· web viewfhsu university mission revision process document. in the twenty years since the...

FHSU University Mission Revision Process Document

FHSU UNIVERSITY MISSION REVISION PROCESS DOCUMENT

In the twenty years since the University’s mission was adopted, the environment in which FHSU operates has changed drastically. Federal regulations have increased while state funding support has decreased, pushing the university to be more entrepreneurial. Virtual learning and global education are of the two most significant changes, but are not the only new circumstances we face. As our day-to-day mission has changed, the mission statement has not changed accordingly. The mission of Fort Hays State University should change, just as the university has, to reflect that goal.

Goal Statement and Outcome

To modernize the existing university mission statement through the recognition of our current modalities within an increasingly competitive and regulated environment.

Proposed Process and Schedule

Accomplishing a revision of core “founding” documents requires inclusive process and attention to high quality outcomes. These interests must be balanced with the benefits emergent from greater clarity of mission and vision. Revision will allow subsequent decisions on significant University projects to be aligned with the mission and focused on core values. The following represents a process and schedule, based on research in the discipline, which effectively balances process and benefit from outcomes.

Phase Completion1. Formation and Authorization April 2011

1.1 Identification of stakeholder groups.1.2 Select and charge Revision Task Force.

2. Research July 20112.1 Review peer and “best practice” MVV statements.2.2 Consider potential elements of a mission.2.3 Develop and launch website and social media tools for mission revision process.2.4 Establish a working timeline.

3. Open Comment September 2011

3.1 Launch mission evaluation survey for all stakeholders (Green, Medlin, & Linn, 2005).

1


3.2 Conduct analysis, by stakeholder group. Publish results.3.3 Develop focus group process based on results.

4. Focus Group Comment October 20114.1 Finalize focus group methodology and process (including social media and podcasts).4.2 Schedule and host focus groups for all identified stakeholder groups.4.3 Schedule and host mixed stakeholder group focus group.4.4 Schedule and host focus group of executive team.

5. Data Analysis November 20115.1 Assemble core analysis team, conduct retreats.5.2 Conduct analysis by stakeholder interest.5.3 Conduct analysis by alignment with potential elements.

6. Develop Draft Statements November 20116.1 Articulate core principles to be included in the MVV statements.6.2 Develop working draft of MVV statements.6.3 Test MVV statements through Council for Institutional Effectiveness.6.4 Finalize draft MVV statements with context/justification.6.5 Share final draft MVV statements with stakeholder groups through open forum and social media.6.6 Revise final draft based on stakeholder feedback.6.7 Develop role and scope aligned to draft statements.

7. Approval of Statements January 20127.1 Formally submit final framing documents (MVVRS) to Executive Team.7.2 Integrate feedback from Executive Team into approved statements.7.3 Receive formal approval of statements.7.4 Submit approved statements to Kansas Board of Regents.7.5 Statements approved by Kansas Board of Regents.

Defining “University Mission Statement”

While the concept of a mission statement is not new or unique to higher education institutions, limited academic research has been conducted on what an effective university mission statement might involve. After conducting a thorough review of recent published literature, about ten articles provide the research corpus for the following literature review.

A primary consideration must be given to the question of “why”; the value of a university mission cannot be taken as self-evident. Morphew and Hartley (2006) present the case for two independent benefits to the articulation of a university mission. Based on their research, they reasoned that a university mission statement “helps organizational members distinguish

2


between activities that conform to institutional imperatives and those that do not.” They further identified that a university mission conveys “a shared sense of purpose [and] has the capacity to inspire and motivate those within an institution and to communicate its characteristics and history to key external constituencies.” Meacham (2008) rationalizes a third benefit to institutions, “An effective mission statement ensures stability and continuity across changes in administration. Administrators bring different perspectives, leadership styles, and ideas about how to get things done. In contrast, the mission statement provides the overarching consensus, deeply rooted in an institutions history and identity, about what needs to get done.” Morphew and Hartley further concluded that mission statements have irreplaceable normative value – mission statements are necessary because every institution has one, “It would seem that not having a mission statement begs the very legitimacy of a college or university.” Masterson (2008) and Morphew and Hartley (2006) converge on the importance of the mission to accurately symbolize the value of the institution to external constituents, including state Regents and state legislators.

