2015). For example, the ACE fellows program costs each participant $26,000 between program fees and professional development budget. Additionally, the content of these formalized leadership development programs has been questioned as Eddy et al. (2015) noted that the topics covered “do not prepare individuals for the larger demands of visioning and leveraging change in a complex organization”. As such, it is important that aspiring and current presidents also learn skills through their previous positions.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Learning Through Previous Positions and Mentorship College and university presidents bring a variety of professional experiences with them to the position. These professional experiences often serve as a key source of preparation for the presidency (Andrews, 2020; Eddy, 2010; Jones & Warnick, 2012). Presidents gradually expanded their professional portfolio while moving up the administrative ladder and learned valuable skills such as program development, fundraising, crisis management, and the academic operations of the institution (Cohen & March, 1974; Eddy, 2010; Martin 2018; Jones & Warnick, 2012). For example, Artis and Bartel (2020) conducted a study on community college presidents and their participants detailed how they had multiple, formal positions and titles that allowed them to learn more about leadership in higher education with new perspectives. Oftentimes, it was a mentor who provided these learning opportunities. The role of mentorship is an invaluable tool in preparing for the presidency. Mentors may be assigned to aspiring and current presidents through participation in a formal leadership development program and include job shadowing, project based learning, and structured opportunities for the mentor and mentee to discuss the role and expectations for the presidency. Similarly, a mentoring relationship may develop when a college or university president identifies an aspiring leader and mentors them by encouraging and providing professional development opportunities, increasing job responsibilities, and supporting them during their search for a senior-level position (Commodore et al, 2016; Freeman et al, 2016). Mentors may also serve as a source of support to encourage aspiring presidents to obtain a doctoral degree.

24

 Pathways to the Presidency

Table 1. Formal Leadership Development Programs Organization

Program

Sector

Intended Audience

American Association of Community Colleges

Presidents Academy Summer Institute

Community Colleges

Current presidents

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

Executive Leadership Academy

State Colleges and Universities

Senior cabinet officers who are interested in becoming university presidents.

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

New Presidents Academy

State Colleges and Universities

New presidents

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

Millennium Leadership Initiative

State Colleges and Universities

Aspiring presidents from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds

American Council on Education

Institute for New Presidents

All sectors

Interim and new presidents with less than two years experience

American Council on Education

ACE Fellows Program for Rising Administrators

All sectors

Aspiring presidents who currently serve as vice presidents, deans, department chairs

Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities

Institute for New Presidents of Catholic Colleges and Universities

Catholic Colleges and Universities

New and interim presidents

Council for Christian Colleges and Universities

2020 New Presidents Institute

Christian Colleges and Universities

New presidents

Council for Independent Colleges

New Presidents Program

Independent Colleges

Current presidents

Harvard Graduate School of Education

Harvard Seminar for Presidential Leadership

All sectors

Current presidents

Harvard Graduate School of Education

Seminar for New Presidents

All sectors

First-time college and university presidents

Higher Education Leadership Foundation

Leadership Institute

Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Aspiring HBCU presidents

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities

La Academia de Liderazgo

Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and Emerging HSIs.

Aspiring presidents

The Aspen Institute

Aspen New Presidents Fellowship

Community Colleges

Community college presidents with no more than five years of experience

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Obtainment of a Doctoral Degree In 2016, 89% of college and university presidents have a doctoral degree with 80% earning a PhD or EdD and 9% holding a professional doctorate (ACE, 2017). Similarly, 41% of college presidents hold a degree in education or higher education. Related to the PhD and EdD, aspiring and current presidents should focus more on completing a doctorate rather than worry about which degree is best as “the distinction between PhD and EdD is anecdote-heavy, confusing, and often grounded more in conversation among colleagues than data or thoughtful commentary” (Dunn & Kniess, 2019, p.44). The large percentage of presidents who hold a doctoral degree is not surprising when one considers the traditional career pathway into a presidency which consists of college or university presidents starting

25

 Pathways to the Presidency

their career as a faculty member, transitioning into a department chair role, followed by a dean, ascending to the provost role, and then obtaining the presidency (Birnbaum & Umbach, 2001). A doctoral degree is oftentimes the minimum degree credential for a faculty role, thus, most college presidents who follow this pathway have a doctoral degree. Nontraditional college and university presidents have found it beneficial to obtain a doctoral degree. A doctoral degree has also been highlighted as an essential step in the career development of aspiring and current presidents who do not follow the academic affairs pathway to the presidency. College and university presidents who previously served as senior student affairs officers (SSAO) detailed how having a terminal degree allowed them to interact more positively with faculty as the presidents had similar academic credentials and demonstrated a commitment to scholarship (Andrews, 2020; Martin, 2010;). McNair (2015) conducted a qualitative study investigating how current community college presidents prepared for the position and participants stated they would not have been invited to an on-campus interview without holding a doctoral degree. College presidents who hold the doctoral degree stated that they were encouraged to pursue their doctorate by mentors, but also recognized that they would eventually need the degree to advance (Artis & Bartel, 2020).

ADVICE FOR ASPIRING PRESIDENTS Now more than ever, aspiring college and university presidents must possess a deep understanding that leading in higher education institutions is a complicated and challenging endeavor. Universities and colleges experience unprecedented problems that remain unaddressed despite their significance in economic growth and social mobility in the increasingly competitive environment. Accordingly, presidents play a fundamental role in leading their institutions in the right direction and success, particularly as the external and internal pressures increase due to demographic change and resource instability (ACE, 2017). Further, higher education institutions face many challenges based on dramatic shifts of funding sources resulting from complex structural changes and demands (Selingo et al., 2017). College and university presidents face various challenges due to the role’s demanding nature. Therefore, it is imperative that aspiring presidents begin to prepare themselves to obtain a set of skills to navigate through tumultuous tasks and times that often seem inevitable. The United States’ higher education is ever-changing, and the current regime influences the inherent opportunities and challenges. Consequently, good or bad, a myriad of stakeholders like the administrative staff, faculty, students, parents, community leaders, alumni, and even political leaders influence presidents’ actions.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Changing Presidency in Higher Education The environment of operation for college and university presidents is one of chaos and uttermost complexity. A variety of conflicting decisions have to be made, each with an outcome not easily predictable. Despite all that, the presidents face extensive scrutiny and are expected to provide best-analyzed decisions. Furthermore, they have to overcome these challenges in a constantly changing environment while still being answerable to their superiors’ decisions. The presidents are expected to bring new light into the institutions by providing new reform methods but must always embody institutional values and policies. The presidents also need to showcase themselves as a familiar figure to the campus while still maintaining good relations with the stakeholders, an uphill struggle for most. With their role open to 26

 Pathways to the Presidency

change so often, the presidents’ long-term success is available to question. There has been an increasing drift and gap between the quality of the skills rendered in higher education institutions and the demand in the recent past job market. Hence, incremental guidelines to merge its training aspect of the right skills will be a core policy objective in higher education. The following factors drive the significant changes that anchor the future of higher education. The most remarkable feat a president can achieve in an institution is holding the fabric that comprises the institution together despite the complex nature of decisions that must be made daily. The ability to rally the staff, students, and other stakeholders together towards common goals despite having divergent views on the institutions’ critical aspects is a significant landmark that shapes successful presidential tenure. The underlying anchor that can only propel an institution to tremendous success and future possibilities is the president’s ability to consistently interrogate each decision made and determine the pathway to take in each decision based on the institution’s utmost interests. The uppermost part of the institution is primarily shaped by its cultures, values, ethics, and integrity of operation, vision, mission, and objectives that have, over the years, determined the institution’s fundamental pathway into the future.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Desirable Leadership Skills In a 2017 study on pathways to the university presidency, Selingo et al. (2017) noted the skills required most during the first few days or months. Interestingly, an intellectual and academic leader was ranked last. Topping the list was a strategist, storyteller, and communicator. Additional skill sets included a fundraiser, collaborator, financial and operational acumen. Conversely, the duration of stay in the president’s office influences the individuals’ perception of the required skills. Veteran presidents were more inclined to the idea of collegial higher education and the intelligence community to source an academic leader as a successor. Meanwhile, new presidents perceived themselves through the lens of operational and financial and as a leader seeking completion of tasks with a skilled executive team (Selingo et al., 2017). The presidents also desired their successors to come from such leadership pools with the perceptions of the roles. Nonetheless, the president’s leadership skills would be contingent upon the demands of the institution at that time, which may be difficult to predict today. For instance, in the transitions of roles during the evolution of the president’s posts, the former presidents could not clearly predict how specific leadership skills would meet future needs. The economic fallout that led to the president’s role to stress on fundraising was highly unpredictable in all aspects and was not foreseeable. Successful institution presidencies owe most of the accomplishments to successive leadership development across different administrative management levels and control. The majority of these presidents who have made successful regime change, leadership influence, and contributed immensely to the institution’s success have nurtured their leadership skills through different hierarchies of leadership over the years. Successful presidencies involve abilities to understand extensive aspects of organizational composition. These compositions include diversity among students, staff, the institution’s financial structure, performance and economic health, and investment structures. This vast and necessary knowledge to run successful presidential tenure in an institution is only gained when a president has successfully spent time in various leadership positions either in the same institution or other institutions with similar performance structures and makeup. These are universal tools that a president requires to have. These tools of operation include extensive knowledge of each essential feature of the institution.

27

 Pathways to the Presidency

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Desirable Leadership Qualities Due to the continually changing modern environment for leadership within colleges and universities, the question of the qualities needed for an effective president is a familiar concept. A study by the American College President Study from the American Council on Education (2017) outlines that the shaping of the higher-education presidency is becoming finer. Statistical analyses predict that there will be many office openings in the coming years with an increasing chance to diversify the workplaces. Essential skills are needed by those in leadership positions for the best possible outcomes. Such gifts that should be sought by the search committees and governing boards include a variety of essential skills and qualities. A president who is firm and assertive while still benevolent to the students is needed. The presidents require emotional superiority, which helps them lead empathetically, respectfully, insightfully, and understandingly towards other people and cultures. Moreover, they need to have exceptional communication skills with colleagues and students while being attentive to their pleas and desires. Exceptional skills and styles to harmonize critical decision-making that requires firmness and, at the same time, show compassion and approachable leadership form a hallmark of successful institutional leadership. Institutional presidents operate in a critically unique environment. Such uniqueness involves understanding the characteristics and traits of the teaching staff, stakeholders, government, and other financial providers in the organization. With good knowledge of characteristics, it guarantees a diverse student base. These massive cultural, political, economic, social, and religious features of the institution are a major factor that determines the president’s success in ensuring policies developed caters to all unique people that make up the institution’s community. Functionally, the president faces the challenge of possibly sidelining a particular group, especially in decision making since some of the policies affect different cultures and rights and privileges associated with the students, faculty, staff, and campus stakeholders. Therefore, the president needs to show an extensive consultation approach to issues of importance and ensure all the stakeholders are provided with the opportunity to argue their case. Superior discernment and power of data analytics is a critical leadership trait needed in a higher education presidency. Leaders capable of making superior decisions based on a statistical analysis of environmental data often succeed. An in-depth analysis of data used to inform various decisions provides the best outcomes while giving the leaders a vital edge in decision making. Candidates are acknowledging the need for teamwork. Quite often, most decisions made require a great deal of discernment coupled with the fact that there are constant changes in environment complexity. Candidates are portraying competency and showcasing superior leadership skills. Candidates sought should have an excellent supporting story on their skills and competency. They should be able to have experience in overseeing and leading staff and other individuals within the institutions. Additionally, they should be good managers of funds and have expertise in formulating budgets. There is no assured technique for success in the leadership field and, most certainly, when faced with the committee endorsement processes. Despite that, self-awareness and acknowledgment of the continually changing environment are prime factors in assuring future quality professionalism in leadership.

Consistent Challenges There have been consistent challenges that college and university presidents face during their tenure including unstable financial futures, racial justice imperatives, and wellness/burnout. Aspiring college and university presidents should reflect on these challenges before obtaining a presidency so that they 28

 Pathways to the Presidency

arrive to the office with ideas on how to address them as these challenges have been consistent throughout higher education history.

Unstable Financial Future Aspiring and current college presidents must be prepared to navigate unstable financial futures at their institution. The higher education sector has seen an increase in operating costs, decrease in state and federal funding, and lower enrollments of college-going students which impact the financial viability of the institution. A 2019 survey of college presidents (Field, 2019) detailed that 79% of presidents were concerned about developing new sources of revenue and 57% were concerned with continuing and reducing costs. Similarly, 61% detailed that there was never enough money to manage all of the institutional priorities. Although college and university presidents were concerned about finances, 69% of participants were confident that their institution will be financially stable in the next five years and 57% are confident of their finances over the next 10 years (Field, 2019). The studies listed above were conducted before the COVD-19 pandemic devastated higher education and the nation. InsideHigherEd surveyed college presidents about how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted their institution. The results are concerning for the financial future of higher education as 96% of respondents reported they were “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about unbudgeted financial costs related to COVID-19; 91% respondents reported they were “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about decline in future student enrollment; 88% were “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about their overall financial stability; 81% were “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about ability to employ faculty staff; and 69% were “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about decline in alumni/ donor giving rates. Aspiring and current presidents need to gain experience in budgeting and financial management, or hire people who do have financial expertise, to navigate the financial stress resulting from the COVID-19 fallout.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Racial Justice Racial injustice has been present since the beginning of U.S higher education as many of the colonial colleges were founded on the money made from slave labor (Wilder, 2013). The US government further disenfranchised people of color, specifically African Americans, through the Morill Land Grant Act. This legislation expanded educational opportunities for African American students in higher education through the creation of many historically Black Colleges and Universities; however, they were severely underfunded and lacked basic resources compared to similar Predominantly White Institutions created at the same time. The racial injustice further continued in the start of the 20th century as African American students at Fisk University, a Historically Black College and University, began to mobilize against racist policies by then President Fayette Avery McKenzie and called for an African American president to lead the college in the 1920s (Lamon, 1974). Similarly, students throughout the 1960s engaged in anti-war demonstrations, called for a more racially diverse student body and a curriculum that represents the changing demographics across the United States (Geiger, 2004). In the present day higher education continues to experience student unrest due to the racial injustices that many college students face on and off campus (Rhoads, 2016). College and university presidents must be prepared to address issues of racial justice on their campus. Fifty-six percent of presidents stated that the racial climate on campus is more of a priority compared 29

 Pathways to the Presidency

to previous years and 81% stated it was important for college and university presidents to make public statements denouncing issues discrimination on college presidents (ACE, 2017); however, their messaging has been viewed as problematic. Hoffman and Mitchell (2016) analyzed institutional responses to student activism and reported that the responses were often not aligned with the values of equity and inclusion that institutions’ espouse. Cole and Harper (2016) similarly reported that campus presidents’ response to racial incidents on campus were often ambiguous and did not directly mention racism as an institutional problem, but rather an isolated incident. Aspiring college and university presidents must move beyond addressing racial justice through ineffective, performative statements. Instead, they should engage in larger campus-wide initiatives around racial justice and develop action plans that result in institutional wide transformation. This work around racial justice is necessary and emotionally taxing, as such, it is essential that aspiring college and university presidents focus on their own well-being in order to transform their institutions.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Wellness The college and university presidency is an extremely challenging position as “the modern university presidency presents a proverbial minefield that future and current presidents must survive” (Harris & Ellis, 2018, p. 308). Jones and Johnson (2014) stress the importance of understanding the risk associated with accepting a presidency in higher education. The researchers interviewed senior leaders in community colleges who experienced a presidential transition and detailed that high and nearly impossible expectations for presidents’ performance, difficulty in working with trustees/governing boards, and a near constant lack of resources for presidents to complete their job effectively resulted in presidential turnover (Jones & Johnson, 2014). Recent studies have shown that the average tenure for college and university presidents remains relatively stable from 1988 (6.39 years) to 2016 (5.85 years); however, involuntary presidential turnover was most common after 2008 (Harris & Ellis, 2018). Reasons for involuntary presidential turnover include financial controversies, loss of board confidence, and poor judgement. (Harris & Ellis, 2018). Similarly, Tekneipe (2014) reported that political conflict with governing boards, internal organizational pressure, external pressure from community stakeholders, and fiscal stress also contributed to a college president’s turnover. Although the position is difficult, it does not mean that the position is not rewarding or satisfying. Demographic and institutional factors (presidents reporting to boards, leading four- year colleges, holding terminal degrees in non-humanities fields, being unmarried) predicted higher levels of presidential satisfaction; however, malleable factors such as disharmony on presidential perceptions were more impactful than the demographic and institutional factors (Perrakis et al, 2011). Furthermore, college and university presidents are learning to better manage the challenges of the role by mitigating stressors, making a conscious effort to maintain wellness, and recognizing that there are situations and events that are outside of their control (Cioffi, 2018). New presidents are encouraged to create personal and professional support systems, reflect on their core values, and find space for maintaining balance (Floyd & Maslin-Ostrowski, year). Walter Bumphus, former president and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges, offered this advice in regarding the presidency, “it is very easy to get caught up in the constant treadmill of activities that come with a community college presidency and, before you know it, you are on the verge of burning out”. Aspiring college and university presidents must be prepared to manage the responsibilities of the position, but also their own approach to wellness to avoid burnout. 30

 Pathways to the Presidency

CONCLUSION There is an abundance of knowledge that an aspiring president should understand about the college and university presidency, including the changing higher education environment and president’s roles, the transition in pathways, the existing inequalities, and the state of leadership development. The higher education environment has increasingly become complex, continually changing, and full of competition. Higher education institutions face many probing on values they instill to individuals and their value impact on people, societies, and the economy. All these issues have an impact on the president’s tasks and image. Furthermore, the constant ongoing changes in the higher education environment have prompted extensive pressure on these institutions to redesign and transform inadvertently, making the presidents’ work even more challenging. Change is bound to happen at the helm of institutions’ leadership, and it will majorly include diversification. Leadership development in the presidency has significant beneficial implications, especially in correcting gender and race inequality. Strategic skills are noted as the most preferred skills for presidents to plan for changes in the institutions and engage with relevant stakeholders. More often, presidents need to artfully combine their analytics, data, and wisdom to develop informed decisions, boost students’ outcomes, and improve the general situation. They assume the roles of crisis managers and caretakers. Thus, the job requires an individual with business savviness, dedication, social acumen, intellect, and vision (ACE, 2017). Aspiring presidents must be adequately prepared to embrace change and seek the skills necessary to succeed in leading a higher education institution.

REFERENCES American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (n.d.). MLI graduates that are currently serving as presidents/chancellors/CEOs. https://www.aascu.org/MLI/GraduatesPCCEO.pdf American Council on Education. (2017). The American college president study. Author. Andrews, J. (2020). The experiences of senior student affairs officers who became historically Black College and University presidents [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Governors State University. Artis, L., & Bartel, S. (2020). Filling the leadership pipeline: A qualitative study examining leadership development practices and challenges facing community college presidents in Illinois. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1, 1–13. doi:10.1080/10668926.2020.1771476

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change. W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Ault, B. J. (2017). Insight from the top: Experiences that best prepare presidents to lead institutions of higher education in the 21st century (Publication no. 10271009) [Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Beardsley, S. C. (2017). Higher calling: The rise of nontraditional leaders in academia. University of Virginia Press. Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice: Volume I—The state of the system. Stylus.

31

 Pathways to the Presidency

Birnbaum, R. (2018). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency. Jossey-Bass Inc. Birnbaum, R., & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Scholar, steward, spanner, stranger: The four career paths of college presidents. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 203–217. doi:10.1353/rhe.2001.0001 Cioffi, D. (2018). College president perceptions of personal wellness: Exploring “well-ish” and the work-life balance of mid-career private college presidents (Publication no.10746629) [Doctoral dissertation, Johnson and Wales University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. McGraw-Hill. Cole, E. R., & Harper, S. R. (2017). Race and rhetoric: An analysis of college presidents’ statements on campus racial incidents. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(4), 318–333. doi:10.1037/ dhe0000044 Commodore, F., Freeman, S., Gasman, M., & Carter, C. M. (2016). “How it’s done”: The role of mentoring and advice in preparing the next generation of historically black college and university presidents. Education Sciences, 6(2), 1–14. doi:10.3390/educsci6020019 Cooney, M. A., & Borland, K. W. (2018). The next generation of community college presidents: Who they are, how they prepare, and how they lead: Results from a national study. Journal of Research on the College President, 2, 14–29. Doman, D. (2016). A phenomenological study on historically black colleges and universities African American male presidents using student affairs as a career pathway (Doctoral dissertation). http://hdl. handle.net/2346/72338 Dunn, M., & Kniess, D. R. (2019). To pursue or not to pursue a terminal degree. New Directions for Student Services, 166(166), 41–50. doi:10.1002s.20306 Eddy, P. L. (2005). Framing the role of leader: How community college presidents construct their leadership. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(9-10), 705–727. doi:10.1080/10668920591006557 Eddy, P. L. (2010). Community college leadership: A multidimensional model for leading change. Stylus (Rio de Janeiro).

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Eddy, P. L., Sydow, D. L., Alfred, R. L., & Garza-Mitchell, R. L. (2015). Developing tomorrow’s leaders: Context, challenges, and capabilities. Roman & Littlefield. Field, K. (2019). The successful president of tomorrow: The 5 skills future leaders will need. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Floyd, D., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2013). Leaving a community college presidency: The inevitable career transition. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(3), 242–246. doi:10.1080/ 10668926.2013.739515

32

 Pathways to the Presidency

Freeman, S. Jr, Commodore, F., Gasman, M., & Carter, C. (2016). Leaders wanted: The skills expected and needed for a successful 21st century historically Black college and university presidency. Journal of Black Studies, 47(6), 570–591. doi:10.1177/0021934716653353 Geiger, R. L. (2004). Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since World War II. Transactional Press. Geiger, R. L. (2015). The history of American higher education. Princeton University Press. Goines, D. L. (1993). The free speech movement: Coming of age in the 1960’s. Ten Speed Press. Harris, M. S., & Ellis, M. K. (2018). Exploring involuntary presidential turnover in American higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(3), 294–317. doi:10.1080/00221546.2017.1390969 Hill, L. H., & Wheat, C. A. (2017). The influence of mentorship and role models on university women leaders’ career paths to university presidency. Qualitative Report, 22(8), 2090. https://nsuworks.nova. edu/tqr/vol22/iss8/2 Hoffman, G. D., & Mitchell, T. D. (2016). Making diversity “everyone’s business”: A discourse analysis of institutional responses to student activism for equity and inclusion. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 277–289. doi:10.1037/dhe0000037 Horgan, T. (2014). The emergence of nontraditional presidents at small, private colleges and universities in New England. New England College. Hull, J. R., & Keim, M. C. (2007). Nature and status of community college leadership development programs. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(9), 689–702. doi:10.1080/10668920600851621 InsideHigherEd. (2020, June). Responding to the COVID-19 crisis: A survey of college and university presidents (3rd ed.). InsideHigherEd. https://www.insidehighered.com/booklet/responding-covid-19crisis-survey-college-and-university-presidents Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2020, March 13). 2020 survey of college and university presidents. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/survey-presidents-reveals-growing-divideconfidence-opposition-free-college-and-broad

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Jones, S. J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Are community college presidencies wise career moves? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(4), 300–309. doi:10.1080/10668926.2010.544554 Jones, S. J., & Warnick, E. M. (2012). Attaining the first community college presidency: A case study of new presidents in Texas. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(3), 229–232. do i:10.1080/10668926.2012.627808 Kiley, K. (2012, July 31). Meet the new boss. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://insidehighered.com Klein, M. F., & Salk, R. J. (2013). Presidential succession planning: A qualitative study in private higher education. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(3), 335–345. doi:10.1177/1548051813483836 Lamon, L. (1974). The black community in Nashville and the Fisk University student strike of 19241925. The Journal of Southern History, 40(2), 225–244. doi:10.2307/2206893

33

 Pathways to the Presidency

Martin, Q. (2010). Nontraditional pathways to the presidency: A student affairs approach. [Doctoral dissertation]. Northern Illinois University. Martin, Q. (2018). Chief student affairs officers: Transforming the pathway to the presidency. Journal of Research on the College President, 2(1), 30–39. McNair, D. E. (2015). Deliberate disequilibrium: Preparing for a community college presidency. Community College Review, 43(1), 72–88. doi:10.1177/0091552114554831 Monks, J. (2012). Job turnover among university presidents in the United States of America. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(2), 139–152. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2012.662739 Mrig, A., & Sanaghan, P. (2015). The changing presidency in higher education (Presidential Dialogues No. One). Denver, CO: Academic Impressions. Retrieved from https://www.academicimpressions.com/ PDF/the-changing-presidency-in-higher-ed.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Fast facts. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ fastfacts/index.asp?faq=FFOption5#faqFFOption5 Oikelome, G. (2017). Pathway to the president: The perceived impact of identity structures on the journey experiences of women college presidents. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 19(3), 23–40. doi:10.18251/ijme.v19i3.1377 Perrakis, A., Galloway, F., Hayes, K., & Robinson-Galdo, K. (2011). Presidential satisfaction in higher education: An empirical study of two- and four-year institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(1), 57–66. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2011.537012 Rabovsky, T., & Rutherford, A. (2016). The politics of higher education: University president ideology and external networking. Public Administration Review, 76(5), 764–777. doi:10.1111/puar.12529 Rhoads, R. A. (2016). Student activism, diversity, and the struggle for a just society. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 189–202. doi:10.1037/dhe0000039 Salimbene, A. M. (1982). Pathways to the presidency: An examination of the careers of current college and university chief executives [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Pennsylvania State University.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Selingo, J., Chheng, S., & Clark, C. (2017). Pathways to the university presidency: The future of higher education leadership. Retrieved from: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/3861_ Pathways-to-the-univer sity-presidency/DUP_Pathways-to-the-university-presidency.pdf Shapiro, H. T. (1998). University presidents: Then and now. In W. G. Bowen & H. T. Shapiro (Eds.), Universities and their leadership (pp. 65–99). Princeton University Press. Smerek, R. E. (2013). Sensemaking and new college presidents: A conceptual study of the transition process. Review of Higher Education, 36(3), 371–403. doi:10.1353/rhe.2013.0028 Song, W., & Hartley, H. V. (2012). A study of presidents of independent colleges and universities. Council of Independent Colleges. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED533603 Tekniepe, R. J. (2014). Linking the occupational pressures of college presidents to presidential turnover. Community College Review, 42(2), 143–159. doi:10.1177/0091552113516671

34

 Pathways to the Presidency

Thelin, J. (2004). A history of American higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press. Travis, J. E., & Price, K. F. (2013). Preparation and job satisfaction of college and university presidents. Focus on Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 7(1), 1–11. Wartell, M. (2016). Running against the wind: A handbook for presidents and chancellors. Rowman & Littlefield.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Wilder, C. S. (2013). Ebony and ivory: Race, slavery, and the troubled history of America’s universities. Bloomsbury Press.

35

36

Chapter 3

The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century Adam Morris Crowder College, USA Keith Zoromksi Crowder College, USA

ABSTRACT The college presidency is in a state of disarray in the 21st century. In the past, community college presidents could focus their eforts on academic programs, community relations, and donor engagement. College presidents could be the visionary leaders of their communities by providing educational programs to help students transfer to a university or allow them to enter the workforce. The job has become more of a reactionary role in which they are required to make quick decisions in a crisis. They are now forced to focus on cybersecurity, pandemic outbreaks, faculty unions, local and state governance issues, and little-to-no state funding.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTUION The college presidency is in a state of disarray in the 21st Century. In the past, Community College presidents could focus their efforts on academic programs, community relations, and donor engagement. College presidents could be the visionary leaders of their communities by providing educational programs to help students transfer to a university or allow them to enter the workforce. The job has become more of a reactionary role in which they are required to make quick decisions in a crisis. They are now forced to focus on cybersecurity, pandemic outbreak, faculty unions, local and state governance issues, and little-to-no state funding. The community college has dramatically changed since the Progressive Era at the turn of the twentieth Century. At that time, Normal schools dating back to 1823 began modernization in 1901 with the DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6560-5.ch003

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

first junior college in Joliet, Illinois (Bok, 2013). For six decades, junior colleges served as predecessors to community colleges that arose in the 1960’s. As an offspring of the common school movement of the early 1800s, progressive reformers created normal schools with specific educational goals, such as training public elementary school teachers (Beach, 2011). Although initially considered a secondary institution that predated high schools, normal schools became viewed as part of higher education due to the geographical proximity, affordability, and lower barriers to admission to students without sociological means to attend universities (Bok, 2013). The growth of junior colleges advanced parallel to the progression of the 20th Century. Although the majority of undergraduate majors remained in the humanities at four-year institutions until the 1970’s, vocationalism and professionalism increased at two-year institutions throughout the first half of the Century. After World War II, vocational education lured a more significant population of undergraduate enrollments to two-year institutions (Bok, 2013). In 1946, President Harry S. Truman became the first president to establish a commission to analyze the United States education system. From the Truman Commission’s Report, Higher Education for American Democracy, came a suggested new name for junior colleges: the community college (Truman Commission on Higher Education, 1947). The report encouraged community colleges to establish institutional missions of providing transferable general education, vocational education, adult education, and attention to community-specific needs (Zook, 1947). By the 1960’s, new state-level policy initiatives with origins in the Truman Commission’s Report began materializing in many states (Beach, 2011). Since their inception, more than one hundred years ago, community colleges have increased access to students in the United States (Garrison, 2010). According to Walsh (2005), “community colleges are multi-disciplinary, post-secondary institutions offering education and training from diverse entry points and leading to various tertiary levels. Community colleges offer two main pathways to students. The first is preparation for higher education and the second is occupational skills for students who wish to enter the labor force” (p. 222). Community colleges serve as “economic engines that help drive the education and training of the American workforce by working closely with local businesses, high schools, universities and community organizations” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, p. 3). At present, in the United States, Bok (2013) indicated that over one thousand community colleges offer two-year, non-profit access to higher education. Accounting for more than 40 percent of national undergraduate enrollments, state and local funds financially support the predominantly public institutions. On the other hand, private junior colleges, with nearly 80 institutions in comparison, enroll a far smaller percentage (Bok, 2013). In the Fall 2017 semester, community colleges enrolled almost twelve million students, with seven million enrolled in for-credit courses (American Association of Community Colleges, 2019). According to the College Board (2018), on average, total tuition and fees to attend a public community college at an in-district rate in 2017 were $3,660 annually. Nearly three times higher, in 2017, that same student paid an average annual in-state rate tuition and fee bill of $10,230 at a public university (College Board, 2018). These figures do not include housing expenses or other associated costs, such as textbooks or other academic supplies. Credit, concurrent, and non-credit opportunities exist at these institutions that allow academic programs to be designed to meet their service region’s workforce needs. Programs in health care, career and technology, and general studies have helped students prepare to directly enter the workforce or transfer to continue their higher education. Community colleges have become a bridge to higher education for high school students, recently graduated, or non-traditional students who need to further their education in

37

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

career and technology programs. In this regard, these institutions view their ability to serve and educate varies by the individual and their place along their academic or career journey. Industry moves at a more rapid pace than higher education; however, community colleges can keep up with the changes in industry expectations. Traditionally, they do not have the bureaucracy of a large four-year institution allowing them to make changes to academic programming in a relatively short amount of time. Whereas a university may require years to alter programming curriculum, community colleges may take only a semester to a year. The ability to make changes quickly can assist them in being the economic engine in their region. Technology is an excellent example of an area that needs to change frequently. With technology changing about every 18 months, the academic programming in this area must be agile to meet the changing demand. Community colleges have a history of adapting to change (Boone, Pettitt, & Weisman, 1998). They are accustomed to working with industry partners in the region that they serve. By their design, community colleges are community-based organizations that function to improve economic development within a service region district (Cook, 2004). Programs such as Transport Training, and other Technology related areas require frequent updates, and community colleges are positioned to make these changes when necessary. The President of the community college is the chief executive officer at the institution. They are typically employed by the publicly elected board of trustees to develop and administer the board’s policies and operate all aspects of the college (Myers, 2005). The President is responsible for the overall vision, strategic plan, and tone of the institution. Communication and the ability to adapt to changes are key for this position (McMurray, 2010). According to the (Aspen Institute 2013), they proposed five core qualities common in highly effective community college presidents. Deep commitment to student access and success Willingness to take significant risks to advance student success The ability to create lasting change within the college Having a strong, broad, strategic vision for the college and its students, reflected in external partnerships 5. Raise and allocate resources in ways aligned to student success

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1. 2. 3. 4.

There are several factors that are placing stress on the Community College presidents. The administrators in these positions make numerous decisions a day that can affect the overall operation of the college. The one major key to any leadership position is that of decisiveness. This is especially true for a President. Community college presidents need to have experience in academic affairs, financial matters, governmental relations, and external fundraising (Brunen, 2012). A Community College President is responsible for many areas that may be outside of their expertise. The 2020 Covid-19 Pandemic was an excellent example of something that was outside their expertise. Unless they had a medical background, most were unfamiliar with this medical crisis’s terminology and protocols. The Pandemic caused Presidents to make quick decisions regarding the health and safety of their campus. They had to make decisions with little to no information. For example, the decision to have students continue their education on campus or go to virtual instruction was a decision in some instances made in days rather than taking the time to study all aspects of that decision. The pressure to continue the educational pursuits of the college and keep everyone safe was a daunting task. No other time has higher education faced a time when presidents had to make these types of 38

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

decisions. Students, Faculty, and Staff worked from home in massive numbers causing strain on people’s personal and professional lives. The Pandemic’s uncertainty caused many presidents to make quick decisions in regards to keeping their campus community healthy and safe from the virus. The pressure to make decisions was substantial on presidents, and many decisions had to be altered as the situation kept changing. The leadership of the nation’s community colleges has experienced many changes in the last two decades. According to Williams (1989), community college leader’s success will be determined by their ability to complete the following tasks: • • • •

successfully market their strengths; increase their enrollment bases; function in a fscally responsible manner; and maintain strong leadership and a devoted faculty.

Expectations of community college presidents are increasing regarding the knowledge required to run a thriving institution. The mission has had to change based on external factors affecting it. According to Bogart (1994), the community college’s mission has been wide-ranging in nature which includes many areas:

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

• • • • •

open access admission, a comprehensive curriculum, a student-centered learning environment, a community-orientation to programming, and a signifcant role in regional economic development.

With many college presidents retiring in the next five years, there will be a need for new leaders. Community colleges could find themselves in a shortage of leaders wanting the role of President. A majority of presidents are retiring, and many individuals moving into the President position are often doing so at the end of their careers (Harkins, 2017). The are several reasons there will be fewer people entering the President’s role. According to (Hawkins, 2017), “fewer graduate programs which specialize in community college leadership development, a lack of training and development opportunities for emerging leaders, and young leaders’ perceptions that the role and duties of the president are overwhelming and daunting.” These retirements will lead to fewer well-prepared individuals trained and willing to accept the position’s responsibility (Aylett, 2019). Application pools will be decreased, making it increasingly difficult to fill these positions (Aylett, 2019). Academic administrators experienced many years of minimal change in their job responsibility; however, that has changed in recent years (Cook, 2004). The presidency at Community Colleges is becoming a less desirable position based on the numerous challenges occurring at their institutions (Butler, 2019). Presidents will have to be able to manage various crises from internal and external entities. They will be required to multi-task while understanding the complexity of issues that were non-existent ten years ago (Cook, 2004). The need for new leaders will be necessary to lead these institutions in the next decade and beyond. The majority of comprehensive community colleges in the United States lie in remote areas rural areas, often at a distance from urban centers (Rubin & Autry, 1998). Community

39

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

Colleges are the educational backbone for many rural areas, and they provide training and workforce development to these underserved areas. Recruiting presidential candidates can be problematic for Community Colleges located in remote areas. The majority of college president positions are advertised on a national level that attempts to attract candidates from all over the country. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Education, and HigherEd Jobs, are a few of the used sites. Board of Trustees may not be familiar with conducting a presidential search in which they have to use a search firm with the application process. They may try to perform the search using their own resources. However, they may not have the time to dedicate themselves to a thorough search. Presidential candidates from metropolitan areas may not be interested in these positions based on the lack of amenities compared to a large city. Additionally, smaller communities will be looking for a president who understands a rural and underserved area’s needs. A limited number of applicants from a similar geographic region will be familiar with the community college’s location and corresponding particular needs. Community Colleges were founded to serve the community in which they represent. Many of them are located in rural areas of the country and provide educational opportunities to underrepresented populations. These colleges are facing pressures that did not happen 10 to 20 years ago. For example, the recent COVID-19 Pandemic has dramatically impacted Higher Education. This is especially true for institutions that receive public funding. Most community colleges receive local, state, and national public funds to help them operate. With tax revenues drastically reduced by the Pandemic, many community colleges faced double-digit decreases in their funding. An additional issue is flat enrollment, with declines in some states due to population decreases over the last several years (American Association of Community Colleges, 2017). Community Colleges have to rely on tuition revenue and other outside sources to remain fiscally solvent. Community Colleges were not designed to rely only on tuition to fund the college operations, such as private institutions. Additionally, the Board of Trustees at several community colleges are reluctant to raise tuition. The fear is education will not be affordable for the students they serve in the community. With many community colleges being forced to rely more on tuition, programming cuts are being made to programs that are not revenue-generating. Art, Theatre, Music, and Literature are just a few courses and degrees at risk of being cut because of the lack of funding. Rural areas will be impacted the most by these cuts since many small communities do not have the resources available to fund programs in places like the Fine Arts. Community Colleges are still perceived as 2nd Choice or the last alternative for many students. The presidents at these institutions have to try to change that perception when interacting with the public. Many community colleges have taken the word “junior” out of their name to change that perception. Additionally, some take the term “community” out of their name to give the perception they are similar to a 4-year college or university. A community college president has to market their institution as having value identical to their four-year counterparts. With higher education under more scrutiny as being overpriced and unnecessary for many industries, presidents have a significant uphill battle. Community Colleges typically do not receive the same amount of funding as a four-year state institution; however, they serve more students. Technology is a great tool that has provided many advancements in the areas of educational instruction. Online and Virtual learning has steadily increased in popularity over the last several years. Community college faculty are more likely to embrace educational technologies than in the past. An early 2019 finding documented that 39 percent of faculty fully support the increased use of educational technolo40

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

gies, up to seven percent from the year prior and ten percent from the year before (Jaschik & Lederman, 2019). The Covid-19 Pandemic caused many institutions to move all of their courses to online learning in days. Zoom, Blackboard Collaborate, and other virtual tools have led to classroom instruction in many different technological formats. Community Colleges that serve rural and underrepresented areas struggled with online instruction, especially in areas that high-speed internet was not readily available. The President had to make difficult decisions on whether or not to have remote instruction with the understanding that not every student had access to online resources available to them to participate in an online platform. Additionally, community colleges may not have been adequately equipped with equipment and information technology staff. Information Technology staff are sometimes outsourced, and when the overwhelming majority of Community Colleges went online in March of 2020, there was not adequate staff available to meet the demand. Most higher education administrators agree that a move from face-to-face learning to online instruction rapidly caused issues; however, it allowed faculty to develop new and unique ways to provide education. The 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic stress has affected every industry in the United States, including community colleges. Community colleges were already facing declines in enrollment before the Pandemic, and many experienced double-digit decreases in enrollment for the Fall 2020 semester. Career and technical programs such as Welding, Computer Programming, Transport Training, and Advanced Manufacturing Technology were unable to go to a completely virtual format causing many Community Colleges with technical programs to see large enrollment decreases. Additionally, some institutions elected to refund tuition, fees, and housing costs to students who could not continue their course work through an online platform. The loss of revenue and enrollment came as a one-two punch to the fiscal health of community colleges. Many community colleges do not have large cash reserves or endowments to keep them afloat during challenging economic times. They typically have to rely on cash reserves to supplement budget short-falls that may happen within a budget year. In many instances, cash reserves were already depleted before the Pandemic, and the decreased revenue of the Pandemic has brought many of these institutions to become financially unstable. Fundraising from private sources has become increasingly critical to community colleges (Boyd, 2010). An American Association of Community Colleges study found that community colleges’ need is justified, despite declining state funding (Katsinas, Tollefson, & Reamey, 2008). Community Colleges, in large part, are behind their 4-year colleagues as it pertains to fundraising. Many community colleges were started in the ’60s and ’70s and did not have a fundraising office until many years later. When these institutions were founded, they did not anticipate their funding to come from outside sources. Most were designed to have the state and local tax dollars to fund the majority of operations with tuition covering the remainder of the budget. According to the Inside Higher Ed and Gallup 2019 Survey of College and University Presidents (Jaschik & Lederman, 2019), presidents were least likely amongst all their responsibilities to say they were well prepared to handle fundraising upon starting in their role. In particular, approximately one-third of public community college presidents felt they were well-prepared to conduct fundraising compared to their university counterparts who reported nearly half felt the same. Donors are a vital funding source of many academic programs at a community college. Presidents have to make time to meet with these donors, which puts time constraints on their schedule. Many of these meetings need to occur around a meal or on the weekend, causing a president’s schedule to become more complicated. These donors are funding programs such as art, music, and literature. Foundation 41

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

offices at community colleges contact their alumni and community partners to find additional revenue sources (Miller, 2013). Although campaigns for naming rights and other donor-driven initiatives boost institutional revenue, the influx of cash is often a temporary means that requires ongoing relationships with donors to ensure the sustainability of support. There are several alternative revenue sources community colleges may try rather than raising tuition (Miller, 2013). Grants have become a way many community colleges are trying to help fund programs. Presidents are hiring grant writers and managers to find these funding sources (Brumbach, 2005). Grants can be used for equipment, renovation of buildings, and hiring of staff. Funding from grants can off-set the use of institutional funds saving the institution sometimes millions of dollars and maintaining programs that may have to be eliminated. Grants are usually short-term with a three to five-year timeline; however, that may give Presidents time to grow programs and make them sustainable after the grant funding has ended. (Grant Management being key to obtaining new grants) Campus safety is a growing concern for community colleges across higher education in the United States as it relates to acts of violence. Community colleges are not immune to campus safety issues, Students, Staff, and Faculty want a safe and secure campus (Sartini, 2019). Presidents need to be aware of the rise in violent and non-violent crimes (Sartini, 2019). With campus safety being a priority for all the stakeholders at an institution, administrators have to give this issue adequate attention. Community colleges are forming advisory groups to help ensure that campus safety is getting adequate attention. Since the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia, there has been an increase in college campus violence (Hauser & O’Connor, 2007). Unfortunately, too many colleges and universities have experienced a mass shooting event on their campus. These shootings have caused Community Colleges to implement training and prevention measures to reduce these types of attacks from happening. Student perceptions of campus crime are an essential factor to consider when implementing training and prevention measures (Jennings, Gover, and Pudrzynsk 2007). Colleges are required by the federal government to keep crime statistics that occur on their campus. The the passage of the Campus Security Act of 1990 intended to educate students, staff, and faculty about their institution’s crime. These statistics are used to demonstrate how safe or unsafe a campus may be to current and prospective students. Community colleges are no different in trying to be transparent on their crime statistics. Presidents have to understand the perception of these statistics and help the community understand their meaning. A campus that has the perception of being unsafe could lead to fewer students enrolling at the institution. Additionally, if acts of violence occur on campus, it may lead to lawsuits from the victims. These factors will lead to financial hardships based on revenue loss and legal expenses due to lawsuits. The potential for increased litigation against institutions could lead to hiring additional staff to help educate their stakeholders on their campus safety. Educating the public on this issue is a proactive measure; however, in some instances, it puts additional financial pressure to help fund these programs. The increased acts of violence have made campus safety a priority for Community Colleges. Presidents have to consider adding campus security and/or police officers to help make the campus safe and secure. Additionally, several states have political pressure to allow students to have concealed weapons to protect themselves. Many institutions are trying to ascertain if this is a viable option for their Students, Staff, and Faculty. Concealed weapons, if allowed on a college campus, present several challenges and opportunities. Not many campuses have allowed concealed weapons; however, this will be a topic discussed at the State and Local level if acts of violence increase.

