-
DOMINANT COALITIONS AND DOMINANT GENERAL MANAGEMENT LOGIC: A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEGREE COMPLETION
By
Lucian Anthony Leone
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a degree of
Higher Education Administration – Doctor of Philosophy
2016
-
ABSTRACT
DOMINANT COALITIONS AND DOMINANT GENERAL MANAGEMENT LOGIC: A CASE STUDY OF
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEGREE COMPLETION
By
Lucian Anthony Leone
Community colleges in the United States are faced with several challenges, one of which is
increasing the percentage of students that earn an associate degree. Research (American Association of
Community Colleges, 2012; Amey, 2005; Eddy, 2010; Roueche, 2008) suggests that community college
administrators need to think, act, manage, and lead in ways not required or expected in earlier
generations. Significantly increasing the percentage of community college students that earn an
associate degree may require a change in the dominant general management logic (Bettis & Prahalad,
1986) of American community colleges. The dominant coalition is the group that creates and revises an
organization’s dominant general management logic. This study described the shared mental models of
members of the dominant coalition at one community college, and the relationship between those
shared mental models and the college’s performance as measured by the percentage of students who
earn an associate degree. The research explored the relationships between the dominant coalition’s
shared mental models, the community college’s dominant logic, and the college’s focus on associate
degree completion.
The research found that the Foundations Studies Committee, a group comprised of faculty, staff,
and senior leaders at the College, had a leading role in determining what the College would do to
improve the associate degree completion rate. This group has many of the attributes of a Professional
Learning Community (Lenning, et. al, 2013). Understanding the influence of Professional Learning
Communities on organizational development may be helpful as community college work to improve
performance on a range of outcomes metrics.
-
iii
I would like to dedicate this to my wife, Bernadette. Her support, encouragement and understanding
since I began my doctoral studies so many years ago have made this possible. Our daughter Leah has
only dim memories of a time when I wasn’t either taking classes or writing this dissertation. For
Dominic, Joseph, Gina, Leah, Angela, Kevin, JoJo, Luca, Gianna, Emma and Abby: “trust in the Lord, and
He will give you the desires of your heart”. I would also like to dedicate this to Angelo and Mary Grace
Leone. My father was an amazing example of faithfulness and commitment - to God, his family, and his
work. My mother instilled in me a deep belief that I could accomplish anything I put my mind to.
Thanks mom and dad. You are in my prayers.
Finally, I also dedicate this to fellow trekkers everywhere:
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.”
Bilbo Baggins – The Lord of the Rings
-
iv
Acknowledgements
I could not have completed this process without the guidance and support of my faculty advisor,
Dr. Marilyn Amey. Thank you for sticking with me over the course of this journey. I would also like to
acknowledge my committee members for their commitment of time and interest in my study. I would
also like to acknowledge all of the faculty I have interacted with throughout the program for making this
a valuable learning experience. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues at Lansing Community
College and Ferris State University who have provided both professional support and personal
encouragement. I deeply appreciate everything you have done. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the
participants in this study. I cannot thank them enough for their time, interest, and insightful responses
for this study.
-
v
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 5 Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................................... 6
Dominant Coalition ............................................................................................................ 6 Dominant General Management Logic .............................................................................. 6 Learning Communities ....................................................................................................... 7 Tags .................................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................................................................... 8
Leadership ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Organizational and Cognitive Frames of Reference ...................................................................... 16 Mental Models .............................................................................................................................. 19 Dominant Logic ............................................................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 30
Selection of Case ........................................................................................................................... 31 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 31 Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Validity ......................................................................................................................................... 35 Reliability ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 37
The Research Questions ................................................................................................................ 37 Great Lakes College ....................................................................................................................... 37 Interview Participants ................................................................................................................... 38
Leadership Council participants ....................................................................................... 38 Faculty participants .............................................................................................................. Administrator participants ............................................................................................... 40
The Dominant Coalition at Great Lakes College ........................................................................... 40 Leadership at Great Lakes College ................................................................................... 41 The Foundations Studies Committee as a key element in the dominant coalition .......... 43
The Shared Mental Models of the Dominant Coalition ................................................................ 45 Total commitment to student success ............................................................................. 45 Commitment to developmental and at-risk students ..................................................... 49 Relationships, not just transactions ................................................................................. 55 The importance of the Foundations Studies Committee ................................................. 60 Commitment to faculty and staff development .............................................................. 61 Curricular revisions to improve student success and completion ................................... 65 Data-driven decision-making, planning and accountability ............................................. 67
-
vi
Improving completion rates is complex ........................................................................... 70 Other themes expressed by some study participants ..................................................... 72
Getting the right people on the bus and in the right seats ................................ 72 Revisions to program and faculty review processes have been significant ....... 73 Students supporting students to improve completion ....................................... 74
The Impact of GLC’s Shared Mental Models on Degree Completion ........................................... 75 Summary of Findings: Conclusion ................................................................................................. 76
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 78
The Dominant Coalition at Great Lakes College ........................................................................... 79 The Shared Mental Model of the Dominant Coalition at Great Lakes College ............................. 81
Complexity Theory and the dominant logic at Great Lakes College ................................ 85 Organizational learning and degree completion .............................................................. 88 The shared mental model of the leadership team at Great Lakes College ...................... 91 The dominant coalition as a Professional Learning Community ..................................... 92 Constructive-developmental leadership theory at Great Lakes College ......................... 94
The relationship between the dominant logic of the dominant coalition and the College’s performance with respect to associate degree completion at Great Lakes College ................... 95 Implications for future research ................................................................................................. 101
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. 104
Appendix A: Research Participant Information and Informed Consent Form ............................ 105 Appendix B: Interview Guide ....................................................................................................... 108 Appendix C: Mission, Vision, Statement of Beliefs and Values of Great Lakes College .............. 110
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 112
-
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of fundamental complexity propositions and their general implications for leadership 12
Table 2. Three functions of presidential teams 13
Table 3. Single, Double, and Triple-loop learning 21
Table 4. Summary of themes at Great Lakes College 45
Table 5. Proposed community college dominant logics matrix 103
-
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The dominant logic 4
Figure 2. The dominant coalition at Great Lakes College 41
Figure 3. Percentage of Students Earning a Degree or Transferring After 6 years 76
Figure 4. Astin’s Inputs-Environment-Outputs (I-E-O) model 98
Figure 5. Kolb’s learning cycle 100
-
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Degree completion rates are important to the vitality and competitiveness of the U.S. economy.