Conceptualizing the university mission statement is more common than rationalizing their existence. Several authors offer reasonable descriptors that accurately characterize various elements of the university mission statement phenomenon, and include:

Mission statements are declarations of a campus’s rational and purpose; its responsibilities toward students and the community; and its vision of student, faculty, and institutional excellence. “The mission statement will represent a campus-wide consensus on values and aspirations, expectations for student learning, and academic priorities for many years ahead.” (Meacham, 2008)

A mission statement is “an invisible hand that guides a college or university’s diverse personnel to work independently and yet collectively toward the realization of the organization’s goals” (Kotler & Murphy, 1981)

“The sustainable mission for our time must be a spark plug for new ideas as well as a steady beacon.” “As a marketing tool, the mission statement must be fresh, crisp, punchy – polarizing but oxymoronically non-threatening: the three word mantra as cute bumper sticker. As an expression of core beliefs, the mission statement must be clear, comprehensive, and courageous – a set of pillars that support the workings of the school down to the smallest detail. And as a justification for the school’s existence, it must be stirringly idealistic.” (Gow, 2009)

“Mission statements should reflect an organization’s purpose and the means by which that purpose will be accomplished.” Mission statements should include the ultimate aims of the firm thus providing unity of direction for managers, shared expectations by employees, and a projection to customers of what the firm provides and represents. Mission statements will answer the question of what business the firm is in, what its objectives are, and how the company will win. (Green, Medlin, & Linn, 2005)

Gow (2009) imparts an important reminder for institutions seeking to precisely craft a mission. Gow writes, “Words do not and cannot define an institution. Jake Giessman notes that there is a gestalt understanding about the unique character of the school. And gestalt defies

3


articulation. Mission statements aggregate truisms; the more finely crafted the words, then the more they may lose precise meaning.”

General Elements to Consider for Inclusion in University Mission Statements

Reviewing the literature, several salient elements which have been included in mission statements were discussed. Among the list,

Key services Business drivers (i.e. access, Affordable Success) Institutional values Type of business/focus Market served (or emerging market) Geographic area/limits Institutional purpose/rationale Responsibilities toward students and other stakeholders Responsibilities toward service area Leadership/management approach Business approach Institutional identity Institutional history Approach to education/philosophy Essential “branded” outcomes Key stakeholders served Institutional purpose and the means to accomplish the purpose Shared expectations among the institution What the institution represents (or seeks to represent) Instructional focus Core themes Signature programs Common programs Aspirational goals Service to the state/region/citizenry Ultimate aims Future direction “What business the institution is in” Student focused Desired public image Values and practices that define and differentiate the institution Current market share and areas of growth

A thematic analysis of these aggregated general elements reveals several emergent foci.

4


Theme General ElementsInstitutional Purpose Institutional purpose/rationale

Institutional identity Institutional history Institutional purpose and the means to accomplish the

purposeCore Service Key services

Business drivers (i.e. access, Affordable Success) Type of business/focus Business approach “What business the institution is in”

Institutional Values Institutional values Values and practices that define and differentiate the

institution Shared expectations among the institution Core themes Leadership/management approach

Market Focus Market served (or emerging market) Key stakeholders served Current market share and areas of growth

Geographic Focus Geographic area/limits Responsibilities toward service area Service to the state/region/citizenry

Student Focus Responsibilities toward students and other stakeholders Student focused

Educational Philosophy Approach to education/philosophy Essential “branded” outcomes Instructional focus Common programs Signature programs

Future Goals Aspirational goals Ultimate aims Future direction What the institution represents (or seeks to represent) Desired public image

Of these above themes, all were considered essential in order to correctly assess the current mission statement and to gather feedback to inform the development of a revised mission statement. A survey, based on Green, Medlin, and Linn (2005) was developed to assess stakeholders perception of the current mission statement and elements to consider in a revised mission statement.