42

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

Community colleges have opened access to higher education to those who would not otherwise have the opportunity because of family and work obligation factors. Currently, community colleges enroll the most diverse student body in higher education (Gilzene, 2009). Racial inequality has been an issue in our society for decades. Colleges and Universities have experienced racial tensions throughout their history, with the racial tensions reaching a heightened level during the Covid-19 Pandemic. Community College president’s revamped their diversity plans and strategies. Presidents are searching for new academic programs to assist in the recruitment of new students. Community Colleges are positioned to make quick academic programming changes, although many new academic programs require funds to get them started. Additional funds may not be readily available, making it difficult for faculty to expand their academic area. Advisory groups have been an essential asset in developing new programs. These groups can give feedback as it pertains to what skills and attributes necessary for their industry. Industry feedback is incorporated into the curriculum, making the program academically relevant. There is a trend towards downsizing Higher Education institutions in the United States. Legislators are facing risings costs in Medicaid, State pensions, and other state-funded organizations. They have to make decisions on what programs to retain and cut. Unfortunately, Higher Education is a relatively easy entity to cut. While K-12 has experienced little to no reduction in state funding, higher education in many states has experienced a reduction in their state appropriations for the last several years. Mergers involving community colleges have increased as enrollments, and state funding have declined over the previous few years. States such as Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania have merged institutions or considered mergers to help reduce costs and streamline operations. Presidents now face not only the downsizing of their institution but possibly the elimination of their position. Even if their role remains, their responsibilities may align more with a campus director than the institution’s visionary leader. Many opponents are against merging community colleges. These institutions were founded to serve the community, and a merger would cause them to lose their identity. Several mergers have used costcutting measures to create more online courses, reduce on-ground classes, cut full-time faculty, and reduce courses in specific academic areas. These actions may weaken the institution that has merged. While these changes will create budget savings, it may not serve the community they serve. Leadership development is important in any organization, especially community colleges. As many college presidents of the Baby Boomer generation are retiring, there is a leadership gap in people willing to step into a college president’s role. Mentoring and leadership development programs have been either eliminated or reduced based on funding issues. The reduction of travel and conference budget lines are easy budget cuts to make. These cuts do not involve laying off staff and make it easy for administrators to reduce these items. A reduction in these budget lines may have a short term benefit in not decreasing staff. There is a long-term issue in that the leadership development of future college presidents is lacking. Also, the President’s position is becoming a less desirable position as many people see this position in dealing with crises rather than being the long-term visionary for the college. Today’s community college president is faced with making tough decisions and is more reactive than proactive as it pertains to moving the college forward. Staffing cuts have led to a leadership gap, as well. Many employees leave community colleges based on either being laid off or anticipating their position may be eliminated or combined with another one. Faculty and staff that are retained during budget cuts are often asked to do more with less. As a result, this typically means less of an operating budget and no salary raises for several years. The retention of

43

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

employees will become more difficult based on these factors. Community College Presidents will have fewer faculty and staff. Additionally, the staff and faculty that remain may not be well trained in their respective areas, causing issues in considerations such as accreditation and institutional knowledge. The budget cuts will prevent sending staff and faculty to conferences to help prepare them in areas like accreditation. Consequently, this will lead to turnover, which will be another challenge college presidents will need to address. The perception of community colleges is under scrutiny. They often are compared to 4-year institutions in their geographic region. This comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. Four-year universities often receive more media attention because of athletics, research activities, and massive fund-raising campaigns (Cohen & Brawer, 2008). Most 4-year institutions have a different mission and objectives they are trying to accomplish than a 2-year institution. Additionally, community colleges’ educational effectiveness is under constant review because of the focus on accountability and increased competition for the limited state funds (Gilzene 2009). Community colleges typically do not have large endowments that fund academic programs and faculty. Faculty at most community colleges do not have tenure or a research component to their responsibilities. They are hired to teach in their academic content area. Since their focus is not on research, they cannot obtain grant dollars in their academic discipline in their area to help fund their department and salary. Community colleges are having to increase tuition to keep up with their expenses. This is not a popular decision with many governing boards since low tuition is something that community colleges try to maintain. Presidents are trying to find cost savings in many areas, however, tuition increases are ways to bolster their revenue. Salaries and benefits are the main cost for community colleges. Numerous community colleges own their land and buildings, but the price to keep Staff and Faculty on the payroll is a daunting task. As a result, community colleges continue turning to adjunct faculty who are contingent on a semester-tosemester basis. Barnes (2017) concluded that contingent faculty receive between 40 and 75 percent less financial compensation on a per-course basis compared to full-time faculty. Thus, these faculty members are less expensive to hire, and it is much easier to terminate their employment than full-time faculty members (Monks, 2007; Brennan & Magness, 2018; Shulman, 2019). Presidents had to make budget cuts in full-time faculty. Programs that do not have high enrollments or have substantial operation costs are being discontinued. Furthermore, there have been reductions to faculty as a cost-saving measure, which has led to hiring more adjunct faculty. Adjunct faculty can teach courses at a high level, yet they may not meet certain obligations as a full-time faculty member. For example, an adjunct faculty member may not have an on-campus presence to meet with students to assist with questions and tutoring. The dwindling numbers of full-time faculty at community college has led to the phenomenon of adjunctification. First coined at the beginning of the new millennium by The Chronicle of Higher Education senior-editor Scott Smallwood, adjunctification describes adjunct faculty members’ overreliance in higher education, especially at two-year institutions (Smallwood, 2004; Jenkins, 2014). As community colleges grew exponentially in the early 2000s, they met instructional needs by hiring more contingent faculty instead of full-time faculty as state appropriations did not correlate with the growth. The resulting trend led to a national pattern of universities, colleges, and community colleges. Unfortunately, the school’s monetary advantage comes at the expense of part-time instructors who receive less income, benefits, and professional development. The result negatively impacts students through lower academic investment, despite the institution’s financial benefit (Xu, 2019). Presenting a potential alternative reality for 44

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

community college presidents, the exponential rate of adjunctification may create an unsustainable path for institutional identity maintenance, causing ongoing challenges. A contingent faculty majority holds the potential of upending established labor agreements, committee representation, academic research, and shared governance (Kenzer & Sam, 2010). The reduction of full-time faculty may lead to students not being retained effectively, causing graduation rates to drop and increased pressure on recruiting new students. The shift towards reliance on adjunct over full-time faculty instruction centers around financial savings to community colleges. Yet, student success has suffered due to lower academic investment (Xu, 2019). The retention of students has become more problematic for community colleges based on several factors. Traditionally, non-traditional students do not pursue college degrees when the economy is good. Community colleges see a bolster in enrollment when there is an economic downturn. Overreliance on contingent faculty may endanger institutional accreditation due to unmet instructional criteria. For example, the midwestern regional accrediting body, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), requires in criteria 3.C. that “the institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, highquality programs and student services” (Higher Learning Commission, 2014). While this criterion is subjective, community college presidents and their institutions must still fulfill the requirement despite the challenges associated with contingent influence on curricular programming (Ochoa, 2012; Ran & Xu, 2019) as full-time faculty face dwindling numbers, and thus the ability to develop and sustain highquality programming, the need for focused attention on such criteria increases. Retention of students has also become a priority of many presidents. Community colleges have a diverse population they serve. With such a broad demographic to reach, it is difficult to maintain a retention program that can address all the needs of the students they serve. Some demographics of community college students (American Association of Community Colleges, 2017) include:

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • •

the average age of 28 years the median age of 24 years 36 percent are frst-generation college students 17 percent are single parents 41 percent are part-time students and employed full-time 32 percent are part-time students and employed part-time 12 percent are students with disabilities four percent are Veterans.

Presidents have to keep these demographics in mind as they try to retain as many students as possible. From this pool of students, community college faculty experience obstacles with maintaining high academic standards while reaching an audience with diverse backgrounds. To further add to this challenge, community college faculty primarily possess a masters’ level education instead of approximately 20% of those with doctoral-level credentials (Finley & Kinslow, 2016). The majority of these instructors are only part-time, with other full-time employment or multiple part-time opportunities from various institutions. At two-year community colleges, less than 20 percent of all faculty positions are considered tenure track (Bok, 2013). The previous 20 years serve as witness to the fundamental change in the responsibilities, expectations, and realities facing community college presidents. Historically consistent experiences of academic focus, community relations, donor engagement, and furthering institutional vision now appear secondary 45

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

priorities. Community college presidents find themselves figuratively and do more with less to ensure students a successful university transfer or workforce preparation. Crisis to crisis reactionary leadership over campus security, student health, fiscal solvency, and adequate staffing led to a reprioritization compared to their predecessors. The crisis to crisis leadership has taken a toll on the community college president. Many of them are choosing to retire early rather than continue in the position. As the opportunity to serve in a college president’s role becomes less appealing to a narrowing qualified applicant pool, community colleges in the 21st Century will find themselves challenged to sustain executive leadership.

REFERENCES American Association of Community Colleges. (2017). 2017 fact sheet. Retrieved from American Association of Community Colleges website: www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/fast-facts/ American Association of Community Colleges. (2019) Fast facts 2019. Retrieved from https://www. aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/fast-facts/ Aylett, A. (2019). Influencers of Succession Planning Among Rural Community College Chief Executives. Theses and Dissertations. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/3464 Barnes, C. B. (2017). Size, characteristics, compensation, and work experiences of adjunct and other non-tenure-track faculty. GAO Reports. Beach, J. M. (2011). Gateway to opportunity? A history of the community college in the United States. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Bogart, Q. T. (1994). The community college mission. In G. A. Baker III, (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 60–73). Greenwood Press. Bok, D. (2013). Higher education in America. Princeton University Press. Boone, E. J., Peltitt, J. M., & Weisman, I. M. (1998). Community-based programming in action. American Association of Community Colleges. Boyd, J. S. (2010). Community college presidents are relying more on external sources to help fund daily operations. Academic Press.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Brennan, J., & Magness, P. (2018). Are adjunct faculty exploited: Some grounds for skepticism. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), 53–71. doi:10.100710551-016-3322-4 Brumbach, M. (2005, Winter). Sustaining financial support through workforce development grants and contracts. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2005(132), 49–58. doi:10.1002/cc.215 Brunen, M. N. (2012). Raising the bar: The modern community college presidency (Order No. 3503734). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Arkansas Fayetteville; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1010272795). Retrieved from 0-search.proquest.com.library.uark.edu/docview/101 0272795?accountid=8361

46

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

Butler, T. N. (2019). Leading from the middle: Understanding the leadership role of mid-level department chairs at a public statewide community college system (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. College Board. (2018). Trends in college pricing 2018. Retrieved from https://research.collegeboard. org/pdf/trends-college-pricing-2018-full-report.pdf Cook, V. S. (2004). Exploration of leadership competencies needed by future illinois community college presidents: A delphi study (Order No. 3127210). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305042127). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/305042127?accountid=8361 Finley, D.L. & Kinslow, S.L. (2016). Faculty talk about teaching at the community college. Oxford Handbooks Online – Psychology. Garrison, D. L. (2010). Identifying success factors in community college grants awarded under the U.S. department of labor’s community -based job training grants program, 2005-2008 (Order No. 3409119). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (594660137). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/594660137?accountid=8361 Gilzene, A. M. (2009). An analysis of actual and desired roles of trustees and presidents of community colleges linked to board -president relationship and its impact on college effectiveness (Order No. 3365813). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305183892). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/305183892?accountid=8361 Harkins, K. A. (2017). Leadership competency perceptions of rural community college presidents in the coastal southeast region (Order No. 10261937). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1917682216). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1917682216?accountid=8361 Hauser, C., & O’Connor, A. (2007, April 16). Virginia Tech shooting leaves 33 dead. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/16cndshooting.html Higher Learning Commission (HLC). (2014). Criteria for accreditation. Retrieved from https://www. hlcommission.org/Policies/criteria-and-core-components.html Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (Eds.). (2019). 2019 survey of college and university chief academic officers: A study by inside Higher Ed and Gallup. Inside Higher Ed.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Jenkins, R. (2014, December 15). Straight talk about adjunctification. Retrieved from https://www. chronicle.com/article/Straight-Talk-About/150881 Jennings, W. G., Gover, A. R., & Pudrzynska, D. (2007). Are institutions of higher learning safe? A descriptive study of campus safety issues and self-reported campus victimization among male and female college students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18(2), 191–208. doi:10.1080/10511250701383327 Katsinas, S. G., Tollefson, T. A., & Reamey, B. A. (2008). Funding issues in U.S. community colleges: Findings from a 2007 survey of the national state directors 146 of community colleges. American Association of Community Colleges.

47

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure-track faculty in higher education—Demographics, experiences, and plans of action. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36(4). McMurray, A. P. (2010). Exploring the essence of relational leadership in the role of university president (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3406714) Miller, M. W. (2013). The role of the community college president in fundraising: Perceptions of selected michigan community college presidents (Order No. 3558622). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1351382426). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/ docview/1351382426?accountid=8361 Monks, J. (2007). The relative earnings of contingent faculty in higher education. Journal of Labor Research, 28(3), 487–501. doi:10.100712122-007-9002-5 Myers, K. (2005). Leadership style congruence in California Community Colleges. ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (1051242621) Ochoa, A. (2012). Contingent faculty: Helping or harming students? Journal of the Professoriate, 6(1), 136–151. Ran, F. X., & Xu, D. (2019). Does contractual form matter? The impact of different types of nontenure-track faculty on college students’ academic outcomes. The Journal of Human Resources, 54(4), 1081–1120. doi:10.3368/jhr.54.4.0117.8505R Rubin, S., & Autry, G. (1998). Rural community colleges; Catalysts for economic renewal. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Sartini, C. C. (2019). Community college presidents’ perspectives on campus safety (Order No. 27546934). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2381568950). Retrieved from https://search. proquest.com/docview/2381568950?accountid=8361 Shulman, S. (2019). The costs and benefits of adjunct justice: A critique of Brennan and Magness. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(1), 163–171. doi:10.100710551-017-3498-2 Smallwood, S. (2004). Disappearing Act. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 34.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Aspen Institute. (2013). Crisis and opportunity: Aligning the community college presidency with student success. Retrieved from https://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/pubs/ CEP_Final_Report.pdf Truman Commission on Higher Education (1947). Higher education for democracy: A report of the President’s commission on higher education, volume 1, establishing the goals. New York: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Community colleges: Federal resources supporting local opportunities [Brochure]. ERIC Document Reproduction Service Reference. (No. ED 482965) Walsh, J. (2005). The community college sector: Context, challenges, imperatives, options. In R. Holding & O. Burke (Eds.), Revisiting tertiary education policy: Towards personal gain or public good? (pp. 220–236). Ian Randle.

48

 The Evolution of the Community College President in the 21st Century

Williams, D. N. (1989, December). The survival of the private junior colleges. ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges. Xu, D. (2019, April). Academic performance in community colleges: The influences of part-time and fulltime instructors. American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 368–406. doi:10.3102/0002831218796131

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Zook, G. F. (1947, Spring). The President’s commission on higher education. Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, 33(1), 10–28. doi:10.2307/40221180

49

50

Chapter 4

Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders:

Exploring the Relationship Between College Presidents and Student Government Association Presidents Jennifer M. Miles Widener University, USA

ABSTRACT This chapter explores how college presidents and college student government association presidents interact and communicate, including how they can build strong working relationships and how they can collaborate to address and meet the needs of the student body. Drawing on existing literature, the chapter provides an overview of the college presidency, student involvement, student government, student government leadership, and expectations college presidents have of student government association presidents.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION As leaders of institutions of higher education, college presidents are charged with responsibility and oversight of all aspects of their institutions, including establishing the tone of the college or university (Rodriguez, 2015). Because of the many responsibilities and challenges involved with serving as a college president, presidents benefit from establishing working relationships with on-campus and off-campus constituencies, including students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community members. Presidents often choose to communicate with coordinating and governing bodies through working directly with bodies and councils, including faculty senate, staff councils, and alumni association boards. When college presidents seek out partnerships and collaborations with students, they send a message to the campus community regarding their appreciation of students, and their desire to include the voice of students in the decision-making structure of the institution. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6560-5.ch004

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Presidents benefit from intentionally listening to students (Kezar, 2007). An effective way of establishing communication with students is by working with the student government association (SGA). Student government associations are student-led organizations that represent the needs of all students to the institution. College presidents have identified SGA as a way for the quality of students’ campus experiences to be improved (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990; Kuh & Lund, 1994). Typically, students are elected into student government office by their fellow students through elections. Student government associations are led by the student government president. SGA presidents’ responsibilities are usually included in a governance document such as a constitution, and presidents customarily receive some sort of compensation. The student government president is expected to lead the student government, and to represent the student government and the student body, to faculty, staff, and administrators. The president also works with fellow student government association members to set goals, establish initiatives, solicit student input, and respond to students’ concerns. By interacting with the college president, sharing initiatives and programs, discussing student concerns, and sharing updates from student meetings, the SGA president can ensure the college president is aware of the work of the student government. The SGA president can also take information and updates from the college president back to the students. Although a staff member typically serves as SGA advisor, college presidents may establish direct communication with the SGA president, including conducting regular meetings. That communication permits the SGA President to share updates with student government and the student body. College presidents benefit from having a strong student government in place; a well-organized student government provides the college president with a clear way to communicate with student leaders, to share information and updates with students, and to learn of students’ questions and concerns. In order for the student government to be an effective part of the institution’s governance structure, and for the student government to serve as a vehicle in which students’ concerns can be both expressed and addressed, structures and processes must be in place. Those structures and processes are connected to college presidents’ expectations of student government. This chapter will include an overview of the college presidency and leadership, the value of student involvement, the structure of student government, and the role of student government leaders. Expectations that college presidents have of student government presidents will be presented. In order for the college president to work with the student government as a whole, the college president needs to know that the student government president is aware of those expectations, and that the institution has structures and processes in place to ensure those expectations can be met.

THE COLLEGE PRESIDENCY AND LEADERSHIP College presidents have many responsibilities. In addition to developing a vison for the institution, ensuring compliance with federal and state regulations, working collaboratively with boards, and participating in fundraising, presidents must work with academic affairs to examine academic programs and make decisions regarding the future of existing, new, and future academic programs (Friedman & Kass-Shraibman, 2017). Working with faculty and staff is extremely important for all college and university presidents. Employees benefit from understanding a leader’s vision; when they know what

51

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

their leaders are envisioning for their institutions, employees can work to reach those goals (Friedman & Kass-Shraibman, 2017; Scharmer & Kaufer, 2013). In order for an institution to engage students in their academic programs and instill a commitment to learning, the leader of the college or university needs to have a vision in which faculty are inspired and dedicated to all of their students and to the institution as a whole (Friedman & Kass-Shraibman, 2017). College and university presidents are instrumental in creating circumstances in which institutions can be successful (Birnbaum, 1992; Fisher, 1984; Kezar, 2001, 2005, 2007). Individuals enter presidencies from a variety of professional backgrounds, including academic affairs, student affairs, development, university relations, and finance and administration. Based on presidents’ backgrounds and professional experiences, they may be positioned differently to address priorities of presidencies, such as student success initiatives and performance funding (Boerner, 2016). Individuals may come to the presidency with different leadership skills and characteristics. Effective leaders have been found to demonstrate specific characteristics, including communicating a vision, ensuring resources are available, and supporting creativity (Friedman & Kass-Shraibman, 2017; Ghosh; 2015; Isaksen & Akkermans, 2011). Presidents are typically expected to be involved in resolving conflicts; conflict resolution skills are also useful for institutional leaders (Cabrera, 2010).

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

THE VALUE OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN COLLEGE Involvement in co-curricular activities is widely considered as having a positive impact on students (Kilgo et al., 2016). Astin (1984) found that involvement leads to learning. When college students are involved in co-curricular activities and programs, their learning and development are both affected in positive ways (Astin, 1977, 1993; Gellin, 2003; Kilgo, et al., 2016; Kuh et al., 2005). Student involvement is also connected to developing personal responsibility (Kilgo et al., 2016; Wolf-Wendel et al., 2009). Students can become involved in campus life through several ways, including joining clubs and organizations, conducting research with faculty, and participating in athletics (Kuh & Lund, 1994). Additional forms of involvement include serving as a resident advisor and being part of an intramural sports program (Kilgo et al., 2016). Students become involved in academic and non-academic student clubs and organizations for socialization and career preparation (Holzweiss et al., 2007; Trolian, 2019). The teamwork skills students gain in student organizations are helpful to them as members of the workforce; working effectively with colleagues is a needed skill for employees (Heiserman, 2007). College students prefer to engage in campus activities that are connected to their academic programs and career goals (McCannon & Bennett, 1996; Miller & Krauss, 2004). When students are involved in programs and activities outside of their academic programs, both learning and individual development are positively affected (Astin, 1977, 1984, 1985, 1993; Bowen, 1977; Boyer, 1987; Chickering, 1969; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Kuh, 1981; Kuh & Lund, 1994; Light, 1992; Pace, 1979, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education, 1984). Because student involvement assists students with their psychological development, institutions should encourage students to become involved (Kilgo et al., 2016). Being involved in co-curricular activities, including fraternities and sororities and campus organizations, from the beginning of their years in college can have positive effects on students’ psychological well-being (Bowman, 2010; Kilgo et al., 2016). 52

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

Mental health challenges are increasingly common among college students (American College Health Association, 2014; Kilgo et al., 2016), and staff and administrators want to put programs and services in place to help students with their emotional and mental health. Kilgo et al. (2016) found that being involved in campus activities has a positive effect on a student’s psychological well-being at the end of their four years in college. In additional to emotional and psychological benefits, involvement in campus programs and organizations can benefit student’s physical health. Specifically, involvement in activities such as sports clubs and intramurals can benefit students because of the increased opportunities to engage in exercise (Kilgo et al., 2016). According to student engagement theory, student engagement includes the time students dedicate to educational experiences and the resources institutions allocate to ensure the quality of educational experiences (Hurtado et al., 2020; Kuh, 2001). Student engagement can be used to predict student learning (Burch et al., 2015; Carini et al., 2006). Students who are engaged both academically and socially are more likely to remain enrolled at their institutions until graduation than those who are not involved (Astin, 1993; Bowman et al., 2015; Tinto, 1993). Student connectedness is defined as having a sense of belonging, and creating relationships (Farrell et al., 2018; Rovai, 2002). A student’s sense of belonging is a critical factor regarding the likeliness a student will persist and succeed (Bowman et al., 2015; Nora et al., 2005). Students can develop connectedness by developing relationships with faculty, staff, and students. Faculty and staff can create a campus environment that fosters connectedness using formal and informal strategies and structures (Farrell et al., 2018). Both faculty relationships and campus involvement are connected to the success of students (Horn & Ethington, 2002; Miller et al., 2005). Being actively involved in learning and interacting with faculty increases the academic achievement of students (Ullah & Wilson, 2007). Student organizations are typically advised by a staff member or a faculty member. Advisors also mentor and coach the students, and direct them to appropriate institutional resources, offices, and processes (Dunkel & Schuh, 1998; Miles, 2011). When members of student clubs and organizations participate in community service activities, they learn more about the needs of their communities and can become engaged citizens (Martinez et al., 2020). Volunteerism in college students can be categorized as a form of civic engagement (Longo, 2004; RowanKenyon et al., 2007). Many colleges and universities consider civic engagement a priority, and have included civic engagement in their mission statements and strategic plans (Rowan-Kenyon, et al., 2007).

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

UNDERSTANDING COLLEGE STUDENT GOVERNMENT TODAY University governance includes sharing authority and making decisions interdependently (Zuo & Ratsoy, 1999). Campus governance includes students, faculty, administrators, and staff (Kennedy et al., 2015). Designing structures to ensure that the voices of multiple stakeholders are included and considered is an established aspect of university governance (Zuo & Ratsoy, 1999). The term involvement, as it pertains to college and university governance, indicates students engage in leadership activities related to decision-making and policy development (Kuh & Lund, 1994). Staff representing divisions of student affairs have become involved in campus governance as a way to advocate for students and ensure students’ interests are included (Kezar, 2007; Miller, 2000). Student governance was first developed so students would be represented on campus, and so students would have 53

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

power on campus (May, 2010). Student self-governance was defined by Freidson and Shuchman (1955) as “a type of organization which by virtue of its composition and constitution is entitled to represent the student community as a whole” (p. 6). Students have been part of governance policies and practices since the 1960s in the United States and Canada (Zuo & Ratsoy, 1999). Student participation in university-wide decision-making can be limited by a variety of reasons including lack of knowledge regarding issues, limited time on campus, lack of respect by administrators, and the need for confidentiality (Knock et al., 1969; Lee, 1987; Riley, 1977; Zuo & Ratsoy, 1999). The evolution of student involvement in governance is linked to cultural changes in the United States (May, 2010). The impact active student government associations have on creating a vital and robust campus environment, and the benefits of student government association involvement, have been widely acknowledged (Kuh & Lund, 1994). Participating in student government associations helps students gain skills that will assist them in developing strengths in areas connected to workplace success; those areas include teamwork, communication, understanding organizational structures, and decision-making (Cappelli, 1992; Kuh & Lund, 1994; Tucker, 1992). When a student government association is not active, student participation on campus and student identification with the institution can be negatively impacted (Clark & Trow, 1966; Kuh & Lund, 1994). Student government associations are associated with different issues and initiatives, depending on the priorities of the specific student government and the current leaders (Miles, 2011). Student government presidents are positioned to enact social change on campus (Broadhurst, 2014; Broadhurst, 2019). Presidents of student government associations can connect leaders from different student clubs and organizations to work toward a common cause and create change on campus and in the local community (Broadhurst et. al., 2018; Broadhurst, 2019). Student governments sometimes provide programming for students. Campus programming boards can be structured in different ways, including existing as a student government sub-committee or serving as the programming arm of the student government association; programming boards may also operate completely independently of student government. Depending on the funding source and the organizational structure of the institution, student governments may be responsible of allocating funds to student programming boards (Heiserman, 2007). Although student government is typically discussed in terms of the overall student governing body of the institutions, with large undergraduate representation, student government associations are also in place in graduate and professional schools, such as colleges and schools of pharmacy. Student government associations in professional programs often coordinate all student organizations in the school or college, and provide programming and activities for all students. Participating in student government in professional schools gives students the opportunity to be involved in decision-making in the college or school (Kennedy, et al., 2015).

STUDENT GOVERNMENT LEADERS Student government presidents have been part of institutional governance since the 1960’s (Broadhurst, 2014; Broadhurst, 2019). Being involved in student governance results in personal benefits for student leaders (Kuh & Lund, 1994); students have indicated that serving as leaders in student government associations has led to increased leadership skills (Astin, 1993; Kuh & Lund, 1994). Experiences in student 54

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

government associations have been found to be more effective in assisting students with gaining social and professional skills than other forms of campus involvement (Kuh & Lund, 1994). Students have reported increases to self-esteem and self-confidence as a result of being recognized for accomplishments achieved as student government leaders (Kuh et al., 1991; Kuh & Lund, 1994). Participating in student government leads students to become more involved in additional activities and opportunities that will allow them to grow and develop. Student government leaders work with students with similar viewpoints, backgrounds and experiences, and with different viewpoints, backgrounds, and experiences. When students are actively involved as student government leaders, they have to opportunity to develop competencies in writing, planning, budgeting (Kuh & Lund, 1994). At some institutions, students traditionally vote for student government leaders as a block; examples of blocks may be fraternities and sororities. In those instances, the block may determine which candidate will be supported, and all members of the voting block would be encouraged to vote for that candidate. Conversely, student government candidates may run on their own, without a voting block (Powers, 2009). Serving as a student government leader can take a great deal of a student’s time. Presidents of student government association lead meetings, serve on university committees and councils, plan events, resolve conflicts, and budget funds. Students may receive compensation for serving as president, or in another leadership role, of their institution’s student government association (What the historically black colleges pay their student government leaders, 1998). Compensation may include one, or a combination of the following: a salary, scholarship, free or reduced room and board, professional attire stipend, tickets to athletic events, a reserved parking place, or a discount at the institution’s bookstore.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

COLLEGE PRESIDENTS’ EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENT GOVERNMENT PRESIDENTS College presidents have the opportunity to mentor student government presidents and work directly student with student government association members. The work of a college president includes working with members of the campus community to determine ways to assist students (Perry, 2018). Working directly with student governments is a way for college presidents to become aware of the needs and concerns of students, and to work with students, faculty, and staff to address those needs and concerns. Presidents also have the opportunity to support student success initiatives and programs (The Aspen Institute and Achieving the Dream, 2014; Rodriguez, 2015). Creating and maintaining working relationships with the student government can help the college president ensure those initiatives and programs are adding value to students’ experiences at the institution. In order to collaborate with student government presidents and to partner with student governments, college presidents may establish expectations. Those expectations are explored in this section.

Partner with College President and Institutional Leaders When leaders want to effectively implement changes, they let their organizations know why changes are being made, and how the results will benefit the organization (Friedman & Kass-Shraibman, 2017). Both student government association presidents and college presidents should communicate upcoming changes to their constituencies, and explain why the changes are being made. Student government presidents should relay information from the president and other institutional leaders to student government and 55

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

to the student body. University-wide decisions affect students (Zuo & Ratsoy, 1999). When presidents, senior leaders, faculty, and staff share information with the student government, and ask them to share and disseminate the information, they must do so confidently. Likewise, the student government president should communicate student concerns and potential campus-wide initiatives to the college president and appropriate staff, administrators, and faculty. Depending on the structure of the institution, the student government association may be advised by a staff member in the division of student affairs. Advisors must be familiar with policies and guidelines that affect the organization (Miles, 2011). Traditionally, student affairs members have been responsible for encouraging students to become involved in co-curricular activities and to become an engaged member of the campus community. When student affairs staff work with student government members, student affairs staff need to talk to students and understand their goals and concerns, and direct them to the appropriate offices and processes. Student affairs staff members also need let their campus colleagues know how important that it is to listen to all students (Kezar, 2007).

Establish a Structure to Determine Student Concerns, and Follow up Appropriately Student government associations should have structures in place so students can share concerns and suggestions. The mechanisms for communication can vary based on the size of the institution and student body, the delivery methods of academic courses and student services, and the structure of the student government association. Ways students can submit inquiries and request for assistance may include email, social media, SGA meetings, open forums, or meetings with student senators. The student government must also be flexible and employ new communication methods as technology becomes available and as students’ needs change. Organizations that are structured to easily adapt to changes are positioned to be successful (Friedman & Kass-Shraibman, 2017; Reeves & Dimler, 2011). Student government associations that can adapt to changes are also positioned for success. The college’s president needs to know that the student government has structures in place to communicate with students, and follows up on student inquiries and concerns.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Represent the Institution Student government presidents are given a great deal of responsibility in terms of representing the institution. The president may be asked to serve as a member of standing councils, such as Administrative Council or Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Council. The president may be asked to serve on faculty and staff search committees. In addition, the president may be expected to attend board meetings, and to meet regularly with board members. These commitments may be included in the student government association constitution, or in institutional, board, and/or system policy statements. The student government president’s participation may be part of the institution’s governance structure. In addition, the student government president may be invited to speak at campus events such as commencement, homecoming, and student, faculty, and staff convocations. The president may also be asked to speak at special events, or to give campus updates. The institution’s president will expect that the student government president accepts these types of memberships and invitations to speak, or appoints another student government representative, if appropriate. This type of student involvement is a critical way for students’ voices to be included, and may impact 56

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

student government members throughout their college years and in the years after graduation. College students who are part of governance activities on their campuses are often motivated to seek participation in civic affairs after graduation (Kuh & Lund, 1994; Schuh & Laverty, 1983). Being involved in these campus activities may inspire the students to become active members of their communities later in life.

Be Educated and Informed Regarding Campus Structure and Policies As a student leader, a student government president will work with a wide variety of campus offices, and will work with fellow student leaders and members of the student body on a number of programs and initiatives. Working with the correct office and following institutional policies are both critical. Many concerns and questions can be addressed quickly by connecting the current offices and individuals. Also, policies and procedures may already be in place to address the question or inquiry. College presidents will expect student government presidents to consult the appropriate resources as needed. Student government advisors can be very helpful in terms of taking to students, directing them to the appropriate policy, or connecting them to the appropriate office. College presidents may also want student government presidents to look into ways they feel students can benefit, and that the student experience on campus can be improved, using existing structures and processes, or by working to establish or change structures or processes. Student leaders are still students, who institutional leaders value. Faculty and staff who work with student government leaders should encourage the students to see themselves as campus citizens in a broad sense, in addition to individuals who are able to help make campus decisions (Boyer, 1987; Kuh & Lund, 1994).

Be a Dedicated Student

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Student leaders should always remember that academics are the reason why they are enrolled. College presidents want student government presidents to be successful in their academic programs, and to have the personal and professional lives they envision for themselves. Student leaders need to ensure they prioritize their academics, and they take advantage of all of the resources and services that are offered to all students at the institution. College presidents also expect that student government presidents are good academic citizens, and follow the expectations established for all members of the campus community. Student government involvement can provide student leaders with skills that will help them succeed in the workplace. Miller and Slocombe (2012) asserted that faculty and staff should educate students about what is really expected in the contemporary workplace, and that faculty and staff can prepare students so they will be successful. College presidents can serve as mentors for student government presidents, and help them gain skills current and future employers will value.

CONCLUSION Through working with student government presidents, college presidents can communicate their visions for their institutions, share their priorities, get student input regarding specific issues, respond to student concerns, and prevent miscommunication. Institutions of higher education can be significantly affected by negative reputations. When students are not happy with their college or university, they can easily

57

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

share their negative experiences with individuals inside and outside their institutions. This can lead to decreased enrollment (Friedman & Kass-Shraibman, 2017). Institutions’ reputations can be communicated by students themselves, through word-of-mouth and social media (Friedman & Kass-Shraibman, 2017) and through college rankings publications and websites (Friedman & Kass-Shraibman, 2017; Zhou, 2015). Presidents can assist with creating and maintaining a positive image for their institution by ensuring students are happy that they chose to enroll (Friedman & Kass-Shraibman, 2017). One way college presidents can ensure they remain in contact with students and have avenues in place to learn of students’ concerns is through working with student government association presidents. Presidents need to have a thorough understanding of their institutions, including the culture and mission of the institutions, and the demographics of the student populations (Rodriguez, 2015). In addition, presidents need to be aware of current campus programs and initiatives, and concerns of students, faculty, and staff, as well as societal trends that may affect higher education. Meeting regularly with students, faculty, and staff, and with the leaders of coordinating and government committees and councils, helps ensure the president is staying informed, as well as ensuring governance processes are being followed. Strong leaders are able to demonstrate humility while also working to ensure their institutions’ success. Those leaders prioritize the success of their organizations over their personal gains (Friedman & KassShraibman, 2017; Collins, 2001a, 2001b). Every college president must put the good of the institution ahead of personal convenience. College presidents also must be honest about what they know and what they do not know, and what they can and cannot control. Institutional leaders need to acknowledge that other individuals, including students, faculty, and staff, may have knowledge and information that they do not have, and they must be confident and humble enough to accept the help of others while working to strengthen the institution. Through partnering with student government associations, college presidents can learn more about their institutions, and can gather information to help determine changes needed on campus. College presidents can use that information to guide them regarding how to move the institution forward strategically, while remaining student-focused. Because the college president leads the institution, the president can role-model, to faculty and staff, how to partner with students to ensure the success of the institution. The college president also has the opportunity, as an educator, to mentor the student government association president and help the student government president face challenges, gain skills, and evolve as a leader.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES American College Health Association. American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II/ (2014). Spring 2014 Reference Group Executive Summary. https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/ACHA-NCHA-II_ReferenceGroup_ExecutiveSummary_Spring2014.pdf Astin, A. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. (1984). Student development: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308. Astin, A. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of priorities and practices in higher education. Jossey-Bass.