While it is projected that over 60% of the jobs in the U.S. economy will require a relevant post-
secondary degree (associate degree or higher) by 2018, based on current trends, less than 50% of
working-aged Americans will have a post-secondary degree by 2025 (Carnevale, Smith & Strohl, 2010;
Hussar & Bailey, 2011; Lumina Foundation for Education, 2009). These projections suggest the gap
between the educational demands of the U.S. workforce and the educational levels of that workforce is
significant and growing.
The Obama administration has sought to focus national attention and federal policy on
community college degree completion through a series of proposals in an effort to close this gap. In
February of 2009, in a joint session of Congress, President Obama set for a goal that “by 2020, America
will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world” (2009) (Retrieved from:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Investing-in-Education-The-American-Graduation-Initiative/). In
August 2013, the President announced his administration’s plan to develop a higher education rating
system. The intent of this system was to bring greater transparency to the value of a degree from any
college or university, public or private, which receives federal support. The key performance indicators
in the proposed system included degree completion rates, average student debt of graduates, job
placement rates for graduates, starting salaries for graduates, and how accessible the institutions are
with respect to admitting a diverse student population (Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress). In
January 2015, the president announced his proposal to make two years of community college free for
students attending at least half-time who maintained a 2.5 grade point average (2015) (Retrieved from:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog /2015/01/08/president-proposes-make-community-college-free-
responsible-students-2-years). In lieu of a college rating system, the Obama administration launched
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Investing-in-Education-The-American-Graduation-Initiative/http://www.whitehouse.gov/http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog%20/2015/01/08/
-
2
the College Scorecard website in September of 2015. This site provides information on completion
rates, graduate salaries, and cost of attendance for most of the country’s colleges and universities
(www.collegescorecard.ed.gov).
In an effort to focus U.S. community colleges on degree completion, state governments are
establishing performance-based funding models (PBF). Performance funding is based on the belief that
“if you put a pot of money out there, people would change their behavior in order to chase that money”
(Dougherty & Reddy, 2011, p. 2). I would suggest that a fundamental problem with performance
funding is the often indirect connection to the place where the student experience is most significantly
impacted – in the classroom, with faculty. Incentive systems which do not directly connect to what is
going on in the classroom are likely to be ineffective in improving community college associate degree
completion rates. For significant change to occur, faculty and staff may need to be involved and
engaged in learning communities focused specifically on course completion as well as degree
completion (CCSSE, 2014; Dougherty & Reddy, 2011; Driscoll & Wood, 2007; Lenning, et al., 2013;
Sorcinelli, et al., 2006).
Though federal and state-level policy initiatives may have value, research suggests that
significant improvement in associate degree completion rates is not likely to occur unless and until
community college leaders, managers and faculty think differently with respect to their mission and
vision, and how they must function in an increasingly complex environment (Alfred, Shults, Jaquette, &
Strickland, 2009; American Association of Community Colleges, 2012; Amey, 2005; Bailey, Jaggars, &
Jenkins, 2015; Eddy, 2010; Roueche, et al., 2008). Research from the business management literature
suggests the need for a revised dominant general management logic (or dominant logic) (Prahalad &
Bettis, 1986).
Initially proposed to help explain corporate diversification strategy, dominant general
management logic represents organizational “beliefs, theories, and propositions that have developed
http://www.collegescorecard.ed.gov/
-
3
over time based on the managers’ personal experiences” (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986, p. 489). Dominant
logics are shaped by the dominant coalition in the organization, which includes the senior executives
responsible for developing strategic priorities and direction. The dominant logic permits managers and
staff throughout the organization “to categorize an event, assess its consequences, and consider
appropriate action (including doing nothing), and to do so rapidly and often efficiently” (Prahalad &
Bettis, 1986, p. 490).
The dominant logic can be understood as the organization’s “data filter” (see figure 1). As data
come into the organization, the dominant general management logic determines what data are worth
review and potential action, and what data can be ignored. As the organization determines what data
are important and worth attention, the dominant logic then determines how those data are processed
in the organization, and how the organization will respond (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986). The concept of
dominant logic has been applied to higher education in the United Kingdom (Smith, Gidney, Barclay &
Rosenfeld, 2002), but does not appear to have been studied in relation to the American community
college system. Examining the implications of this concept in an American community college context
may be helpful in enhancing our understanding of the factors that need to be addressed if we are going
to improve degree completion rates at community colleges in the United States.