5


FHSU Mission Statement Survey

The following survey, based off the model and process presented by Green, Medlin, and Linn (2005) was developed. The FHSU Mission Statement Survey was presented to the university community for two weeks at the beginning of the Fall 2011 term via an open survey link to http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YBWD9N2. Various announcements to complete the survey were presented through the follow methods, generally based on stakeholder group:

Detailed press release to area newspapers Announcement (with active link) on the University website. Email invitation to all FHSU employees (2 follow-up reminders sent) Email invitation to all alumni Email invitation to all students Announcement during various campus meetings

The survey follows as it was presented to the University community:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In Spring 2011, a task force was charged to review, research, and propose a procedure for revision of the Mission Statement of Fort Hays State University. The outcome sought through this process is an updated, focused mission statement responsive to the University’s current and future higher educational environment. A university mission statement defines what the institution currently does (i.e., educational offerings, research, public service) and how it is provided, how the institution competes, and possibly institutional core values. Alternatively, a vision statement looks into the future at least five years and defines future state – one that may not even seem possible today.

The task force recognizes that feedback from various campus constituencies is essential to our review process. This survey is one important stage of our input gathering process, and will be followed with focus group inquiries that will generate feedback from selected stakeholder groups. The task force estimates completion of the review and revision of the mission statement by the end of the fall 2011 semester. As part of our process, we think it is important to evaluate the current mission statement on the eight most important characteristics of university missions as reported in research. We ask that you take five to ten minutes and complete this important evaluation of our current mission statement.

As you consider the following survey, you may find it helpful to review our current mission statement:

Fort Hays State University, a regional university principally serving western Kansas, is dedicated to providing instruction within a computerized environment in the arts and sciences, business, education, the health and life sciences, and agriculture. The

6


university's primary emphasis is undergraduate liberal education, which includes the humanities, the fine arts, the social/ behavioral sciences, and the natural/physical sciences. These disciplines serve as the foundation of all programs. Graduates are provided a foundation for entry into graduate school, for employment requiring well-developed analytical and communication skills, and for lives of ethical and civic responsibility to better understand global complexities and an American society of increasing diversity.

Natural outgrowths of the university's primary emphasis include pre-professional, professional, master's, and education specialist programs. A statewide strategic focus of the university is the integration of computer and telecommunications technology with the educational environment and the work place.

Scholarship at FHSU is supported because it stimulates faculty and students, provides new knowledge, connects the disciplines, and builds bridges between teaching and learning while linking theory with practice to address the needs of a diverse society.

The university is responsible for providing public service to the community, the region, and the state of Kansas. Programs consistent with the university's academic and research activities emphasize the importance of FHSU as the cultural center of western Kansas.

01. Which of the following best classifies your current relationship with the University?Student Faculty Staff Administration Community AlumniOther

02. Which of the following educational modalities do you most identify with?On-campus Virtual College International Partnership

03 Our institutional mission statement reflects the purpose, rationale, and identity of the University.

SA A N D SD

04 Our institutional mission statement focuses on the core educational services the University provides.

SA A N D SD

05 Our institutional mission statement identifies important shared institutional values held at the University.

SA A N D SD

06 Our institutional mission statement clarifies large stakeholder groups/markets we serve.

SA A N D SD

07 Our institutional mission statement focuses on the geographic areas we serve.

SA A N D SD

08 Our institutional mission statement reflects our commitment to student learning.

SA A N D SD

09 Our institutional mission statement articulates our SA A N D SD

7


educational philosophy and/or instructional focus.10 Our institutional mission statement identifies

aspirational goals and the future direction of the University.

SA A N D SD

11. Share your thoughts and opinions about our current mission statement.

In addition, we would like your thoughts on whether the following principles should be included in the new mission statement.

12 Our institution mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University seeks entrepreneurial opportunities.

SA A N D SD

13 Our institutional mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University is committed to a high-quality virtual learning environment.

SA A N D SD

14 Our institutional mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University is committed to a high-quality campus-based learning environment.

SA A N D SD

15 Our institution mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University is committed to offering education on a global scale.

SA A N D SD

16 Our institution mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University is committed to affordable tuition and increased access to education.

SA A N D SD

17 Our institution mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University is forward thinking.

SA A N D SD

18 Our institution mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University values innovation.

SA A N D SD

19 Our mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University has a commitment to research.

SA A N D SD

20. Please elaborate on what you consider to be the most important elements, listed above or otherwise, that should be included in a revised University mission statement.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results of the FHSU Mission Statement Survey

Q01. Which of the following best classifies your current relationship with the University?