58

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency. Jossey-Bass. Boerner, H. (2016). Forging a new path. Community College Journal, 87(2), 20–24. Bowen, H. R. (1977). Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education. Jossey-Bass. Bowman, N. A. (2010). The development of psychological well-being among first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 51(2), 180–200. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0118 Bowman, N. A., Park, J. J., & Denson, N. (2015). Student involvement in ethnic student organizations: Examining civic outcomes 6 years after graduation. Research in Higher Education, 56(2), 127–145. doi:10.100711162-014-9353-8 Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. Harper Collins. Broadhurst, C. (2014). Campus activism in the 21st century: A historical framing. In C. Broadhurst & G. Martin (Eds.), Radical academia? Understanding the climates for campus activists. Academic Press. doi:10.1002/he.20101 Broadhurst, C., Martin, G., Hoffshire, M., & Takewell, W. (2018). Bumpin’ up against people and their beliefs: Narratives of student affairs administrators creating change for LGBTQ students in the South. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(4), 385–401. doi:10.1037/dhe0000036 Broadhurst, C. J. (2019). Formal leaders and social change: A historical case study of student body presidents as activists. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2019(161), 25–35. doi:10.1002/yd.20318 PMID:30729742 Burch, G. F., Heller, N. A., Burch, J. J., Freed, R., & Steed, S. A. (2015). Student engagement: Developing a conceptual framework and survey instrument. Journal of Education for Business, 90(4), 224–229. doi:10.1080/08832323.2015.1019821 Cabrera, J. (2010). Standing out while others were sitting in: A university president’s reflection of leading during challenging times. Journal of Philosophy & History of Education, 60, 241–243.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cappelli, P. (1992). College, students, and the workplace: Assessing performance to improve the fit. Change, 24(6), 55–61. doi:10.1080/00091383.1992.9937715 Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32. doi:10.100711162-005-8150-9 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1990). Campus life: In search of community. Princeton University Press. Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. Jossey-Bass. Clark, B. R., & Trow, M. (1966). The organizational context. In T. M. Newcomb & E. K. Wilson (Eds.), College Peer Groups: Problems and prospects for research. Aldine.

59

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

Collins, J. (2001a). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2001/01/level-5-leadership-the-triumph-of-humility-and-fierce-resolve-2 Collins, J. (2001b). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap [. . .] and others don’t. Harper Collins Publishers. Dunkel, N. W., & Schuh, J. H. (1998). Advising student groups and organizations. Jossey-Bass. Farrell, L. C., Jorgenson, D., Fudge, J., & Pritchard, A. (2018). College connectedness: The student perspective. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(1), 75–95. Advance online publication. doi:10.14434/josotl.v18i1.22371 Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college on students. Jossey-Bass. Fisher, J. G. (1984). Power of the presidency. Macmillan. Freidson, E., & Shuchman, H. L. (1955). Student government in American colleges. In E. Freidson (Ed.), Student government, student leaders, and the American college (pp. 3–28). United States National Student Association. Friedman, H. H., & Kass-Shraibman, F. (2017). What it takes to be a superior college president. The Learning Organization, 24(5), 286–297. doi:10.1108/TLO-12-2016-0098 Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta-analysis of the literature 1991-2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 746–762. doi:10.1353/ csd.2003.0066 Ghosh, K. (2015). Developing organizational creativity and innovation: Toward a model of self-leadership, employee creativity, creativity climate and workplace innovative orientation. Management Research Review, 38(11), 1126–1148. doi:10.1108/MRR-01-2014-0017 Heiserman, J. A. (2007). One hand feeds the other: Collaborating with your student government. Campus Activities Programming, 40(4), 26–29. Holzweiss, P., Rahn, R., & Wickline, J. (2007). Are all student organizations created equal? The differences and implications of student participation in academic versus non-academic organizations. The College Student Affairs Journal, 27(1), 136–150.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Horn, R. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2002). Self-reported beliefs of community college students regarding their growth and development: Ethnic and enrollment status differences. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(5), 401–413. doi:10.1080/02776770290041765 Hurtado, S. S., Gonyea, R. M., Graham, P. A., & Fosnacht, K. (2020). The relationship between residential learning communities and student engagement. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 8(1), Article 5. https://washingtoncenter.evergreen.edu/lcrpjournal/vol8/iss1/5 Isaksen, S. G. II, & Akkermans, H. J. (2011). Creative climate: A leadership lever for innovation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(3), 161–187. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01425.x

60

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

Kennedy, D. R., Ginsburg, D. B., Harnois, N. J., & Spooner, J. J. (2015). The role and responsibilities of pharmacy student government associations in pharmacy programs. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(7), 1–4. doi:10.5688/ajpe797100 PMID:27168613 Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations. Jossey-Bass. Kezar, A. (2005). What do we mean by “learning” in the context of higher education? In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning in higher education. Academic Press. doi:10.1002/he.186 Kezar, A. (2007). Learning from and with students: College presidents creating organizational learning to advance diversity agendas. NASPA Journal, 44(3), 578–609. doi:10.2202/0027-6014.1837 Kilgo, C. A., Mollet, A. L., & Pascarella, E. T. (2016). The estimated effects of college student involvement on psychological well-being. Journal of College Student Development, 57(8), 1043–1049. doi:10.1353/csd.2016.0098 Knock, G. H. (1969). The report on the commission on student participation in university life. Miami University Press. Kuh, G. D. (1981). Indices of quality in the undergraduate experience. AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports No. 4. Association for the Study of Higher Education. Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 10–17. doi:10.1080/00091380109601795 Kuh, G. D., Kinsey, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D., & Lund, J. P. (1994). What students gain from participating in student government. In M. C. Terrell & M. J. Cuyjet (Eds.), Developing student government leadership. Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002s.37119946603 Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, F. J., & ... (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. Jossey-Bass.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Lee, H. H. (1987). The nature and scope of student participation in policy making in academic government. Paper presented at the Sixth International Seminar on Current Issues in University Education of Korea and Japan, Seoul, South Korea. Light, R. J. (1992). The Harvard assessment seminars: Explorations with students and faculty about teaching, learning, and student life (Second Report). Graduate School of Education and Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Longo, N. V. (2004). The new student politics: Listening to the political voice of students. Journal of Public Affairs, 7, 61–74. Martinez, N., Sowcik, M. J., & Bunch, J. C. (2020). The impact of leadership education and co-curricular involvement on the development of socially responsible leadership outcomes in undergraduate students: An exploratory study. Journal of Leadership Education, 19(3), 32–43.

61

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

May, W. P. (2010). The history of student governance in higher education. The College Student Affairs Journal, 28(2), 207–220. McCannon, M., & Bennett, P. (1996). Choosing to participate or not: A study of college students’ involvement in student organizations. College Student Journal, 30(3), 312–316. Miles, J. M. (2011). Reflections of student government association leaders: Implications for advisors. College Student Journal, 45(2), 324–332. Miller, C. D., & Kraus, M. (2004). Participating but not leading: Women’s under-representation in student government leadership positions. College Student Journal, 38(3), 423–427. Miller, D. S., & Slocombe, T. E. (2012). Preparing students for the new reality. College Student Journal, 46(1), 18–25. Miller, M. T., Pope, M. L., & Steinmann, T. D. (2005). A profile of contemporary community college student involvement, technology use, and reliance on selected college life skills. College Student Journal, 39(3), 596–603. Miller, T. (2000). Institutional governance and the role of student affairs. In M. Barr & M. Dresler (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (2nd ed., pp. 37–49). Jossey-Bass. Nora, A., Barlow, L., & Crisp, G. (2005). Student persistence and degree attainment beyond the 1st year in college. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for success (pp. 129–153). Praeger. Pace, C. R. (1979). Measuring outcomes of college: Fifty years of findings and recommendations for the future. Jossey-Bass. Pace, C. R. (1990). The undergraduates: A report of their activities and progress in college in the 1980s. Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students; Findings and insights from twenty years of research. Jossey-Bass. Perry, K. (2018). Strategies for Campus Leaders. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2018(184), 101–107. doi:10.1002/cc.20332 Powers, D. M. (2009). The constitutional implications of expenditure limits in student government elections. The College Student Affairs Journal, 28(1), 124–137.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Reeves, M., & Dimler, M. (2011, July). Adaptability: The new competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review. Riley, G. L. (1977). Student participation in governance: A review of the literature. In G. L. Riley & J. V. Baldridge (Eds.), Governing academic organizations: New problems, new perspectives (pp. 239–250). McGutchan. Rodriguez, F. C. (2015). Why Diversity and Equity Matter: Reflections from a Community College President. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2015(172), 15–24. doi:10.1002/cc.20160

62

 Mentoring the Next Generation of Leaders

Rovai, A. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–332. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00130-6 Rowan-Kenyon, H., Soldner, M., & Inkelas, K. K. (2007). The contributions of living-learning programs on developing sense of civic engagement in undergraduate students. NASPA Journal, 44(4), 750–778. Scharmer, O., & Kaufer, K. (2013). Leading from the emerging future. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Schuh, J. H., & Laverty, M. (1983). The perceived long-term influence of holding a significant student leadership position. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 28–32. Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education. Government Printing Office. The Aspen Institute and Achieving the Dream. (2014). Crisis and opportunity: Aligning the community college presidency with student success. https://www.achievingthedream.org/resource/12807/crisis-andopportunity-aligning-the-community-college-presidency-with-student-success Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Trolian, T. L. (2019). Predicting student involvement in the first year of college: The influence of students’ precollege professional and career attitudes. Journal of College Student Development, 60(1), 120–127. doi:10.1353/csd.2019.0009 Tucker, R. W. (1992). National certification of workplace competence for college graduates. Adult Assessment Forum, 2(3), 3-5, 10, 12. Ullah, H., & Wilson, M. A. (2007). Students’ academic success and its association to student involvement with learning and relationships with faculty and peers. College Student Journal, 41(4), 1192–1202. What the historically black colleges pay their student government leaders. (1998). The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, (20), 39-39. Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms; The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407–428. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0077

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Zhou, L. (2015, September 15). Obama’s new college scorecard flips the focus of rankings. The Atlantic. www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/09/obamas-new-college-scorecard-flips-the-focus-ofrankings/405379 Zuo, B., & Ratsoy, E. W. (1999). Student participation in university governance. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 29, 1–26.

63

64

Chapter 5

The Community College Presidency:

Roles, Responsibilities, and Challenges Johnathon E. Paape University of Arkansas, USA

ABSTRACT The breadth of issues faced by community college presidents today cannot be overstated. While the importance of the position has remained since the creation of community colleges, the roles they play, types of challenges they face, and how they infuence and lead their institutions have changed throughout the decades. The roles of presidents today can be examined under four categories: fnancial ofcer, community representative, political representative, and academic ofcer. Through each of these lenses, this chapter explores how presidents lead their institutions under these roles, the responsibility of each role, and the challenges facing contemporary and future community college presidents.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION This chapter is meant to explore the changing landscape of the community college presidency through the unique roles, responsibilities, and challenges that community colleges face. Although many presidents exhibit similar duties during the course of their tenure, community college presidents face unique barriers that force them to lead in ways that allow for constant change and calls for accountability. With the number of challenges facing colleges today, it would be impossible to capture them all in a single chapter. Instead, this chapter will provide readers with an overview of contemporary challenges facing community colleges today and how presidents respond to, and lead through, these challenges. This discussion will explore community colleges’ functions and roles in today’s society, how the presidency has evolved over the decades to meet these needs, the roles and responsibilities of presidents, challenges they face, and what the future may hold for college leadership.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6560-5.ch005

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 The Community College Presidency

TODAY’S COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The importance of the community college has increased much over the few last decades. As the needs of students and communities have changed over time, along with the increased educational opportunities from programs such as the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1945 (G.I Bill), the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (now known as Pell grants), much of the weight of meeting those needs has been shouldered by the community and technical college sector (Boggs & McPhail, 2016; Cohen, Brawer & and Kisker, 2013; Schuh, Jones & Harper, 2011). With many policy makers and taxpayers now interested in the low-cost, university alternative, much attention has been put on degree attainment via community and technical colleges. This sentiment was reinforced in 2009 when President Obama announced his 2020 College Completion initiative (Pierce, 2015). The goal of the program was to drastically increase the percentage of college graduates in United States by 2020. This idea was further reinforced when, in 2015, President Obama proposed to make community college free for the first two years of a student’s academic career (Hudson, 2015). Along with increased government interest in community colleges, other organizations such as Achieving the Dream, the Aspen Institute, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have all provided resources and research dedicated to improving outcomes for community college students (Dougherty, Lahr & Morest, 2017). Community colleges assist many different types of students in achieving post-secondary credentials needed for increased economic mobility. As of the 2017-2018 years, there were 1,485 degree-granting two-year institutions in the U.S. compared to the 2,828 degree-granting four-year institutions (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Student demographics indicate that, while there are approximately 15.5 million students enrolled at higher education institutions, community colleges enroll around 4.4 million (28%) of the nation’s post-secondary learners (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2020). Non-traditional students and adult-learners have grown to around 1.4 million students and comprise approximately 32.2% of all community college students (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2020). Minority students are also highly represented in community colleges. Even though universities account for more of the share of students overall, community colleges tend to enroll a far greater percentage of minority students than universities (Ma & Baum, 2016). Community colleges also tend to enroll more students with low-socioeconomic statuses (SES) than universities. As of the 17-18 award year, approximately 53% of first-time, full-time students attending public two-year college were awarded Pell grants compared to first-time full-time public four-year institutions which had approximately 38% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020).

THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENCY As community colleges have evolved, so has the position of the college president. Because of community colleges’ increased focus, today’s community college presidents face a myriad of challenges from both within and outside the institution. According to Hendrickson, Lane, Harris, and Dorman (2012): Twenty-first-century presidents, as an extension of the institution they serve, face far more demands than their predecessors did, including greater competition, increased accountability, and an expectation to be visibly connected to their constituencies, all of which complicates the role. (p. 247)

65

 The Community College Presidency

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Not only are community college presidents responsible for ensuring the financial health of the institution, they must also balance stakeholder needs (both internal and external) and ensure that students on their campus(es) feel safe and welcome. Pressures can range from academic issues such as high use of adjunct faculty, inconsistency of programming, low graduation and retention rates, and underprepared students to resource issues such as performance funding, low staffing, and small budgets. This does not even address the challenge for presidents to ensure their institutions are meeting three basic responsibilities of a community college: providing Adult Basic Education (ABE) training and remedial education for underprepared students, serving the needs of the community by providing adequate skills training and degree attainment for workforce entry, and assisting students intending to transfer to four-year universities (Cohen, Brawer & Kisker, 2013; Desai, 2012; Eddy, 2010; Provasnik,& Planty, 2008; Schuh, Jones & Harper, 2011). All of these priorities create an atmosphere where “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” (Eddy, 2010, p. 3). Community college presidents are expected to fulfill several roles to meet these needs and must be adaptable to create the change necessary to lead the institution. The ever-evolving issues community colleges face require presidents to be proactive, flexible, and, most importantly, lifelong learners. While there are other parties involved in leadership decisions, many times those parties take their lead from the goals the president has laid out for the institution, usually communicated through a process such as strategic planning. Presidents are responsible for guiding their respective institutions and making decisions that promote the health (both financial and cultural), quality, and mission of the institution. As such, institutional direction can change from president to president, depending on what a particular president values. This is especially pertinent considering the length of tenure for the position generally lies between three to seven years (Cook & Kim, 2012; Mcnair, 2015). Another important subject is in the expected retirements of the previous generation of community college presidents. Currently, 58% of college and university presidents are over 60 years old (Gagliardi, Espinosa, Turk & Taylor, 2017). With many college presidents having retired in the past decade and more planning to follow suit in the coming years, ensuring a new generation of leaders are prepared with the skills and competencies needed to succeed will be crucial (Cooney & Borland, 2018). With this expected change in leadership will come new goals, motivations, experiences, ways of thinking, and leadership styles. Leadership, both within and outside-of higher education, is difficult and requires “motivation, forward-thinking, and the nerve to take risk” (Bumphus, 2017, p. xi). The Aspen Institute (2013), in collaboration with Achieving the Dream, identified five core qualities that effective community college presidents share: commitment to student success, willingness to take risks to advance student success, ability to create lasting change, having a strong strategic vision, and raising and allocating student success resources.

The Ever-Changing College President As the role of the presidency has changed over the years, so has the face of the person occupying that role. Today’s community college presidents are represented in increasing numbers by female leaders and persons of color. This increase has allowed for new perspectives and ways of thinking and leading as well as a shift in generational attitude.

66

 The Community College Presidency

Women Presidents While many of today’s college presidencies are occupied by men, it is becoming increasingly common for women to hold presidential roles in community colleges. According to Eddy (2010), “In 1986, only 8% of community college presidents were female; this number has more than tripled in the last 20 years” (p. 24). This point is reiterated by Kim and Cook (2012) who discussed how in contemporary community colleges “more women occupy the presidency today than ever before” (p. 1). Even with this increase, female representation at the presidential level remains in the minority. While women represent “the majority (65%) of non-professional staff” (Eddy, 2010, p. 25) in community colleges, overall, women presidents make up only around 30% of all college and university presidents (Eddy, 2010; Johnson, 2017). Community colleges also tend to represent a higher proportion of women presidents than their university counterparts. In 2016, the number of women in presidential roles at public, associate degree granting institutions was 36%, up from 33% in 2011 (Gagliardi, Espinosa, Turk & Taylor, 2017, Table 7). While these gains are a positive note, higher education still has a ways to go to level the playing field.

Presidents of Color For many years, students from historically underrepresented groups have called for increased diversity among faculty and administration at their institutions. While presidents who identify as White remain the majority, over the past few decades, the presence of minority leaders in college leadership has increased (Espinosa, Turk, Taylor & Chessman, 2019). An American Council Education [ACE] report by Gagliardi, Espinosa, Turk, and Taylor (2017) found that, of all college and university presidents, 17% are racial minorities with around 20% of associate degree granting institutions having minority presidents. Espinosa, Turk, Taylor, and Chessman (2019) discussed that while overall percentages are low for minority representation in the presidency, “the percentage of college and university presidents who identified as a race or ethnicity other than White more than doubled between 1986 and 2016; however, fewer than one in five presidents identified as a person of color in 2016” (p. 248). Though these numbers have improved over the past few decades, institutions will need to ensure equal access to leadership pipelines that will allow persons of color to hold presidential roles.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

President as Leader Shifts in the presidential landscape have also resulted in decidedly different leadership styles than used by previous presidents. Facing the multitude of challenges that college presidents are responsible for overcoming, many leaders are having to rely on a more shared leadership experience rather than a structure that emphasizes top-down leadership. Presidents entering the role today often embody the phrase “it takes a village” when implementing change and guiding institutional direction. The true leadership challenge then for current and future community college presidents lies in leveraging this change from top-down leadership to a more humanistic, transformative, or participatory style that elevates all levels of the institution to take responsibility for leading and creating change. In their grounded theory, Grasmick, Davies, and Harbour (2012) emphasize the importance of participative leadership in creating organizational change:

67

 The Community College Presidency

Our findings reveal that when practiced by model community college presidents, participative leadership is a highly interactive, dynamic process fundamentally linked to the visioning process. (p. 68) Roueche (1989) discussed the challenges that community colleges would face and the need for college leaders who value and personify shared or transformative leadership. He also emphasized how college leadership could “no longer be viewed as entities in isolation; rather they must possess the ability to empower their followers to be and to do” (Roueche, 1989, p. 17). Today, this mentality seems to be embraced by many community college presidents and leaders. Ellis (2017a) found that many of the new presidents they interviewed expressed that having well-informed people and “believing that everyone in the institution is important in moving the institution forward” was important (p. 21). This contrasts with how previous generations of college leadership assess their leadership style. Many presidents up to this point have relied more on their own leadership skills to form a top-down style of leadership. In previous research, Eddy and VanDerLinden (2006) found that most presidents surveyed still saw themselves as the primary driver of their institutions’ vision. With many of these presidents retiring and a new wave of presidents from younger generations wielding the flame, they bring with them newer ideas of collective, humanistic, and transformative leadership that encourages leadership and collaboration from people in all levels of the organization. Nook (2017) discussed that this will also mean that newer generations of presidents will have to “lead strategic planning efforts that may not be able to build on the nuances of institutional memory… (p. 52). Presidents also have to exhibit leadership by balancing stakeholder needs with the needs of the institution. Although many presidents do their best to find amicable solutions that will satisfy as many constituents as possible, Plinske (2017) pointed out that “one of the very first things that you must learn as president is that it is entirely impossible to make everyone happy” (p. 26).

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Preparation for a Successful Community College Presidency Preparing for the presidency is another difficulty for would-be and new community college presidents. In its most recent report of community college leadership competencies, the American Association of Community Colleges (2018) identified 11 categories that presidents need to be skilled in to be successful. Those categories were organizational culture; governance, institutional policy, and legislation; student success; institutional leadership; institutional infrastructure; information and analytics; advocacy and mobilizing/motivating others; fundraising and relationship cultivation; communication; collaboration; and personal traits and abilities (AACC, 2018). The role of the president, being an all-encompassing position, must show competency in these diverse areas in order to effectively shape and lead their institutions. In terms of gaining the skills needed for contemporary presidents to be successful, earning a doctoral degree, engaging in professional development, finding a mentor, attending conferences, and engaging in various professional experiences have been found to be extremely valuable for sitting college presidents (Cooney & Borland, 2018; Ellis & Garcia, 2017; McNair, 2015).

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Community college presidents are expected to embody the missions and values of the institutions they serve. Presidents are often tasked with a myriad of roles and responsibilities in order to ensure their 68

 The Community College Presidency

institutions are meeting the needs of its various stakeholders. It is necessary to understand the various roles, missions, and values of the community college in today’s society to appreciate a president’s responsibilities towards maintaining and influencing those roles. Historically, junior colleges (which eventually evolved into what are now known as community colleges) were established to be an extension of high school to assist students in transferring to universities (Boggs & McPhail, 2016; Cohen, Brawer & Kisker, 2013; Thelin, 2011). Eventually, the colleges evolved to offer students uninterested in a baccalaureate degree an alternative option to obtain economically benefitting credentials. They also allowed students an easier pathway to college access and provided skills needed for immediate workforce placement (Cohen, Brawer & Kisker, 2013; Eaton, 2007; Eddy, 2010; Morest, 2013). Although these themes are still present today, pressures from taxpayers and government leaders combined with needs and wants of their communities have required community colleges to evolve to serve more needs. In addition to offering associate’s degree programs, colleges are also expected to provide transfer opportunities, terminal degrees for immediate workforce entry, remedial education, community courses, and Adult Basic Education services such as GED testing, English as a Second Language (ESL) courses, and basic remediation in Math and English (Desai, 2012; Dougherty, Lahr & Morest, 2003). As such, community colleges are now responsible for providing multiple educational opportunities at a fraction of the cost and funding of universities. In order to ensure their institutions meet these goals, presidents must balance the needs of both internal and external constituents. Community college presidents are required to act as financial officers, community representatives, political navigators, and academic officers to ensure that their institutions have the funding, support, and programming required to function. These roles are supported by Hendrickson, Lane, Harris, and Dorman (2012) who state: A contemporary college or university president is expected to be first among equals with the faculty, an institutional ambassador to the world, an institution’s principle fundraiser, and most of all chief executive officer of a complex enterprise. (p. 244) The need to understand all facets of their institution is crucial to the success of the role of the president as leader and “CEO” of the college.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Financial Officer One of the most important (if not the most important) duties a president has is maintaining their institution’s financial well-being. While overall funding to colleges has increased since the financial recession of 2008, many institutions are still not being funded at the same levels they were pre-recession. As a result, colleges and university presidents find themselves vying for their share of finite federal and state financial resources. Due to the importance of this role, much of the time presidents spend with external constituents tends to be focused on finances and fundraising. Eckel and Kezar (2017) discussed how “Of the ten areas identified most frequently by long-serving presidents as taking more time today…half are directly related to securing or spending dollars…” (p. 162). Gagliardi, Espinosa, Turk and Taylor (2017) found that presidents at associate degree granting institutions spend the majority of their time on budget and financial management issues followed closely by fundraising (Table 27).

69

 The Community College Presidency

Strategic Planning Presidents at both colleges and universities are often asked to “do more with less.” This type of mentality usually leads to presidents making decisions about programming, staffing, and initiatives with a sense of frugality at the forefront. This can cause animosity and disagreement between administration and other members of the institution. Boggs and McPhail (2017) noted how even something as small as “assignment of offices of classroom space can cause dissention” (p. 4). Because of their financial responsibility to the institution, it is not uncommon for many presidents to take lead from the “for-profit” sector when making decisions that affect their institution. Higher education has generally been influenced by two business models since the middle of the 20th century: one of “public investment in education,” the other “…a corporate model…” (Schultz, 2013, para.2). Many of today’s presidents still leverage corporate culture to create overall guiding plans, called strategic plans, to provide constituents of the institution with an overarching, common set of shared goals. Strategic plans can be very useful in determining the values and goals of the institution, how they will be assessed, and how funding will be allocated. Strategic plans also assist presidents in being transparent and accountable to the public and the government about the institution’s mission and goals. Hellmich and Feeney (2017) described what they identify as three challenges leaders face when implementing a strategic: low expectations about the effectiveness of planning; that any change initiated by the plan will be at odds with current values; and the resistance that will remain after the plan has been decided.

Fundraising With college budgets shrinking in recent years, presidential responsibility for fundraising is as crucial as ever. As such, many college presidents rely on fundraising to close the funding gap. Universities, known for having a multitude of possible donors to solicit funding from, have an advantage when seeking private funding compared to community colleges. Smith, Gearhart, and Miller (2018) discussed that a unique challenge community colleges face “is that they do not have as well of a defined constituent base that four-year colleges have relied upon” (p. 152). This reality can create challenges for community college presidents when seeking donations from private donors.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Community Representative A large part of what separates community colleges from universities has to do with the emphasis community colleges place on community involvement. In fact, many community college mission statements mention community service as part of their tenants. Presidents are responsible for establishing and maintaining many different types of relationships with many community leaders. This can include government officials (such as mayors, city council representatives, or government departments), local business leaders (establishing workforce job training opportunities, partnerships, internships, and gauging skills gaps/needs), high schools (encouraging development of Early College Experience programs), collaborations with university presidents (in the form of partnership programs or transfer agreements), and community organizations (Jacobson, 2001). Maintaining a relationship with community stakeholders often benefits colleges in many ways. Governmental partnerships often come in the form of relationships with mayors, city council members, workforce investment boards (WIBs), or government organizations such as workforce replacement 70

 The Community College Presidency

programs. These partnerships can open discussions about skills gaps, funding opportunities, and other workforce needs. Relationships with local business leaders can lead to increased workforce job training opportunities, the creation of internship sites, and the ability to gauge skills gaps/needs. High schools often request assistance in helping their students research college and financial aid opportunities and often partner with colleges and universities to offer dual-enrollment opportunities. Outreach like this from community colleges can lead to a better understanding of college and financial aid, increased exposure for the college, and increased enrollment from students choosing to attend that institution. Partnering with universities can lead to collaborative program offerings or better transfer agreements (Mebolini, 2013; Xu, Ran, Fink, Jinkins, & Afet, 2018). Community organizations, such as local scholarship programs, food banks, and other non-profit entities, provide students with opportunities or resources needed to be successful, leading to increased graduation and retention rates.

Political Navigator/Advocate Constituent Relationships Community college presidents have an essential role in maintaining relationships with many local and state government representatives as well as state governing boards, boards of trustees, and accrediting bodies in the name of accountability. Many external agents play a part in institutional funding and policy and, as a result, presidents must balance the demands from multiple constituents at one time. Higher education policy is constantly shaped by government leaders who may or may not know much about the realm of education. According to Garcia (2017), “External stakeholders are asking for efficiency and effectiveness. Corporate leaders encourage the efficiency mantra: faster, better, and cheaper be applied to higher education” (p. xxi). Since many community college budgets rely on federal, state, and city appropriations, presidents are expected to have clear and transparent communication with government leaders on how tax dollars are being spent. College spending is often a topic for state leaders when creating fiscal budgets. Because of this, presidents must often have conversations with state leadership to ensure continued levels of fiscal support. Relationships with state legislators are especially important since they guide much of the funding and policy of higher education institutions. Ellis (2017b) described presidents’ roles and duties in political advocacy by stating:

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Political navigation includes internal and external stakeholders in formal (testifying) and informal (ongoing relationships) advocacy. Knowing how to connect with legislators, no matter the political party, to carry out the mission of the community college is a learned skill. Being a president does open doors to learning how to leverage that role is advantageous. Crafting arguments for local advocacy, including stories of people who are part of the respective electorate, is important. (p. 103) Presidents will also need to contend with external stakeholders that seek to influence how the institution operates. Lowry (2016) discussed how “…operating appropriations give state governments an ownership stake in public colleges and universities, which provides them with greater influence over the overall mission of each institution and important decisions that are not covered by regulations or contracts (Goldin and Katz, 1999; Lowry 2009)” (p.200). With the public eye on rising tuition in recent decades, presidents are pressed to show that the cost of college is worth the price tag. To make this case,

71

 The Community College Presidency

presidents must have conversations with leaders and representatives in all levels of government to help ensure the needs of the institution continue to be met. College governing boards and boards of trustees are other essential entities that presidents must maintain good working relations with. Presidents and boards of trustees can often times be thought of as two sides of the same whole; while the authority and duties they each utilize to make decisions is different, both need the help of the other to ensure the successful functioning of the institution. In summarizing previous research on the roles and responsibilities of college boards of trustees, Gillett-Karam (2013) described “effectiveness of boards; crises in the college; policy and fiduciary responsibilities; facilities development and management; assessment, accountability, and evaluation of themselves and college president” as general duties of trustees (p. 39).

Navigating Political Climates As the political climate in the U.S. becomes increasingly polarized, many higher education institutions have found themselves on the defensive when it comes to general public support. According to the Pew Research Center, “only half of American adults think colleges and universities are having a positive effect on the way things are going in the country these days. About four-in-ten (38%) say they are having a negative impact – up from 26% in 2012” (Parker, 2019, para. 2). In another study by the Pew Research Center, they found that “About six-in-ten Americans (61%) say the higher education system in the United States is going in the wrong direction…” (Brown, 2018, para. 1). In an era with decreasing public support for higher education as a whole, presidents, now more than ever, will need create the kind of change needed to bolster their institutions and show constituents the value they offer to society.

Academic Officer Presidents (some directly and others less so) are often times involved in some capacity with program planning at their institutions. Although many of the day-to-day duties such as hiring/firing of faculty, course development, and curriculum content are left to chairs, deans, provosts, or chief academic officers, presidents still maintain a working involvement in the creation and funding of programs. This role is usually guided by the institution’s mission and vision statements as well as community demands and student needs and can include degree program offerings, workforce (or “career-credit”) education, and community education.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Academic Programs Curricular and program decisions (as well as multiple other decisions of institutions) are often times accomplished through the workings of a concept called shared governance. Shared governance is a highly nuanced decision-making process that calls for collaboration between higher levels of leadership in order to make and confirm institutional decisions. Hendrickson, Lane, Harris, & Dorman (2013) stated that “The idea of shared governance is widely accepted in higher education, and the role of the president is critical to its success”. The president, as head of the institution, is imperative to “engage campus constituents to establish a collegial environment” (Hendrickson, Lane, Harris, & Dorman, 2013, p. 256). Presidential roles in academic decisions can vary greatly. In describing the multiple roles of the president in guiding institutional curriculum, Kelly (2011) stated: 72

 The Community College Presidency

How the president works with faculty is dependent on many factors. Typically some college administrators with direct responsibility for faculty will be included in decision-making. In many instances, the collective bar gaining unit must be consulted, as must other internal organizations that have been in place for some time, but working with the faculty is a must. (p. 44) Through these workings and collaborations, decisions about institutional programming (usually guided by the mission) are made to benefit the specific needs of the community, as well as present options for transfer to baccalaureate programs at four-year universities.

Community Education Community colleges, in order to fulfill one of the basic tenants of their missions (community service), usually offer non-credit courses along with courses relating to high school remedial education aimed at improving students’ basic reading, writing, and math skills. They also tend to offer GED preparation courses to assist students looking to obtain high school equivalency credentials. Community colleges also offer “a variety of cultural activities, concerts, festivals, sports, and forums that contribute significantly to their communities” (Crawford & Jervis, 2011, p. 30). These opportunities allow community residents to participate in a wide variety of learning experiences separate from the for-credit academic side of the institution.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Workforce Education Community colleges have taken up the mantle of providing direct career training opportunities to allow students to enter the workforce immediately after graduation. O’Banion (2016) pointed out that “community colleges became champions of economic development for their communities and regions, creating partnerships with local business and industry, chambers of commerce, and other agencies to attract new businesses and to meet the workforce education needs of existing business and industry” (p. 220). Such partnerships are important for creating pools of skilled workers. With technology rapidly growing in many industries, the need to train (or re-train) workers with relevant job skills will be essential to ensure a strong workforce in local communities. Presidential involvement and support of these programs is essential to maintaining close relationships with the relevant external constituents needed to help support such programming. According to Brna (2008), “Community college presidents who actively engage themselves with the economic development community are essential to ensuring that community college programs and services align with regional economic needs” (p. 6). Collaborations with local business/industries leaders, Workforce Improvement Boards, and local and state workforce agencies are essential in helping community college presidents shape workforce training opportunities at their institutions.

CHALLENGES OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENT The issues and challenges faced by community college presidents today are immense. With the world around them changing at a constant rate, presidents are tasked with keeping their institutions relevant

73

 The Community College Presidency

to tomorrow’s needs. This presents a myriad of challenges presidents must overcome in order to satisfy all of their constituents. Boggs and McPhail (2017) provide a good scope of challenges presidents face: …student unrest, racial and ethnic tensions, campus emergencies, guns on campus, safety and security, cybersecurity threats, increased calls for accountability, college completion rates, developmental education outcomes, athletic injuries, sexual assault, academic integrity, and many others. (p. 3) Interviews conducted by Garcia (2017) emphasize this idea:

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Being an effective community college president is a difficult job with arduous job requirements; especially with the increasing emphasis being put on outcomes, accountability, and equity, internal pressures from other administrations and faculty, and external pressures from state governments(s) and the community being served. (p. xvii) To effectively lead their institutions beyond the challenges they will face, community college presidents will need to exhibit leadership that shows understanding of context, inspires others around them, and rallies leadership at all levels of the institution towards common goals. Two decades ago, Sullivan (2001) defined the following as challenges for 21st century community colleges: a continuing scarcity of resources; changing student and staff demographics; a shift in emphasis from teaching to student learning and learning outcomes assessment; technological developments that absorb an increasing proportion of the operating budget, challenge traditional instructional methods, and require significant retraining of staff and faculty members; increasing regulation by external agencies and demands for shared governance from internal constituents; public skepticism about their ability to meet the learning needs of contemporary consumers; competition from private-sector providers of highquality training; blurring of service boundaries as a result of distance learning and Internet use; reduced emphasis on degree completion and growing interest in other forms of credentialing; and finally, a nearly unbearable barrage of information. No one would argue that these challenges do not exist today. In fact, many of them might be considered of more concern today than in previous decades. As will be discovered later in this chapter, pressure from constituents, lack of resources, technological advances, and increased calls for accountability are ever present challenges for community college presidents. The challenge, though, is for community college presidents to apply 21st century solutions to decades old problems in order to create the change needed to overcome these issues. More recently, in a report by the American Council on Education [ACE], Gagliardi, Espinosa, Turk and Taylor (2017) provided an updated list of key challenges that plague many of today’s presidents. They found that, of presidents surveyed, the number one concern for college presidents (61%) had to do with lack of funding (Table 26). Other concerns dealt with faculty resisting change (45%), lack of time to think (44%), and frustration with campus politics (27%) (Gagliardi, Espinosa, Turk & Taylor, 2017, Table 26).

Retention and Graduation An important challenge presidents struggle with usually involves retention and completion. Many community colleges are considered to be “open enrollment;” this means that they, “allow students to enroll regardless of their academic preparation and achievement” (Baime & Baum, 2016, p. 2). Because of 74

 The Community College Presidency

this, many students enter college needing remedial or developmental coursework that can require one or more semesters to complete. A major symptom of open enrollment policies is that community colleges tend to struggle with student attrition and success. The U.S. Department of Education’s most recent cohort of study (2014 cohort) shows that the three-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time degree seeking students is 31.6% (NCES, 2018, Table 326.20). The National Clearing House (NCH) is another organization that tracks student completion rates. The NCH found that among community college students, regardless of enrollment status (i.e. full-time or part-time), the six-year graduation rate (2012 cohort) for completion at any two-year institution was around 31.3% (Juszkiewicz, 2019). This, compared with the average university completion rate of around 62%, shows that community colleges struggle to graduate students within a reasonable timeframe (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020b). With many stakeholders now assessing completion and retention to determine the success of an institution, many colleges have started implementing measures to analyze factors that affect student retention and completion.

Transfer Issues

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Another primary function of the community college is to assist students intending to transfer to fouryear universities. Many students enter community college seeking to transfer to complete a baccalaureate degree; however, poor state systems and policies tend to cause many students to flail on the way to their degrees. This usually leaves it to the university and the community college systems to attempt their own transfer initiatives. Articulation agreements between community colleges and universities are common tools between higher education institutions to assist students in the transfer process (Desai, 2012; Jurgens, 2010). Articulations such as Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and “2+2” or “3+1” agreements can create smoother pathways for community college students to transfer their credit to four-year universities (Mobelini, 2013). Some community colleges (known as “Community College Baccalaureates (CCB)) have also started offering bachelor’s degrees or partnering single institutions as a way to off-set transfer issues (Mobelini, 2013; O’Banion, 2019). However, with high community college attrition, many students do not complete any credential or degree let alone make it to the transfer stage of their college careers. Morest (2013) stated that “It has frequently been the contention of community colleges that students transfer before completion, leading to low community college graduation rates” (p. 324). Even taking into account that many students that attend community colleges may not intend on completing a degree before transferring, the lack of consensus on credits’ rigor or applicability between institutions can cause students to lose credits after transferring, thus delaying their graduation or career goals. Desai (2012) pointed out that: …four-year institutions are able to hold community colleges accountable for their curriculum because they do not have to accept certain coursework from the community colleges. This higher education accountability factor makes transferring to four-year schools that much more difficult for community college students. (p. 114) Jenkins and Fink (2016) found that of the community college students they studied, only 33% successfully transferred to four-year institution to complete a baccalaureate degree and only 29% completed a credential at the community college they transferred from. This can complicate things for presidents trying to increase both credentials earned and the transfer rate at their institutions. Given that many 75

 The Community College Presidency

state governments are now implementing performance funding as an accountability measure (many of which examine credentials and transfer rates as a component), presidents are under increasing pressure to ensure their students are able to complete their degrees while also making sure that such coursework will be viable when transferring. Many community colleges also partner with local high schools to offer “dual enrollment” programs. These partnerships “allow high school students to take community college courses and enhance their probability of gaining admittance to the baccalaureate institution” (Jurgens, 2010, p. 256). Dual enrollment programs also introduce high school students to the college environment and allow them to take courses that can apply towards associate degrees at community colleges.