The dominant logic in place in most community colleges focuses on student access - making it as
easy as possible to begin a college program. Research suggests community colleges need to revise their
dominant logic from a focus on student access to a focus on student access and success (American
Association of Community Colleges, 2012; Bailey, Jaggars, & Jenkins, 2015). The dominant logic needs to
shift from a focus on beginning a degree program to a focus on beginning and completing the program.
It seems reasonable to conclude that significant improvement in degree completion rates will not occur
-
4
unless community colleges, including senior leadership, administration, faculty and staff embrace
degree completion as a primary focus and make the necessary changes so that greater numbers of
students earn a degree. Though addressing the funding models may be helpful, changing the dominant
logic in community colleges will require community colleges to embrace a new paradigm from within.
Doing so may require functioning more like a learning organization (Torres & Preskill, 2001) where
colleges are capable of “continually monitoring their performance, identifying problems, devising
strategies to resolve them, and evaluating how well those strategies work” (Jenkins, 2011; Kerrigan,
2010; as cited in Dougherty & Reddy, 2011, pp. 50-51).
If we are going to understand a community college’s dominant logic, it is important to
understand how senior administrators, faculty and staff in the college see the world, and make sense of
it for themselves and for others (Amey, 1992; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Eddy, 2003; Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996;
Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Smircich & Morgan, 1982; Weick, 1995). We need to understand the shared
mental models of the college’s leaders, faculty and staff (Porac, et. al., 1989). Bolman and Deal (1984,
-
5
2013) consolidated the key themes of organizational thought into four perspectives, which they labeled
“frames”. Their conception of frames was meant to include a range of concepts in the organizational
and psychological literature – “mental models, maps, mind-sets, schema, and cognitive lenses, to name
a few” (Bolman & Deal, 1984, p. 12). According to the authors, a frame is “a set of assumptions you
carry in your head” (p. 12); they can be “windows on the world of leadership and management” (p. 12).
Frames have both a cognitive element and a behavioral element. As Eddy (2003) suggests, community
college leaders first frame events for themselves, so they can then frame events for others.
Understanding the organizational frames of the members of a community college’s dominant coalition
and how those frames relate to each other may be important in understanding how a college’s
dominant logic is developed and maintained.
Purpose of the Study
Community colleges in the United States are faced with several challenges, one of which is
increasing the percentage of students that earn an associate degree. Research suggests that
community college administrators need to think, act, manage, and lead in ways not required or
expected in earlier generations (American Association of Community Colleges, 2012; Amey, 2005; Eddy,
2010; Roueche, 2008). Significantly increasing the percentage of community college students that earn
an associate degree may require a change in the dominant general management logics (Prahalad &
Bettis, 1986) of many American community colleges. In order to understand a community college’s
dominant logic, it is important to begin by understanding the group that shapes the dominant logic - the
dominant coalition. Prahalad and Bettis (1986) suggested that the dominant coalition included senior-
level executives. In a community college context, the dominant coalition may include faculty and/or
administrators who are not a part of the senior leadership group. This study described the shared
mental models of members of the dominant coalition at one community college, and the relationship
between those shared mental models and the college’s performance as measured by the percentage of
-
6
students who earn an associate degree. The research explored the relationships between the dominant
coalition’s shared mental models, the community college’s dominant logic, and the college’s focus on
associate degree completion.
The research questions guiding this research were:
1) Who are the members of the college’s dominant coalition working to improve the college’s
associate degree completion rate?
2) What are the shared mental models of the dominant coalition?
3) What is the relationship between the dominant logic of the dominant coalition and the college’s
performance with respect to associate degree completion?
Definition of Terms
Several terms are helpful in pursuing this research.
Dominant coalition.
A collection of individuals (top managers or senior administrators) who have significant influence on the
way the firm is managed. The dominant coalition determines the strategic direction and priorities of the
firm. In a diversified firm these would be the corporate-level senior executives, as opposed to the
business unit leaders (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986). The dominant coalition is the group that creates and
maintains the organization’s dominant general management logic.
Dominant General Management Logic.
The dominant general management logic (or dominant logic) is a shared mental model developed in an
organization that influences how the organization thinks about and makes sense of the environment in
which it operates; “it is stored as a shared cognitive map (or set of schemas) among the dominant
coalition” (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986, p. 491). The concept of dominant logic is grounded in Kuhn’s (1970)
work on scientific paradigms. Allison (1971) characterized a paradigm as a set of assumptions, concepts,
and propositions that constitute a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them.
-
7
Learning Communities.
Lenning, et. al., (2013) define a learning community (LC) as “an intentionally developed community that
exists to promote and maximize the shared learning of its members (p. 7). The authors propose three
types of learning communities in higher education:
1) Student Learning Communities (SLCs) are “small groups of student intentionally organized
(structurally and process-wise) for student-student, student-faculty, and student-curriculum
interactions” (p. 7).
2) Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) are “groups of faculty, staff, or both organized into
small study, planning and implementation groups for collaboration on developing and
implementing strategies for contributing to optimum student learning” (p. 7).