8


0100200300400500600700800900

1000

StudentFacultyStaffAdministrationAlumniCommunityOther

Q02. Which of the following do you most identify with?

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Traditional, On-CampusVirtual CollegeInternational Partnership

Q03. Our institutional mission statement reflects the purpose, rationale, and identity of the University.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree0.00%

10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%StudentFacultyStaffAdministrationAlumniCommunityOtherAverage

Q04. Our institutional mission statement focuses on the core educational services the University provides.

9


Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q05. Our institutional mission statement identifies important shared institutional values held at the University.

Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q06. Our institutional mission statement clarifies large stakeholder groups/markets we serve.

Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q07. Our institutional mission statement focuses on the geographic areas we serve.

10


Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q08. Our institutional mission statement reflects our commitment to student learning.

Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q09. Our institutional mission statement articulates our educational philosophy and/or instructional focus.

Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q10. Our institutional mission statement identifies aspirational goals and the future direction of the University.

11


Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q11. Share your thoughts and opinions about our current mission statement.

Comments were analyzed through a content analysis procedure. Thematic areas were identified, and comments were coded according to distinct preference. Results are reported by content theme and distinct opinion on the theme.

Theme Distinct Opinion/Descriptor NLength of Mission Mission is too long/old

Mission is vague/dull/too generalMission not too long/accurateMission too shortMission supports current values

112305616

Virtual/International Partnerships

Should add focus on Virtual learning/adult learnersShould add focus on International Partnerships

4625

Computerization Focus on computerization is outdatedNeed more focus on technology

308

Vision Not enough vision/future thinkingNeed focus on valuesMission and vision not in syncNeed to focus more on Forward Thinking/World Ready

19436

Regional Focus Regional focus on western Kansas is outdated/limitingRegional focus on KS is appropriate

6812

Global/International Focus

Need more focus on global/internationalNeed less focus on global/international

482

Liberal Arts Focus Need more liberal arts focusNeed less liberal arts focusNeed more career/workforce prep focusToo much career/workforce prep focus

9482

Scholarship/Graduate Education

Need more focus on scholarshipNeed more focus on graduate education

95

12


Need more focus on undergraduate education 1Academic Initiatives Need more focus on civic/public good education

Need to have more focus on the studentNeed more focus on innovationNeed more focus on critical thinking

101233

Q12. Our institutional mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University seeks entrepreneurial opportunities.

Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q13. Our institutional mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University is committed to a high-quality virtual learning environment.

Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q14. Our institutional mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University is committed to a high-quality campus-based learning environment.

13


Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q15. Our institutional mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University is committed to offering education on a global scale.

Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q16. Our institutional mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University is committed to affordable tuition and increased access to education.

Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q17. Our institutional mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University is forward thinking.

14


Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q18. Our institutional mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University values innovation.

Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q19. Our institutional mission statement should reflect that Fort Hays State University has a commitment to research.

Strongly Disagree


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%


Q20. Please elaborate on what you consider to be the most important elements, listed above or otherwise, that should be included in a revised University mission statement.

15


Comments were analyzed through a content analysis procedure. Thematic areas were identified, and comments were coded according to distinct preference. Comments were categorized according to preference to include or preference to not be included.

Theme nIncluded

n Not Included

Net

Quality learning (includes programming, faculty, learning experience)

109 0 109

Affordable tuition 94 8 86Global modality (includes IP, global focus, prepare students for global workplace)

67 7 60

Virtual modality 66 8 58Innovation 53 4 49Campus-based modality 47 3 44Student focused (includes student focused learning environment, personalized, small classes, high impact student experiences)

34 0 34

Access to education 24 1 23Research/scholarship 36 15 21Focus on KS service area 19 2 17Liberal arts 14 0 14Career-focused (includes workforce preparation) 13 0 13“Forward Thinking” 31 18 13Technology (includes immersive learning) 13 0 13Institutional values 11 0 11Civic engagement 8 0 8Diversity 8 0 8Service to the community and region 8 0 8Traditions of FHSU 8 0 8Creativity 3 0 3High quality facilities 3 0 3Business focus/entrepreneurial focus 10 8 2Vision 1 0 1

Conclusions Emergent from the Mission Statement Survey Results

16


Based on analysis of questions 3 through 11, the following conclusions were generated. These conclusions are related to perceptions of the adequacy of the current mission statement.