Academic Concerns As mentioned previously, community colleges now serve several functions to their communities, with academics that reflect this. These curricular services range from “academic transfer preparation, occupational education, continuing education, developmental education, and community service” (Cohen, Brawer & Kisker, 2013). Because of this, academic programs can often become overburdened and difficult to navigate. Baime and Baum (2016) discussd the difficulties for students to navigate such complexities:

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Community colleges’ multiple missions can unintentionally undermine student success precisely because students face so many program options. Students who enroll with only the vague goal of getting a good job or getting more education may, without proper academic counseling, wander through a variety of courses, accumulating neither the building blocks of a specific career nor the courses necessary for transfer to a four-year institution. (p. 3) Since community colleges are designed with community needs in mind, the challenge for the president will be deciding what programs will benefit student and community needs. Since many community college students must often “balance multiple work, school, and family responsibilities” along with various financial pressures, presidents will need to consider “…providing flexible scheduling, accelerated degree programs, alternative content delivery options, on-campus child care, and financial support systems…” to assist their students (Eddy, 2010, p. 5). To exacerbate this, open door policies allow students who may not be academically prepared for college-level coursework to begin college on the condition they take remedial coursework. This can be problematic for many remedial students as community colleges can have “multiple, sequential levels of remediation, and so it is possible for students to enter community colleges requiring a full year of precollege level work” (Morest, 2013, p. 323). Chen (2016) found that among the 2003-2004 cohort, 68% of students who started at a two-year institution took at least one remedial course and around 48% took two or more remedial courses between 2003-2009. Data analyzed by the U.S. Department of Education found that, of the 15-16 cohort sampled, 55% of students attending public, 2-year institutions took at least one remedial course after high school graduation (Campbell & Wescott, 2019, Table 1.7). In many of these cases, students who enter a developmental sequence do not complete the coursework. Bailey, Jaggars, and Jenkins (2015) discussed how “among students who begin on the developmental track, fewer than half successfully complete it, and even fewer move on to eventual graduation” (p. 119). With the shift in recent years away from access and towards completion as a measure of college success, these numbers create a problem for community college presidents. With the concept of accountability 76

 The Community College Presidency

now so sharply focused on higher education, how can college presidents convince stakeholders their institutions are worth funding? Clearly, college presidents will have to initiate and sustain change that pushes their institutions to the next level. In their assessment of the AACC’s 21st Century Commission for the Future of Community Colleges, Cohen, Brawer & Kisker (2013) emphasized the changes that presidents will need take on for community colleges to stay relevant: …student success rates are unacceptably low; employment preparation is inadequately related to job market needs; disconnections exist between high schools, community colleges, and baccalaureate institutions; community colleges are inadequately funded, with few incentives for students’ success. (p. 436)

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Accountability Higher education has increasingly come under fire in recent years. Calls for accountability from taxpayers, government officials, and parents/students have prompted many policy changes towards that end. With performance indicators shifting towards retention, graduation, and transfer rates as new measures, many community colleges are hard-pressed to make the grade. In many states, “tying funding to student completion metrics as the model of funding” is becoming increasingly popular (Garcia, 2017, p. xix). Although the charge has been mostly upheld by individual states, performance funding allows state governments to control how much funding colleges in their state receive based on the aforementioned measures (along with other factors). McClendon, Heller, and Young (2005) reinforce this thought when they stated that, “Through the adoption of performance funding and performance budgeting initiatives, state governments have attempted to hold public colleges and universities more “accountable” to the public by tying funding to demonstrated outcomes at the campus level (p. 366). Because of these types of policies, higher education can no longer afford to invest in risky decisions that may not pay out for the institution or taxpayers. Cohen, Brawer, and Kisker (2013) discussed how, “In an era of budget deficits and growing distrust of governmental investment in social institutions, the colleges’ mantra—“we serve anyone, anywhere, for as long as they like”—no longer holds sway” (p. 35). The trick, then, for community college presidents is (and will continue to be) to have a firm understanding of the relationship between the performance of the institution and its impact on finances. While performance funding affects universities as well, the fact that universities tend to have higher retention and graduation rates than community colleges gives them a leg up in the funding arena. States that have implemented performance funding measures will make funding options generally harder for community colleges, where graduation and retention rates are typically far lower than that of their university counterparts. Reed (2017) pointed out how “a student who transfers after a year to a four-year college and subsequently graduates with a bachelor’s degree shows up in the community college statistics as a dropout” (p. 428). He goes on to say how “Such measurement errors have political consequences: legislators who don’t know any better may see a 20% graduation rate as a travesty, rather than a sign that they’re counting the wrong way” (Reed, 2017, p. 428). These types of statistical gaps can have real consequences for community college funding policy. Community college presidents will need to place more emphasis on student success, outcomes, and programming, as well as non-academic support to retain students and see them to graduation.

77

 The Community College Presidency

Diversity and Inclusion A growing issue that college presidents are responsible for addressing are calls for increased diversity and inclusion from stakeholders. As discussed previously, while many community college presidents are White males, the demographic is shifting (albeit, rather slowly) to include more women and persons of color. This does not address, though, how presidents handle increasing diversity among faculty members; nor does it address how presidents work to make their campuses more inclusive for underrepresented student groups. In examining NCES data, Morest (2013) discussed that “Overall 15% of students at community colleges are black and 35% of black postsecondary students attend community colleges. Hispanic students comprise 18% of community college students and 47% of Hispanic postsecondary students attend community colleges (NCES 2011b, Table 241)” (p. 321).While these figures do not include other underrepresented groups such as Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, Asian, and LGBTQIA+, increasing representation of these groups in institutional ranks will assist presidents in creating more inclusive campuses.

Technology

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Advances in technology over the past few decades have changed the landscape of higher education. Technology is at the forefront of how many colleges operate and how many presidents conduct business. Social media, for example, has changed how presidents connect with staff and students. While previous college presidents have certainly needed the same social and communicative skills as today’s presidents, social media has caused presidents to rethink the way they communicate to their constituents and recruit talent for the college. The COVID-19 pandemic brought about another great shift in higher education. It has caused the entire industry to re-evaluate how faculty teach in the classroom, why those methods have persisted, and what needs to change to provide students with quality educational experiences in this new environment. Many institutions, especially community colleges, found themselves unprepared for the shift to online instruction. Not only do many community colleges still rely on face-to-face courses as their primary conduit for instruction, many faculty are ill-prepared to teach in an online format. McMurtrie (2020) discussed that, “While just about every professor now has some experience with learning-management systems and videoconferencing or other tech tools, relatively few have been trained in effective teaching practices or online-course design (para. 8). For many college presidents, trying to balance budget cuts due to re-routed funding and the need for updates in technology, as well as ensuring the safety of faculty, staff and students, will be challenging to say the least.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE In order to be effective in leading their institutions through future challenges, community college presidents will need to build and maintain a myriad of skills and relationships. In order to assist in cultivating these skills and qualities, community colleges will need to create in-house pipelines to train future leaders that can take over the mantle of the presidency. They will also need to provide mentorship opportunities, encourage doctoral studies and skill attainment, and identify possible candidates that can be shaped into future higher education leaders (Ellis & Garcia, 2017; McNair, 2015). Hendrickson, 78

 The Community College Presidency

Lane, Harris, and Dorman (2013) suggested that, in order to develop future institutional leaders, colleges should “support leadership development initiatives by identifying and cultivating individuals with leadership potential early in their careers and help them navigate the often confusing options they face for career advancement” (p. 261). Conscious efforts will also need to be made to ensure the continued increase and support of persons of color and women in presidential positions. As pending retirements start to change the presidential landscape, the upcoming vacancies will make it especially important for institutions to recognize potential talent and offer these individuals opportunities to improve and advance towards upper leadership.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION The higher education landscape is set to change drastically over the next few decades. The COVID-19 outbreak has created, and likely will continue to create, many challenges for community college leadership; however, it also creates a unique opportunity. There is a saying that states that “nothing pushes evolution like conflict,” and this moment in higher education is a prime example of that. Community college presidents and leadership have been faced with an ultimatum: adapt or die. The idea of a large shift in how we think of education has been in the works for decades. Over 25 years ago, Barr and Tagg (1995) published From Teaching to Learning- A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education. This work highlighted many of the issues within the higher education system and proposed changes that would be examined for years to come. To question the entirety of higher education and its purpose; this is where we again find ourselves. In discussing the transformational shifts needed for colleges, Barr and Tagg (1995) wrote “That such a restructuring is needed is beyond question: the gap between what we say we want of higher education and what its structures provide has never been wider” (p. 14). In 2015, the League of Innovation released their Trends Report that identified seven trends that community college leaders will need to navigate in order to keep their institutions relevant in the coming years. Those trends were access and completion, learning outcomes, learning models, working the regional educational ecosystems, data and analytics, and future-ready work (de los Santos & Milliron, 2015). To achieve these goals and meet the needs of current and future stakeholders, college presidents will need to “understand both the current context and the constancy of change-and the respective impacts on an administration” (Eaton, 2007). To improve institutional success, current and future community college presidents will need to ensure their competency in the four main roles they have as leaders of their institutions. With increased scrutiny of higher education and an increasingly polarized political climate, higher education faces challenges that will require quick decision making, flexible leadership, and an understanding of all aspects of institutional context and importance. With the future of higher education uncertain and the current state-of-affairs in flux, professionals who have decided to carry the torch of the presidency have many challenges ahead. Most importantly, though, will be the need for future and current presidents to decide what kind of presidency they want to create; what kind of story they will tell. Plinske (2017) points out that: Some presidencies are stories of managing enrollment growth, expanding to meet a community’s growing needs. Some presidencies are stories of transition, leading the institution to a new place to meet

79

 The Community College Presidency

changing needs. A few presidencies, the most special and carefully crafted presidencies, are stories of the creation of remarkable and learning environments that dramatically improve student success. (p. 29) While the goals and missions of community colleges have remained constant in recent years, how institutions adapt to new and changing needs will shape their goals and relevance. For college presidents, how one chooses to guide their institutions to meet those goals will be different. As discussed, issues such as accountability, student success, academic programming, technology, and financial concerns will be challenges that shape current and future presidencies. Finding leaders with the will and capability to lead community colleges into the future will be essential to ensure that institutions are able to remain relevant and adaptable for the foreseeable future.

REFERENCES Aspen Institute and Achieving the Dream. (2013). Crisis and opportunity: Aligning the community college presidency with student success. Baily, T., Jaggers, S. S., & Davis, J. (2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges. Academic Press. Baime, D., Baum, S., & Urban Institute. (2016). Community colleges: Multiple missions, diverse student bodies, and a range of policy solutions. Urban Institute. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12-26. Retrieved from http://docushare3.dcc. edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Version-3000/BarrTagg.pdf Bastedo, M. N., Altbach, P. G., & Gumport, P. J. (2016). American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (4th ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. Boggs, G. R., & McPhail, C. J. (2016). Practical leadership in community colleges: Navigating today’s challenges. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com Brna, M. J. (2008). Linking workforce development to economic development: A casebook for community colleges. In W. J. Rothwell & P. E. Gerity (Eds.), Community College Press. Available from American Association of Community Colleges.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Brown, A. (2018). Most Americans say higher ed is heading in wrong direction, but partisans disagree on why. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/26/mostamericans-say-higher-ed-is-heading-in-wrong-direction-but-partisans-disagree-on-why/ Bumphus, W. G. (2017). Foreword. In M. M. Ellis & L. L. Garcia (Eds.), Generation x presidents leading community colleges: New challenges, new leaders (pp. xi–xii). Rowman and Littlefield. Campbell, T., & Wescott, J. (2019). Profile of undergraduate students: Attendance, distance and remedial education, degree program and field of study, demographics, financial aid, financial literacy, employment, and military status: 2015–16 (NCES 2019-467). US Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics., https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019467.pdf

80

 The Community College Presidency

Chen, X. (2016). Remedial Coursetaking at U.S. Public 2- and 4-Year Institutions: Scope, Experiences, and Outcomes (NCES 2016-405). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch Chronicle of Higher Education. (2020). Age distribution of college students by sector, fall 2018. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/age-distribution-of-college-students-by-sectorfall-2018 Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2013). The American community college. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Cooney, M. A., & Borland, K. W. (2018). The next generation of community college presidents: Results of a national study on who they are, how they prepare, and how they lead. Journal of Research on the College Presidency. Retrieved from https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/wordpressua.uark.edu/dist/f/330/ files/2018/12/Research-Article-1-Cooney-and-Borland-rev2-120518-pwke09.pdf Crawford, C., & Jervis, A. (2011). Community colleges today. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 4(8), 29–32. doi:10.19030/cier.v4i8.5884 De los Santos, G., & Milliron, M. (2015). League for innovation trends report. League for Innovation in the Community College. Retrieved from https://www.league.org/sites/default/files/private_data/imported/ league_books/KeyTrendsReport2015_FINAL.pdf Desai, S. A. (2012). Is comprehensiveness taking its toll on community colleges?: An in-depth analysis of community colleges’ missions and their effectiveness. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(2), 111–121. doi:10.1080/10668920802611211 Dougherty, K. J., Lahr, H., & Morest, V. S. (2017). Reforming the American Community College: Promising Changes and Their Challenges. CCRC Working Paper No. 98. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/ attachments/reforming-american-community-college-promising-changes-challenges.pdf Eaton, J. S. (2007). The Cohen contribution to community college leadership. Community College Review, 34(3), 202–214. doi:10.1177/0091552106296645

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2016). The interesecting authority of boards, presidents, and faculty: Toward shared leadership. In M. N. Bastedo, P. G. Altbach, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the 21st century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 155–187). Academic Press. Eddy, P. L. (2010). Community college leadership: A multidimensional model for leading change. Stylus Publishing, LLC. Eddy, P. L., & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2006). Emerging definitions of leadership in higher education: New visions of leadership or same old “hero” leader? Community College Review, 34(1), 5–26. doi:10.1177/0091552106289703 Ellis, M. M. (2017a). Why we became and remain presidents. In M. M. Ellis & L. L. Garcia (Eds.), Generation x presidents leading community colleges: New challenges, new leaders (pp. 13–24). Rowman and Littlefield.

81

 The Community College Presidency

Ellis, M. M. (2017b). Preparing for the presidency: What they did not teach. In M. M. Ellis & L. L. Garcia (Eds.), Generation x presidents leading community colleges: New challenges, new leaders (pp. 95–108). Rowman and Littlefield. Ellis, M. M., & Garcia, L. (2017). Generation X presidents leading community colleges: New challenges, new leaders. Rowman & Littlefield. Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., Taylor, M., & Chessman, H. M. (2019). Race and ethnicity in higher education: A status report. Retrieved from https://1xfsu31b52d33idlp13twtos-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/ wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Race-and-Ethnicity-in-Higher-Education.pdf Gagliardi, J. S., Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., & Taylor, M. (2017). The American college president study: 2017. American Council on Education, Center for Policy Research and Strategy. TIAA Institute. Garcia, L. (2017). Introduction: Generation x presidents and new challenges. In M. M. Ellis & L. L. Garcia (Eds.), Generation x presidents leading community colleges: New challenges, new leaders (pp. xv–xxiv). Rowman and Littlefield. Gillett-Karam, R. (2013). The Future-Shaping Function of the Governing Board. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(162), 37–44. doi:10.1002/cc.20057 Grasmick, L., Davies, T. G., & Harbour, C. P. (2012). Participative leadership: Perspectives of community college presidents. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(2), 67–80. doi:10.1080/10668920802421496 Heifetz, R. A., Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press. Hellmich, D. M., & Feeney, G. J. (2017). Meeting the challenges of expanding missions through strategic planning. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2017(180), 85–94. doi:10.1002/cc.20284 Hendrickson, R. M., & Ikenberry, S. O. (2013). Academic Leadership and Governance of Higher Education : A Guide for Trustees, Leaders, and Aspiring Leaders of Two- and Four-year Institutions. Stylus

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hendrickson, R. M., Lane, J. E., Harris, J. T., & Dorman, R. H. (2013). Academic leadership and governance of higher education: A guide for trustees, leaders, and aspiring leaders of two- and four-year institutions Hudson, D. (2015, January 8). The president proposes to make community college free for responsible students for 2 years. Obama White House. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/01/08/ president-proposes-make-community-college-free-responsible-students-2-years Jacobson, D. L. (2001). A new agenda for education partnerships. Change, 33(5), 44–53. doi:10.1080/00091380109601818 Jenkins, P. D., & Fink, J. (2016). Tracking transfer: New measures of institutional and state effectiveness in helping community college students attain bachelor’s degrees. Academic Press. Retrieved from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/tracking-transfer-institutional-state-effectiveness.pdf

82

 The Community College Presidency

Johnson, H. L. (2017). Pipelines, pathways, and institutional leadership: An update on the status of women in higher education. American Council on Education. Center for Policy Research and Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/HES-Pipelines-Pathways-and-Institutional-Leadership-2017.pdf Jurgens, J. C. (2010). The evolution of community colleges. The College Student Affairs Journal, 28(2), 251–261. https://search.proquest.com/docview/737539278?accountid=8361 Juszkiewicz, J. (2017). Trends in community college enrollment and completion data. Academic Press. Retrieved from https://www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Final_CC-Enrollment-2020_730_1. pdf Kelly, J. T. (2011). Redefining institutional priorities. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2011(156), 41–48. doi:10.1002/cc.465 Kim, Y. M., & Cook, B. J. (2012). Diversity at the top: The American college president 2012. On Campus with Women, 41(1). Lowry, R. C. (2016). Subsidizing institutions vs. outputs vs. individuals: States’ choices for financing public postsecondary education. Journal of Public Administration: Research and Theory, 26(2), 197–210. doi:10.1093/jopart/muv024 Ma, J., & Baum, S. (2016). Trends in community colleges: Enrollment, prices, student debt, and completion. College Board Research Brief, 4, 1–23. McMurtrie, B. (2020, May 5). Are colleges ready for a different kind of teaching this fall? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Are-Colleges-Ready-for-a/248710 McNair, D. E. (2015). Deliberate disequilibrium: Preparing for a community college presidency. Community College Review, 43(1), 72–88. doi:10.1177/0091552114554831 Mobelini, D. C. (2013). Community colleges: Partnerships in higher education. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(8), 629–635. doi:10.1080/10668921003723151 Morest, V. (2013). From access to opportunity: The evolving social roles of community colleges. The American Sociologist, 44(4), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-013-9194-5

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Table 105.85 Number of educational institutions, by level and control of institution: Selected years, 1980-81 through 2017-18 [Data file]. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_105.50.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Sources of financial aid. The condition of education. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cuc.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2020b). Undergraduate retention and graduation rates. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ctr.asp

83

 The Community College Presidency

Nooks, K. A. (2017). New strategic planning. In M. M. Ellis & L. L. Garcia (Eds.), Generation x presidents leading community colleges: New challenges, new leaders (pp. 51–58). Rowman and Littlefield. O’Banion, T. U. (2019). A brief history of workforce education in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(3), 216–223. doi:10.1080/10668926.2018.1547668 Parker, K. (2019). The growing partisan divide in views of higher education. PEW Research Center: Social and Demographic Trends, 19. Pierce, D. (2015). Building toward completion. Community College Journal, 85(4), 24. https://search. proquest.com/trade-journals/building-toward-completion/docview/1706372314/se-2?accountid=8361 Plinske, K. A. (2017). Being called to the presidency during tumultuous times. In M. M. Ellis & L. L. Garcia (Eds.), Generation x presidents leading community colleges: New challenges, new leaders (pp. 25–34). Rowman and Littlefield. Provasnik, S., & Planty, M. (2008). Community Colleges: Special Supplement to The Condition of Education 2008. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2008-033. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502349.pdf Reed, M. (2017). Community colleges, shared governance, and democracy. PS, Political Science & Politics, 50(2), 428–429. doi:10.1017/S1049096516002961 Roueche, J. E., & American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. (1989). Shared vision: Transformational leadership in american community colleges. American Association for Community and Junior Colleges. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED307013 .pdf Schuh, J. H., Jones, S. R., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.). (2010). Student services: A handbook for the profession. John Wiley & Sons. Smith, E. A., Gearhart, G. D., & Miller, M. T. (2018). Planned giving in community college development efforts: Plans, strategies, and luck. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 18(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v18i2.554 Sullivan, L. G. (2001). Four generations of community college leadership. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(8), 559–572. doi:10.1080/106689201316880759

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education. JHU Press. Xu, D., Ran, F. X., Fink, J., Jenkins, D., & Afet, D. (2018). Collaboratively clearing the path to a baccalaureate degree: Identifying effective 2- to 4-year college transfer partnerships. Community College Review, 46(3), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552118772649

84

85

Chapter 6

From the Playing Field to the Executive Office Regina Simmons Pfeifer University, USA Ryan A. Miller University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Mark M. D’Amico University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA

ABSTRACT

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Small, private colleges are run by a president, who sets strategy, while working with senior-level staf and faculty to fulfll mission. The president of a small, private college must set the tone for leadership and communication, devise strategic plans, and appoint staf to accomplish those initiatives, raise funds, and attend campus events and cheer on students. Athletics in the small, private college setting is an important component for enrollment, campus life, and budget. NCAA Division III institutions, largely small, private colleges, incorporate athletics into campus life and position the student before the athlete. The presidents of these institutions are keenly aware of how athletics infuences the small, private college landscape. This chapter explores the convergence of the unique role of the small, private college presidency and the infuence of athletics. The authors explore the extant literature and present key fndings from a case study of one small, private college president and their view of the infuence of athletics on the institution and the role of presidency.

INTRODUCTION In a 2018 report from the American Council on Education, college presidents reported facing an uncertain future with accumulating internal and external pressures of demographic shifts for the traditional collegeaged population, changing financial foundations, and an increasing public distrust of the management of higher education (Soares et al., 2018). And, that was prior to the 2020 global pandemic that changed how DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6560-5.ch006

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

education is delivered to the masses. Cancellations of spring and fall NCAA championships in 2020, along with many athletic conferences and institutions deciding against playing competitive varsity athletics, brings the leadership of the small, private, Division III college to a critical moment at this historic time. Small, private colleges and universities sit on the brink of a crisis. Moody’s (2017) forecasted approximately 1% of private, non-profit institutions closing per year, an average of about 15 to 16 institutions, specifically calling attention to about 750 institutions with operating expenses of less than $100 million annually. These institutions are tuition dependent, building yearly operating budgets on net tuition revenue paid by students (Chabotar, 2010; Docking & Curton, 2015). The enrollment and retention of students is critical to the financial survival and success of small, private colleges and universities. Recent years of unsteady enrollment and tuition revenue, and turbulent returns on endowment investments left the small, private college in survival mode (Marcy, 2017), all prior to the pandemic and potential catastrophic declines of enrollment and revenue. With a critical dependence on enrollment, most less-selective, small, private colleges have studentathlete populations as high as one-quarter to one-half of traditional undergraduates (Beaver, 2014; National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2019). At small, private Division III schools, athletics reports through various structures, including the enrollment division, the student affairs division, or, at times, as a direct report to the institutional president. In addition, the institutional president sits in a position to view the breadth of different functional areas and how athletics integrates into mission, values, and priorities. Few Division III student-athletes have ability to make it “pro,” so curricular and extra-curricular opportunities matter for connection, development, and retention (NCAA, 2019). Case study and anecdotal evidence exists that demonstrates the benefit of athletics in enrollment and finance contributions (Beaver, 2014; Hearn et al., 2018; Katz et al., 2015), but fail to address larger picture of how athletics influences strategic goals and institutional mission at small, private colleges. Often, athletic directors are considered to be the highest ranking official for collegiate sports; however, college presidents are integrally positioned as the chief executive officer and institutional authority regarding athletics. Decisions for their institutions, within athletic conferences, and the different divisions of the NCAA are guided and determined by institutional presidents (NCAA Division III Manual, 2018). College presidents are responsible for setting strategic mission and goals, and they have operational oversight of the institution. Fewer organizational layers exist at small, private colleges, allowing for college presidents to have impact on day-to-day operations. Their unique position allows the college president to understand the interconnectedness of athletics with various departments and divisions across campus. This chapter explores the convergence of influences of the institutional president and their use of college athletics for institutional viability and enrollment. We begin with an exploration of the literature, including a focus on the role of the president, their work with governing boards, and how athletics intersects with key priorities and even institutional survival in the small, private college setting. Then, the authors present key findings from a case study of one small, private college president and their view of the influence of athletics on the institution and the role of presidency. The chapter will conclude with recommendations for continued research.

UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL, PRIVATE COLLEGE PRESIDENCY Small, private colleges fill a unique space in the higher education landscape in terms of governance, the role of the presidency, operations, and influences. Small, private colleges are run by a president, who 86

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

sets strategy, while working with senior-level staff and faculty to fulfill the institutional mission (Chu, 1982; Docking & Curton, 2015; Hearn et al., 2018). Public institutions have multiple layers of governance, often entrenched in the political landscape of their state government, whereas a private institution is led by an institutional president who is appointed by the institution’s board of trustees (Pierce, 2012).

The Role of the President College presidents face expectations that are both high and wide. An institution’s president does not carry the responsibility to execute daily functions and tasks; however, presidents set the context for how the important work around campus is accomplished (Eckel & Kezar, 2011). Internally, presidents are deemed responsible for understanding and setting the tone for institutional culture and pride among faculty, staff, and students. Externally, a president helps generate support, creates public understanding of the institution’s worth, and remains informed about new challenges facing higher education (Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities, 2006). Eckel and Kezar (2011) described the role of the president as this:

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The nature of this position requires a single individual to be a leader, academic, planner, mediator, politician, advocate, investment banker, conductor, showman, church elder, supporter, cheerleader, and, of course, manager. These roles, and many more functions-including providing leadership; setting institutional strategy; planning; financing; and ensuring compliance with multiple regulations, laws, and policies (and politics)—are the domain of a campus head. (p. 279) In recent years, the Chronicle of Higher Education asked, “is being a college president the hardest job in America?” (Thomason, 2017). Constant critiques from media and government provoke that question. With tuition costs rising higher than the rate of inflation, student debt growing in unprecedented ways, and people asking if a college degree is worth it (Stimpert, 2004), challenges and opportunities abound for college presidencies, particularly those in small, private settings. Fewer administrative layers exist at a smaller institution, increasing the likelihood that an institution’s president can build meaningful relationships with key stakeholders. In doing so, responding to cultural changes or negative situations does not create a chaotic environment, but one prepared to adjust, adapt, or communicate appropriate responses. Describing the president as the chief entrepreneur, Eckel and Kezar (2011) noted that as the president’s tenure at an institution progresses, that president is pulled into more externally focused activities. This is primarily due to seeking a growing donor base to help fund the advancement and operations of an institution. The majority of presidents describe focusing more than half of their time on issues of finance, including fundraising, budget, expansion, and renovation (Eckel & Kezar, 2011; Gagliardi et al., 2017; Soares et al., 2018). The president also spends time advocating for higher education among policy makers, with private institutions leveraging consortiums of similar institutions in their state or region (Gagliardi et al., 2017). The president of a small, private college may be in a position to impact more significant change in a shorter time period than counterparts at larger or public institutions. With fewer senior administrators, a more hands-on role in day-to-day operations, and an enhanced role in the community, especially when located in smaller towns, the leader of a small college can affect all aspects of a college’s operations. It is this influence both within and outside the walls of the campus that positions the leader to signifi87

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

cantly influence the culture of an institution. The president plays the symbolic role of being the face of the institution, resulting in the images they portray and the things they do as being representative of the institution, not the individual (Eckel & Kezar, 2011). Effective presidents understand the context and the culture in which they are working, and must as the singularly most influential person on campus (Kezar & Eckel, 2002). Consequently, with the average tenure of college presidents dropping to six and a half years (Gagliardi et al., 2017), presidents report how a lack of continuity in leadership can negatively affect culture on a campus (Soares et al., 2018), which can serve as a negative disruption to mission fulfillment. In a follow-up roundtable discussion to the 2017 American College President study by the American Council on Education, current and former presidents outlined the importance of innovative leaders in times of change (Soares et al., 2018). Recent years show that turbulent external forces will continue to be a common theme facing college and university leadership. Creating institutional culture reliant on making data-driven decisions provides a foundation for presidents to turn a challenging predicament into a success (Soares et al., 2018). Additionally, presidents reported that they are able to see opportunities in troubled times when they know their students deeply and hold positive relationships with faculty and governing bodies (Soares et al., 2018). In an environment that puts a premium on enrollment for revenue and athletics for both recruiting and institutional reputation, today’s small, private college president must be both a student and driver of institutional culture and action (Eckel & Kezar, 2011; Levin, 1998), as well as serve as “chief entrepreneur” (Eckel & Kezar, 2011).

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Presidency in Broader Governance It is important to note that there is no one commonly shared definition for the role and scope of a college president (Birnbaum & Eckel, 2005); however, they are often deemed to be the chief executive officer of the operations of their institution. As such, they are expected to work through administrative, political, and entrepreneurial roles within their institution (Birnbaum & Eckel, 2005). As a president works to set mission and strategy, they face challenging complexities to develop institutional coherence (Eckel & Kezar, 2011). At the small, private college, presidents often report to a board of trustees (Birnbaum, 1989; Eckel & Kezar, 2011; Pierce, 2012). The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (2014) described board members as generally proven leaders who are coming from outside of the higher education system; therefore, board members need to understand the culture of the institution and seek strategic governance with campus partners. Birnbaum and Eckel (2005) discussed the historic development of board membership, where board members were accomplished businessmen who viewed the institution as they would a business, not necessarily the commonly held belief of education as a public good. Higher education sits in a unique position, separate from the model of a business firm, where different entities share control and power. The Board of Trustees selects, hires, and terminates the college president. The president is held responsible for the operations of the institution, while working alongside the faculty who exert control over the academic directives of an institutions. During the academic revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, faculty began to assert their role to gain influence and governance over the educational activities of their institutions (Birnbaum & Eckel, 2005), changing the historical context as the president being seen as the first among equals (Birnbaum & Eckel, 2005; Eckel & Kezar, 2011). Currently, the president operates between two organizational layers, the board of trustees and the faculty, and they are accountable to both entities (Birnbaum & Eckel, 2005). Nearly 60% of presidents 88

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

report that faculty least understood their challenges (Gagliardi et al., 2017). The relationship between the administrative governance (presidents and vice presidents) and professional/academic governance is loosely coupled, particularly when examining divisional or departmental extensions, making central coordination and oversight challenging (Birnbaum, 1992; Eckel & Kezar, 2011). This creates a struggle for the president to build a strong organizational efficiency because of delays in communication/feedback loops and weak central coordination (Eckel & Kezar, 2011). Presidents who acknowledge and work within the unique governance structures of higher education are more likely to find success (Birnbaum, 1992). While presidents seek to be the agents of change within an institution, faculty governing boards are working to ensure that academic rigor and traditions are upheld (Soares et al., 2018). The resulting tension can create a crippling deadlock for progress or leverage diverse perspectives for innovative responses. Soares et al. (2108) noted that effective leaders will see faculty governance as an ally, equipped with talent and expertise to help steward their institution through challenges.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Athletics and the Small, Private College Experience Small, private colleges are often nestled into rural or sparsely populated communities. These institutions are driven to provide an intimate experience with small class sizes and rely heavily on tuition revenue in order to make ends meet each year (Docking & Currant, 2015; Eide, 2018). Small, private colleges number into the hundreds and enroll more than a million students (NCES, 2019), athletics is a particularly important part of their existence, and their survival is in doubt. Many small, private colleges compete in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division III level. In fact, approximately 80% of the 451 Division III member institutions are small and private with most being less selective, admitting more than 50% of applicants (Beaver, 2014, Eide, 2018; NCAA, 2019). Division III does not award athletic scholarship money and focuses on the holistic development of both the student and the athlete. Accounting for a quarter to half of total undergraduate student enrollment across small, private Division III institutions, athletics are an enrollment strategy, an engagement opportunity, a learning experience, and a campus life stimulus (Astin, 1984; Beaver, 2014; NCAA, 2019). Many small, private colleges are liberal arts institutions, focusing on creating a foundational knowledge across the curriculum and teaching students how to critically think and learn from multiple academic disciplines (Hilbun & Mamiseishvili, 2016); however, students and parents believe employers want college graduates to have hard skills and pre-professional training as they enter the labor force (Baker & Baldwin, 2015; Docking & Curton, 2015; Marcy, 2017). Small, private colleges must evaluate how to balance the tension between remaining true to a liberal arts education while providing academic offerings to meet the interest of prospective students (Baker & Baldwin, 2015). While praise exists for the value of the liberal arts education (Hersh, 1999, Hilburn & Mamiseishvili, 2016; Kuh, 2005), the structure of these small, private, liberal arts colleges cost more money to operate than public institutions (Astin & Lee, 1972; Docking & Curton, 2015; Eide, 2018). Small, private colleges are able to offer a lower faculty and staff to student ratio, smaller class sizes, and personal attention for both the achiever and the underachiever (Docking & Curton, 2015). Students are known when they do well, and they are not anonymous when they struggle (Eide, 2018; Hersh, 1999). Undergraduates have a chance to make immediate connections with faculty to start on research programs early or make an impact with student involvement as early as their first year (Eide, 2015; Hersh, 1999, Kuh, 2005). 89

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

The rise of sport at American colleges and universities sits in a unique, prominent, and unparalleled position compared to education in other nations. As Chu (1982) stated, “only in America has sport become an official responsibility of the educational organization” (p. 53). The brand of interconnectedness between athletics and the institutions does not exist in other countries for higher education (Rauschnable et al., 2016). In the United States, however, intercollegiate athletics was seen as a method to unite a higher education population that was growing in diversity (Chu, 1982). In the early 1970s, the NCAA implemented the division classification system to align institutions and create order with how athletic scholarships were awarded (Beaver, 2014; NCAA, 2019) and to account for the growing discrepancies in size between public and private institutions (Katz et al., 2015). Colleges and universities were separated primarily based on institutional mission and size, with Divisions I and II averaging larger institutional enrollment and offering athletic scholarships. Division III would follow the Ivy League college model and award financial aid based on academic merit and need rather than athletics (Beaver, 2014; NCAA, 2019; Snyder & Waterstone, 2015). Division III colleges have a median enrollment of 1,739, as compared with 10,000 for Division I (NCAA, 2019). For student-athletes, the importance of a college degree is influenced by cultural messages, families, and coaches of student-athletes (Adler & Adler, 1985; Brewer et al., 1993; Goss et al., 2006). While the tension of athletics and academics exists on all divisional levels of athletic competition, the mission of Division III, in its purest form, creates structure to provide balance between the academic development of a student and the experience for the student-athlete. Division III “promoted relationships over results and athletics fit into the institutional landscape like many other extracurricular opportunities afforded to young people on a small college campus” (Snyder &Waterstone, 2015, p. 198). Barlow and Hickey (2014) contended that the mission of Division III aligns to the mission of the small, private liberal arts college. From shorter playing periods and true off-seasons to more time focused on academics, student-athletes have the margin in their schedules to gain meaningful experience outside of their sport. Participation in college athletics is valued as a part of the overall college experience, and student-athletes have the time and ability to complete their academic requirements (Bandré, 2011; Barlow & Hickey, 2014; Katz et al., 2015). As the 2018 NCAA Division III manual states:

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Colleges and universities in Division III place highest priority on the overall quality of the educational experience and on the successful completion of all students’ academic programs. They seek to establish and maintain an environment in which a student-athlete’s athletic activities are conducted as an integral part of the student-athlete’s educational experience, and in which coaches play a significant role as educators. (p. 7) Division III guides the implementation of athletics into the college or university structure through a philosophy that exhorts the student before the athlete in the development of the whole person (Snyder & Waterstone, 2015). Plenty of research exists describing the experience of student-athletes on each divisional level; however, a disproportionate amount focuses on Division I. Gains have been made in research regarding Division III athletics, focusing on the identity of and successful balance student and athlete (Huml, 2018; Mignano et al., 2006; Navarro & Malvaso, 2015; Paule-Koba & Farr, 2013; Schroder, 2001; Sturm et al., 2011). The National Survey of Student Engagement data show that Division III student-athletes interact with faculty more than peers at Division I or II institutions (Umbach et al., 2006). Umbach et al. (2006) also found that students, regardless of whether they are athletes or not, at small, private institutions are 90

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

more engaged than other types of colleges or universities. Richards and Aires (1999) concluded that participation in Division III athletics provided measurable growth for student-athletes and did not impede academic achievement. The Division III student-athlete spends about 30.5 to 36 hours per week on academics (Barlow & Hickey, 2014), which supports the belief that students report a more significant academic challenge at Division III institutions (Umbach et al., 2006). The notion of a true offseason, where time on sport is significantly limited, provides student-athletes opportunities for deep involvement beyond their sport without sacrificing playing time (Schroeder, 2000). In addition, Division III’s limitation of time spent on sport allows for students to pursue internships, semesters studying abroad, and other time-intensive activities. Astin (1984) connected the concept of involvement to the learning components of persistence and effort. Astin noted an active participation, rather than a passive experience, is critical for genuine involvement to happen. For the development of students to occur, meaningful experiences must take place in the academic realm. Student-athletes experience involvement through their sport. In addition, the Division III model provides time, structure, and opportunity for those student-athletes to gain involvement and development in their sport, their academics, and in other areas of campus life. The primary purpose of the educational engagement for student-athletes should not be compromised for the attainment of winning in competition (Emerson et al., 2009). In summary, for the small, private college, sustainability rests in the ability to adapt to student needs and financial situations while offering an educational experience that substantiates value to meet the cost. If an institution cannot enroll enough students to continually meet budgets, that college risks shutting its doors. A college closure not only hurts the students, faculty, staff, and alumni of the institution. The impact ripples through the communities and villages incorporated on the backs of the economic outputs from these small colleges (Docking & Curton, 2015). Demographic shifts of traditionally-aged students continue to evoke fluctuating enrollment for the enrollment and tuition dependent institutions. The president of the small, private college is positioned to regularly observe, influence, and respond to daily needs on a campus, including the ever-present role of athletics. The intersection of the small, private college and student-athletes creates a potentially beneficial situation. Student-athletes have the chance to remain competitive in a sport for up to four more years, and colleges are able to yield student-athletes to contribute to enrollment. In addition, the institution has the chance to influence the student-athlete’s curricular and co-curricular development while blending their time on sport. College presidents are tasked with oversight and decision making regarding athletics for their institution from multiple agencies, including the NCAA, their athletic conferences, and regional accrediting agencies (NCAA Division III Manual, 2018; Snyder & Waterstone, 2015). Presidents are uniquely suited to provide strategic views and direction of how athletics and student-athletes are able to integrate and influence institutional mission and culture. Table 1 captures key themes that are associated with the presidency at a small college, contextual issues in small colleges, and the importance of athletics. Themes that occur throughout the bodies of literature include a focus on mission, engagement of stakeholders, and resources. The case study below explores leadership in one small, private, Division III college followed by a discussion of key themes with a comparison with previous literature.