3) Learning Organizations (LOs) are “organizations in which the entire institution (or a primary
structural entity therein) succeeds in organizing itself – including the organization-wide culture,
leadership and a preponderance of its members throughout – in ways that authentically
transform the whole organization into an intentional LC organized to maximize all members’
learning in relation to one or more dimension of knowledge (p. 8).
Tags.
A concept in complexity theory that describes any structure or information which enables or speeds up
certain social behaviors. A tag can include a new technology, an idea, a symbol (such as a flag), a
symbolic act, a group myth or a belief. A tag can also be a leader. Leadership tags emerge out of, and
owe their existence to, interactive dynamics. That is, they rarely (possibly never) create an interactive
dynamic themselves; rather they are produced by the dynamic:
Martin Luther King did not create the civil rights movement, rather he catalyzed its
development. Churchill did not win the Battle over Great Britain, but he symbolized British
courage. Nonetheless tags are of significant importance in the development and nourishment
of emergent dynamics, and they demonstrate how leaders can be, and often are, involved in
autocatalysis. (Marion & Uhl-Bein, 2001, p. 398).
-
8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The literature review includes four sections: Leadership; Organizational and Cognitive Frames;
Mental Models; and Dominant Logics. Research suggests that new conceptions of leadership will be
necessary if community colleges are going to significantly improve outcomes with fixed or reduced
resources (Bailey, Jaggars & Jenkins, 2015; Eddy, 2010). The most widely used leadership models today
are rooted in fairly hierarchical, bureaucratic models which are not well-suited for the current
environment (Eddy, 2010). Given the growing range of issues which community colleges are being
required to address, it is important that senior administrators understand how to be effective leaders in
increasingly complex environments (Eddy, 2010). Several authors (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008; Eddy &
Lawrence, 2012) suggest that technological advancement and the internet have great potential to create
more relevant and rich learning environments for students, faculty and staff. These same factors,
however, add to the complexity in the higher education environment. Given this growing complexity,
community college senior administrators need to have the ability to frame strategic issues from multiple
perspectives to effectively engage faculty and staff in their work to positively influence degree
completion (Eddy, 2010). Senior administrators need to not only understand their own mental models,
they need to understand the mental models of their colleagues, as well as the mental models of those
groups or teams developed to address important issues, such as degree completion (Jones, Ross, Lynam,
Perez, & Leitch, 2011). These teams need to be able to think as a team, use data to appropriately inform
their recommendations, and then develop and implement strategies and tactics that will improve
organizational performance (Bensimon, 1991; Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). Research suggests that
community colleges need to focus on becoming learning organizations (Lenning, et. al., 2013; Senge,
1990; Torres & Preskill, 2001) if they hope to be successful in improving degree completion rates while
providing educational opportunity to an increasingly diverse student population. Understanding how a
community college’s dominant logic (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986) is developed and transformed may be
-
9
important for community college senior administrators working to improve the associate degree
completion rate at their institution.
Leadership
Twombly (1995) reviewed four distinct eras of community college leadership in the 20th century.
From around 1900 to 1930, community college presidents were seen as “the hero” – an independent
leader with a strong vision and the ability to inspire others to follow that vision. In the 1940s and 1950s,
community college leaders sought independence from secondary schools and began to create a more
distinct identity. The 1960s and 1970s were a period of significant growth in the community college
sector as the baby boomers entered higher education. This era was one in which strong, dominant
leaders were needed to give the community college movement a clear voice in the higher education
sector. In the last twenty years of the century, community college leaders began to seriously wrestle
with the challenges of limited resources and how those resources would be allocated between the
multiple missions of the colleges (Roueche, et al., 1989). In the 21st century, community colleges are
attempting to serve several distinct, and, at times, conflicting roles, including career training in grey
collar professions (allied health, law enforcement, technology, etc.), transfer education, developmental
education for students not prepared for college-level work, and life-long and continuing education. At
the same time, they are expected to fulfill these responsibilities with little or no additional resources.
Government funding is being tied to performance as opposed to enrollment as evidenced by the fact
that community colleges are increasingly funded based on their ability to achieve outcomes (Dougherty
& Reddy, 2011). Given these changes with respect to mission, performance, and funding, researchers
are suggesting that community colleges are best understood as complex organizations in a complex
environment (Amey, 2005; Eddy, 2010).
As environments become more complex, organizations need to adopt more shared or team-
based approaches to leadership (Allen & Cherrey, 2000; Amey, 2005; Bennis, 1989; Colvill, Brown & Pye,
-
10
2012; Eddy, 2010; Heifetz, 1994; Katz & Kahn, 1978 Rost, 1993; Schneider & Somers, 2006; Wheatley,
1999). Given that the dominant logic is a shared mental model among top managers, understanding
how senior administrators share information and work together is important. Several scholars (Allen &
Cherrey, 2000; Bennis, 1989; Colvill, Brown & Pye, 2012; Heifetz, 1994; Katz & Kahn, 1978 Rost, 1993;
Schneider & Somers, 2006; Uhl-Bein, Marion & McKelvey, 2007; Wheatley, 1999) noted that society has
shifted to a knowledge-based, networked world and new approaches to leading, learning and
influencing change are necessary. These scholars argue that organizations have many of the attributes
of complex systems and we can enhance our understanding of organizations and leadership if we view
them through the lens of complexity theory (Marion, 1999; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Schneider &
Somers, 2006). Given the growing number of issues that community college senior administrators need
to address (Amey, 2005; Eddy, 2010), understanding leadership from a complexity perspective may
provide some insight into the issues and challenges faced by community college senior administrators in
the second decade of the 21st century.
Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT) is based on four important ideas:
- Organizational systems and leadership are socially constructed;
- There is a distinction between leaders and leadership;
- A focus on adaptive leadership which occurs in emergent, informal dynamics throughout the
organization;
- Leadership in the Knowledge Era occurs in the face of adaptive challenges rather than
technical problems. (Uhl-Bien, Marion & McKelvey, 2007)
A key assumption of complexity theory is that some events are unknowable until the event
occurs (Eve, Horsfall, & Lee, 1997). From a complex systems perspective, organizational strategy is not,
fundamentally, the result of deliberate planning (Porter, 1985), but tends to emerge over time
(Mintzberg, 1991) as the organization and the environment interact. Leadership is seen as an indirect
-
11
process which influences organizational identity serving as a kind of “rudder” (Albert, Ashforth &
Dutton, 2000, p. 13). In this context leaders serve as tags and influence other persons and processes
(Holland, 1995; Marion, 1999, 2002; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Tags are associated with action and
outcomes, not necessarily with individuals or positions. Tags serve as change agents in a given context
or about a particular issue. These researchers, therefore, prefer to use the term “leadership” rather
than the term “leader” which often implies that organizational position determines who will lead
(Schneider & Somers, 2006). This is relevant for this study in that it suggests that the dominant coalition
in a complex organization may include members who are not senior administrators. It may be the case
that faculty and staff in the community college outside of the executive leadership team assume
leadership roles in creating a culture that is focused on improving degree completion rates. Given the
significance of tags (other key players and potential change agents) and their impact on organizational
adaptation, it may be important for community college presidents to understand how to identify and
leverage tags in their college if they hope to impact institutional performance related to degree
completion, or any other important outcome. Tags are not necessarily determined by the college’s
senior leadership team (Holland, 1995; Marion, 1999, 2002; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001), and they may not
be in positions of traditional authority in a given setting.
Marion and Uhl-Bein (2001, p. 395) have proposed three fundamental complexity propositions
and their general implications for leadership (see Table 1 below). In complex environments, leaders do
not exercise direct control over the actions and outcomes of the organization. Leadership has a more
indirect influence on organizational activity by facilitating the development of teams that have
internalized the organization’s mission and adjust their behaviors to realize that mission. If community
colleges are operating in an increasingly complex environment and are going to successfully pursue
multiple missions, then we would expect to see community college senior leaders facilitating the
development of teams of faculty and staff that are focused on student success and completion.
-
12
Fundamental complexity proposition General Implications Practical Implications Specific Leader Behaviors
The behaviors of ensembles should be analyzed as products of the interactions of independent variables and of the interaction within and among ensembles
Effective leadership is learning to capitalize on interactive dynamics (correlation, randomness, interaction) among and with ensembles (i.e., individuals, departments, work groups, with common interrelationships)
Leaders cannot predict future behavior of ensembles, nor can they closely control futures with current interventions; leaders must foster interactive conditions that enable a productive future.
Complex leaders cultivate largely undirected interactions; focus on global interactions rather than controlling local events.
Correlation is the emergence of common understanding in interacting systems; it leads to a degree of dynamic stability.
With correlation comes a level of predictability and this provides statistical researchers with some measure of success in efforts to identity patterns in organizational behavior
Leaders can have a limited foreseeable and controllable impact on organizations because of correlation (this may be more so in some types of organizations than others).
Complex leaders foster interaction to enable correlation; enable people/work groups to work through conflicting constraints that inhibit their need preferences.
Unpredictability is a strong and pervasive element of interactive systems
Complex systems are subject to periodic surprises and their futures are ultimately unpredictable
Leaders cannot determine or control the ultimate futures of complex organizations
Complex leaders develop skills that enable productive surprises.
Table 1. Summary of fundamental complexity propositions and their general implications for leadership
In his seminal work on the importance of metaphors in understanding organizations, Morgan
proposes that complexity and chaos theorists see organizations as “flux and transformation” (Morgan,
2006). Managers and leaders are encouraged to reimagine what is meant by organization, especially the
nature of hierarchy and control (Morgan, 2006). More team-based, decentralized leadership models are
likely to be important to enhance the colleges’ ability to successfully accomplish a broader range of
outcomes.
Despite evidence from the business environment that teamwork leads to creative solutions and
high levels of commitment, colleges and universities lag behind in using a team approach to institutional
administration (Eddy & VanDerLinden, 2006; Frost & Gillespie, 1998, p.10). Though shared or team
leadership approaches seem to be an essential element of effective leadership in complex environments
and organizations, a 2006 study of community college leaders showed that only 1.9% of the
-
13
administrators surveyed talked about team leadership in their responses (Eddy & VanDerLinden, 2006).
This may suggest that community college senior administrators have not fully embraced the notion of
team leadership as integral to organizational performance and effectiveness.
One of the most cited studies of presidential teams was Bensimon and Neumann’s (1993)
research in which they studied presidential leadership teams at fifteen colleges and universities. One of
the significant findings of their research was that presidents who are effective team builders think in
complex ways about their leadership teams. Bensimon and Neumann (1993) identified three functions
of presidential teams: a utilitarian function, an expressive function, and a cognitive function. These
functions are summarized in table 2 (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993, p. 34).