1. The existing mission statement is perceived by many as being outdated, too general and vague, and lacks currency.

2. FHSU is no longer perceived as just a regional university by our stakeholders. Greater focus on global and virtual learning is necessary.

3. Stakeholders express great support for the traditional on-campus experience familiar to many.

4. Computerization is perceived as not being cutting edge and greater focus on technology/innovative learning environments is necessary.

5. Innovative/creative campus learning spaces and quality virtual education are critical to effectively facilitate liberal arts and professional curricula.

6. Student learning, our core educational service, is undeniably critical to the mission.7. Stakeholders note that our current mission lacks clear direction and aspirational goals.

Based on analysis of questions 12 through 20, the following conclusions were generated. These conclusions are based on preferences for elements to be included in a revised mission statement.

1. By a significant measure, stakeholders reflect that our mission statement must include quality learning as the essential focus. Also significantly supported are the related themes of access to education and affordable tuition.

2. Virtual and global educational modalities must be considered for inclusion in the mission statement. Stakeholders believe that the traditional service area of Western Kansas must be maintained while broadening our mission focus to include virtual and global educational shifts. The university should be recognized as an educational provider to the world as well as an agent in the creation of globally aware citizens.

3. Innovation is significantly noted as a potential element for inclusion in the mission statement. Many stakeholders prefer innovation to “Forward Thinking” or entrepreneurial thinking, with a significant number of stakeholders suggesting those specific terms not be included. Perhaps “Forward Thinking” might be better included as an element of the vision since it aligns to a future orientation.

4. Stakeholders believe research is important, but not to the extent that it warrants significant presence in the mission statement relative to the university's primary mission, which is quality instruction. Research and service would be potentially worthy of inclusion as values of the institution.

Creation of a Draft Mission Statement

17


Based on the above conclusions, and feedback from the public forums, the Task Force engaged in an extensive discussion to identify critical elements for placement in the mission statement. Task Force members were asked to identify three critical elements for inclusion. The results of this activity was the development of a list of the following elements:

Access Quality academic programs Sphere of delivery (Kansas, national, international, global) Innovation Role of faculty and other professionals Engagement Student outcomes (citizens, leaders, workforce, liberally educated)

These elements were discussed extensively and a draft mission statement was developed. Consensus around the critical elements emerged quickly and all Task Force members were in agreement with the final form.

“Fort Hays State University provides accessible quality education to Kansas, the nation, and the world through an innovative community of teacher-scholars and professionals to develop engaged global citizen-leaders.”

In an effort to communicate the thoughts and context the Task foce considered during creation of the draft statement, the following analysis of each term was created.

Term Exploration“provides” The term “provides” was essentially the lesser of the evils. The TF certainly

evaluated a variety of verbs. “Delivers” sounded too much like what you expect from Dominos or Pizza Hut. “Guarantees” seemed far too official and constricting. “Assures” sounded too informal. “Offers” seemed a little too used car, limited time, and cheeky. “Serves” really describes what someone does for you at the Olive Garden or Applebees. Thus “provides” was deemed the winner by lack of substantive alternative.

“accessible quality education”

At the core of this term is the concept of the central product/service of FHSU - quality education. Notably, “accessible” modifies quality. Quality education is the cornerstone operation of our enterprise, but we make it unique through our commitment to access. The term “accessible” was developed as an encompassing term to include the ideas of an open access university system, affordable tuition, continuous attention to enrollment growth, and great service to our students. Each of these concepts was well supported from feedback from our survey and feedback forums.

“to Kansas, the nation, and the

One of the charges we were given was to provide more inclusion for the various operations: on-campus, virtual, and international. Rather than

18


world” focusing precisely on the operations, we decided to look to the impact of our education. This approach was well supported by survey feedback with the highest number of responses indicating that additional treatment of distance education was deserved. Rather than hitching the wagon to specific regions or operations, we gave presence/priority to Kansas (well supported in the survey), and extended our commitment to the nation and world.