91

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

CASE STUDY Table 1. Summary of Key Themes Roles of the small, private college president

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

     • Sets institutional strategy and fulfills institutional mission      • Reports to board of trustees      • Shares governance over curricular matters with faculty      • Engages internal constituencies: students, faculty, and staff      • Connects to external constituencies: alumni, donors, policy makers, and community partners      • Assumes responsibility for oversight of athletics

Contextual issues at small, private colleges

Importance of athletics to small, private college

     • Enrollment driven, relying on net tuition revenue to create budget      • Instable population trends for traditional-aged students      • Student retention measures are critical for maintaining reliable enrollment and stable budget situations      • Small colleges allow students to get involved immediately and make an impact in co-curricular roles from their first year

     • Division III focuses on the studentathlete by not allowing athletic scholarship awards      • No bench limits at Division III, meaning rosters can be as large as the institution cares to support      • Focus in scheduling athletic competitions limits time away from class      • Limited playing season and limited practice time during the off season creates multiple engagement chances for students      • Coaches first emphasize recruitment and retention of student-athletes (winning is secondary or tertiary)

The present study was designed as a case study. Cases are bounded, defined by specific parameters, and provide a rich and in-depth examination of the situation in its real-world context (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Hancock & Algozzine, 2011; Yin, 2018). Each case must be treated as its own entity (Stake, 2005). Case study report, or in this chapter a case description, includes pseudonyms for the institution and president, a brief overview of the institution’s setting, and a summary of documents collected. A vignette was developed for the case, and as such, includes a description about the case and surrounding relevant information (Yin, 2018). In this study, the president is the case, while their experience and institution provide the setting and context. The president sets the direction for strategy and initiatives, guides fulfillment of the mission statement, and is responsible for the leadership of the institution. As such, they are the focal point of this research study. This case study analysis interviewed and collected documents from a small, private Division III institution. The researcher conducted two individual semi-structured interviews with the presidential research participant, with each interview lasting between 90 and 120 minutes. Interviews were recorded in audio format and transcribed for analysis. Case studies often rely on supporting documentation to provide a deeper understanding of the situation being studied (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Documents, published and unpublished, were provided by the case study participant, providing information on budget, enrollment, and sustainability metrics. Analyzed documents included enrollment reports, including roster goals for sports, annual Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act reports, campus press releases, and news articles. In addition, the participant provided unpublished reports that outlined specific data metrics related to student-athletes, net tuition revenue, and overall enrollment.

Case Description In an effort to ensure privacy, both the name of the president and the institution are presented through pseudonyms. President Clark is the current president of Alpha Beta College, a small, private Division

92

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

III college located in the Southeastern United States. He has served as the president of several small, private colleges for more than 20 years. During tenure of a previous presidency, President Clark served as a member of the NCAA Division III President’s Council, the governing authority for Division III. President Clark has a proven track record in fundraising and increasing enrollment through data driven decisions. President Clark has served at his current institution for more than seven years. When President Clark assumed leadership of Alpha Beta College, the institution struggled with budget deficits, deferred maintenance, and poor retention. Working with enrollment officers and key administrators, President Clark quickly identified critical areas for strategic improvement. Garnering resounding support from the college’s Board of Trustees, President Clark lead significant strategic changes to campus life, including initiating realignment to the NCAA’s Division III.

RESULTS President Clark has served as the president of three different institutions. In all three instances, he entered into the presidency of a small, private college that was showing signs of enrollment struggles. At the small, private college, poor enrollment translates to financial and budget problems. The analysis of the interview with President Clark revealed three primary themes: decisions must be data informed; the mission and culture of an institution must align with the execution of athletics; and the small, private college desperately needs athletics in order to survive.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Data Driven Decisions Before arriving to Alpha Beta College, President Clark assessed the metrics for enrollment and budget. At that point, the college participated in a division of the NCAA that allowed for the awarding of athletic scholarships. Athletic scholarships were unfunded at Alpha Beta College, meaning all athletic scholarship money was strictly a discount on tuition and not backed by any endowed or donated funds. President Clark spoke to a member of the Board of Trustees and said, “You are giving all of your financial aid money away to half of your students [athletes] and your admissions counselors have no control to over half of your financial aid.” In addition, President Clark saw a retention rate of 48% from a student’s first to second year, coupled with overall declining enrollment patterns. Prior to his appointment as the president of Alpha Beta College, President Clark was the president of a small, private Division III college in a different part of the country. In that role, President Clark served on the NCAA Advisory Council for three years, and then, the NCAA Division III President’s Council for three years. He brought a distinct understanding of the Division III philosophy and value. Division III does not offer any athletic scholarship; therefore, financial aid awards are driven in accordance with a focus from admissions on merit and need. Upon arriving to Alpha Beta College, President Clark believed the institution needed to shift to Division III, but he also felt he needed to wait a few years before pushing that agenda. President Clark realized that this institution could not afford to continue to pay the cost of unfunded athletic scholarships. In a presentation to Board of Trustees, President Clark offered several visual aids of data driven documents to demonstrate the vast different of cost in educating athletes on scholarship versus non-athletes. The data also highlighted the median range for cost of attendance, where, ideally, most students would fall within. While offering athletic scholarships, the college needed to average four 93

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

non-student athletes to pay for the cost of attendance of one student-athlete on scholarship. At that time, over 50% of their undergraduate students were student-athletes. The college’s needed enrollment goals to be able to positively fund athletic scholarships were not realistic. Upon seeing this data, the Board of Trustees voted to immediately begin the application for realignment to NCAA Division III athletics. In addition, President Clark spoke of using data to identify immediate needs among the student body. President Clark continues relies on data to make informed decisions: Making data driven decisions is an art and a science. You have got to have the science for the data. But, you need the art to figure it out. I’m not going to be confined by the data, but we can certainly be informed by it. He demonstrated his capability to utilize metrics at the college to determine its ideal enrollment based on the current infrastructure. If enrollment rises significantly above the target, Alpha Beta College will not have the housing, dining hall, or classroom spaces to support their student population without adding the cost of constructing new buildings and residence halls. President Clark would anticipate a negative return, in regards to retention, with pushing the institution significantly above its current capacity.

Mission and Cultural Alignment with Athletics President Clark acknowledged the arguments against Division III athletics. Some critics said the games would not be competitive; however, Alpha Beta College was not very competitive on level when President Clark ascended into leadership. In a three-year span, their football team won four games. The non-competitiveness of the teams hurt student life on campus, and the college was giving athletic scholarships to student-athletes who would not get similar scholarships from comparison schools. In addition, President Clark acknowledged the impact to the athletics staff. Within one year of the realignment, only one of the head coaches remained. With no roster limits and bench goals, Division III positions athletics as an auxiliary and permits joint recruitment efforts between athletics and enrollment. Deeper than athletic staffing, Division III allows the small, private college to incorporate athletics into the institutional mission rather than athletics becoming the mission. When discussing the fit of Alpha Beta College within the Division III philosophy, President Clark commented,

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The faculty just love Division III because of academics are not sacrificed and students have limited offseason play. Tell me the downside of Division III for a small, private college. It’s super competitive and the games are fun to watch. At the small, private college missed class time for student-athletes is minimized. Student- athletes are integrated into all of campus life, creating a community where student-athletes and non-student-athletes have the same opportunities for deep academic and co-curricular involvement. President Clark shared from his personal college days of being a student-athlete and finding meaningful involvement in extracurricular opportunities. He balanced his sport and an in-depth experience within student government. President Clark reflected on how student-athletes have become dynamically involved in leadership roles within the college, noting “our student-athletes are more engaged in student leadership roles, more engaged in community service, and our retention numbers with student-athletes are better.”

94

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

When examining the numbers and culture behind the addition of football as a varsity sport, President Clark noted that the team was quickly able to reach a roster of nearly 100 student-athletes; however, the institution failed to retain 50% of those football players from one year to the next. When arriving to Alpha Beta College, President Clark polled the football team to gain an understanding of why there was such a large retention loss. One of the first complaints from the football players was the lack of a weight room on campus. The college made a hasty decision to add football to bolster enrollment, without preparation to support the endeavor with facilities. President Clark was able to target a couple of donors for a quick, targeted fundraising campaign, and the college was able to build a weight room within President Clark’s first year. Subsequent years saw increased alumni attendance at football home games and targeted giving to improve athletic facilities. Another struggle for retention of student-athletes was recruiting student-athletes who were the right fit for the institution. Many coaches recruited from far outside of the region, leaving students arriving to a perceived culture shock. Located in a sparsely populated area of the Southeastern United States, the college was positioned differently than the more urban areas of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. In addition, similar to most small, private colleges, Alpha Beta College is a traditional liberal arts institution, requiring students to couple a general education curriculum that samples from across the spectrum of academic disciplines with a focused major course of study. President Clark reported a need to align the recruiting mission of the athletic coaches to the mission of the institution in order to create better retention among student-athletes. President Clark spoke of the institution’s addition of football in a rushed manner in the years before his arrival. There was a distinct cultural divide between faculty and athletics, with faculty concerned about compromising academic integrity for the sake of enrollment numbers. When Alpha Beta College added football, they quickly brought in 100 student-athletes to the team, but, during the first few years, they also lost 130 non-student-athletes. “Football changed the culture. Some of the students weren’t academically ready or campus wasn’t what they expected,” President Clark reported. But to remove the sport, and the 100 student-athletes, would remove almost 20% of their student body. Without those students, the college would cease to operate. At the small, private college, 100 students can make the difference between remaining open or closing the doors. With the realignment to Division III, tensions have eased as student-athletes miss fewer classes and have the chance for meaningful academic and co-curricular involvements. In addition, President Clark has a clear vision and mission for the entire institution. He has been able to articulate how athletics fits within the mission instead of becoming the mission.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Small, Private Colleges Need Student-Athletes President Clark sees athletics on the Division III level as instrumental to the success of the small, private college, and he clearly articulated this sentiment: “Athletics is critically important to the small, private college.” He stated that his institution has more student athletes now than when they were Division II. The college has utilized athletics to recruit more students from within close proximity for enrollment, given families’ desire to attend athletic events. And, Alpha Beta College’s enrollment and retention rates are steadily improving. Smaller, private colleges that are less selective by admissions standards tend to be known as regional institutions. President Clark recognized his college’s recent disconnect with the local high school students and, particularly, the local high school student-athletes. He implored athletic administration to consider recruiting the local student-athletes. As President Clark stated, 95

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

Families will pay you to let their kids play [their sport] because it’s over after the end of high school if they don’t get a Division I or II scholarship. It is a loss for the family. It’s a loss for the student. More kids are coming to [Alpha Beta College] from local high schools because we’re paying attention to them now. And, their families are coming to the games, and we have more people in the stands. President Clark perceives the current high percentage of student-athletes at the institution to reflect the competitiveness and team belonging that student-athletes feel. President Clark sees the benefit the student-athletes bring to campus life beyond their involvement in their sports. At the small college, students are known by faculty and staff, and President Clark sees that as an immense value to the small, private college. He described attending a theatre performance on campus, where he saw five student-athletes in acting roles, two of whom were football players. President Clark noted that in Division I and II, when the off-season is as devoted to your sport as when you are in season, this would not be possible. He appreciated the diversity of experience for the student-athletes at the Division III level, where their time on sport is extremely limited in off season. Historically, the institution’s mission connected closely to the arts. And, roughly 50% of their undergraduates are studentathletes. President Clark sees how Division III allows Alpha Beta College to give student-athletes a chance to continue competing in a sport they love, while honoring their mission of embracing the arts. He finds the two to be complementary rather than competitive.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

DISCUSSION Enrollment driven, small, private colleges need the consistency of student-athletes to stabilize student enrollment and create predictable budgets. The president of the small, private college leads the institution in more involved ways than their counterparts at larger institutions. President Clark’s position as an experienced president provided him with the perspective to see the critical nature of athletics to the overall viability of Alpha Beta College. Inheriting an institution that yearly saw declining enrollment and failed to meet their budget, President Clark saw that an immediate turnaround was necessary for survival. He leveraged his previous experience to create an enrollment and budget model that utilized athletics to create a sustainable model for success. Athletics is a tool that the small, private college can use to their benefit. Perhaps, even more than a tool, the incorporation of athletics is a strategy on which to build a predictable enrollment (Docking & Curton, 2015; Snyder & Waterstone, 2015). The implications of utilizing athletics as a strategy to viability are important for the development of the student-athletes, for enrollment and financial considerations, and for the overall wellbeing of campus life and its community members (Astin, 1984; Beaver, 2014). On the Division III level, roster sizes are not capped while time on sport is limited to create a studentfirst experience (Hearn et al., 2018). Intercollegiate student-athletes are interested in extending their competitive playing career beyond high school. By coupling that desire with a curriculum that develops the student’s intellectual curiosity in and out of the classroom, the small, private college creates a mutually beneficial experience for the institution and the student-athlete (Schroder, 2000). President Clark revealed multiple layers of connections for student-athletes, particularly emphasizing the role of coaches. Coaches are dynamically involved as an educator and a motivator, supporting the development of student-athletes in the classroom, on the field/court, and in additional co-curricular involvements (Adler & Adler, 1985; Brewer et al., 1993; NCAA Division III Manual, 2018). Student-athletes are able 96

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

to balance the time spent on their academic pursuits with their other time commitments. As coaches work to fit the role of sport into the institution’s mission, the student-athletes find fewer conflicts with their time on sport and their academic experience. Small, private colleges rely on the net tuition revenue paid by students to create operating budgets (Chabotar, 2010; Docking & Curton, 2015). Unsubsidized by state funds and providing intimate settings, most small, private colleges are dependent on predictable enrollment in order to sustain a healthy financial situation (Eide, 2018). Regularly failing to operate within budget will leave a college in an unsettled financial situation, which creates operational deficiencies and accreditation problems. When working with athletic staff to create team/bench minimums and annually meeting recruitment expectations, enrollment teams are more likely to find an equilibrium for recruiting, enrolling, and retaining the whole undergraduate student body. Finally, the role of athletics is important to the overall campus community. Students, faculty, and staff show up to games to support the individuals and the teams. Practices create routine and accountability for student-athletes (Docking & Curton, 2015). While winning is not as emphasized at the Division III level, there is an immense value to the campus community when a team is performing well (Emerson et al., 2009). Conversely, when a team is repeatedly losing, the morale is low. President Clark also commented on how most non-selective small, private colleges recruit regionally. As such, competition has the chance to draw family members to campus for competition (Goss et al., 2006). These teams are not relying on ticket sales to generate revenue. Instead, the institutions are leveraging the experience of training and competing for their school as the draw for the student-athlete. Beyond their time on sport, these student-athletes are contributing to campus life by taking on leadership roles, engaging in research with faculty, and broadening their horizons through internships and study-away experiences.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Implications for Practice College presidents set the strategy to guide internal and external operations for their institution. One immediately way to apply this research into practice is for institutional presidents to cultivate or develop a strong relationship with their athletic director to create clear and concise objectives, including bench minimums and retention strategies for student-athletes. When team rosters are particularly large, coaches need the ability to develop engagement opportunities through junior varsity team competition or similar experiences. Coordination with the college’s admissions team, if athletics reports through another organizational arm, is critical to ensure efficiency from recruitment to enrollment. When athletics reports indirectly, the president needs to engage with athletic leadership to understand the implications of conference and national policy decisions that impact the operations of athletics. President Clark reported that president’s council of his institution’s athletic conference makes decisions that have to be implemented conference-wide. He stated that communication with his athletic director and chief operating officer before those decision making meetings was critical to understand the full impact of the policy. The president’s position is to ensure that athletics rests within the institution’s mission. Finally, presidents must examine the addition and contraction of sports offered at their institution. A critical assessment of financial impact of each team could determine if the sport is helping or hurting the institution’s budget. Some sports, often called green-field sports, have smaller rosters but yield students who can afford to pay a tuition rate with less need-based aid. Other sports with high operating costs and repeatedly small recruitment numbers may need different leadership or not be a sustainable

97

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

team. Presidents must consider the enrollment landscape for sport offerings for three to five years in future planning.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This chapter illustrated information gained from one case. To create broader implications, suggested research would include following similar methodology with more participants from different geographical regions of the United States. The Midwest and Northeast have concentrated amounts of small, private colleges and face different demographic patterns than the Southeast. In addition, this participant ascended to the presidency through administrative experience; however, many presidents rise through the academic ranks into a college presidency. A study examining the how the previous experience influences the perception of athletics on institutional viability could yield interesting outcomes. Finally, research should be conducted on how more selective or non-enrollment dependent small, private colleges perceive athletics as it relates to institutional viability.

REFERENCES Adler, P., & Adler, P. A. (1985). From idealism to pragmatic detachment: The academic performance of college athletes. Sociology of Education, 58(4), 241–250. doi:10.2307/2112226 Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2006). The Leadership Imperative: The Report of the AGB Task Force on the State of the Presidency in American Higher Education. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2014). The 10 habits of highly effective boards. https://agb.org/trusteeship-article/the-10-habits-of-highly-effective-boards/ Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308. Astin, A. W., & Lee, C. B. (1972). The invisible college: A profile of small, private colleges with limited resources. McGraw-Hill.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Baker, V. L., & Baldwin, R. G. (2015). A case study of liberal arts colleges in the 21st century: Understanding organizational change and evolution in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40(3), 247–261. doi:10.100710755-014-9311-6 Bandre, M. A. (2011). The impact of financial aid on the enrollment and retention of student athletes at national collegiate athletic association (NCAA) Division III colleges and universities: A review of the literature. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 41(1), 38–45. https://ir.library.louisville.edu/jsfa/vol41/iss1/4 Barlow, K. A., & Hickey, A. (2014). Academic achievement of NCAA Division III athletes. Journal of Research in Education, 24(2), 116–123. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1098178 Beaver, W. (2014). The changing nature of Division III athletics. College and University, 89(3), 34–40.

98

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency. Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R., & Eckel, P. D. (2005). The dilemma of presidential leadership. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century (2nd ed., pp. 340–365). Johns Hopkins University Press. Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Linder, D. E. (1993). Athletic identity: Hercules’ muscle or Achilles heel? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24(2), 237–254. Chabotar, K. J. (2010). What about the rest of us? Smalls colleges in financial crisis. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(4), 7–12. doi:10.1080/00091383.2010.489024 Chu, D. (1982). The American concept of higher education and the formal incorporation of intercollegiate sport. Quest, 34(1), 53–71. doi:10.1080/00336297.1982.10483764 Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among the five approaches (4th ed.). Sage publications. Docking, J. R., & Curton, C. C. (2015). Crisis in higher education: A plan to save small liberal arts colleges in America. Michigan State University Press. Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2011). Presidents leading: The dynamics and complexities of campus leadership. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century (3rd ed., pp. 279–311). Johns Hopkins University. Eide, S. (2018). Private colleges in peril: Financial pressures and declining enrollment may lead to more closures. Education Next, 18(4), 35–41. Emerson, J., Brooks, R. L., & McKenzie, E. C. (2009). College athletics and student achievement: The evidence at small colleges. New Directions for Institutional Research, 144(144), 65–76. doi:10.1002/ir.314 Gagliardi, J. S., Espinosa, L. L., Turk, J. M., & Taylor, M. (2017). The American college president study: 2017. American Council on Education, Center for Policy Research and Strategy; TIAA Institute. Goss, B. D., Jubenville, C. B., & Orejan, J. (2006). An examination of influences and factors on the institutional selection processes of freshmen student-athletes at small colleges and universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 16(2), 105–134. doi:10.1300/J050v16n02_05

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Hearn, J. C., Suggs, D. W., Jr., & May-Trifiletti, J. (2018). Taking the field: Intercollegiate athletics on CIC campuses. Council for Independent Colleges. https://www.cic.edu/r/cd/Pages/Athletics-Report-2018.aspx Hersh, R. H. (1999). Generating ideals and transforming lives: A contemporary case for the residential liberal arts. Daedalus, 128(1), 173–196. Hilbun, A. J., & Mamiseishvili, K. (2016). Organizational adaptation of liberal arts colleges during the Great Recession of 2007. Innovative Higher Education, 41(1), 5–18. doi:10.100710755-015-9331-x

99

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

Huml, M. R. (2018). A factor structure examination of athletic identity related to NCAA divisional differences. Journal of College Student Development, 59(3), 376–381. doi:10.1353/csd.2018.0035 Katz, M., Pfleegor, A. G., Schaeperkoetter, C., & Bass, J. (2015). Factors for success in NCAA Division III athletics. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 8, 102–122. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460. doi:10.1080/00221546.2002.11777159 Kuh, G. (2005). Built to engage: Liberal arts colleges and effective educational practice. In Liberal arts colleges in American higher education: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 122-150). American Council of Learned Societies. Levin, J. S. (1998). Presidential influence, leadership succession, and multiple interpretations of organizational change. The Review of Higher Education, 21(4), 405–425. doi:10.1353/rhe.1998.0011 Marcy, M. B. (2017). The small college imperative: From survival to transformation. Dominican Scholar. https://scholar.dominican.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1290&context=all-faculty Mignano, A. C., Brewer, B. W., Winter, C. R., & Van Raalte, J. L. (2006). Athletic identity and student involvement of female athletes at NCAA Division III women’s and coeducational colleges. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 457–464. doi:10.1353/csd.2006.0050 Moody’s Investor Services. (2017, December 5). US higher education sector outlook revised to negative as revenue growth prospects soften [Press release]. https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-UShigher-education-sector-outlook-revised-to-negative-as--PR_376587 National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). College map. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/CollegeMap/ National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2019). About us: Our three divisions. https://www.ncaa.org/ about/resources/media-center/ncaa-101/our-three-divisions National Collegiate Athletic Association Publications. (2018). 2018-2019 Division III manual. NCAA. Navarro, K., & Malvaso, S. (2015). Synthesizing research on the contemporary student-athlete experience: Implications and recommendations for NCAA student-athlete development programming. Journal of College and Character, 16(4), 263–269. doi:10.1080/2194587X.2015.1091358

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Paule-Koba, A. L., & Farr, N. E. (2013). Examining the experiences of former D-I and D-III nonrevenue athletes. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 6, 194–215. doi:10.1123/jis.3.2.333 Pierce, S. R. (2012). On being presidential: A guide for college and university leaders. Jossey-Bass. Rauschnable, P. A., Krey, N., Babin, B. J., & Ivens, B. S. (2016). Brand management in higher education: The university brand personality scale. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3077–3086. doi:10.1016/j. jbusres.2016.01.023 Richards, S., & Aires, E. (1999). The Division III student-athlete: Academic performance, campus involvement, and growth. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 211–218.

100

 From the Playing Field to the Executive Office

Schroeder, P. J. (2000). An assessment of student involvement among selected NCAA Division III basketball players. Journal of College Student Development, 41(6), 616–626. Snyder, E., & Waterstone, K. (2015). An examination of division III small college athletics: President and commissioner influence and change in athletic philosophy. Journal of Contemporary Athletics, 9(3), 195. Soares, L., Gagliardi, J. S., Wilkinson, P. J., & Hughes, S. L. (2018). Innovative leadership: Insights from the American College President 2017 Study. American Council on Education. https://www.acenet. edu/Documents/Innovative-Leadership-Insights-from-the-ACPS-2017.pdf Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press. Stimpert, J. L. (2004). Turbulent times: Four issues facing liberal arts colleges. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(4), 42–49. doi:10.1080/00091380409604976 Sturm, J., Feitz, D. L., & Gilson, T. A. (2011). A comparison of athlete and student identity for Division I and Division III athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34(3), 295–304. Thomason, A. (2018, May 1). Is college president “the toughest job in the nation?” The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Is-College-President-the/243289 Umbach, P. D., Palmer, M. M., Kuh, G. D., & Hannah, S. J. (2006). Intercollegiate athletes and effective educational practices: Winning combination or losing effort? Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 709–733. doi:10.100711162-006-9012-9

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.

101

102

Chapter 7

Leading During a Crisis:

A Case Study of College Presidents During Unprecedented Times Derrick Manns Texas Southern University, USA Stanton McNeely University of Holy Cross, USA

ABSTRACT Being a college president is hard enough, but when you add to it a crisis, it makes the task of leading even more of a challenge. Whether that crisis is isolated like Virginia Tech, regional with situations like hurricanes and natural disasters (Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Harvey, wildfres, tornadoes), or now a national issue with the coronavirus (COVID-19), leadership has defnitely been a hard thing to do. For the frst time in history, we are all dealing with the same situation at the same time. While there is research about leading during a crisis, this new pandemic is unprecedented. The purpose of this research is to gather a perspective from college and university presidents in working through this. This will add to the literature on crisis leadership, and how some current college presidents are addressing this issue. Public and private 2-year and 4-year college/university presidents/chancellors were interviewed about their thoughts on this topic. What is gleaned from this information will add to the leadership information in dealing with the “new normal.”

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Being a college president is hard enough, but when you add to it a crisis, that makes the task of leading even more of a challenge. Whether that crisis is isolated like Virginia Tech, Regional with situations like hurricanes and natural disasters (Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Harvey, wildfires, tornadoes) or now a national issue with the Coronavirus (COVID-19), leadership has definitely been a hard thing to do. No one could have predicted the current pandemic that we are dealing with now and how that would affect students, families, colleges and universities, K-12 schools, medical professionals and the whole world. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6560-5.ch007

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Leading During a Crisis

These times are unprecedented and unpredictable. For the first time in history, we are all dealing with the same situation at the same time. While there is research about leading during a crisis, this new pandemic is unprecedented. The purpose of this research is to gather a perspective from college and university presidents in working through this situation. This chapter will add to the literature on crisis leadership, and how some current college presidents are addressing this issue. It is anticipated that both public and private 2-year and 4-year college presidents will be interviewed/surveyed about their thoughts on this topic. What is gleaned from this information will add to the leadership information in dealing with the “New Normal.”

BACKGROUND This Pandemic will go down as one of the most talked about emergencies in the world, let alone in higher education. In the middle of Spring 2020 semesters, education came to a standstill for a few days while the world waited to see what the Coronavirus (COVID-19) would do. For many colleges and universities that meant cancelling a few days of class, adding some time to spring break, and in a few days or a week this would be over. Then when it appeared that there was no quick end in sight, higher education went into high gear in turning their classes into remote instruction. Surely this would be only for a few weeks, then we return to campus and move on with life. Sadly, it did not play out that way, as of this writing we are still in partial shutdown mode. The biggest question that we have is when will things return to normal? What will be the “new normal,” and what does that look like? At this point in time no one really knows. But many are planning for the reopening of colleges and universities in the upcoming weeks and months. We need to be prepared to safely serve students, community members, and our faculty and staff. It is imperative that we get this right, because lives could be at risk. What will happen with enrollments? Budgets? Return to campuses? Online Instruction? Higher education must remain committed to the teaching, research and service mission to ensure that our students, faculty, and staff can return to campus in a safe manner. The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership practices and decision making of college presidents during a crisis.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Leadership in Higher Education The leadership dynamic in higher education at the beginning of the 21st Century is defined as one where college and university leaders have been presented extraordinary opportunities and challenges as they guide their institutions (Lawrence, 2006). According to Guskin and Marcy (2002), while colleges and universities are more important than ever in human history, they are at the same time being confronted with greater pressures for educational performance accountability and financial efficiency. Both Lawrence (2006) and van Ameijde et al. (2009) found that effective leadership of a modern college or university was associated with (a) having clearly defined goals, (b) practicing inclusiveness, (c) providing support, (d) sharing information, (e) adapting behaviors. Also, these studies were conducted by researching leaders of stable institutions, not those in a severe crisis like the 9/11 attacks or Hurricane Katrina. However, these leadership issues are applicable to both stable and crisis situations for leading a university in troubled times.

103

 Leading During a Crisis

Crisis Leadership Scott and Webber (2008) stated that, “effective leaders are those who can manage crisis situations and, in fact, use them to move closer to the achievement of personal and organizational goals” (p. 772). This statement directly links to Kouzes and Posner’s (2007) framework about leadership that creates the climate in which people turn challenges into success. Woodward and More (2010) studied communication to the public during a crisis. Their study involved examining crisis communication messages businesses used during the global financial crisis of 20082009. Public communication messages from businesses in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Singapore were analyzed from the perspective of learning effective crisis communication strategies. As such, this study is similar to the one by Lucero et al. (2009) in that Woodward and More (2010) also sought to discover the most effective and appropriate communication strategies for businesses to public audiences during a crisis.

LEADING DURING CRISIS The problem is that the leaders of many institutions of higher education have not been equipped to manage a major crisis or disaster, and presidential leadership during a disaster is essential, as university presidents are ultimately accountable for the well-being of their institutions (Cowen & Cowen, 2010; Kenney, 1997; SchWeber, 2008; Zdziarski). This research builds on the work of McNeely in 2013 and lays the foundation for looking at leadership during a crisis. While the work of McNeely focused on the effects of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters, there are many applicable resources and lessons learned that will be useful to this research.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ISSUES, CHALLENGES, PROBLEMS The purpose of this study was to assess the leadership practices and decision making of presidents of colleges and universities in addressing the natural disasters as a framework as outlined by Stanton McNeely (2013). This work then follows on specifically on the pandemic that crept into our lives in the spring of 2020. By using a case study, it is the author’s hope to gain some insight on the decisions and processes that leaders had to make often with little to no data or medical implications of such decisions. In 2002, Patton described the use of a case study to understand individual cases. The use of the case study methodology was appropriate over a quantitative approach as the case study is a strategy of inquiry that explains linkages in real-life situations and describes an intervention and the real context in which it happened (Yin, 2009) as cited by McNeely 2013. It is hoped that this research will provide some insight on the thoughts of current college and university presidents as they have had to make many decisions that have personal, financial, community, workforce and educational impacts to the communities that they serve. There were 5 Presidents/Chancellors interviewed for this work.

104

 Leading During a Crisis

Framework

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Leadership theory as applied to complex organizations, and particularly higher education institutions, will serve as the foundational theoretical framework for this study (Fullan & Scott, 2009; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Northouse, 2007). Fullan and Scott (2009) studied educational leadership in the modern context, including leadership skills necessary for the educational effectiveness. Northouse (2007) presented leadership skills necessary for organizational effectiveness, but unlike Fullan and Scott (2009), did not focus exclusively on the educational setting. Rather, Northouse (2007) presented leadership skills needed to succeed in a variety of organizational settings, in addition to educational organizations. These necessary leadership skills that transcend organizational type included servant leadership (Northouse, 2007). Kouzes and Posner (2007), like Northouse (2007), presented leadership skills that can be applied in a variety of organizational settings, including educational institutions. Fullan and Scott (2009) presented the current circumstances colleges and universities are experiencing at the beginning of the 21st Century. In their presentation of these current situations, the researchers also presented the skills of leadership needed to effectively address the situations as higher education concurrently experiences rapid transformation. This focus by Fullan and Scott (2009) on effective leadership skills specifically for higher education is a key point of difference from the leadership skills presented by Northouse (2007) and Kouzes and Posner (2007), who studied leadership skills that can be applied at a variety of organizations. The focus was on the ongoing improvement of learning outcomes and the quality of the educational experience at modern institutions of higher education (Fullan & Scott, 2009). Based upon the student- oriented perspective, leadership attributes were provided that were essential to achieve the desired transformation to constantly advance learning outcomes by students (Fullan and Scott, 2009). The skill to unite various constituencies within an institution of higher education to accomplish an agreed-upon vision (including the execution of the steps as a united college/university community to accomplish that agreed-upon vision) is a fundamental leadership skill (Fullan & Scott, 2009). Northouse (2007) defined leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 3). Northouse (2007) presented a practical guide for leaders to implement different leadership theories in variety of organizations. Like Northouse (2007), SavageAustin and Honeycutt (2011) sought to examine the practical application of leadership theory (in this case, servant leadership theory) to real-world environments, including the impact of the implementation of the leadership theory on the effectiveness of the organization. Savage-Austin and Honeycutt (2011) presented the application of servant leadership theory in a manner consistent with the definition of leadership presented by Northouse (2007). That is, leadership is a means to unite individuals to collectively achieve the goals of the organization.

Research Questions The questions for this study were developed to specifically address the leadership and decisions relating to the pandemic that gripped the world in early 2020 and colleges and universities in roughly in March 2020. The hypothesis of this study is that something has to changes as a result of the pandemic and that there are challenges and opportunities that were apparent as a result of this crisis. Hypothesis One: What has this pandemic done to your college in terms of planning, programming and enrollments? 105

 Leading During a Crisis

Hypothesis Two: What were your challenges and opportunities as a result of this situation?

Nature of the Study A case study design was chosen to gather information and insights about this current leadership crisis. Information gained here is hoped to be shared with other researchers and practitioners to provide some support and guidance for decisions they may need to make as leaders or future leaders. Lawrence’s (2006) study of modern university presidential leadership served as a basis for the application of the case study design. The study was unique and of general public interest to ascertain fundamental issues that may be important on a national level in both theoretical and practical terms. The method and design selected align with the research questions, and the case study protocol provided a guide by which to increase reliability when performing data collection for a single case (Yin, 2009). Specifically, the study was designed to allow for in-depth discovery and understanding of the leadership thoughts and decisions used by presidents and chancellors during the pandemic that started in the United States in March 2020. This type of study will provide some insights on the college and university responses to outside influences. Data collection was in the form of 5 interviews with a convenience sample of participants known by the researchers. Interviews consisted of eleven questions of participants to gain their perspectives on the leadership practices reflecting on their experience in light of the pandemic. The questions are listed in Appendix A. The interview questions were validated by conducting a field test with one university president and another field researcher. Through analysis of data collected from interviews, the study aimed to discover and understand the thought processes and decisions used by the leaders in addressing COVID-19. The study results may offer higher education leaders’ effective practices in leading during times of crises or disasters, and may serve as foundational to continued research into the necessary leadership traits to manage higher education crises (McNeely, 2013)

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Significance of Study McNeely (2013) in his research found a study of this type was “essential to college and university leaders as while there are many references in the literature to leadership and administrative best practices in higher education.” There are limited amounts of research “that has explored the leadership and administrative best practices utilized after a large-scale disaster (such as Hurricane Katrina) that impacts the very existence of the institution, as well as its short-term and long-term recovery” (Cowen & Cowen, 2010). While this is much larger in scale than a hurricane or other disaster, since there is little research on this type of topic, it is a starting point to examine. The results of this study may be used by college presidents, those in higher education seeking a college or university presidency or executive role, and even departmental higher education administrators and faculty who desire to learn more about and effectively utilize best practices in leading personnel to achieve desired goals and objectives, both in reaction to a crisis but also in the course of continuous improvement for the college or university. Leaders of many institutions of higher education are not equipped to manage a major crisis, and presidential leadership during a disaster is essential, as university presidents are ultimately accountable for the well-being of their institutions (Cowen & Cowen, 2010; Kenney, 1997; SchWeber, 2008; Zdziarski et al., 2007). This study employed a qualitative case study design that was used to seek to understand a 106

 Leading During a Crisis

contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context; namely, a study of the leadership practices employed by the respondents during a pandemic. McNeely (2013) shares that the results of studies of leaders during crises or disasters, may serve as foundational to continue research into the necessary leadership traits to manage future higher education crises.

Research Method The purpose of this study was to assess the leadership practices and decision making of current presidents of colleges and universities in addressing a crisis as a framework as outlined by Stanton McNeely (2013). While McNeely’s original work mainly focused on Hurricane Katrina, this work now focuses on the pandemic (COVID-19) that crept into our lives in the spring of 2020. By using a case study, it is the researchers hope to gain some insight on the decisions and processes that presidents/chancellors had to make often with little to no data or medical input and the ramifications of such decisions at the time. Since campus leadership is ultimately responsible for the decisions made at the campus they have added pressure to get it right as lives are literally at stake. These questions below were the used to develop the framework for the study. Hypothesis One: What has this pandemic done to your college in terms of planning, programming and enrollments? Hypothesis Two: What were your challenges and opportunities as a result of this situation? This section will focus on the design of this case study. The selection of participants is outlined, and materials/questions used. This chapter discusses the limitations and assumptions of the study.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Research Method and Design A qualitative case study method was used to gather insight on a real-life situation in dealing with a pandemic and how college presidents/chancellors responded to the planning, programming and student impact on the campus. Additional information was sought to gather both challenges and opportunities as a result of this situation. In following with the design from McNeely (2013), “this study aligned with the definition of a qualitative case study to deeply explore a program, event, activity, process, or one or more individuals (Yin, 2009).” This research did not provide for follow-up communications. Lawrence’s (2006) study of modern university presidential leadership served as a basis for the application of the case study design. This method was chosen over a survey since it was noted that quantitative data would provide in-depth explanations on the pandemic. Since there is limited research on this topic, other theories are yet to be developed relating to leadership and COVID-19.

Participants Information gathered from the participants was via email, phone or interactive interview. Interactive interviews were conducted by (Blue Jeans). This study was conducted with a convenience sample. The authors knew the respondents and thus reached out to them via phone or email to gather their interest and permission to participate. An email was sent to all respondents (Appendix A), to share with them

107

 Leading During a Crisis

the introduction and purpose of the research. All participants were given the opportunity to opt out and also remain anonymous if they so desired. Interviewees ultimately were asked 11 questions based on input and feedback from individuals in leadership roles. After an initial test of the interview questions with a college president, 1 additional question was added to provide for additional insight on the topic. Participants for this study were four 2-year college presidents/chancellors and one private 4-year university president (co-author). The 2-year college presidents/chancellors were: President- Dr. Luke Robbins from Peninsula College in the state of Washington. According to the Facts & Figures section of the college, it “is a public, comprehensive community college. It was founded in 1961 and is one of 34 community and technical colleges in the state of Washington.” The college is surrounded by forests, mountains, rivers, lakes and is home to six Native American tribal reservations. They have 1328 FTE, and over 3800 students (headcount). Full-time students account for 56% of the population, female students account for 55% of the student population and the median age is 28. Chancellor- Dr. Kristine Strickland from Fletcher Technical Community College in Louisiana. According to the About Us section, Fletcher Technical Community College was established as South Louisiana Trade School in 1948 and opened for instruction in 1951. Fletcher is a 2-year public institution with about 2300 students. There are about 60% full-time students and 67% are female. Chancellor- Dr. Debra West from Arkansas State University Mid-South in Arkansas. Opened in 1982 as Mid-South Vocational Technical School, it now serves about 1300 students. It is a 2-year public institution with 22% full-time students and 61% female. President- Dr. Stanton McNeely from University of Holy Cross in Louisiana. The University is a 4-year Private not-for-profit institution with about 1100 students. About 49% of students attend full-time and 81% are female. President Dr. Quentin Wright from Lone Star College – Houston North in Texas. The college is a public 2-year college part of the Lone Star College System. Houston North has 2345 students with 35% of the students attending full-time and 70% female. Houston North is part of a system that has 6 other colleges.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Data Collection and Analysis Interviews were used as the most efficient and way to gather information on this topic. Participants had limited time available and conversations with their leadership teams were critical. All of the respondents were dealing with day to day operation and remote staff, and or limited on campus access due to the health and safety guidelines in place at the time from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). A review to the data was then examined as it related to information and any themes. No data software was used for this analysis.

Assumptions and Limitations External validity is the extent to which the conclusions in a study would also be applicable for other persons in other places and at other times (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). Responses from this study will be evaluated to examine and understand the leadership and administrative practices employed by current 108

 Leading During a Crisis

college presidents from the time of the pandemic until the time of the interview. The results will show the leadership and decision-making practices of the institutions. Construct validity is the extent to which inferences can credibly be made from the operationalizations in the study to the theoretical constructs on which such operationalizations are founded (Cozby, 2009). It is hoped that the information gathered from this research will identify some of the best practices during a pandemic. An assumption of this study is that there should be some generalizability to other similar types of institutions during this pandemic. Although the sample is very small, many institutions are facing similar challenges with the same students, safety concerns, and resource challenges. The purpose of this study was to assess the leadership practices and decision making of current presidents of colleges and universities in addressing a crisis as a framework as outlined by Stanton McNeely (2013). By using a case study, the researchers hope to gain some insight on the decisions and processes that presidents/chancellors had to make often with little to no data to respond to such a global crisis. This study aimed to answer 2 global questions: Hypothesis One: What has this pandemic done to your college in terms of planning, programming and enrollments? Hypothesis Two: What were your challenges and opportunities as a result of this situation?