Team Function Image Purpose Behavior Activities
Utilitarian Formal
Help president maintain a sense of rationality and maintain control over institutional functioning Task Related
Deliver information, coordinate and plan, make decisions
Expressive Social
Help reinforce a sense of groupness or connectedness among individual involved in a joint venture
Integrative, associative
Provide mutual support, provide counsel to the president
Cognitive Sensemaking
Enlarge span of intelligence of individual team members, enable the group to behave as a creative system, and also a corrective system
Intellective, dialogical
View problems from multiple perspectives; question, challenge, argue; act as a monitor and feedback system
Table 2. Three functions of presidential teams
Through this study, Bensimon and Neumann (1993) determined there were two basic types of
presidential leadership teams: real teams and illusory teams. They considered a leadership team to be
real if, when the president was describing the team, she or he indicated that the team performed at
least one activity in each of the functional domains. That is to say, presidents with real teams thought of
-
14
their teams in complex ways. Illusory teams, on the other hand, tended to focus their time and energy
on the utilitarian function; it was largely the case that illusory teams lacked both the expressive and
cognitive team functions. Of the three functions, the cognitive function is the most difficult for
presidents to understand and realize (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). This would suggest that
community colleges that are improving student completion rates have leadership teams which exhibit
all three team functions. They would be particularly focused on and exhibit the cognitive team
function. Community college senior administrators need to understand not only how to create a “real”
team among the senior leaders, they need to also be able to create real teams among those faculty and
staff committed to addressing a strategic issue, such as degree completion.
With the new millennium, several scholars suggest a new era for community college leaders has
begun (Alfred, et al., 2009; Amey, 2005; Bailey, Jaggars, & Jenkins, 2015; Eddy, 2010; Hockaday &
Puyear, 2008; Roueche, et al., 2008): leaders as learners in a sector in transition. As the demands on
community colleges have increased, there is increased understanding that more team-focused models
of leadership are important. The ways in which individuals construct their own understanding of
leadership (Amey, 1992, 2005) have placed greater focus on leadership as learning. Amey (2005) argued
that community college leaders must be lifelong learners who must also facilitate learning among others
in the institution. They must also be able to think in complex ways and use multiple frames of reference
to understand a situation and aid others in understanding it (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008; Eddy, 2003,
2010). From this perspective, leadership is a responsibility shared among senior administrators and with
managers and faculty throughout the institution.
The concept of shared leadership is distinct from team leadership. In an executive leadership
team, for example, team leadership implies that the president actively engages the other members of
the leadership team in all three leadership functions (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). Shared leadership
is the process through which individuals in groups influence one another to achieve group or
-
15
organizational goals or both (Gratton, 1993; Pearce & Conger, 2003). More than one person provides
significant leadership for the group. Various authors have used different names to describe shared
leadership - collective, collaborative, participatory, cooperative, democratic, fluid, inclusive, distributed,
relational and post-heroic - as noted in Allen and Cherry (2000). Though the terms highlight different
aspects of shared leadership, they share a common core concept – leadership can best be understood as
a group dynamic and process that focuses on the relationships between individuals as opposed to the
individuals themselves. For the purpose of this study, the essential relationships to understand are the
relationships among all those who are a part of the dominant coalition.
As both the mission of community colleges, and the environment in which they operate become
more complex, it is important to understand how managers, faculty and staff at community colleges
develop their abilities to make sense of all of the data that is available to them, and determine what
data will be attended to, and what data can be ignored or put aside. Constructive-developmental
leadership theory may be helpful in understanding how these stakeholder groups develop their abilities
to understand issues of student completion and success. Constructive-developmental theorists believe
that the systems by which people make meaning grow and change over time (downloaded from web,
October 12, 2015, http://www.shiftingthinking.org/?page_id=449; Kegan, 1994). Constructive
developmental theory differs from traditional leadership theories in that it focuses on the mindsets of
individuals and not specific traits or characteristics. Constructive developmental theory has its origins in
Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, which focuses on the process of how individuals “come to
know” and the stages of mental growth individuals travel through acquiring this ability of “abstract
symbolic reasoning” (Hunter, Lewis, Ritter-Gooder, 2011, p. 1804). Constructive -developmental
theorists posit that “persons move through qualitatively different ways of knowing who they are, how
the world works, and how they know what they know” and that “leaders as individuals develop over
their life course and do so in predictable ways” (Hunter, Lewis, Ritter-Gooder, 2011, p. 1804).
http://www.shiftingthinking.org/?page_id=449
-
16
From a constructive-developmental perspective, adult development occurs in two basic
dimensions – what we know (typically represented as horizontal growth), and how we know what we
know (visually represented as vertical growth). This vertical development involves transformations of
consciousness, seeing the world through new eyes, and changes in interpretations of experience and
view of reality (Baxter-Magolda, 1999; Hunter, Lewis, Ritter-Gooder, 2011, Kegan, 1994). Vertical
development is illustrated as an ever-widening evolutionary spiral of the stages of lived experience and
how the individual makes sense of those experiences. Vertical development moves from simple to
complex with an increase in autonomy, flexibility, tolerance for differences and ambiguity, and a
decrease in defenses (Baxter-Magolda, 1999; Hunter, Lewis, Ritter-Gooder, 2011, Kegan, 1994).