“through an innovative community”

One of FHSU’s core values is innovation. Many respondents remarked about the innovative nature of the University – the term had more resonance than “Forward Thinking” and entrepreneurship. Leadership studies, justice studies, hospitality management, and information security engineering are just four examples of programs that reflect FHSU’s entrepreneurial spirit. FHSU joined AQIP and ADP early on as part of that same spirit that values thinking forward to the next step in higher education. Finally, the inclusion of community was not by accident. Essentially, community was meant to communicate the nature of the relationship that teacher-scholars and professionals provide. Community intimates that the entire FHSU operation works together to assure quality education…as is our practice.

“teacher-scholars”

State comprehensive universities - like FHSU - emphasize a hybrid of teaching and scholarship. To embrace that dual focus, FHSU has moved towards adopting Ernest Boyer’s five-fold model of scholarship. Dating back to Thomas Ehrlich’s work in the 1990’s and articulated in Huber’s 2005 work http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/balancing-acts-scholarship-teaching-and-learning-academic-careers, the concept of a teacher-scholar is a common one at SCU’s. The 2009 launch of a journal based at FHSU with the same title reinforces the notion that FHSU faculty are both teachers and scholars. The term underscores the integrated nature of the two concepts as applied at FHSU. Teaching supports scholarship, as scholarship supports instruction. As a “teaching” institution, the primacy of teacher seems justified in the term. Inclusion of scholarship as a stand-alone term in the mission did not seem well supported based on survey feedback.

“and professionals”

Our university cannot rely solely on the faculty to completely engage students in the educational process. Personnel in Student Affairs, Administration and Finance and other administrative officers have duty as professionals to assure quality education. In fact, quality education would not be possible without all parts of the University system collaborating to achieve the singular goal. “Professionals” was meant to acknowledge the exceptional work outside the classroom performed by qualified and experienced personnel. Finally, “professionals” also underscores the nature of the work as more than just support of teaching operations as it may have been perceived historically.

“to develop The mentor-mentee relationship is central to FHSU’s values. As mentors to

19

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/balancing-acts-scholarship-teaching-and-learning-academic-careers

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/balancing-acts-scholarship-teaching-and-learning-academic-careers


engaged global” our students, we develop their intellects and skills throughout their college career and beyond. Engagement is another core FHSU value, consistent with our Carnegie Community Engagement Classification as well as civic engagement activities like those found in the Center for Civic Leadership, service learning courses, and co-curricular activities like the American Democracy Project. The term global emphasizes our worldwide commitment to providing education to western Kansas and the world. Furthermore, global in this term was meant to inclusively support our commitment to internationalization, international student enrollment, and cross-border partnerships.

“citizen-leaders”

FHSU values building civic leadership skills among all students. There was great support from the mission survey asserting that our graduates contribute as both citizens and leaders. Inherent in every citizen is the ability and responsibility to lead. Writers as diverse as Thomas Paine to Thomas Ehrlich have stated that with citizenship comes an incumbent responsibility to be a leader as well. Most would agree that a typical outcome from a successful college experience is the ability to engage and lead others.http://measuringup.highereducation.org/2000/articles/ThomasEhrlich.cfm Leadership is a core value of democracy, and even if one does not exercise leadership regularly citizens should be prepared to lead at any time. The concept of citizen-leader indicates that leadership can be a latent skill, ready to be exercised, in addition to a regular act. While many organizations now promote the concept of citizen leadership, this short piece provides rich context for the concept: http://www.workingwider.com/leadership_management/grooming-the-next-wave-the-citizen-leader/Certainly, the hyphenated nature of the term adds complexity, as it does for teacher-scholar. There is no essential difference between the term “citizen leader” and “citizen-leader”, except the latter underscores the symbiotic nature of the relationship. Engagement is a precursor to the citizen-leader process. Engaged citizens take leadership opportunities in whatever environment. Based on feedback, the Task Force re-evaluated our commitment to the term. We tested the alternative terms “citizen”, “leader”, “citizens and leaders”, and citizen leaders” and none of the options had as much support from the Task Force as the original term “citizen-leaders”.

Creation of Values Statement

20

http://www.workingwider.com/leadership_management/grooming-the-next-wave-the-citizen-leader/

http://www.workingwider.com/leadership_management/grooming-the-next-wave-the-citizen-leader/

http://measuringup.highereducation.org/2000/articles/ThomasEhrlich.cfm


21

· web viewfhsu university mission revision process document. in the twenty years since the...

Documents