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This study interviewed 5 currently college presidents/chancellors to gather their insights on the topic. A qualitative case study method was used to gather insight on a real-life situation in dealing with a pandemic and how college presidents/chancellors responded to the planning, programming and student impact on the campus. Additional information was sought to gather both challenges and opportunities as a result of this situation. This study was conducted with a convenience sample. The authors knew the respondents and thus reached out to them via phone or email to gather their interest and permission to participate. A communication was sent to all respondents to share with them the introduction and purpose of the research. All participants were given the opportunity to opt out and also remain anonymous if they wished. Respondents were asked 11 questions based on input and feedback from individuals in leadership roles. After an initial test of the interview questions with a college president, 1 additional question was added to provide for additional insight on the topic. Participants for this study were four 2-year college presidents/chancellors and one private 4-year university president. The results may allow us to gain a small bit of insight of how college presidents/chancellors are dealing with this crisis. This work may serve as a guide in the future of responding to such crises.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section outlines the purpose of the study, problem, overarching questions, respondent answers, and the results of what the authors found. The purpose of this study was to assess the leadership practices and decision making of presidents of colleges and universities in addressing a crisis as a framework as outlined by Stanton McNeely (2013). This work specifically addresses the effects of the pandemic that crept into our lives in the spring of 2020. Most college and university presidents are not trained or equipped to deal with such situations. As leaders though, they are expected to make the tough decision in consultation with their boards and colleagues. The research questions to be addressed were: 109

 Leading During a Crisis

Hypothesis One: What has this pandemic done to your college in terms of planning, programming and enrollments? Hypothesis Two: What were your challenges and opportunities as a result of this situation? The information for this study was obtained by interviewed by using a convenience sample of college and university presidents/chancellors. A total of 5 participants were interviewed. There were 2 females and 3 males interviewed. The colleges ranged in type (4-year university, 2-year community college) and size from 1100 to 3800 students. The respondents were from Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and the state of Washington. Responses were examined and will be discussed as experienced by the college and university presidents/chancellors. In reviewing the responses in addressing the question surrounding planning, programming and enrollment, several things stuck out that seems to be brought up with the campus leaders.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Planning, Programming and Enrollment In looking at the overall question, a subset of questions was used to answer it. The first question asked what have you done differently or were not doing since the crisis? Communication was the first thing that became a common thread. The Presidents/Chancellors needed to be able to quickly and effectively communicate with students, faculty and staff and community members. For the respondents, it was important for them to be able to engage with the campus community. The health and safety of everyone was at the top of the list. But no one had any real information or data about what to do, what to expect. So regular communication was needed to share with others what was going on. Do I come to work today? Do I come to campus? Is it safe to be out? Dr. Stanton McNeely from the University of Holy Cross talked about the need to remove silos and to provide a level of personalization even though there were very few staff if any on campus. Several respondents talked about the need for student engagement and how to keep them informed and engaged. Technology was another top theme in responding to what was different on campus since the crisis. remote delivery was key to providing students with the education to finish the semester or quarter. This had to be done very quickly, while some faculty were already teaching online, many others were not. Even if they were, many of the resources were on computers in their physical offices. Some did not have laptops or home computers with the necessary software to teach, cameras, or training to use those resources even if they had access. How were faculty going to transition to remote teaching? The next big question was about what did students have access to? Many students use on-campus resources to access their materials, use computers, libraries, testing services. Another big issue that arose around technology was the inability of students to take placement tests, national exams like the ACT/SAT and others. So many institutions needed to assist students and faculty in finding solutions. Faculty/Staff/Student/Community Response to this pandemic was overwhelmingly supportive. Each of the presidents/chancellors indicated that the amount of support was great from all areas. All indicated that faculty stepped up to help students finish the work of the term. For those faculty that did not have the basics, others stepped in to help get their classes up an running. Some faculty at Fletcher Technical Community College hosted a Town Hall meeting to get others trained. This is a great example of helping colleagues. While some faculty after a few months of remote work were doing well, others if given the choice would “run” back to campus if they could. While others preferred this new way of teaching.

110

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Leading During a Crisis

Students needed academic, technology, and emergency funds to survive. Many of the students were able to remain positive given the challenges surrounding them. Many students and their families lost jobs or benefits as a result, so in some cases the education was a constant for them. Peninsula College students initially struggled online but appreciated the efforts of the college to help students. There is a common misperception that if a student has a cell phone, they are tech savvy and have a reliable internet connection. That is not always the case. Cell phones are not optimized for online learning for a number of reasons beyond the scope of this chapter. Surprisingly, many students missed the face-to-face learning and wanted to return to the classroom as soon as possible. The community was very responsive and positive to their college and university partners. Leaders indicated that this brought them closer together. With everything closed and needs so great many were able to mutually benefit each other. K-12 and higher education were talking with each other about return to work plans since schools, daycares, and other activities were interrupted. With the need to students to be at home, partners were able to discuss the implications of what a return would like. Many community partners hosted food drives so that students could provide for themselves and families. For example, fire/ police/medical professionals were in need to immediate medical supplies to get through since supplies could not be ordered or were months out. Some of the colleges were able to donate PPE and supplies to those in need until supplies could be replenished. All of the campus interruptions and the move to remote working and instruction, and uncertainty led to not know what the full budget impact would be. When asked about cutting back on programs or services, Peninsula College (on a quarter system) had budgeted for the revenue for the next term. Enrollment went down and caused a revenue shortfall and program closures were being examined to address the resource challenges. Fletcher Technical Community College indicated that the non-credit workforce training programs were the hardest hit. Self-paying students that normally enroll now had other concerns. In-person training was greatly affected as well although some students in labs with strict protocols were able to continue. Arkansas State University Mid-South has no student activities, limited food service to grab and go only. They were trying to regulate access but not cut it off completely. This uncertainty of the situation with no foreseeable end has the possibility of affecting enrollments. Enrollment was at the forefront of every president/chancellor as they tried to plan for summer and fall enrollments, protocols and what the “New Normal” would look like. Respondents indicated that their summer enrollments were down, but online instruction naturally was up. At least one respondent indicated that online instruction carries a different pricing structure, so the budget loss was softened. Fall enrollment was looking pretty stable for the University of Holy Cross, early registration was actually up at the time of this discussion. Luke Robbins President of Peninsula College said that “there were planning assumptions, community college enrollment normally goes up because of the economy, but budget assumptions do not apply here.” Peninsula College needed to ask students to sign waivers if the college closed for a period of time to pay their tuition. Fletcher Technical Community College was predicting to be flat or slightly down. Arkansas State University Mid-South thought they would be down less than 5% but up on credit hours. They however did budget for the downturn. Overall given the circumstances and uncertainty, colleges and universities did the best they could with the information that was available to them. To answer the questions about planning, programming and enrollments, this pandemic has definitely affected all areas and all of the respondents in different ways. Most college or university enrollments were flat or down and expecting it to be that way for Fall 2020. All colleges planning processes were affected. They will all need to go back and look at the strategic plan and budgets and readjust given the enormous impact on them. While programming was affected at 111

 Leading During a Crisis

several institutions not all had to cut programs. Services were impacted to varying degrees as well. But some of the positives that came out of this situation was that the faculty and staff stepped up to meet the challenge of providing education to students. That was not without its challenges and opportunities that will now be addressed.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Challenges and Opportunities When respondents were asked about their challenges President Stanton McNeely said he was “trying to understand change, and that the change is permanent.” Some colleges may close but a new modality for online teaching to the masses was uncovered. Not that online instruction did not exist before, but now there are many more options, and faculty who have experienced it. Peninsula College closed the last 2 weeks of the quarter and made changes to teach online in 2 weeks. Challenge to communicate all that was going on as some students and staff lacked access to technology and stable internet access. Not all students could go online due to lack of computers, or internet or regulatory programs (aviation) or other technical programs that required hands on training. It was a challenge to get additional PPE as the colleges gave theirs to police, fire and medical personnel. This also led to major budget challenges and construction delays on several projects. But not all was gloom and doom. There were several good things that came out of this experience for the colleges and universities. The University of Holy Cross only lost 1 student as they transitioned to online. The new modalities that faculty were exposed to was a good surprise. President McNeely indicated that this was like a marathon since there is no end in sight. Faculty at Peninsula College have been leading others to get on board. They created a drive through to get technology. President Robbins was surprised about the “let’s do this mentality.” The stay at home order was tough, but the challenge and hard part will be reopening with all of the unanswered questions. Community colleges were asking basic questions, not whether they would be playing football in the fall. All presidents had to make decisions and recommendations with minimal data. Chancellor Kristine Strickland from Fletcher Technical Community College was surprised about the resilience of the students and them staying engaged. They sent out a survey to 2000 students and 600 responded. Most indicated that they wanted to return to class in person. Arkansas State University Mid-South Campus Chancellor Debra West indicated that they were doing what needed to get done and that this was a chance to do things differently. When asked about if they had to lay off or furlough staff, the response was varied. Some were going to use attrition for saving budget and review any replacements as needed. One college furloughed staff 1 day a week for several months and then would ask for 1 day a month until the end of the year. Exempt staff were asked to volunteer for the program as well. There were no legislative special sessions called to address this. One college indicated that there would be no new hires or salary adjustments for the year. Hiring freezes or not refilling positions was also used as a strategy. When asked about how Information Technology Offices responded? Respondents addressed the immediate needs. It gave President McNeely the opportunity to create a new strategic IT plan and upgrade the classrooms to include more technology. Peninsula College was able to deploy additional laptops, hotspots and upgrades. They conducted drive thru pick-ups. But since it is a rural campus, it does make the digital divide even greater. Dr. Strickland indicated that her library staff were leaders in developing a process for students to check out resources. Dr. West was able to add WIFI to the campus parking lots and in some cases provide drive through testing in their cars. Students would drive up and be given a 112

 Leading During a Crisis

clean computer and took their tests. Dr. Quentin Wright was able to have participants in a technology bootcamp. So, IT offices were critical in the solution of moving the colleges university forward. In terms of current opening plans for Fall 2020, all colleges plan to open. With limited cell phone service due to remote locations and serving 5 Native Nations some students have almost no internet access off campus. Dr. Robbins said that this divide affects students of color and first-generation students even more. Fletcher Technical Community College will open as scheduled in fall with more online and hybrid options. They purchased an app and students log in and answer questions about their health and scan a barcode to be on campus. Debra West will align her reopening with K-12 and offer a mix of classes with more online offerings that have already tripled compared to previous fall offerings. Lone Star College will provide a mix of students and phase in employee returns. In closing, the discussion respondents were asked if they would like to add any additional information. President McNeely said you “can’t be afraid to make mistakes, the University will come out stronger.” The duration of this event will have a dramatic affect. Peninsula College President Robbins indicated that the college leaders want to be informed by data, but there is limited data and research on the topic. People have done a great job adapting, but people want stability. The uncertainty wears you down and there is a concern about faculty fatigue. Chancellor Strickland said the college has repositioned itself as a community resource and now have new community partners. Their partnership with health care now gives them access to signage, telemedicine and the ability to have nurses sent to campus and concierge services like same day tests and preferred treatment with providers. Chancellor West indicated that everyone is pulling for students to be successful, and they are using CARES act funding for mental health services for students. President Wright at Lone Star College Houston North is look at this as an opportunity to provide better service through increased efficiencies.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section restates the purpose of the study, problem, overarching questions, respondent answers, and the results of what was found. The purpose of this study was to assess the leadership practices and decision making of presidents of colleges and universities in addressing a crisis as a framework as outlined by Stanton McNeely (2013). This work specifically addresses the effects of the pandemic that crept into our lives in the spring of 2020. Most college and university presidents are not trained or equipped to deal with such situations. As leaders though, they are expected to make the tough decision in consultation with their boards and colleagues. The information for this study was obtained by interviewed by using a convenience sample of college and university presidents/chancellors. A total of 5 participants were interviewed. There were 2 females and 3 males interviewed. The colleges ranged in type (4-year public university, 2-year community college) and size from 1100 to 3800 students. The respondents were from Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and the state of Washington. Responses were examined and will be discussed as experienced by the college and university presidents/chancellors. This section will address the implications of the findings. Implications are addressed according to the two research questions. Any implications will be connected to findings and in relation to the purpose of this study. This work is aimed at those in higher education leadership or leadership training programs. Recommendations for application and further study will be shared.

113

 Leading During a Crisis

The implications for higher education are wide and varied on this topic as there is limited research and data on this topic as we are in the midst of the pandemic. The key findings given the set of circumstances that the world is dealing with, higher education leaders, faculty and staff did a good job in moving to remote learning in a very short amount of time. Often this was done in about 2 weeks at each college with little to no warning. Leading during a crisis is hard enough, but when that crisis affects the whole world, that makes it even more difficult. But in dealing with any crisis, sound management decisions must be made with the best data, advise and resources available. There was no manual that anyone could go pull off the shelf and read to learn how to manage through this crisis. But there were resources available from other typically isolated types of crisis like Hurricanes and other natural disasters, so that became the framework for this research. This research was difficult to conduct with very little to go on. With that in mind, this study was undertaken to try and maximize insight that could be gathered from current Presidents/Chancellors in the middle of this pandemic and potentially shared with others to assist in filling the void. At a different time and place, perhaps this might not be an issue as reflection, lessons learned, and other research becomes available to learn from. That work in this case is not available, so we are learning together as the pandemic rages on.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hypothesis One: What has this pandemic done to your college in terms of planning, programming and enrollments? This question was asked to learn about the possible short- and long-term effects of the pandemic on college and university operations. For the most part a few themes developed in looking at what colleges were doing differently. Those themes centered around communication, technology, campus supports (faculty, staff, student, community), programs and services, and enrollment. Overall the respondents indicated that their institutions did fairly well considering the situation. There were some that were hit pretty hard with lost revenue and had to make investments in technology and infrastructure but long-term this will better position the institutions to be more competitive. Respondents talked about engagement and communication needs of the campus in order to provide update to date information and instructions. Technology needs shifted as everyone had to get online quickly, and with new tools (Zoom, WebEx, Etc.) training and equipment was needed. The technology departments had to respond and did a good job in a short amount of time. Work hours, staffing patterns and significantly as staff were working remotely. In many cases also working more as issues arose. Implications for faculty who did not previously teach online were huge. The training, moving materials online, teaching online, testing, and grading all had to be shifted. But most faculty were able to rise up to the challenge. One college indicated that several faculty decided to leave as this experience had taken its toll. Students needed access to computers, internet and materials. Several colleges were able to provide hotspots, WIFI, and additional resources for students. That did come with major budget implications though. Colleges had to examine their budgets and determine whether or not the core operations needed to be adjusted. One college was exploring the closure of several programs due to the budget shortfall due to declining enrollments. Overall the other colleges were flat in enrollment or slightly down. Many students are eager to return to class in person. Hypothesis Two: What were your challenges and opportunities as a result of this situation?

114

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 Leading During a Crisis

In answering this question, a subset of questions asking about challenges, surprises, staffing, information technology, and opening plans for the Fall of 2020. President McNeely said it best when he said that these changes are permanent. The new hybrid model that developed with both synchronous and asynchronous, mixed with in-person socially distanced classrooms will serve as an option for years to come. For students, differing levels of access and internet reliability surfaced as an issue. While many students were able to transition to online remote learning, this did not seem to be the preferred model. The uncertainty of the ongoing situation may not fully be known for years. Leaders had to make decisions with little data on hand. This is certainly not how they have been making decisions in the past. Data was at the center of all other discussions. Staffing was a challenge for the respondents. How do you keep staff on board, some chose to leave, while others took on additional responsibilities without additional compensation? Technology seemed to be the biggest issue. What about laptops, cameras, and the materials that faculty were used to having. Students lacked reliable internet and had limited options for testing. Some colleges were able to create drive thru opportunities for their students, and faculty that were received quite well. While the challenges at the beginning certainly outweighed the opportunities, colleges and universities have been able to adapt and turn them into positives. The first recommendation is the develop a communication plan in responding to crisis. This plan should address the guidelines for faculty, staff and students to follow in the event of future situations. In concert with this plan would be a companion information technology plan. As a part of this plan the budget and resources needed must be identified and enacted upon. There must also be training tied to any plan. The faculty and staff need to be trained on the use of the resources prior to having to implement them. The technology plan must address the access to computers and reliable internet for students. These plans would need to involve both internal and external partners as the needs will certainly expand outside of the college or university. The second recommendation would be to determine what the “New Normal” is? What does the socially distanced campus look like? What does the student experience look like? Student activities, graduation, open houses, and recruitment? What are the implications for the way we operate and interact with each other? Job interviews, will handshakes ever be acceptable again? How do we navigate when there are still so many unknowns? The third recommendation is to research student and faculty engagement? What implications does this have for the design and delivery of instruction and services to students? Will office meetings all be virtual or conducted by phone? The fourth recommendation is to examine what are the supports that students need? What services and access to counseling, mental health, and career services will be needed. The fifth recommendation is to determine what will be different with the community that the colleges serve. Will there be more drive thru services, virtual training, meetings, telemedicine visits? This will need to be explored and a plan of action identified. The sixth recommendation will be to look at the data as it relates to this experience. What does this mean for predicting college enrollments?

115

 Leading During a Crisis

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Future research should take a look and determine what we can do differently as a result and what was identified as a best practice? With this pandemic hitting the world, there are many opportunities to examine what others have done, why, how, and then begin to lay the groundwork for future studies. This research and analysis will be needed to see what worked, and what did not. With limited resources, what may be some promising practices that could save time, money, and effort in responding to such events in the future. What new business processes have been implemented or should be as a result of this pandemic. What further research can be done to better assist college and university leaders in making decisions that will lead to student success.

CONCLUSION This study examined how some current college presidents/chancellors addressed a crisis that has changed the world. This time not just a region, state or single entity. It has forever changed the world that we live, work and go to school in. Both public and private 2-year and 4-year college presidents were interviewed about the effects of the pandemic had on their institutions. What is gleaned from this information will add to the leadership information in dealing with the “New Normal.” The results of this study will add to the body of knowledge out there on leadership, dealing with change, and crisis management. This work with be helpful to current leaders and aspiring leaders in managing future situations. Higher education leaders will be able to at least gather some insight about some real examples and solutions to unexpected crises. This will work with serve as a call to continue research in this area and provide some data as it relates to dealing with a pandemic.

REFERENCES AboutUs. (n.d.). https://www.fletcher.edu/about-us/ Cowen, A., & Cowen, S. (2010). Rediscovering communities: Lessons from the Hurricane Katrina crisis. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(2), 117–125. doi:10.1177/1056492609351089 Cozby, P. C. (2009). Methods in behavioral research. McGraw Hill Higher Education. Facts & Figures. (n.d.). https://pencol.edu/aboutpc/facts-figures Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround Leadership for Higher Education. Jossey-Bass. Guskin, A. E., & Marcy, M. B. (2002). Pressures for Fundamental Reform. In R. M. Diamond (Ed.), Field Guide to Academic Leadership (pp. 3–13). Jossey-Bass. Institutional Profile. (n.d.). https://www.asumidsouth.edu/institutional-profile/ Kenney, P. (1997). When a crisis occurs: A trustee’s perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1997(98), 73–79. doi:10.1002/cc.9808 Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2007). The Leadership Challenge. Jossey-Bass.

116

 Leading During a Crisis

Lawrence, F. L. (2006). Leadership in Higher Education: Views from the Presidency. Transaction Publishers. Lucero, M., Alywin Tan, T. K., & Pang, A. (2009). Crisis leadership: When should the CEO step up? Corporate Communications, 14(3), 234–248. doi:10.1108/13563280910980032 McNeely, S. (2013). A Qualitative Case Study of Hurricane Katrina and University Presidential Leadership [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. North Central University, United States. National Center for Educational Statistics. (n.d.a). College Navigator. https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavig ator/?q=fletcher+technical&s=all&id=160481#retgrad National Center for Educational Statistics. (n.d.b). College Navigator. https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavig ator/?q=university+of+holy+cross&s=all&id=160065#enrolmt National Center for Educational Statistics. (n.d.c). College Navigator. https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavig ator/?q=arkansas+state+university+mid+south&s=all&id=107318#enrolmt Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications. Savage-Austin, A., & Honeycutt, A. (2011). Servant leadership: A phenomenological study of practices, experiences, organizational effectiveness, and barriers. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(1), 49–54. SchWeber, C. (2008). Determined to learn: Accessing education despite life-threatening disasters. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(1), 37–43. Scott, S., & Webber, C. (2008). Evidence-based leadership development: The 4L framework. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(6), 762–776. doi:10.1108/09578230810908343 Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2008). The research methods knowledge base. Cengage. van Ameijde, J., Nelson, P., Billsberry, J., & van Meurs, N. (2009). Improving leadership in higher education institutions: A distributed perspective. Higher Education, 58(6), 763–779. doi:10.100710734009-9224-y Woodward, I., & More, E. (2010). Leadership communication at the edge. Australian Journal of Communication, 37(1), 111–136.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Zdziarski, E. L., Dunkel, N. W., & Rollo, J. M. (2007). Campus Crisis Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Planning, Prevention, Response, and Recovery. Jossey-Bass.

117

Leading During a Crisis

APPENDIX 1

Email Sent to Perspective Participants Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study of College Presidents and answering questions about COVID-19 and our current situation. This study is being conducted by Dr. Derrick Manns, and Dr. Stanton McNeely, President at University of Holy Cross in New Orleans, Louisiana. Participation in this case study is voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. You may also choose to remain anonymous if you do not want you or your institution to be identified. It is hoped that this study will contribute to this very important topic facing higher education. Being a college president is hard enough, but when you add to it a crisis, that makes the task of leading even more of a challenge. Whether that crisis is isolated like Virginia Tech, Regional with situations like hurricanes and natural disasters (Katrina, Harvey, wildfires, tornadoes) or now national with the Coronavirus (COVID-19), leadership has definitely been a hard thing to do. No one could have predicted the current pandemic that we are dealing with now and how that would affect students, families, colleges and universities, K-12 schools, medical professionals and the whole world. These times are unprecedented and unpredictable. For the first time in history, we are all dealing with the same situation at the same time. While there is research about leading during a crisis, this new pandemic is unprecedented. This chapter will add to the literature on crisis leadership, and how some current college presidents are addressing this issue. It is anticipated that both public and private 2-year and 4-year college presidents will be interviewed/surveyed about their thoughts on this topic. What is gleaned from this information will add to the leadership information in dealing with the “New Normal.”

APPENDIX 2 Interview Questions

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The following questions were asked of the interview participants: 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

118

What have you done differently that you were not doing before the crisis? What has been the biggest 2-3 challenges? What have been the biggest 2-3 surprises? How have your staff responded? Faculty? Students? Community? Have you had to cut back on programs or services as a result? Have you had to lay-off or furlough staff? How were your summer enrollments? Are you predicting a shift in enrollment for Fall 2020? Positive or negative?

Leading During a Crisis

9. How has your IT offices responded to provide equipment or services to students? 10. What are your current opening plans for upcoming academic year? 11. Any other additional information you would like to add or close with?

APPENDIX 3 Participants

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Dr. Stanton McNeely, President, University of Holy Cross, (New Orleans LA), 4 year Private, July 8, 2020 Dr. Luke Robbins President, Peninsula College, (Port Angeles, Washington) 2- year public, July 13, 2020 Dr. Kristine Strickland, Chancellor (= President), Fletcher Technical Community College, (Schriever, Louisiana) 2-year public July 27, 2020 Dr. Debra West, Chancellor – Arkansas State University Midsouth, (West Memphis Arkansas) 2-year public, September 1, 2020 Dr. Quentin Wright, President, Lone Star College – Houston North, (Houston, Texas), 2-year public, October 13, 2020.

119

120

Chapter 8

Navigating the New Normal:

Strategic Higher Education Leadership in the Post-Covid Shutdown World Mark Edward Fincher Mississippi State University, USA

ABSTRACT The higher education world within the US changed markedly and permanently with the COVID-19 shutdown in March of 2020. The exact impact of this change will vary by institution and be evolving for years, but higher education leaders will need to negotiate this changed environment in the most efective way possible for their individual institution. Unlike previous major changes, the COVID-19 shutdown greatly restricted options and resources at the disposal of higher education leaders. This presents an unprecedented challenge to those who are tasked with preserving and furthering their institutions. However, in the midst of this unexpected challenge to the very existence of some institutions, many now have developed the necessary capabilities to carry out their missions more broadly than ever before. It is the purpose of this chapter to explore the changes that are infuencing colleges and universities in the US and to propose ways that chancellors and presidents can navigate these conditions to allow their institutions to survive and even thrive.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The higher education world within the United States changed markedly and permanently with the Covid-19 shutdown in March of 2020. The exact impact of this change will vary by institution and be evolving for years, but higher education leaders will need to negotiate this changed environment in the most way possible for their individual institution. Higher education in the U.S. has not been impacted to this extent by one event since the implementation of the G.I. Bill legislation. Unlike the G.I. Bill movement which greatly expanded opportunities and available resources, the Covid-19 shutdown greatly restricted options and resources at the disposal of higher education leaders. This presents an unprecedented challenge to those who are tasked with preserving and furthering their institutions. For many institutions, preserving DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6560-5.ch008

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 Navigating the New Normal

what has been done in the past may necessitate seizing upon the unique opportunities presented by the societal response to the pandemic rather retreating into a smaller version of what had previously been normal operations. Colleges and universities have opportunities to extend the reach and impact of their campuses rather than reducing them. In the midst of this unexpected challenge to the very existence of some institutions, many now possess the necessary capabilities to carry out their missions more broadly than ever before. It is the purpose of this chapter to explore the changes that are influencing colleges and universities in the U.S. and to propose ways that chancellors and presidents can navigate these conditions to allow their institutions to survive and even thrive. Books on the history of higher education written after 2020 will define that year as a time where everything changed. The strategies and tactics used by successful higher education leaders will need to change as well. To better understand the change experienced in 2020, it is helpful to explore the conditions that were in place when the Covid-19 pandemic came into being.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The World that the Covid-19 Shutdown Changed The shutdown did not occur in a vacuum. The impact of the Covid-19 shutdown has been enhanced by the already somewhat precarious situation faced by many institutions of higher education in the 20192020 academic year (Whitford, 2020; Katsinas, et.al., 2016). This impact will be particularly substantial and long-lasting due to the conditions that were present at the time that it occurred. The perceived relative value of an advanced education has already been seen to be declining for many due to decreasing public support and corresponding rises tuition costs (Fincher & Katsinas, 2017). The place of importance held by higher education had been diminishing for decades in the eyes of the public and state governments. Where an individual achieving an advanced education had largely been seen as benefit to society as a whole, it is now widely seen as simply benefitting the person who gets it (Katsinas, 2005). This shift has been followed by an expectation that the student should bear more and more of the cost of that education. Consequently, where the provision of broad, high quality higher education access had previously been a legislative priority, actions in recent years indicate that this is no longer the case. This shift has permeated higher education and influenced current and former students. Student debt has reached an all-time high, in terms of both total and individual debt (Fincher, 2017a). The societal acceptance of high student debt levels has led to a perception that higher education is no longer a great investment for the individual. The holistic cost and potential incursion of debt for non-traditional students can be particularly challenging barrier (Fincher, 2017b). While the cost to the student has increased, the expected return of an advanced education has remained fairly stable. Logically, this has led to a diminished in the expected return on investment that can be expected from the pursuit of education. In reality, pursuing an advanced education is still a tremendous value. This value, however, is relatively less than it was in the recent past. The likelihood of gaining a financial advantage from attending a college or university is also very inconsistent across fields and institutions (Carnevale, Cheah, & Van Der Werf, 2019). Where the gain of any academic credential was key to some level of success and advancement, this outcome is far less consistent. It almost always works for some institutions and fields but is much more variable for others. Cost, finance, and the consumer economics aspect of college choice now necessarily permeate all higher education decision making processes. The missions of individual colleges and universities did not necessarily change, but conditions under which the institutions operate definitely have (Mitchell, 2020).

121

 Navigating the New Normal

This is the situation that higher education leaders were learning to negotiate when the spring semester of 2020 was brought to an abrupt halt.

Rapid and Broad Changes in the Higher Education Environment. The Covid-19 shutdown impacted every aspect of higher education. No economic downturn, societal shift, war, or national calamity ever closed almost all of the college and university campuses in the United States and it seems likely that nothing else ever will. The campus closings alone has been a disaster for most institutions, but this was not the limit of the impact of the national shutdown. The shutdown had a profound impact on the U.S. as a whole and this permeates every aspect of society. It even served to redefine what is essential in the United States.

Definition of Essential The Covid-19 shutdown split all functions into two categories. Within a few weeks of the onset of the epidemic in the United States, all of American life and culture was defined as being either essential or non-essential (Center for Disease Control, 2020; Krebs, 2020). Education as a whole and the collegiate campus environment in particular were defined as non-essential. This has left higher education leaders with the task of redefining their institutions and what they provide as being essential functions. The value of correcting this image foes far beyond being factually accurate. This redefinition of the importance of higher education is critical as non-essential activities can be eliminated and will at least be diminished when resources are scarce. Part of this process will be determining precisely what portions of their enterprise are truly essential. This will vary by institution. Establishing higher education as a critical function in the eyes of legislators and potential students will be a critical step in effectively navigating the drastically changed environment for colleges and universities.

THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 SHUTDOWN ON THE HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

State Funding Losses The United States has never experienced a financial shock like the one caused by the Covid-19 shutdown. Every state in the country has experienced a massive loss in tax revenue alongside a massive increase in expenses (National Governor’s Association, 2020). Since state governments generally cannot operate at a fiscal deficit, major cuts in long-term investment areas of higher education and infrastructure will likely be made to allow for the continuation of services that satisfy current needs. This will not be fiscally wise, but it will be the most politically attractive of the bad options that are left to state legislators after massive revenue drops are realized. This loss of state revenue is not likely to be a short-term phenomenon (Long, 2020). While many industries have bounced back quickly, others have not. In terms of state higher education funding, this is particularly concerning as in recent decades funding cuts made during bad economic times have not been rescinded in ensuing good economic times (Katsinas, 2005). Cuts to higher education funding have

122

 Navigating the New Normal

been seen as a reallocation of resources to more important priorities and a shifting of costs to students rather than a management of short-term fiscal conditions. This continued shifting of costs to the individual student is particularly concerning as the ability of students to absorb these additional costs may be the weakest in decades (National Governor’s Association, 2020a). The same economic forces that are reducing state tax revenues are limiting the ability of students and their families to fund college and university attendance (Soergel, 2020). This occurs at a time when incurring substantial student loans had already become standard before the Covid-19 related shutdown economic effects had been felt (Fincher, 2017a).

Shutdown Related Social Challenges In addition to the fiscal changes brought on by the Covid-19 shutdown, the United States has experienced profound societal changes. The social fabric of the United States has been disturbed like never before. In response to the Covid-19 pandemic social interactions have been radically restricted, both by law and by social expectations. These changes appear to have long-term connotations. Prospective students and their families may have concerns about their going off to college. The emotional health of the college going population may also be at risk. Suicide, depression, anxiety, and drug abuse are expected to be at record levels (Pell & Lesser, 2020). Students may be more in need of social development and support than ever before. Institutions of higher education will need to adapt to these conditions. However, conditions driven by the Covid-19 shutdown are limiting the ability of many colleges and universities to provide this vital support.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Higher Education and Upward Mobility: Pathway or Barrier A critical part of the mission of many colleges and universities is the creation of a pathway for individual economic and social advancement. Higher education in the United States has long been seen as a means for promoting equal opportunity within the citizenry (Glater, 2016). This has not always been the case, but for recent generations, the access to quality higher education has been the primary pathway for social and economic advancement. Rapidly increasing costs for tuition and fees have been diminishing the viability of this pathway for years (Katsinas, et.al, 2014), but it has remained a valuable avenue to success for many Americans. This provision of social and economic mobility is dependent on broadly available access to high quality higher education experiences (Fincher, 2007; Jenkins & Rodriguez, 2013). Students that are considered elite, whether based both on family background, academic preparation, or both, generally attend elite colleges and universities. These institutions are always available to the elite from every country. The vast majority of U.S, students, however, attend non-elite institutions. This situation makes the quality of the educational experience offered at less elite institutions the critical component in a viable pathway for upward mobility. It would mean little in terms of upward mobility and equality of opportunity if the common students gained access to a highly limited education while the elite had access to a far superior educational experience. Fortunately, the high quality level of the educational experience offered by less elite public colleges and universities has been a great strength of higher education in the U.S (Jolly, 2009). Consequently, higher education has been widely seen as the best pathway to economic and social mobility (McCants, 2003). Broad access to rich higher education experiences at public colleges and universities has essen123

 Navigating the New Normal

tially validated the idea that the United States is at least somewhat of a meritocracy. It has also provided an important competitive advantage for the U.S. over other industrialized countries that give limited educational opportunities to common students (Fincher, 2007). While some limited qualitative differences exist, students at non-selective public colleges and universities have had very similar experiences as their more elite counterparts+. Even the more humble colleges and universities have had campuses with clubs, support services, social organizations, and often even residence life, Greek organizations, fine arts groups, and sports teams. The path has clearly existed for people from a less privileged background and have had a legitimate opportunity to apply their efforts and talents to become what they aspire to be. Many of these students have succeeded. The Covid-19 response, however, has further lessened the opportunity for advancement presented to many citizens of the U.S. by higher education. The highly divergent responses of public college and university systems and individual public institutions has put many of the less well-prepared and less well-funded students at a distinct disadvantage. This disadvantage can most clearly be seen in the overall quality of the collegiate experience and the capabilities it produces in individual students. The response to Covid-19 has limited the quality of higher education offered at some institutions (Patel, 2020; Tierney, 2020), and put this pathway to prosperity in question. While many institutions have maintained fully functioning campuses and maintained the benefits they provide to their students, a notable number of the less-selective institutions have moved to a virtually campus-free form of higher education (Burke, 2020; Owens, 2020; Tarrant County College, 2020). This goes beyond merely moving classes online. Many institutions have eliminated campus housing, dining, meetings, sports, clubs, libraries, and general activities. Some have basically banned students, faculty, and staff from campus. Many of these institutions serve the most challenged students. Decades of shifting the cost of higher education have already put practical limitations on higher education as a pathway to prosperity (Fincher & Katsinas, 2017). For those that could afford it, however, the pathway has remained viable. The reduction in the experiences provided at many less selective institutions has materially blocked that pathway and become a barrier to upward mobility.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Danger of Further Segmentation of Higher Education Access The college campus matters (Zhbanova, & Fincher, 2019; Lineros &Fincher, 2014). The collegiate experience is not merely about learning the material that is presented in a classroom (Fincher, 2010). Students, if given the opportunity, can be exposed to intellectually expanding ideas, learn to develop social capital, and gain broader perspectives on many aspects of life. Some think that these out of the classroom experiences are even more important that what goes on in the classroom (Madda, 2019). Social capital development is widely associated with professional success and its ensuing prosperity. It has also been shown that the development that the development of social capital provided by a collegiate experience can be of greater impact on degree attainment than the development provided by either family influences (Chen & Starobin, 2018) or personal determination (Almieda, et.al, 2019). Social capital development skills can greatly leverage the value of the knowledge that is gained in the classroom and is highly valued in the workplace (Andreas, 2018; Ovink & Veazey, 2011). Many institutions that do the critical work of serving the less affluent and less prepared students have maintained largely closed campuses after the initial nationwide shutdown of colleges and universities. This has been justified through both concern for the virus and resource issues (Smalley, 2020). Maintaining an open campus while responsibly limiting the transmission of Covid-19 is expensive and time 124

 Navigating the New Normal

consuming and some institutions have been hesitant to do so. While somewhat justifiable, this approach has led to a sharply reduced level of quality. The value of a college campus cannot be replaced with simple online courses and this has become very evident. (Xu & Jaggars, 2016). Students are falling behind and dropping out in large numbers and low SES students, first-generation students, and those from ethnic minorities are highly over-represented in this group (Custodio, 2020; Weitzer, 2020). Without financial or political concerns this situation could be easily reversed at some point in the future when the pandemic has subsided. This would limit the damage to those students who were present during the pandemic. Unfortunately, it is very likely that financial pressures will be high (Mitchell, 2020; National Governor’s Association, 2020a) and political influences will be substantial (Smalley, 2020) to maintain highly limited campus activities long after the end of the pandemic. Institutions will be asked to do more with less revenue and funding (National Governor’s Association, 2020b), while political forces are increasingly calling for some form of free college (Murakami, 2020). The basic idea of continuing to primarily offer limited online education with very limited on-campus activities and services will consequently become very attractive. Highly limited campus activities could bring lower costs. Lower costs approaches, no matter how detrimental they are to the students, would allow for lower funding and at least somewhat limited tuition costs while maintaining the illusion that higher education access was being maintained. This option will be the most attractive for the less prestigious and less well-funded institutions. This is particularly problematic in that it is these institutions who often serve the students who need a rich campus experience the most (Custodio, 2020). The potential for cost savings that might be achieved through cutting the campus experience does not change or outweigh the value for the students that will be lost. If this attractive path is widely followed, a stratification of educational quality will be produced. Public higher education could go from a universal pathway to advancement and prosperity to something that fir some will be a barrier personal advancement. In the past, the campus experience at elite public institutions were not that much different from what was found at the less elite public institutions. Diminished campus environments and experiences would drastically change that. Institutional leaders face the challenge to maintain the quality that is provided by a rich campus experience while under intense financial and political strain.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Impact of a Limited college Experience for the Non-Elite Students In recent decades the United States has become increasingly concerned with the issue of equity. Equity concerns reflect the idea that past unfair treatment, or inequity, leads to gaps in performance and outcomes (Cooper & Leegwater, 2018). The equity agenda calls for an equalizing of outcomes to overcome past injustices. The primary argument against this sort of policy is any injustices are primarily in the past and that our current people all have an equal, or equitable, opportunity for success. Broad access to high quality public higher education is a foundational source of equal opportunity. Creating a very visible and substantial inequality between the public higher education provided for the elite and that which is provided for the more common students will further fuel the view that the U.S. promotes systemic inequality. This inequality of opportunity would also appear to be unfair and un-American. Equity and fairness, however, may not be the most critical problems with the development of a two-tiered system of public higher education. The abundance of access to public higher education opportunity provided in the United States gives it a tremendous competitive advantage in the international marketplace and balance of power (Fincher, 125

 Navigating the New Normal

2007). Almost all countries have a well-educated elite. The differentiating factor is the educational level of the average citizen. The United States has long enjoyed a superior level of higher education access throughout the population and this has been associated with national security and prosperity (Fincher, 2007). Eliminating this advantage could have a profoundly negative impact on the United States. Promoting upward mobility and economic prosperity are two of the primary goals of public institutions of higher education (Schnee, 2009). Allowing for a public higher education system where the educational experiences offered to the common students are markedly less effective to those offered to the elite students will diminish the ability of colleges and universities to achieve both of these critical missions.

Thriving Long-term in the Post Covid-19 Shutdown World The Covid-19 pandemic was not simply an emergency. It made the world a more dangerous place to live for a substantial period of time. Consequently, the ramifications of the pandemic and its ensuing shutdown are long-term in nature. The shutdown and restriction of higher education, as well as many other activities, led to many systemic changes the will persist for the foreseeable future. Adapting to this situation was expensive, time consuming, and stressful to every institution. Costly investments were made, both in equipment and in training, to facilitate operating during the pandemic and expanded capabilities remain from these investments. By using the new capabilities gained during and after the shutdown to respond to the shifting priorities of states and students, colleges and universities can survive and thrive in spite of a historically difficult situation.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Consumer Value Focused Planning In the years following the shutdown, the state governments, students, and prospective students that largely fund the higher education enterprise will be under greater financial distress than at any time in recent memory. Precisely how distressed they will be has yet to be seen, but there will likely be an intense focus on value for many of the normal constituents of colleges and universities. Items will be prioritized and de-prioritized and sacrifices will be made. Institutions can relatively enhance their place in the priorities of students and lawmakers by becoming highly focused on providing value in ways that they can readily see. While the potential value of an advanced education is as great as ever, the relative value of everything that consumers place on every item they spend their increasingly limited funds on is completely in flux. States will be experiencing unprecedented reductions in revenue and many prospective students and their families will be facing unusual financial hardships. In this environment colleges and university presidents must be increasingly conscious of the need to establish clear value for the experience that they provide. Fortunately, many institutions have developed capabilities after the shutdown that can be very useful in this endeavor.