If community colleges are going to transition from an access-focused dominant logic to one
more directly focused on student completion, vertical development for faculty, staff, and leaders may be
essential. Most developmental psychologists agree that what differentiates leaders is not so much their
philosophy of leadership, their personality, or their style of management. Rather, it is their stage of
vertical development that impacts how they interpret their surroundings and react when their power or
safety is challenged (Kegan, 1994; Rooke & Torbert, 2005). Leaders in the highest constructive-
developmental stage are acutely aware of the complexity involved in meaning-making in the social
relationships in the organization and work to create personal and organizational transformations
(Hunter, Lewis, Ritter-Gooder, 2011).
Organizational and Cognitive Frames of Reference
If community college senior administrators are going to lead and manage differently, they will
need to think differently. How we think is, to a degree, a function of how and what we see (Weick,
1995). It is important, therefore, to review the literature related to how leaders and managers see the
world, and how they respond to what they see with a specific emphasis on organizational and cognitive
frames.
-
17
Bolman and Deal (2003) consolidated the key themes of organizational thought into four
perspectives, which they labeled “frames”. Their conception of frames was meant to include a range of
concepts in the organizational and psychological literature – “mental models, maps, mind-sets, schema,
and cognitive lenses, to name a few” (p. 12). According to the authors, a frame is “a set of assumptions
you carry in your head”; they can be “windows on the world of leadership and management” (p. 12).
The authors note, however, that frames are “both windows on a territory and tools for navigation” (p.
13). That is to say, frames have both an interpretive dimension, influencing what an individual sees, and
a behavioral dimension, influencing how an individual chooses to communicate and act. Skillful leaders
are able to reframe situations and experiences to communicate their vision so others are able to see the
world from a new perspective (Eddy, 2003; Smircich & Morgan, 1982). Bolman and Deal (2003) and
others (Bensimon, et. al., 1989; Bergquist, 1993; Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008) also suggest that effective
leaders are able to see the world through multiple frames and “reframe” (Eddy, 2003; Fairhurst & Sarr,
1996; Smircich & Morgan, 1982) important issues and strategic challenges which confront the
organization in ways that result in positive outcomes. Eddy’s (2003) study of two community college
presidents concluded that one of the presidents used visionary framing, the other used operational
framing to facilitate organizational change on their campuses. The president who used visionary
framing, “sought to make connections between the future vision of the college and every day campus
life” (p. ii). The president who used operational framing presented challenges to the campus “as a series
of problems to solve using step-by-step procedures to aid campus members in obtaining short-term
goals. The focus was in the present moment” (p. ii). This would suggest that community college leaders
need to develop their skills in reframing if community colleges are going to improve outcomes related to
both access and success.
Birnbaum (1988, 1992) adapted Bolman and Deal’s (1984) model to better fit higher education,
and proposed four cognitive frames for higher education. Administrators who see their role through a
-
18
bureaucratic frame tend to focus on the institution’s structure and organization. Bureaucratic
administration emphasizes setting priorities, making sound decisions, and communicating through
established lines of authority. Administrators who see their role through the collegial frame emphasize
goal attainment through collective action. These administrators attempt to develop consensus, develop
teams to solve problems, instill loyalty and commitment to the organization, and lead by example.
Administrators who use the political frame tend to focus on monitoring the internal and external
environments, and use influence to attract resources. These administrators make it a priority to build
relationships with important stakeholders, develop coalitions of support, negotiate compromises, and
communicate effectively. Administrators who use the symbolic frame focus on the management of
meaning through interpreting the institution’s history, maintaining its culture, and reinforcing its values.
Symbolic leaders use language, myths, stories and rituals to foster shared perceptions and beliefs
(Birnbaum, 1992, pg. 63-64). The ability to view the institution from multiple perspectives and interpret
events in a variety of ways is becoming increasingly important given the range of issues administrators
are attempting to address (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008; Bolman & Deal, 1984, 2003). Community college
administrators have many roles, and those who can think, learn and act by using multiple frames are
more likely to be successful in revising the college’s dominant logic, should that be their intention
(Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008; Eddy, 2010).
Building on the work of Bolman and Deal (1984, 2003) and others (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1988;
Smircich & Morgan, 1982), Eddy (2003) studied two community colleges to better understand how
presidents used framing to facilitate change on a campus. Eddy’s notion of framing focused not on the
leader’s mental models, but on how the leader framed issues for others – framing as it relates to
interpersonal communication. Eddy found that one president used visionary framing to portray the
college as an outstanding college of technology while the other used operational framing which broke
the change initiative down into a series of problems to be solved. In both cases, leader cognition played
-
19
a critical role in how change was presented to campus stakeholders. Eddy (2003) argues that leaders
cannot frame for others until they have first framed for themselves. It is essential that we understand a
leader’s mental model if we want to understand how that leader will frame a situation – either for her
or himself or for others.