Leveraging Capabilities Acquired through the Shutdown Expenditures made to shut down and de-densify campuses are not necessarily just enormous costs that have no future benefits to colleges and universities. These expenditures of time, money, and effort produced valuable capabilities that can be used to enhance institutional activities for years to come. Leveraging these capabilities may be critical in carrying out the missions of these institutions while overcoming the public funding restrictions that are likely to arise after the Covid-19 shutdown. Rather 126

 Navigating the New Normal

than reducing the campus experience to balance out the unplanned expenses of the shutdown and the expected cuts in state support, institutions can increase enrollment and revenue by using these hardearned capabilities to extend the reach of a rich campus experience. The initial Covid-19 shutdown was enormously costly for most colleges and universities (Mitchell, 2020). For those institutions that chose to do so, the cost of preparing to have a year of being fully functional while drastically reducing campus crowding to safely manage the pandemic was also great (Paxson, 2020). To many educators these were seen as one time expenditures that would help institutions weather the temporary storm that was caused by the pandemic and never be used again as things would return to normal. Many of these capabilities, however, are extremely valuable and will continue to exist for the near future. The varied responses that individual institutions used to limit virus transmission each provide a potential for reaching and serving additional high quality students. Some of the most common tactics for reducing exposure to Covid-19 on campus have been atypical course scheduling, enhanced classroom technology, blended learning environments, virtual meeting technology, hybrid course models, virtual advising, virtual counseling, mask mandates, and advanced cleaning/disinfecting techniques. While this is not an all-inclusive list of the tactics used to limit the transmission of Covid-19, it does represent most of the more common approaches. Other than the mask mandates and the increased disinfecting procedures, each of these tactics has the potential to allow an institution to better pursue its mission and attract more students in the post Covid-19 environment.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Atypical Course Scheduling For many institutions, there is a de facto understanding that the institution is full of students when classroom space has to be rationed from 9:30 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. administrative systems have adapted to support approach to scheduling. Some institutions worked to reduce virus transmission through spreading courses out through the entire day and into the weekend. In the process, these institutions developed the administrative systems and personnel to effectively schedule and offer courses at any time of any day. This newfound capability allows colleges and universities to offer classes to traditional students who benefit from an alternative schedule and this can be done at a very low cost. Keeping classroom spaces occupied from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. requires minimal additional incremental cost and maximizes the value of the sunk costs of building construction and maintenance. This creates an opportunity to recruit and serve students who need to work part-time while to fund their own educations. This arrangement will allow them to have stable schedules that leave all morning or all afternoon, or perhaps even all week, open for work while pursuing a full-time academic schedule. By doing this, an institution will substantially cut the cost of a degree for these students by reducing the amount of debt financing that the student needs. Any opportunity to reduce the cost of a degree for traditional students without reducing or discounting the cost of tuition will attract more and higher quality students while supporting the institutions financial needs. Colleges and universities that expanded the times and days of their course offerings just to limit the transmission of Covid-19 have gained all of the necessary capabilities to offer programming in a variety of schedules. This capability was hard earned and will remain long after the threat of the virus has diminished.

127

 Navigating the New Normal

Enhanced Classroom Technology Many institutions rapidly added classroom video technology to allow for remote viewing and participation in classes. This allowed for more distancing in a classroom environment through having students in multiple rooms during a single class meeting. Cameras and microphones were added to many classrooms and are now the standard at many colleges and universities. This technology was expensive to add and costly to master, but this creates the permanent capability to record, and archive class meetings. This can open the classroom experience and enhance it for a variety of potential student groups. Many institutions that made these investments can now easily create archived copies of class meetings that are closed captioned and available as study aids. This will automatically make many classes more available for students with physical and/or learning disabilities. The opportunity to go back over lectures and discussions with a tutor and through visual, reading, and auditory means will benefit all students but especially those with learning disabilities. More students with challenges to their learning can be specifically recruited and served through using this capability at little or no extra cost.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Blended Learning Environments Many institutions addressed classroom crowding concerns by implementing blended learning environment approaches to classes that were normally taught in a traditional, face-to-face classroom. In this approach, each class meeting can be attended in real-time by students who are either in the classroom or online. Doing this effectively creates an in-class learning experience while allowing for students to fully participate from a distance. The problems of providing a rich classroom experience purely in cyberspace and through asynchronous communication was largely overcome through the blended method. This required substantial audio-visual hardware and an advanced online learning environment. The capital investment and class development resources needed to do this are significant but the capability for this type of programming will persist for years. This type of programming can be continued and expanded to recruit and serve large groups of quality students who have responsibilities that sometimes interfere with their ability to attend every class in person. Blended classroom programming has the potential reach an enormous number of high quality, working adult students. The characteristics of working adult students often include personal initiative, financial stability, drive, community involvement, and intellectual maturity. While these characteristics make them very attractive as students, they are largely ignored due to their having other responsibilities that can interfere with a standard course scheduling model. Students like this often pursue an advanced education to maintain and enhance their current career rather than to start one. They may have family and community responsibilities that they want to continue and further through becoming more educated. Consequently, the pursuit of an advanced education is a priority rather than the priority for these students. If a job requirement appears or a city council meeting is called that does not allow for the necessary travel time to campus, they would normally have to miss class. Business and family travel can also make on-campus attendance difficult or impossible. Variable work schedules can also make standard classes ineffective for some working adults. The blended classroom environment overcomes all of these problems with little or no decrease in the quality of the learning process. If an entire course of study is provided in a blended environment, a de facto working adult program has been created at no additional cost. Since these students are often overlooked and underserved, such a program could attract an almost unlimited

128

 Navigating the New Normal

number of students. For institutions who have already made the necessary investments to do this as part of their response to Covid-19, this entirely new program could be produced at no additional cost.

Virtual Meeting Technology Virtual meeting technology has been embraced by many institutions to reduce the virus exposure of faculty and staff members. Faculty and staff development activities have been moved into virtual environments at many institutions. Large numbers of people have been connected in many locations to a central presentation. Interactive virtual meetings are being done throughout higher education. Colleges and universities have a rare capacity to convene important discussions and events. This has historically been limited to campus activities. Virtual meeting technology allows these activities online or to be purely virtual from their creation. An institution can create a regional or even national reputation by providing online seminars and meetings. These meetings can even be used to create networks of existing and regionally disbursed organizations. Activities like these can establish a college or university as a center of knowledge, learning, and community. This can enhance the attractiveness of all or an institution’s programming.

Hybrid Course Model Hybrid course models allow for reduced trips to campus by each cohort of students. This has been used to reduce campus crowding on each day as opposed to having a crowd each day. When classes are not meeting on campus they can do independent assignments and off-campus group projects. Hybrid courses can also be used to create programming for students who recognize the value of the in-class learning experience, but also value some out-of-class activities and a limited number of trips to campus. Hybrid programs can be particularly valuable to non-traditional students who live and work a long distance from campus. This can double the geographic reach of any college or university. Students who would drive 45 minutes each way for a class that meets every week would probably consider driving 90 minutes, one-way, for half of the number of trips. The Covid-19 driven knowledge of how to provide hybrid courses can allow this type of programming to be inexpensively produced on a large scale to attract non-traditional students.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Re-Establishing Community Colleges and universities are communities that exist within a greater community. Campuses become the primary or secondary home for students and a center-piece of culture and communication for regions and states. This community creation and connection has been aggressively and intentionally broken by the Covid-19 response. This process has weakened or eliminated a critical contribution that is made by institutions of higher education. Every college and university will need to purposely work to rebuild this community. This will be made more challenging by having to do so with a society that has become used to unprecedented isolation and social anxiety. The methods of providing community will vary by institution and how they adapt to the changing higher education environment, but every institution will need to make purposeful decisions and efforts to do so. These efforts will need to be led by the highest levels of administration.

129

 Navigating the New Normal

Virtual Advising Advising is a critical function of the higher education process. It goes far beyond the selection of courses. It can entail everything from activity selection and internship placement to career guidance. Many institutions sought to continue this function virtually. While not equal in quality to an on-campus advising function, this endeavor produced valuable capabilities that can be incorporated in an effort to better serve a broader and growing range of students. On-campus advising activities can be enhanced with the technologies and skills that were acquired during the shutdown. Activities that are begun in an on-campus environment can be continued in a largely virtual environment once a personal rapport is developed. This can be done with only a limited loss in effectiveness. This can be a great benefit to students who through work, family, location, or disabilities, have limitations on their ability to come to campus. Reductions in the necessary trips to campus that do not reduce the quality of the educational experience provide a great value to students with these challenges. Many institutions have already paid the price to gain the capabilities necessary to provide this benefit and can now do this with little or no additional cost.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Virtual Counseling Counseling, much like advising, can take many forms. An increasingly critical component of counseling at colleges universities is that which is performed by licensed clinical mental health professionals. Due to the pandemic and the ramifications of the ensuing shutdown, those attending college in the years after 2020 may be in greater need of counseling services than any previous student body. Fortunately, many institutions gained the capability to provide some counseling services virtually. While there is no substitute for face-face-interaction with professionals in the field, some substantial success has been found in continuing existing counselor/client relationships. Many institutions have developed virtual counseling systems and capabilities as a stop gap measure during the pandemic response. If these capabilities were continued to be utilized, on campus office visits for counseling could be augmented with intermittent virtual visits. This would reduce the travel burden for students and possible reduce fears of being stigmatized for seeking care. Having a system that allows for virtual counseling also creates the possibility of a more effective management of institutional counseling capacity. Maintaining and increasing counseling staff at a college or university is generally a slow process that is based on predicted demand. Maintaining a virtual counseling capability allows for some level of outsourcing of counseling services when the need increases. Private virtual counseling service providers that have been generated in response to the pandemic could be used to fill gaps in need that are found at colleges and universities. The demand for counseling services among students is likely to increase, but there is no way to accurately predict the increase as this situation is unprecedented. Virtual counseling capabilities could be used to allow capacity to be built by colleges and universities after the change in demand was determined. This could be done with very limited negative impact on the quality of the counseling that was offered. The outsourcing of the counseling function could also be done within the college or university community. Institutions with counseling programs could hire alumni in a part-time capacity as being geographically present would not be necessary. Additionally, former counseling staff members could fill a contingent virtual role, much like contingent faculty members fill within the professoriate. In addition to the obvious fiscal advantages of a more efficient and responsive counseling function, student who are

130

 Navigating the New Normal

not on campus as regularly might be particularly well served by counselors who are closely affiliated with the institution but do not spend all of their time on campus.

CONCLUSION Presidents and chancellors of colleges and universities will play the leading role in how their institutions navigate the new normal of the Post-Covid world. By understanding the situation that they face and the opportunities that it presents, they can cause their institutions to not only survive but also thrive. Proactive leadership by the chief executive can prepare an institution for a vibrant future in spite of a precarious present.

REFERENCES Almeida, D., Byrne, A., Smith, R., & Ruiz, S. (2019). How relevant is grit? The importance of social capital in first-generation academic success. Journal of College Student Retention. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1521025119854688 Andreas, S. (2018). Effects of the decline in social capital on college graduates’ soft skills. Industry and Higher Education, 32(1), 3–8. doi:10.1177/0950422217749277 Burke. (2020). Cal State Stands Alone. Inside Higher Ed. Carnevale, A., Cheah, B., & Van Der Werf, M. (2019). A First Try at ROI: Ranking 500 Colleges. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Center for Disease Control. (2020). Interim Guidance for Administrators of US Institutions of Higher Education. Center for Disease Control. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/ guidance-ihe-response.html Chen, Y., & Starobin, S. (2018). Formation of social capital for community college students: A secondorder confirmatory factor analysis. Community College Review, 47, 1, 3–30. Cooper, M., & Leegwater, L. (2018). Postsecondary Equity through the Lens of Policy Change. Change, 50(3/4), 102–106. doi:10.1080/00091383.2018.1509630

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Custodio, J. (2020). Students already faced learning barriers. Then Coronavirus forced and abrupt shift to online classes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, (April), 7. Fincher, M. (2007). Governments as human capital providers: A rationale for strong government support of broad higher education access. Competitiveness Review, 17(1/2), 67–76. doi:10.1108/10595420710816623 Fincher, M. (2010). Adult student retention: A practical approach to retention improvement through learning enhancement. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 58(1), 12–18. doi:10.1080/07377360903552154 Fincher, M. (2017a). Debt profiles of model students: The projected debt of highly productive students and its economic impact. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 47(1), 36–50. 131

 Navigating the New Normal

Fincher, M. (2017b). More than tuition and fees. The real costs of going away to college. Southeast Journal of Education Administration, 17(1). Fincher, M., & Katsinas, S. (2017). Testing the limits of the price elasticity of potential students at colleges and universities: Has the increased direct cost to the student begun to drive own higher education enrollment? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(1), 31–39. doi:10.1080/136008 0X.2016.1211975 Jenkins, D., & Rodriguez, O. (2013, Spring). Access and Success with Less: Improving Productivity in Broad-Access Postsecondary Institutions. The Future of Children, 23(1), 187–209. doi:10.1353/ foc.2013.0000 PMID:25522651 Katsinas, S. (2005). Increased competition for scarce state dollars. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2005(132), 19–32. doi:10.1002/cc.212 Katsinas, S., D’Amico, M., Friedel, J., Adair, L., Warner, J., & Malley, M. (2016). After the Great Recession: Higher Education’s New Normal: An analysis of National Surveys of Access and Finance Issues, 2011 to 2015. Education Policy Center, University of Alabama. Krebs, C. (2020). Advisory memorandum on identification of essential critical infrastructure workers during COVID-19 response. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, March, 28. https://www.cisa. gov/sites/default/files/publications/Version_3.0_CISA_Guidance_on_Essential_Critical_Infrastructure_Workers_1.pdf Lineros, J., & Fincher, M. (2014). Erikson’s development crises: Applying developmental theory to adult learning. Learning Performance Quarterly, 2(3), 16–34. Long, H. (2020). U.S. now has 22 million unemployed, wiping out a decade of job gains. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/16/unemployment-claims-coronavirus/ Long, H., & Douglas-Gabriel, D. (2020). The latest crisis: Low-income students are dropping out of college this fall in alarming numbers. Washington Post. Madda, M. (2019). For students to succeed, social capital matters just as much as skills: Here’s why. EdSurge, (January), 9. Mitchell, T. (2020). Letter: Senate Leaders. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Letter-Senate-HigherEd-Supplemental-Request-040920.pdf

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Murakami, K. (2020). The Nuances of the Free College Debate: Some Democrats and some Republicans don’t fit neatly into their expected boxes on the issue. Inside Higher Ed. National Governors Association. (2020a). National Governors Association Outlines Need For Additional And Immediate’ Fiscal Assistance To States. National Governors Association. https://www.nga.org/ news/press-releases/national-governors-association-outlines-need-for-additional-and-immediate-fiscalassistance-to-states/ National Governors Association. (2020b). Coronavirus: What You Need To Know. National Governors Association.

132

 Navigating the New Normal

Ovink, S., & Veazey, B. (2011). More Than ‘Getting Us Through:’ A Case Study in Cultural Capital Enrichment of Underrepresented Minority Undergraduates. Research in Higher Education, 52(4), 370–394. doi:10.100711162-010-9198-8 PMID:24954971 Owens, R. (2020). Returning after COVID-19, Dallas County Community Colleges will continue virtual classes through fall. CBS DFW, (May), 8. Patel, V. (2020). COVID-19 is a pivotal moment for struggling students. Can colleges step up? The Chronicle of Higher Education, (April), 14. Paxson, C. (2020). College campuses must reopen in the fall. Here’s how we do it. New York Times. Pell, M., & Lesser, B. (2020). Researchers warn the COVID-19 lockdown will take its toll on health. Reuters Investigates. http://reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/ Smalley, A. (2020). Higher education responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19). National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/higher-education-responses-to-coronaviruscovid-19.aspx Soergel, A. (2020). Survey: 1 in 4 Americans Has Lost Job or Income to Coronavirus. U.S. News & World Report, 8(April). https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2020-04-08/1-in-4-americanshas-lost-job-or-income-to-coronavirus-survey Tarrant County College. (2020). Covid-19 Updates. https://www.tccd.edu/info-ribbon/coronavirus/ coronavirus-updates/#june26 Tierney, W. (2020). Preventing the collapse of higher education. Insider Higher Ed, (May), 11. Weitzer, W. (2012). A place for higher education. Insider Higher Ed. Whitford, E. (2020). Public higher ed funding still has not recovered from 2008 recession: Latest state higher education finance report provides a 2019 baseline as higher education braces for a recession. Inside Higher Ed. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. (2016). Adaptability to Online Learning: Differences Across Types of Students and Academic Subject Areas. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 633–659. doi:10.1353/jhe.2014.0028

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Zhbanova, K., & Fincher, M. (2019). Best Practices talented and gifted students at community colleges. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 26(1), 127–141.

133

134

Chapter 9

The College President as Change Agent Jim Maddox University of Arkansas, USA

ABSTRACT The college president as a change agent is explored. Higher education is undergoing disruptive change, and guiding an institution of higher learning requires senior leadership that understands change and how to guide it. This chapter provides a description of what a change agent is and how the college president can best serve in this role. In addition to the relevant literature, data was gathered from 11 senior leaders as to their perceptions around the concept of change and being a change agent. The chapter makes the case for college presidents to understand and appreciate the important role they can and should play as change agents.

A STRANGE EXAMPLE OF HOW NOT TO MANAGE THE CHANGE OF RESTRUCTURING It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

― Niccolò Machiavelli (1592) While the potential for creative ideas is often born out of impromptu interactions and drawings on the back of napkins, managing the implementation of the idea is often another story. A small group of senior leaders of a private, higher education institution (with about 400 employees) decided the organization needed to be restructured to address some perceived challenges. They very much perceived themselves to be agents of change. The idea of restructuring was proposed to the faculty body and the message was presented as the need to explore other ways of being more responsive to student needs. There was no specific change model followed, there were no structured “interventions” to engage the whole organizaDOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6560-5.ch009

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 The College President as Change Agent

tion, and there was no one from outside the organization involved in facilitating the process. There was certainly no early thought given to the topic of resistance. A “possible” new organizational chart was shared. It was communicated that it was merely a starting point to consider. A restructuring committee was formed to research, gather data, and explore organizational models. However, the senior leader who was the architect of the “rough redesign” was heard to say, “This is our new structure, but I am going make the faculty think they came up with the idea”. This statement really summed up the “collaborative” process employed. As it became clear that different viewpoints were not desired, several reactions occurred. Some organizational members became very vocal in their opposition. These individuals were quickly silenced, either with termination, the threat of termination, or merely being isolated in their involvement and duties. (It was if the organization was actually jettisoning healthy resistance!). Others who opposed the “changes” left the organization. And others who openly opposed the changes were viewed as “resistant” to the change, as not being team players, and as being unwilling to give up what they had under the old structure. For the next dozen years, the organization suffered in terms of morale, mistrust among new departments, resentment, frustration, and high turnover (including the “resignation” of the senior leader who was the architect of the change). So, what were the lessons learned from this change effort? There are several: ◦◦ ◦◦ ◦◦ ◦◦

Efective change requires honest, and open communication. Fake collaboration is more damaging than no collaboration Resistance to change, when its roots are not explored, results in turnover, low morale, and ultimately a negative impact on customers. When change is not lead efectively, the aftermath can be long-lasting and challenging to fx.

The organization still has not fully moved past this change effort. The “solution” was sought by creating the “right” structure. However, as those managing change can attest, the process of managing the human side of change is just as important, if not more important, than the proposed change. For this organization, resistance to change was neither encouraged nor proactively avoided. Until senior leaders learn how to function effectively as change agents, and until the change process itself is effectively managed, the organization will mostly likely continue to struggle.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Higher education is undergoing disruptive change and guiding an institution of higher learning requires senior leadership that understands change and how to guide it. Pressure from boards, competition for students, and financial challenges all call for institutions to explore transformational change (McGovern, Foster, & Ward, 2002). While the college president wears multiple hats, and serves a variety of traditional roles, a recent perspective is that of the college president as a change agent. In research published in Community College Review, McFarlin, Crittenden, and Ebbers (1999) found that most community college presidents surveyed considered themselves change agents. The researchers also found support for preparation as a change agent critical for serving as an effective leader in the current climate of historical change. 135

 The College President as Change Agent

To explore this notion of the college president as change agent, it is first essential to examine what is meant by the term change agent. In addition, it is necessary to consider some of the unique characteristics within which the college president operates. One central dimension is the idea of leading change in a culture of shared governance (Lucas, 2000). This calls forth examining leadership styles that are effective for change agents. In a similar vein is the unique role of being a change agent while reporting to a board. Along with guiding change, the president has to balance the need for stability with the need for change. Likewise, the president needs to preserve the academic culture and protect the mission, while simultaneously being a true visionary (Bardon, 2009 and Lucas, 2000). The chapter will discuss what competencies are needed for a college president to effectively be a change agent. The ideas around growing internal talent with change agent skills as part of a leadership succession plan will be covered (Brumfield and Miller, 2006). The chapter will examine the difference and similarities of leading change and being a change agent in an institution of higher learning as contrasted to typical business settings (Lucas, 2000). This is important to discuss since there has been a growing trend to hire college presidents from outside academia, particularly seeking those with a strong business/finance background (Basinger, 2002). This is described in the literature as traditional vs nontraditional presidents (Basinger, 2002; Fischer, 2005; Will, 2003). Qualitative data was collected from a cross-section of senior leaders in higher education. Eleven leaders, consisting of one Vice Chancellor, two Presidents, four Vice Presidents, and four Deans, from institutions ranging from doctoral granting universities to community colleges, provided insights around this topic of president as change agent. In summary, the chapter will make the case for college presidents to understand and appreciate the important role they can and should play as change agents.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

What is a Change Agent? To begin to explore the university president as change agent, it is first helpful to define and describe what is meant by the term, “change agent”. It will be within the construct that we will then consider how the university president fits this role. Hirschhorn (2013) describes change agents as someone who helps create a picture of the future. The change agent facilitates the mapping of a future state. We sometimes think of this as creating and sharing a vision for the organization. For instance, this is at the heart of Appreciative Inquiry and the notion of helping to imagine a desired future (Cooperrider, 2008). It is this type of co-creating that a leader serves to guide and facilitate change within the organization in which they serve. To further understand the nature of a change agent, it is helpful to consider a model or framework. There is value in having a model or framework to understand the concept of change agent. Hoffman (2013) offers a useful model of what change agents are called to do. He refers to this as the LEFSA Model. This stands for Linkages, Energy, Focus, Skills, and Anchor. Linkage: strength in numbers. Building and nurturing relationships. Creating coalitions. Attaining critical mass; reaching the tipping point (see Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point, 2000). University campuses are comprised of multiple colleges, multiple campuses, and the need to create coalitions is immense. The president is tasked with creating connections across diverse academic disciplines, as well as across diverse interests.

136

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College President as Change Agent

Energy: motivation, providing a compelling vision, providing the first step and a clear process and path. The university community, including external stakeholders expect a strong sense of direction (vision) from the president. With the enormous demands placed on the position, a deep well of energy is essential. Focus: Where to focus? Focus is about identifying the destination. It is being able to use metaphors and describe what success looks like. A university is tasked with having a focus despite distractions and competing demands. An academic community relates well to the use of metaphors and well-articulated descriptions of where they are going. It is easy to get distracted among so many competing demands and interests. Skills: Identifying if the organizational members are equipped to handle the change. Do they have the skills needed for the change? (for instance with a rapid switch to online learning). There must be time provided to practice. This is difficult to achieve because of the need to meet students and other stakeholders’ immediate needs while also providing for university members to have the time needed to develop new competencies. It requires creating the space for learning and development to occur in real-time. Anchor: Hoffman uses the phrase, “woven into the fabric of the system”. The change agent needs to facilitate embedding the change in the culture of the institution. Hoffman suggest how change agents need to leverage the role of traditions. The change agent helps provide structural changes that support the changes. They help the organization to craft a new story of who they are based upon the desired change and new vision. Change agents are called upon to be great story tellers. An excellent illustration of this concept is provided by Smerek (2011). Smerek studied new college and university presidents to determine how they make sense of their experiences (what Smerek refers to as sensemaking) while at the same time, articulating a desired future (what Smerek refers to as sensegiving). It is interesting to note that this study looked specifically at new presidents who were hired from outside higher education. Related to this construct of sensemaking or meaning making is a study from Eddy in 2005 who researched how community college presidents actually construct their leadership approach. This construction is grounded in the idea of sensemaking. Another dimension to being a change agent can be seen in the methods or approaches that a leader uses to guide change. Freedman (2013) describes the use of action learning within the context of being a change agent. Action learning or sometimes referred to as Action Research, is central to the field of organization development. The concept is a natural fit in higher education. Action learning/research is grounded in the role of inquiry, reflective listening, and commitment to learning. Freedman describes how action learning facilitates the diffusion of innovation, helping spread the ideas and disperse the change throughout the whole organizational system. This is applicable to higher education presidents who are deeply immersed in a culture of ideas, innovation, and large, complex, organizational systems. Another useful perspective comes from Edgar Schein and his work around the concept of process consulting (Schein, 1998). A process consultant is in many ways synonymous with a change agent. Schein defines process consultation as “A set of activities on the part of the consultant that help the client to perceive, understand and act upon the process events that occur in the client’s environment in order to improve the situation as defined by the client”. (Schein,1999). It is built upon the premise that one can only help a human system to help itself. The goal then of process consulting is the development of an effective helping relationship. College presidents are deeply engaged in helping the entire university system to help itself, to be a catalyst to empower others and to create the conditions for those in the academic community to do great things. Schein adds that many times, clients (those whom the consultant is serving) do not really know what they want. Part of the consultancy relationship is helping them define the problems and issues. College 137

 The College President as Change Agent

presidents very much are at the heart of helping define the problems and issues facing the institution. They are uniquely positioned to do this since they have a 10,000-foot view of the university. By overseeing all aspects of the institution, it provides the president the potential to see systems. Schein talks about the need for the consultant to create psychological safety. Psychological safety is necessary for successful change to occur. Psychological safety provides the space for organizational members to take risks, to learn, and to innovate. Without a sense of safety, these activities are stifled. We can connect this sense of creating psychological safety to some of the ideas shared from the data gathered and shared later in this chapter. Schein provides what he considers the 10 principles of process consultancy. The 10 are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Always try to be helpful; Always stay in touch with the current reality; Access your ignorance; Everything you do is an intervention; It is the client who owns the problem and the solution; Go with the flow; Timing is crucial; Be constructively opportunistic with confrontive interventions; Everything is data, errors will always occur and are prime sources of learning; When in doubt, share a problem.

The 10 principles can serve as an excellent guide for college presidents to serve as change agents. For instance, stakeholders constantly turn to the president for help, of one kind or another. By always trying to be helpful, the president must also stay grounded with the current reality. It is also important for presidents to able to access their own ignorance. Admitting one does not know everything is not easy but is essential, especially in as diverse context of a university system. Understanding that it is the client who owns the problem and the solution is about the president, while facilitating change as a change agent, must not take on other’s responsibilities and must avoid trying to fix everything or carrying the strain of feeling everything is on them. These 10 principles are especially useful when one considers the culture of shared governance, which is at the core of higher education institutions.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

MANDATED CHANGE AT A LARGE STATE UNIVERSITY Regents at a large public state university were feeling pressure from their constituents from across the state to increase access to enrollment at the state’s flagship institution. The pervasive feeling was that too many students who were graduating from high schools within the state were not gaining acceptance to attend the university. The belief was that parents felt that as taxpayers, their sons and daughters should gain admittance to the university if they graduated from an accredited high school within the state. Up to this time, the university had certain admissions standards that consisted of high school Grade Point Average, standardized test scores, and letters of recommendation. While not at an elite level of an acceptance rate for an institution of higher education, the university was competitive to get into.

138

 The College President as Change Agent

The regents, in response to this perceived pressure, mandated a solution. (Because we all know that mandated change is such an effective way to implement new ideas!) There was much resistance, as can be expected. Senior leaders at the institution did not want to lower the admissions standards. However, the decision came from the Regents to implement an open admissions policy, if a student graduated from a state high school, regardless of grade point average, standardized test scores or letters of recommendation. While there was verbal resistance, the change was implemented. The thought from the Regents was that with open admissions, it would create an opportunity for each student to have a chance to attend the flagship institution. Consistent with the theory of unintended consequences, there were balancing feedback loops in play (see Peter Senge’s work on Systems Thinking as described in his book, The Fifth Discipline and the Fifth Discipline Field Book for more on this concept). With the shift to open enrollment, retention rates plummeted as well as the graduation rates. These were metrics that were very important, both for internal reasons as well as external (namely federal guidelines around federal financial aid and default rates). The change also strained the resources within the university to meet the remedial needs of incoming students who in the past would have begun their higher education journey at community colleges and or smaller schools that were better equipped to meet these needs. With the shift towards the immediate enrollment growth at the state university, the community colleges and smaller state institutions experienced enrollment declines. This single policy change had far-reaching impact and a ripple effect occurred. In this case, the cause of these new challenges was identified and linked to the mandated change in open enrollment. Fortunately, in this instance, the Regents received feedback and were responsive to the feedback (being accountable to constituents can have this effect) and worked with the leadership of the institution to strike a balance on a more effective selection process. Unfortunately, what often happens in these types of circumstances is the change is deeply embraced by those who came up with the idea (usually a few senior leaders) and any counter views are ignored and or punished. The feedback or voices are classified as resistance. After all, we all know that change is going to be resisted so we should just push past it. Does this sound familiar? So, what are some of the lessons to be learned from this example? One, you have to be careful about what you ask for; two, counter views are valuable, responding to pressure without fully understanding the organizational system usually creates even more challenges, and those who are closest to the change need to have their ideas and voices heard. These are aspects that an effective change agent can and must facilitate. This is an excellent example of how to fail at being an effective change agent.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

What Does it Take for a President to be a Change Agent? To better understand what is required for the college president to be a change agent, research was gathered from data provided by 11 higher education senior administrators from 11 different institutions. They provided their responses to the following questions: 1. Do you see yourself as a change agent? Why or Why not? a. Yes. Always exploring opportunities and asking the 5 why’s b. Yes I do. I tend to think out of the box, but with awareness of “reality”. I’m also not afraid of failure. c. Yes. I can put forward many curriculum changes to assist with progress. I also have access to the VPAA more often. d. Yes because I incentivize, encourage and support changes in higher education 139

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College President as Change Agent

e. Yes I do. Because I embrace my responsibility of ensuring our services and programs adapt and grow to meet the changing and growing needs of our students. f. I have been fortunate throughout my career to have been a part of several campus decisions linked to positive outcomes. g. Yes, higher education is continually changing so institutions must change as well. h. Yes. I lead change pretty frequently in my role. i. Yes - As a branch campus leader, I believe I have the responsibility to seek opportunities and make positive changes at my campus. j. Yes. Position, responsibility, and desire k. Yes. Being able to adapt to or even project changes to the environment (fiscal, technological, pedagogical) is a must for a president. Changes in the educational environment (financial, technical, etc) 2. What does it mean to you to be a change agent? a. Growth versus fixed mindset. b. Having the ability to motivate a different direction within an organization in some capacity. Change agency is not changing for the sake of change, but making small to major adjustments to a given model. c. Develop changes through curriculum and policy. d. A change agent does not create change for the sake of change, but carefully encourages faculty and staff to look for places where change could be beneficial and supportive of student success. e. It means taking personal responsibility for continuous quality improvement (change). f. A person or mechanism that instills reason to rethink the statuesque when necessary. g. It means I must be comfortable with failure as well as success. h. Change agents identify changes that need to occur and lead their team in creating buy-in to the change then in implementing the change effectively. i. To seek out visionary opportunities, prepare the faculty & staff for changes, and implement those in a collaborative way. j. Open to new ideas and lead change and improvement k. Being on the leading edge, but not the bleeding edge. 3. What competencies do you feel are needed to effectively be a change agent? a. not being afraid of not knowing the answer and willing to take failure as a learning opportunity. b. Empathy, vision, self-awareness, a firm grasp of reality, accountability... c. Creative thinking, problem solving, communication up and down. d. At the president’s level, those competencies include willingness to listen to concerns, willingness to support and encourage change, respect for others, and courage to make systemic changes for the long-term good. e. Emotional Intelligence, basic data analysis, leadership, flexibility, communications, collaboration, problem solving, focus, adaptability and a commitment to excellence f. Relationship building; Analytical thinking; Communication; Collaboration; Listening; Attunement g. 1. Ability to articulate change, 2. Understand the human impact of change (students, employees, community), 3. Understand data analysis, 4. Understand finances, 5, Be able to balance big picture and detailed analysis 140

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College President as Change Agent

h. The ability to influence others (Maxwell’s definition of leadership); the ability to articulate a clear and compelling vision; the ability to identify change champions; basically competency in all of Kotter’s steps of implementing change. i. Patience and perseverance. Communication skills. Vision casting. Attention to detail. Conflict resolution. Leadership. j. good communication, humility, openness k. Courage, facilitator, strategic planner, good listener strategic planner 4. What role do you feel you play in helping your institution manage change? a. Looking for ways to better connect students and faculty with how education is in the midst of disruption. b. I think in some capacities I’m a manager, while in other’s I’m a leader, while in other’s I’m the “idea guy”. Each role is different where I currently work. As a manager, I am responsible for directing people toward some goal of change. As a leader, I am accountable for some sort of change. As an “idea guy”, I’m not accountable or responsible, but I’m a party to change agency. c. Help with change of methods in delivery and marketing and coordinate people at various levels to bring additional input into the process. d. My role is to listen, incentivize and encourage change where needed. e. I play a key role as the Chief Student Affairs Officer f. My position on campus allows me to provide input on key policies, develop student success initiatives, engage in healthy collaborative discussions, and lead specific charges. g. As the Vice President for Student Affairs, my role is to assess how change will affect students and the services provided by the college. h. At some times its merely communicating the change and helping my team see the rationale behind and need for the change and how to work with their teams to facilitate buy-in. Sometimes its identifying the change that needs to be made and going through all 8 steps of change leadership. i. Facilitating vision. Connecting and empowering early adopters. Cheerleading for change. Providing top-cover and leadership. Sometimes being the sand-in-the-oyster that irritates the system into producing a pearl. j. Providing opportunities and support k. Encourage individuals to be creative. Make sure the status quo is always challenged. Help directors imagine the future. 5. Does your institution have a leadership succession plan? If so, please describe it. If it does not have one, describe why you feel there is not one. a. Succession if something happens to the president but nothing more. b. No formal plan, other than when a leader is gone, we must appoint someone to be our proxy. c. No. Just the normal advertising and selection of employee process. d. Our institution has an emergency succession plan that identifies one to two individuals who could step in as interim and also has an outline for the Board of Trustees to follow to fill a vacancy in the presidency. e. Yes, our board requires this plan. It is reviewed and approved annually. f. I am not aware of a leadership succession plan campus-wide. However, there is financial incentive for employees to further their education. 141

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 The College President as Change Agent

g. Yes, our plan outlines succession for the administration and key positions throughout the college. With the pandemic, we have expanded this plan to include who will cover for short term and long term loss of all our positions. h. The department chairs are counseled to create one within their departments, and at the Dean’s level, I work to develop department chairs who aspire to the deanship. Past that, I am uncertain that there is one. Only in the past three years has there been formal leadership training for department chairs. I think our institution is behind in these efforts. i. Nope. Complacency. j. Yes. Administrative succession is in policy. We also do leadership development k. Short term, yes (who would step in while someone was sick or leaves abruptly). Long term no. While we try to develop future leaders, we do not want individuals to feel entitled. 6. What do you feel is unique to guiding change in higher education in contrast to other types of organizations? a. COVID 19 has most likely changed higher education forever plus the rise of fully online colleges and how colleges need to develop a design thinking mindset now. b. In public higher education, we have to be more focused on the political impact of our decisions, and how it my impact funding and media response. We cannot turn on a dime due to bureaucracy that is not local. c. We have so many levels to include from faculty/staff all the way to regents who are not always so quick to respond. d. Change in higher education must always be forward-looking, anticipating the political, cultural, climate realities as well as jobs and careers of the future and preparing students to meet that future. e. Our change is somewhat limited by policy and resources f. Higher education as an institution is a strong proponent of shared governance which allows faculty, staff, sometimes students, and governing boards to participate in many campus decisions. g. Because education is a slow process (it takes years to complete a degree) it affects how quickly change can occur in the organization. h. The faculty have much more power than do employees of most organizations. This can be attributed to tenure in some cases, to faculty shortages in other cases, to shared governance, and probably a host of other factors. i. More collaboration and groundwork needed at the outset. Overcoming long-standing inertia and fear. Balancing power of faculty and administration. j. Shared governance k. Many other organizations are focused on financial outcomes. Education is focused on making the world a better place. 7. What is your current title? a. Vice President (4) b. Dean (4) c. President (2) d. Vice Chancellor (1) In addition to these responses, one participant shared the following true story. 142

 The College President as Change Agent

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

SATELLITE CAMPUSES: A CHALLENGING EXAMPLE OF BEING A CHANGE AGENT In my current role, my oversight includes the lone satellite campus, which includes a number of University entities that are not directly tied to that location. The satellite has underperformed since its inception, and had no real change of direction in sight. Additionally, the Interim Director was a former college president where I served as an instructor. My new boss worked for the president after I left that institution. Due to this relationship and other internal circumstances, the Interim Director reported to my boss instead of me. This created some immediate challenges for me since I had some of the responsibility, but none of the authority over this unit. Shortly into my tenure the Interim Director announced plans to retire within the next three months. My boss was shaken by this news due to years of loyalty, however, the response across campus was, simply put, bland indifference. The former college president was an active and successful change agent as a president, but had challenges in change agency being an Interim Director of a satellite campus that wasn’t seen as a part of the community. The director position was a revolving door, and was not typically filled by a presence felt on the main campus. With no succession plan for replacing this interim appointment, there were few choices to replace the vacancy. I volunteered for the Interim Director role, seeing much opportunity to make positive change. My boss agreed to my assertion, but I could tell there was some hesitation simply out of not knowing me that well as compared to the deep professional relationship with the former Interim Director. Once the appointment was formalized, I became the first Director of our satellite campus to hold a dual appointment on the main campus. At the beginning of my interim appointment I asked my boss and other executives for explicit expectations, while also sharing my thoughts on the direction of the satellite. The basic response was “fix it”, flanked with the charge to develop a new plan. Through this process I learned that there was no real direction ever established for the satellite, and the University was not positioned to provide adequate support for the growth and success it projected when the satellite was formed. With that, my role was going to be immediately different than the former Interim Director, who was charged to build relationships in the region. With few performance metrics associated with that charge to track growth, I was working from scratch. Additionally, I inherited a staff that was worn down by the former Interim Director’s leadership style and political drive, and weary of anything positive coming from the main campus. Aside from building a model for success in a short time, I saw my overarching goal to rebuild morale and find a permanent leader for the unit. In an effort to hit the ground running, I met as many stakeholders as possible, and got to know the community. I spent extra time getting to know the staff through appropriate social outings and operational meetings. Over time I learned that there was an abundance of talent, a lack of motivation, and a high level of confusion. Upon that realization, paired with stakeholder input, I was able to develop a plan that involved development of new partnerships, creation of a new structure, and allocation of main campus resources to fill the holes that were barriers to success. As well, one year after assuming the directorship, I was able to appoint a new full time director to focus on operational goals, rather than political dealing. My role as the new director’s leader is to handle the politics and “glad handing”, while elevating the director to motivate the staff to achieve organizational goals. These changes are early in execution, but so far have yielded positive growth and increased morale.

143

 The College President as Change Agent

Lessons Learned So, what were the lessons learned from this data? There are several: • • • • • • •

• • • • •

Senior leaders in higher education do see themselves as change agents. From these leaders responses you can see elements of Hofman’s LEFSA model in how they view themselves (Hofman, 2013). Not only do senior leaders see themselves as change agents, they also recognize that those in leadership positions are called upon to be change agents. Succession plans are invaluable yet infrequently developed. Engaging stakeholders is essential. Building and maintaining relationships is both a challenge and means of creating momentum to move forward towards the desired future. Leaders as change agents must balance multiple roles simultaneously. Presidents as change agents must be able to see systems, to see across departmental silos. Seeing systems entails understanding how certain problems/situations are made worse by quick solutions. They must be equipped to see organizational systems from all three levels, that of the individual, the group (such as a department, function, program, or college), and the whole university system, including external stakeholders and the community in which it serves. Presidents, as change agents, must be able to assess their own ignorance. They must be willing to admit mistakes, and reach out and share problems. Being a change agent requires “Use of Self” – understanding one’s own habitual behaviors and assumptions. And the need for a keen awareness of one’s mental models and mental maps. Being able to engage minds, hearts, and hands. Understanding the importance and the ability to display empathy, emotional intelligence, and listening with an open mind. Presidents, as change agents, must take time to pause, to refect, and show patience while taking action. They must model these behaviors and encourage and nurture them in those they lead. Likewise, they need to understand culture: Recognizing, articulating, and guiding cultural alignment.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Within the framework of the president as change agent, several research possibilities exist in order to further understand and leverage the role of the change agent. It is apparent both from the information obtained in the survey and the literature, that succession plans are important and there appears to be gap in their actually implementation. Research is needed to explore ways to more effectively manage leadership succession. As the trend continues of hiring presidents and other senior leaders from outside of the academy, research is needed to more fully understand the impact of this trend and explore ways to more effectively integrate non-traditional presidents into the academic community.

144

 The College President as Change Agent

An excellent opportunity (and great need) exists to expand on the research around gender and its role in the context of change agents. Yanez and Moreno (2008) provide a helpful exploration in their study on women leaders as agents of change in higher education. As the field of higher education continues to rapidly change and evolve, the need has never been greater for those in senior leadership positions to understand and embrace the crucial role of change agent. The landscape of higher education will only continue to change more and more rapidly, especially around global challenges such as those around climate change, international tensions, the ever increasing role of technology, and the pandemic of COVID 19 and the global healthcare needs it has exposed. With presidents of universities being and becoming change agents, universities are setting themselves up to prosper and evolve to continue to meet the needs of stakeholders and continue to play a vital role in addressing the above challenges.

REFERENCES Barden, D. M. (2013, January 14). Seeking a different sort of leader. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Basinger, J. (2002, December 13). Casting a wider net. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 5. Brumfield, R., & Miller, M. (2006). The leadership needs of college presidents: A practical question and response. The John Ben Shepperd Journal of Practical Leadership, 1(1), 9–17. Bujak, J. S. (2005). Health care leaders as agents of change. Physician Executive, 31(3), 38–41. https:// search.proquest.com/docview/200060835?accountid=8361 PMID:16048161 Cooperrider, D. L. (2008). The Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: For Leaders of Change. Berrett-Kohler. Eddy, P. E. (2005). Framing the Role of Leader: How Community College Presidents Construct Their Leadership. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(9-10), 9–10, 705–727. doi:10.1080/10668920591006557 Fischer, K. (2005). Running for a different kind of office. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A18–A19. Freedman, A. (2013). Using action learning for organization Development and change. In J. Vogelsang, M. Townsend, M. Minahan, D. Jamieson, J. Vogal, A. Viets, C. Royal, & L. Valek (Eds.), Handbook for Strategic HR: Best practices in organization development from the OD Network (pp. 518-527). AMACOM.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Gladwell, M. (2002). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Little, Brown, and Company. Hirschhorn, L. (2013). Backcasting: A systemic method for creating a picture of the future and how to get there. In J. Vogelsang, M. Townsend, M. Minahan, D. Jamieson, J. Vogal, A. Viets, C. Royal, & L. Valek (Eds.), Handbook for Strategic HR: Best practices in organization development from the OD Network (pp. 507-517). AMACOM. Hoffman, C. (2013). Change Mastery, Simplified. In J. Vogelsang, M. Townsend, M. Minahan, D. Jamieson, J. Vogal, A. Viets, C. Royal, & L. Valek (Eds.), Handbook for Strategic HR: Best practices in organization development from the OD Network (pp. 499-506). AMACOM.

145

 The College President as Change Agent

Lucas, A. F. (2000). Leading Academic Change. Jossey-Bass. McFarlin, C. H., Crittenden, B. J., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). Article. Community College Review, 27(3), 19. McGovern, D., Foster, L., & Ward, K. (2002). College leaderhiship: Learning from experience. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 29–41. doi:10.1177/107179190200800303 Schein, E. (1998). Process Consultation Revisited: Building the Helping Relationship. Addison-Wesley. Schein, E. (2013). The role of leadership in the management of organizational transformation and learning. In J. Vogelsang, M. Townsend, M. Minahan, D. Jamieson, J. Vogal, A. Viets, C. Royal, & L. Valek (Eds.), Handbook for Strategic HR: Best practices in organization development from the OD Network (pp. 491-498). AMACOM. Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Doubleday. Smerek, R. (2011). Sensemaking and sensegiving: An exploratory study of the simultaneous “being and learning” of new college and university presidents. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 80–94. doi:10.1177/1548051810384268

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Yáñez, L. (2008). Women leaders as agents of change in higher education organizations. Gender in Management, 23(2), 86–102. doi:10.1108/17542410810858303

146

147

Chapter 10

University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting: Investigating Student Perceptions Kenny A. Hendrickson University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands Kula A. Francis University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands

ABSTRACT

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This chapter examines caring university administrative leadership within a bureaucratic reality of authentic university academic caring (AUAC). AUAC is regarded as a university’s formal intent to provide genuine academic caring: caring about (emotive attention; motive), care for (disciplined nurturing), caregiving (institutional guardianship), and care receiving (student as customers). In the bureaucratic realm, caring administrative leadership is an administrative capacity to guide, infuence, inspire, and motivate an institution to achieve the goals of AUAC. This chapter opens by providing scholarly support for caring administrative leadership as a critical element of AUAC. This chapter also includes an account of a research study and empirical analysis that investigated the association between caring administrative leadership and AUAC at the University of the Virgin Islands, a Historically Black College and University (HBCU). Ultimately, this chapter identifes direction for future research in authentic caring university leadership.

INTRODUCTION Due to the current capitalistic and bureaucratic climate of higher education, universities face institutional obstacles in providing authentic caring in their academic services. Authentic university academic caring (AUAC) can be described as the provision of genuine humanistic concern, disciplined nurturing, and DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6560-5.ch010

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

required educational resources within a university’s academic services. AUAC is established through sequences of caring-about (emotive attention; motive), care-for (disciplined nurturing), caregiving (practice; activity; profession) and care receiving (response). AUAC is a culmination of organizational and professional values, structured relationships, institutional activities and responsiveness, academic integrity, ethical obligations, formal rationality, allocated resources, fiscal responsibility, and customer satisfaction. Many of these obligations require adequate authoritative or administrative presence, participation, and performance. Thus, university administrative leadership can play an integral role in contending with the obligations of AUAC. University administrative leadership can be considered as professionals within administrative positions that lead (e.g., influence, motivate, guide and politicking) universities into carrying out institutional activities that serve the needs of students. However, the research examining these matters is scarce, especially regarding the relational and bureaucratic bearing of caring administrative leadership. This chapter contributes by filling the scholarly gap on the matter of university administrators (e.g., President, Provost, Vice Provost, Campus Director, and Dean), as caring leaders and their involvement in the delivery of AUAC. In providing the necessary context to caring administrative leadership, this chapter begins by sharing literary findings on universities as caring organizations, in addition to the bureaucratic nature of AUAC. With this outlook firmly established, this chapter also explains the relational bureaucratic value of caring university administrative leadership and its association with the concerns of student-customers. While leadership is usually depicted based on personality disposition or employee engagement. Student-customers can offer a means of characterizing and substantiating AUAC, as well as the various organizational behaviors and interactions that represent and support it. Accordingly, this chapter highlights a research study that used the perceptions of students to empirically explore the organizational and relational relevance of caring administrative academic leadership on AUAC. This research was conducted at the University of the Virgin Islands (UVI). UVI is a historically black college and university (HBCU). HBCUs are well-known for their traditions of academic caring. The overarching question motivating this research was: “Do students perceive caring administrative leadership as having a strong relationship with authentic university academic caring (AUAC)?” To tackle this query, a quantitative research was conducted to examine the associations between four identified dimensions of AUAC (operational, academic managerial, instructional and advisement) and caring administrative leadership. Taking everything into account, this chapter is a synthesis of literature review, methodology, data analysis, empirical findings, limitations and conclusion.

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Literature Review Contemporary views on institutions of higher education are progressively focused on universities as knowledge producers, knowledge disseminators, knowledge entrepreneurial enterprises and academic capitalistic industrial learning complexes (Arocena, Göransson, & Sutz, 2018; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2009; Sporn, 2003). These labels and scholarly views expose deviations of universities and other higher education institutions from traditional institutional structures and academic strategies and goals for learning (Mainardes, Alves & Raposo, 2011, p. 130). The quality of higher education and academic learning has become affixed to marketization, commercialization, corporatization, and bureaucratization (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2009). Likewise, massification (making education available to the masses), economic contraction, unsuitable liberalization, and specialization, also threaten the quality of higher education and authentic university academic caring (AUAC) (Afdal & Damsa, 2018). While, the quality 148

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

of higher education is continually studied, AUAC and the bearing of administration on its fruition, is extremely limited. Furthermore, there is an obvious scholarly gap pertaining to the importance of caring administrative leadership’s relationship within the reality of AUAC. The neglect of AUAC within administration and leadership results from caring being customarily considered as a product of frontline performance or pedagogical caring. Pedagogical caring is centered on the academic caring relationship between faculty and students. Lee and Yuen (2019), and Wilson and Gore (2013), purported that students’ perceptions of faculty’s pedagogical caring provides a sense of connectedness or sense of belongingness within their university. Thus, AUAC can be observed as the ability of faculty to “experience the other person’s private world and feelings, and to communicate to the other person some significant degree of that understanding” (Watson, 1979, p. 28). In this frame, Zembylas (2017) believed university caring to be a function of faculty’s personal belief, and their obligations to providing the necessary support for students. Zembylas (2017) also considered the expectations and limitations set by the institution as a means of controlling pedagogical caring (p. 4). While vital, Dorigo and Marcon (2014) recognized that pedagogical caring is only a portion of AUAC. AUAC can be considered as a deliverable of “services, shared goals, resources, human skills, and networked infrastructures” within a university, as a caring organization (2014, p. 9).

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Caring Organization For the caring organization, caring is a main ingredient and/or the product or service. Fuqua and Newman (2002) noted that the caring organization provides to the welfare of others through caring. Fuqua and Newman (2002) described the caring organization as systematic arrangements or landscapes of caring, social supportive, cooperative and nurturing environments. Caring organizations are structures of organizing principles centered on fulfilling and promoting caring. Fuqua and Newman (2002) recognized gratitude, forgiveness, compassion, encouragement, sensitivity, tolerance, charity, inclusion and community as the nine principles of a caring organization. Fuqua and Newman (2002) admitted that there are very few organizations that achieve all nine principles of a caring organization. Also, the economic and political realities play a role in the inability of achieving a caring organization model (2002). Nevertheless, Fuqua and Newman (2002) offered direction in depicting universities as caring organizations. As a caring organization, a university is responsible for providing long-term academic wellbeing for students (Smutny, 2000). In a caring organization, a university must offer long-term academic welfare, which requires a concern for, and nurturing of its students. The University is academically obligated to develop students’ abilities to “assess quality in their own work and that of others”, as well as “invest in their own lifelong and life-wide leaning processes” (Smutny, 2000, p. 2). Universities, as caring organizations, must aid in student learning with “commitments to student support” and “caring allocations of professional time and effort” (Louis & Murphy, 2017, p. 108). AUAC can also be viewed as an outcome of university’s caring carescapes. The university caring carescape was expressed as “logistics of time, space, orientation and emotive attentiveness” and “professional activities and the structure of resources and services” (Hendrickson & Francis, 2020, p. 61). The caring carescape also included an othermothering ideological foundation. Based on othermothering, the university caring carescape also required a prosocial caring system that motivates familial-minded and communal investment into student learning and success. In understanding the value of administrative leadership within AUAC landscape requires recognizing the complexity, dynamics and obstacles of university bureaucracy. University bureaucracy can be char149

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

acterized as roles, routines, authority and hierarchies that establishes the institutional relationships and consciousness. University bureaucracy was meant to be an “ethos of impartiality” that protects against the destruction of education by capitalist bureaucracy (Nash, 2019, p. 179). University bureaucracy secures efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy in higher educational service delivery and achieve control over academic practice. Han, Love, and Peña-Mora (2013) described university bureaucracy as the necessary structures and procedures to ensure that the institution meets the “satisfaction of all stakeholders” (p. 2050). Leira (1994) addressed the question, “How is the rationality of caring, to use Waerness’s phrase, to be made compatible with the values of rational bureaucracy?” (p. 192).

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bureaucratic Caring Leira (1994) identified the conflicts of bureaucratic caring as the challenges of offering emotive needsoriented care within the institution that are cost-conscious, administrative, and bureaucratic minded (e.g., economically prudent, legal, mechanical application of rules and procedures) (p. 192). Unfortunately, the discussion of bureaucratic caring is absent in higher education. In fact, the only discipline that offered a theory of bureaucratic caring is nursing. Ray (1981) proposed the original grounded theory of bureaucratic caring that utilized the taxonomy of organizational bureaucracy to infuse human caring with the organizational realities. Organizational bureaucracy is a formalized umbrella idea of legal rational structured roles, hierarchies, routines and top-down authority. Continuing their research, Ray and Turkel (2012) developed the theory of bureaucratic caring to encompass nine dimensions: 1.) physical, 2.) ethical, 3.) socio-cultural, 4.) spiritual-ethical, 5.) educational, 6.) technical/technological, 7.) economic, 8.) legal and, 9.) political. The theory of bureaucratic caring can extend itself outside of the field of nursing, and has applicability to AUAC, and the University administration because of its organizational context. Thus, the physical dimension of AUAC can be described as the effort of providing academic welfare, which is motivated by caring for others, and guided through an ethics of care. The ethical component in AUAC is the provision of rational accountability, in tandem with attentive moral responsibility in engaging with students (Strayhorn, 2014). Aligned with ethics in AUAC, there must also be an offering of responsiveness to socio-cultural obligations of respecting, uplifting and accommodating students’ beliefs, values, differences and practices. Furthermore, AUAC is and should remain an element of the university’s institutional spirit. This sphere of conscious nurturing seeks to create and strengthen the academic bonds, such as communication and the coordination of interests between the institution and students based on established caring. AUAC becomes an “ideal, belief, values and code of conduct” for the university (Lu & Ma, 2018, p. 42). Noddings (1995) noted that AUAC activates educational routines of modeling (symbolizing, exemplifying, and personifying), dialogue (communication; attention to others), practice (demonstration, and practice of caring) and confirmation (acceptance, confirmation, and endorsement). The first five dimensions of bureaucratic caring exemplifies achievements of humanistic commitments and reasoning by the university. The last four dimensions of bureaucratic caring (economic, political, legal and technological) represent the clear-cut bureaucratic requirements to AUAC. The economic dimension of AUAC centers caring as a good or service. It also involves approximating the optimal use of resources. From this perspective, the resources and quality of labor required to generate AUAC is critical to its institutional existence. Respectively, due to the scarcity of resources, AUAC finds itself needing advocates that are willing to politically compete to ensure institutional prominence and the provision necessary funding. The political dimensions of AUAC also requires its prevailing against 150

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

conflicting institutional preferences, authoritative or dominant self-serving interests and exclusionary agendas. Due to the bureaucratic environment of universities, AUAC is bounded within legal constraints, such as standards, regulations, rules, policies, procedures and rights that govern institutional behavior. Although AUAC is limited by legal conformity, legal constraints protect and safeguard the interest of the institution, as well as the rights and interests of students and other customers. Lastly, technology, as a bureaucratic constraint on AUAC, reduces the demand for human capital and interactions (physical and social-cultural). From a bureaucratic perspective, technology creates controls over the environments, communication, and relationships within AUAC. Ray and Turkel (2012) exposed tensions in striking balances between administrative bureaucratic rationality (e.g., fulfilling economic and political purposes, responsibilities and constraints) and the provision and performance of human caring. To this point, Watson (2005) noted that authentic caring and administrative practices are often perceived and portrayed as contradictory and incompatible, due to a standing opinion that human caring requires a morally ethical practice, that cannot be found in administration. Based on the responsibilities of financial solvency, the university administration has been depicted as becoming more profit driven, or economically and politically minded. Especially in terms of public institutions, university politics compromise a large degree of outside budgetary dictates by government (executive, public-sector/non-profit funders, and private-sector donors). From this outlook, administrators are perceived as only interested in academics as a means of producing financial and political capital. Based on Watson’s perspective and the ever advancing “financial plight of public universities” as a result of the defunding of higher education by government, a university’s administration can be entrapped in fulfilling academic capitalistic demands (Feller, 2016, p. 470). Consequently, contemporary Universities, with board approved capitalistic and political scheming by the administration, are becoming more profit driven at the cost of human caring (Hendrickson & Francis, 2018). Academic capitalistic demands encompass profit making (i.e., economic concerns in exchanging fees for academic services or goods) and higher education industrialization (e.g., heavily technology reliant; reduction in workforce and faculty involvement in learning). These universities teeter on the precipice of mutilating, exploiting, relegating or replacing authenticity, academic integrity and caring for the purpose of capitalistic solvency (2018, p. 2400). Furthermore, Kroth and Keeler (2009) found that administrative caring is limited to a managerial tactic “wherein a manager exhibits inviting, advancing, capacitizing, and connecting behaviors toward an employee or employees” (p. 521). Despite a dark forecast, there are scholars that have found positive views towards administration’s impact of AUAC. Although focused on entrepreneurship, Vogel and Kaghan (2001) pointed out that university administrators should not be thought as “meddlesome bureaucrats”, but important in affecting institutional change (p. 358). University administrators can be described as “special type of professionals, where the main objective is to co-ordinate the basic values of corporation organization and corporationprofession” as well as accomplishing administrative activities that are based on the university’s mission (Mukhametzhanova, 2016, p. 72). Administrators must be active participants in confronting the complexities, contradictions and paradoxes of university caring. Therefore, in the case of resolving bureaucratic conflicts in caring organizations, Ray and Turkel (2012) provided an understanding of the importance of administrative leadership in resolving bureaucratic conflicts resulting in achieving AUAC. Ray and Turkel (2012) commented that the “reinvention of work” requires “the valuing of caring and leadership in the administrative realm” (p. 36). Thus, there should be a proliferation of research that explores administrative leadership in higher education. Unfortunately, Gumus, Esen, Bellibas, and Gumus (2018) revealed that administrative leadership in higher 151

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

education is still in the “dark ages” (p. 11). Sulastri, Gistituati, Neviyarni and Aimon (2020) identified a divided view of university leadership. They described university leadership as either academic or administrative. Academic leadership speaks to the frontline professionals, like teaching faculty, who assume additional administrative assignments (Gistituati, Neviyarni & Aimon, 2020). On the contrast, administrative leadership is performed by non-academic employees, where roles are solely managerial, bureaucratic and technical in nature. Furthermore, Yielder and Codling (2004) provided a macabre tale of university leadership within the administrative realm. They pointed out that, nowadays, administrators are simply vested with the title of academic leadership due to hierarchal positions. They revealed that administrative leadership is synonymous to rationally bureaucratic leadership. This means that administrative leadership is relationally indirect, rely solely on formal authority, limited by position and “mediated by purposes and goals” (p. 214). Bureaucratic leadership is also painted as focused, with a vested draconian self-interest, on the organization’s performance and enslavement of its employees. Within his views of bureaucratic rhetoric, Cunningham (2017) observed that administrative leadership is used as disguise for bureaucratic intent and managerialism (p. 320). Yielder and Codling (2004) also noted “that academic leadership has been subsumed by corporate management practices on the basis of an unchallenged assumption that leadership automatically goes with position in a management hierarchy” (p. 319). Pope and Miller (2005) acknowledged similarities between administrative leadership in higher education and the private sector. Thus, most scholarly work being produced and presented as contemporary administrative leadership in higher educations are transferred or ‘hand me down’ concepts, theories, and models from other disciplinary sectors. Current literature lingers lazily on identifying a ‘holy grail’ of traits, behaviors, gimmicky styles to produce visionary or transformative organizational outcomes. Sadly, Gumus, Esen, Bellibas and Gumus (2020) also concluded that “the trends do not show any evidence of a possible increase in this scholarship in the very near future” (p. 270).

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Caring University Administrative Leadership Fortunately, there are scholars who are offering promising conceptual notions of caring administrative leadership. Caring administrative leadership should not be considered as a bureaucratic title or an added assignment for academics. In a university, caring administrative leadership is an administrative practice or process that expresses and exemplifies caring, and the cultivation of caring environments within the university services (Louis & Murphy, 2017). Caring administrative leadership is an individualized ability and practical skills of guiding, influencing, inspiring and motivating people and institutions to achieve outcomes through a common goal of caring. Caring administrative leadership offers openings for administrators, to infuse values, “to smooth the path of human interaction, ease communication, evoke personal devotion, and allay anxiety” and “the promotion and protection of values” (Selznick, 1957, pp. 27 & 28). From the perspective of AUAC, caring administrative leadership requires knowledge of academic services, as well as “knowledge and skills for developing caring among others and creating context conducive to developing and expressing caring” (Smylie, Murphy & Louis, 2016, p. 10). Most importantly, Smylie, Murphy and Louis (2016) identified caring administrative leadership as studentcentric and relations-oriented. Louis and Murphy (2017) delivered five relational characteristics of caring leadership: 1.) attentiveness, 2.) motivational displacement, 3.) situationally, 4.) mutuality, and 5.) authenticity (pp. 106-107).

152

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

Offering observations within the bounds of bureaucratic caring and its need for leadership, Gittell and Douglas (2012) identified that organizational caring requires the development of quality relations and the inclusion of a relational leadership. Gittell and Dogulas (2012) noted that “quality of relationships” can be maintained and achieved through a relational bureaucracy (p. 710). As opposed to rational bureaucracy, relational bureaucracy is a hybrid of relational and bureaucratic forms that allows administrators to interact with institutional stakeholders in “knowledgeable and caring ways” (Galoji, 2016, p. 24). Relational bureaucracy requires affixing caring relations to the institutional structure, as well as rules, policies and procedures. It advances the need of high-quality connections that are valued based on institutional rationality, efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy (2012, p. 710). Relational bureaucracy also “supports, values and rewards caring and responsive relationships”(Douglas, 2018, p. 104). Gittell and Douglas (2012) acknowledged that administrative and relational leadership is at the center of bureaucracy. Burnier (2009) pointed out that a care-centered administration “must adopt a relational leadership approach that attempts to establish caring relationships both inside and outside of the organization” (p. 398). In his earlier work, Burnier (2005) credited Mary Parker Follet’s work in the primary development of the administrative relational leadership. Burnier (2005) also noted that the caring relationship is at the core of relational leadership. Caring, in terms of relational leadership, considers the socio-cultural values of the organization and stakeholders (students), along with the willingness to work on the behalf of others. Administrative relational leaders perceive caring relationships as the creation of synergy, cooperative and collaborative efforts, of all parties’ interests (organization, caregivers, care-receivers). Furthermore, administrative relational leaders are responsible for nurturing the reciprocal nature of caring relationships. Porter and Monard (2009) stated that reciprocity in caring has a boomerang effect. Boomerang effect is caused through the reactant behavior of the caring receiver. Hence, a collaborative and receptive caring environment can be achieved when an administrative leader genuinely and authentically performs caring, and it is clearly communicated and received. Ray and Turkel (2012) administrative cultivation of reciprocal caring is a moment of organizational transcendence. Caring relationships will never be entirely reciprocal. There is fluidity and multiple dimensions in the interchange of caring relationships that require a form of leadership that recognizes the context of caring. The context of caring explores the quality of care (as a service, and the assurances that “the person being cared-for feels it” and properly communicated to the organization (Austin, 2010, p. 107). Administrative relational leadership is needed not only to create the expectation that administrators must have the skillset to offer care and concern from administrative positions. Administrative relational leadership require administrators to generate multi-dimensional roles and channels for communication between organization as caregivers and care-receivers. Administrative relational leadership must also encourage the integration of caring informed logic into organizations operations and services and product that is furnished (Nicholson & Kurucz, 2019). Caring informed logic can produce effectiveness by demanding caring organizations to advance rational caring tenets such as emotive, relational, responsive, collaborative, reciprocal and ethical) (Nicholson & Kurucz, 2019; Andersen, 2014). Additionally, understanding the relational bureaucratic caring roles of university administrative leadership illuminates why and how students connect with AUAC. Two key roles offered in line with university administrative leadership are care broker and academic caregiver. Vogel and Kaghan (2001) described institutional brokering as utilizing strategies to bridge the institutional distance between the university administration and students/customers. Koen and Bitzer (2010) confirmed that university leaders are brokers of “time and relationships” in a rapidly changing, competitive, resource-hungry context 153

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

of higher education environment (p. 3). From these viewpoints, caring brokering also involves administrative leaders utilizing their bureaucratic knowledge of rules and procedures, as well as their expertise and hierarchical authority to achieve satisfactory outcomes. Care brokering also refers to “mobilizing informational, financial, organizational and human resources to create” caring opportunities (Kubiak, Fention-O’Creevy, Appleby, Kempster, Reed, Solvason & Thorpe, 2015, p. 88). Additionally, the role of a care broker is to create internal and external organizational connections and partnerships in order to channel resources in support of care. University administrators, as institutional brokers, work at the boundaries of the institution’s landscape (academic, operational, service and caring) to build beneficial and constructive connections and cross-boundary experiences (Kubiak et al., 2015, p.81). Strayhorn (2014) identified another important caring/relational role of university administrative leadership. Strayhorn described university administrator’s academic caring as othermothering or academic caregiving. Academic caregiving can be thought of as the work that determines how academic care occurs, as well as how it should happen (Waldo & Borges, 2008, p. 765). Strayhorn (2014) offered three components to academic caregiving: emotional responsiveness, social-cultural advancement, and institutional guardianship. First, Strayhorn (2014) spotlighted a need for attentive and emotionally administrative responsiveness. Emotional responsiveness is critical in building and maintaining interpersonal interactions between the student and the institution, by way of the administration. Emotional responsiveness can also be viewed as the recognition of students. In this instance, administrative recognition of students requires an awareness and willingness to directly fulfill the needs in tandem with emotional acknowledgement, appreciate and support within students’ academic care (Klaver & Baart, 2011, p. 689). Secondly, Strayhorn (2014) noted a need for university administrators (as caregivers) to assist and promote socio-cultural advancement of their students. Accordingly, socio-cultural advancement is an effort to integrating students’ socio-racial identity and differences, culture and heritage, with their academic development. Hirt, Amelink, McFeeters and Strayhorn (2008) determined that socio-cultural advancement by a university is inherently linked to inclusion, social belongingness, and identity with the success of students. The socio-cultural advancement of students is achieved when the institution and employees are reflective of the socio-cultural identities and values. Additionally, the effectiveness of HBCU’s to students of African heritage (Hirt, Amelink, McFeeters & Strayhorn, 2008). The student population of HBCUs are predominantly of African descent. There is an expectation of advisement, mentoring, nurturing as well as an image that is appropriately representative of the African American community, its success, productivity and wealth. Strayhorn’s third view of administrators (as academic caregivers) is institutional guardianship. Institutional guardianship is also the duty of administrators to ensure that higher education institutions safe-guard and protect the future of their students; especially those that are marginalized (Bernard, Issari, Moriah, Njiwaji, Obgan, & Tolliver, 2012, p. 113). As institutional guardians, administrators must assess both the academic and institutional needs of students. Based on clearly established and agreed upon needs, administrators must then participate in influencing and shaping academic caregiving within organizational landscapes, as well as in the academic journey of their students. Most importantly, institutional guardianship embodies the belief that administrators must find ways to develop a direct relationship with the student body. In keeping with the relational bureaucratic values and roles of caring administrative leadership within AUAC setting, deliberations must also be given to a student-customer caring centricity. Student centricity implies that students along with their institutional concerns and academic needs must be at the center of university activities. Equally, customer centricity implies “having all activities integrated and aligned to 154

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

deliver superior customer values” (Shah, Rust, Parasuraman, Staelin & Day, 2006, p. 116). Universities have always been thought of as student-customer centric. In truth, universities have been more product centric. Largely, universities are focused on producing and selling academic degrees and professional certifications as knowledge products. Supportive of this contention, Allen and Withey (2017) wrote that “higher education is a process that produces a relatively intangible product, providing environments for concurrent consumption of knowledge, and teaching engage consumers in the purchase process to gain the most value” (p. 51). Over the years, many universities have switched their strategy from marketing and selling their products as a professional necessity and a representation of academic luxury and elitism to bargainbased massification of higher education (e.g., larger course environments, increased capacity for rapid enrollment growth, discount bargain prices). While this may seem like universities are responding to the demands of their stakeholders (specifically students), this shift is another response to academic capitalism. Academic capitalism establishes profitability and economic productivity in higher education as an institutions’ ability to offer affordable education based on lowering human labor requirements, increasing degree programs’ capacity, achieve a commercialized customer satisfaction (e.g., reliability, tangibility, performance comparative to expectation and cost) through the over-utilization of technology. Thus, product centric or product-driven universities seek to increase enrollment and mass-produce graduates. Allen and Withey (2017) provided the reality that the current generation of students are customer savvy. Students are seeking to make “connections between educational products, services, and valuable learning experiences” (2017, p. 53). Ultimately, this requires organizations to connect with students and make them central in the university operations and services. Student-customer caring centricity offers the foundation for universities to develop authentic relationships with students. Student customer caring centricity creates a determination for universities to seek to create a “loyalty bond” based on attempting to meet students’ customer expectations. Allen and Withey (2017) proposed that the loyalty bond is a consequence of price, delivery, experience, and product value of the education that is being provided. Significantly, student customer caring centricity also creates a loyalty bond based on a university’s drive to ensure and guarantee that the caring needs of student-customers, as care recipients, are incorporated within the spiritual, physical, socio-cultural and bureaucratic dimensions of the university. Additionally, student-customer caring centricity is not just the responsibility of the organization. It is also the charge of administrators (Shah, Rust, Parasuraman, Staelin & Day, 2006, p. 119). Based on views presented by Senn, Thoma and Yip (2013), student-customer caring centric leadership is required at institutional interfaces that provide AUAC. Senn, Thoma and Yip also (2013) offered three signals to administrative leadership’s commitment to student-customer caring. The first action is willingness to enthusiastically inspire and fight for “superior quality” of student-customer relations based on AUAC, “with occasional direct interventions” (Shah et al., p. 119). Secondly, creating channels for direct communication and accessibility for students to share their concerns with the university administration. Lastly, university administrators, as leaders, must support and promote the investment of resources to universities by addressing and researching students’ academic, customer and caring issues.

METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS Whereas the first segment of this chapter provided scholarly support for the need of caring administrative leadership within AUAC, this section presents an empirical investigation of the matter. While the overall 155

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

objective of the research study was to gain students perceptions of AUAC, there was an opportunity to explore other avenues of discovery. Hill, Lomas and McGregor (2003) asserted that student’s perceptions about their higher education experiences are an effective means to “monitor the quality in universities” (p. 15). They also noted that students’ perceptions can offer university administrators (and leaders) necessary “relational information to make proper judgments on the levels of performance in universities” (2003, p. 15). Of the approximately 2,700 students attending University of the Virgin Islands (UVI) at the time of the data collection, 126 (5%) students completed the questionnaire. A convenient sample was used to complete the analysis. The sample was purposive, non-random, and non-probable. Modified guidelines of a cross-sectional exploratory survey research design were utilized. The questionnaire used for data collection was a 49-items caring about academic caregiving inventory (CAACI) developed by the authors (Hendrickson & Francis, 2020). The CAACI was sectioned within five subscales. The first subscale consisted of five demographic items (age, gender, primary ethnic identity, student status, and principle field of study or discipline) that provided a student narrative to the study. The next four CAACI subscales are demarcated based on modified university academic caring carescapes framework (UACCF) (as seen in Figure 1). The modified UACCF identifies the possible academic caregiving points within a university. It also considers caring administrative leadership as an independent and essential academic care-giving point. Academic caregiving-points are conduits that provide students with the necessary caregiving and caring needed for educational achievements. Figure 1 categorized four basic academic caregiving-points: institutional operations (administration/support service) provision of care within academic service delivery; academic management (colleges/schools) ensuring the necessary level of care is offered within degree curriculum(s); instruction (teaching faculty) includes primary pedagogical academic care within the course learning environment; and academic advisement (faculty and staff advisors) to make certain that students are adjusted to their academic experience and offer curriculum and career grounded guidance. Thirteen caring about academic caregiving (CAAC) criteria were identified and utilized (as seen in Figure 1) to contextualize each academic caregiving point. Based on this work’s focus, caring administrative academic leadership was viewed as not only a criterion, but as a possible component of the modified UACCF. Table 1 provides the operational definitions for the CAAC criteria. Therefore, the items for the CAACI subscales were constructed based on the following CAAC criteria. The items were evaluated based on a 7-point Likert scale: 7= Strongly Agree, 6= Agree, 5= Somewhat Agree, 4= Neutral, 3= Somewhat Disagree, 2=Disagree and 1=Strongly Disagree. In terms of the validity of the CAACI, a panel of experts comprised of five teaching faculty from various academic disciplines (i.e., Psychology, English, Business, Natural Sciences and Mathematics), two academic deans and a vice-provost of student affairs evaluated CAACI (student version) to ensure face and content validity. The panel of experts reviewed the CAACI for the following conditions: 1) the extent to which each item reflected and was consistent with the conceptual framework and the operational definition; and 2) the quality of each item in terms of readability, clarity and simplicity. Centered on the panel’s evaluation and comments, the CAACI was revised. An opening email was sent to students’ university email addresses, which included information about the study, the assurance of complete anonymity and confidentiality, hyperlinks to the survey, clarifying podcast, and a cover letter. Students were not offered or given any incentives to complete the study. The CAACI was configured as a google e-form, which guaranteed trouble-free accessibility, complete anonymity and confidentiality. Google e-forms also allowed the streamlining of the process of CAACI’s distribution and data collection. Appropriately, the collected data is only accessible via the primary 156

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 1.

investigator’s university google account. Once students completed and submitted the questionnaire, the data was captured on an online spreadsheet. Data analysis was performed using NCSS 2020 statistical software. The quantitative analyses conducted was Chi-square, descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis and correlation. Chi-square analysis is a statistical approach that can be used to determine a significant relationship between two categorical variables. Chi-square was used to determine which demographic item or descriptive characteristic of students played a factor in their perceptions of caring administrative academic leadership. Secondly, descriptive statistics was used to describe the demographic characteristics of UVI students. Descriptive findings were presented as percentages. Thirdly, exploratory factor analysis provided rumination to the dimensionality of CAAC. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to explore conditions of CAAC found within the dimensions of institutional academic care (operations, management, instruction, and advisement). Specifically, EFA was utilized to determine which criteria of Operational CAAC is closely related to caring administrative leadership, based on the student’s perceptions. EFA was also used to create variables out of factor scores for the CAACI subscales (operational without caring administrative leadership). 157

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 2.

Finally, correlation analysis was used to evaluate associations of CAACI subscale (university operational care, academic management, instruction and academic advisement) and caring administrative leadership item. Correlation measures the strength of linear relationship between two or more variables. The values of strengths can range from -1 to +1. The closer the values are to the absolute value of 1, the stronger the relationship. The CAACI subscale variables was constructed based on factor scores. A factor score is an amalgamation of variances, resulting from the interrelationships of the factor loads.

158

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS In this study, demographic parameters such as age, gender, academic status and principle field of study or discipline was explored to determine, which variable significantly influenced students’ view of UVI administration as caring academic leaders. Chi-square was used to determine which demographic items

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Figure 3.

159

 University Administrators as Caring Academic Leaders in an HBCU Setting

or descriptive characteristic of students played a factor in their perception of caring administrative academic leadership. As seen in Table 2, the result of chi-square on demographic and caring administrative leadership components showed that age is the most motivating factor of students’ perceptions of caring administrative academic leadership, having a chi-square value of 62.432 and significance of 0.0041. Based on the descriptive findings, 46% of the participants were between the ages of twenty and twenty-nine. The second most important factor, in terms of caring administrative leadership, is academic status, with a chi-square value of 54.646 and a significance of 0.0039. Here, 36% of the participants were graduate students. Gender, ethnic identity and principal field of study/discipline did not motivate UVI students’ perceptions of caring administrative academic leadership.

EFA An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation was used to identify the dimensionality within the CAACI subscales. In each subscale analysis, rotations were examined based on two factors. This type of analysis was helpful in detecting viable loadings between the questionnaire items (variables). Output was validated based on Phi (good analysis if value is between 0.50 and 1.00) and a Bartlett Test, df and Prob (reject the null hypotheses at the 0.05 significance level). Factor loadings for this study was given a cut off threshold of .40, based on the views of Masaki Matsunaga (2010). Matsunaga (2010) viewed items with .40 or greater as acceptable (p. 101). Cronbach’s alpha of .70 was accepted as minimum reliability for each CAAC subscale factor loadings. George and Mallery (2003) provide the following rules of thumb:

Copyright © 2021. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

“_ > .9 – Excellent, _ > .8 – Good, _ > .7 – Acceptable, _ > .6 – Questionable, _ > .5 – Poor, and _ < .5 – Unacceptable” (p. 231). EFA analysis of the operational CAAC subscale was performed, inclusive of caring and concerned administrative leadership as a criterion. The EFA analysis output for operational CAACI sub-scale, as seen in Table 3, identified the following nine strongly interrelated items (Phi= 0.659111): 1. Actively supportive; 2. Availability/Accessibility; 3. Hope; 4. Attentive to academic progress; 5. Committed concern; 6. Attentive to differences; 7. Individualized Amenability; 8. Availability/Accessibility to required course; and, 9. Caring and concerned administrative leadership. The absolute value of the factor loading was presented in Table 3. The item with the strongest loading was item 1 (0.746618), “My university is actively supportive of my academic efforts”. The items in the first factor loadings are reliable (alpha=0.9432) and representative of authentic academic care found in the operational level, inclusive of caring and concerned administrative leadership. Furthermore, a correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between actively supportive of students’ academic efforts, caring and concerned leadership and committed concern by the university. The absolute value of the factor scores were correlated. Statistically significant associations (p