Mental Models
There is a strong connection between how we see the world, what we decide to attend to as
important, and what we think (Weick, 1995). How we make sense of what we see is significantly
influenced by our mental models, which Senge (1990) defines as “deeply held internal images of how
the world works” (p. 174). In a complex, rapidly changing, networked environment, it is becoming a
core leadership requirement to be able to actively manage one’s mental models by testing, revising, and
refining one’s internal pictures of how the world works. Mental models affect what we do because they
affect what we see. “Although people do not (always) behave congruently with their espoused theories
(what they say), they do behave congruently with their theories-in-use (their mental models)” (Argyris &
Schön, 1978 as cited in Senge, 1990, p. 175). Though we can gain some insight into an individual’s
mental models through interviews, Argyris and Schön (1978) suggest it is more important to observe
what people do than to record what those people may say. It is likely the case that most community
college senior administrators will indicate, when asked, that degree completion rates are an important
institutional priority. Developing an understanding of what they are, in fact doing and have done to
improve degree completion is of greater importance if we want to understand their theories-in-use.
Research on mental models and cognitive maps comes from several disciplines, including
cognitive psychology, social psychology, organizational behavior, decision science, and communication.
Scottish psychologist Kenneth Craik’s The Nature of Explanation (1943) provides a conceptual
foundation for much of this writing and research:
If the organism carries a “small-scale model” of external reality and of its own possible actions
within its head, it is able to try out various alternatives, conclude which is the best of them,
-
20
react to future situations before they arise, utilize the knowledge of past events in dealing with
the present and the future, and in every way to react in a much fuller, safer, and more
competent manner to the emergencies which face it. (Craik, 1943, Ch. 5. p. 61)
Though early research on mental models focused on the individual, it has been shown that
groups of individuals, and even groups of firms in an industry, can develop shared mental models that
significantly influence how the firms compete and collaborate. For example, in a study of the Scottish
knitwear industry, Porac, Thomas, and Baden-Fuller (1989), argue that “one important link between
group-level and firm-level competitive phenomena are the mental models used by key decision makers
to interpret the task environment of their organization” (p. 398). This research focused on the
similarities and differences in the organizational mental models of firms competing in the Scottish
knitwear industry. Porac, et al. (1989) suggest that human behavior can best be understood as a
process of subjective interpretation of objective events which over time, leads to a socially-reinforced
view of the world, or shared mental model. Among their conclusions the authors found that the shared
mental models among competitive firms had a stabilizing influence on the transactions between the
firms and their suppliers. Though they were not involved in overt collusion, each of the firms could
operate with a high level of confidence regarding the actions of other firms in their competitive space.
Porac, et al.’s (1989) findings suggest that the process through which industries exhibit the
characteristics of an oligarchy finds its roots in the shared mental models of managers in multiple firms
in the industry. If firms in a competitive industry such as Scottish knitwear develop shared mental
models, then it seems reasonable to believe that a less competitive, more cooperative sector such as
community colleges would be even more inclined to develop shared mental models. Though these
shared mental models may be useful in promoting efficient operations, they may be a significant barrier
when fundamentally changing those models, or “triple loop learning” (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Swieringa
& Wierdsma, 1992) is required.
-
21
Argryis and Schön (1978) suggested that the depth of organizational learning can be understood
through learning loops. Single loop learning involves a revision of organizational rules and may not
normally require a change in dominant logic (though this relationship has not been studied). Double
and triple loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992) involve changing more
fundamental organizational insights and principles, and would likely require a revision of the dominant
general management logic. It may be the case that the shift from a focus largely on student access to a
focus that balances access and completion is an example of triple loop learning and will require
community college administrators to lead with a clear intent to revise the college’s dominant logic for
this transformation to occur.
Learning Loop Learning Area Learning Level Learning Result
Single Rules Obligation and Permission
Improvement
Double Insights Knowledge and Understanding
Renewal
Triple Principles Courage and will Development
Table 3. Single, double, and triple-loop learning
When attempting to describe or understand the shared mental models of groups, it is important
to differentiate between team thinking and groupthink (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Janis, 1972).
Groupthink can occur when shared mental models are not clearly differentiated between members of
the team or group. With groupthink, the team members suppress or ignore their individual beliefs and
convictions so that a single group position is developed (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Janis, 1972).
Team thinking assumes that individuals have distinctive mental models, and process information
differently. Team members are required to develop their distinctive cognitive abilities and express their
beliefs and opinions to other team members openly and freely (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Cannon-
Bowers, Salas & Converse, 1993). Conversely, team members are required to listen to, and respect the
views and insights of other team members. Every team member must learn to not only listen, but truly
hear what other team members express, even if it is a perspective markedly different from their own
-
22
(Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). It is reasonable to assume that community colleges with dominant
coalitions that exhibit team thinking (as opposed to groupthink) will be more effective at improving
associate degree completion rates if this objective is part of their shared mental model. This study is
informative in either supporting or refuting this assumption.
In an interdisciplinary synthesis of the literature related to mental models (Jones, Ross, Lynam,
Perez, & Leitch, 2011), the authors define mental models as representations of external reality which
are cognitive, dynamic, inaccurate and incomplete. They suggest that the differences between mental
models and cognitive schemata are that mental models are more dynamic (Rutherford & Wilson, 2004),
more flexible (Holland, et al., 1986, p. 13), and more specific (Brewer, 1987). Bolman and Deal (2003) do
not draw clear distinctions between organizational frames, cognitive schema and mental models, and
since this study relies on Bolman and Deal, I did not do so either but acknowledge that some authors
make more fine distinctions. This study focuses on the behaviors of the members of the dominant
coalition that positively influence degree completion. By understanding the behaviors of this coalition
(i.e., their theories-in-use), and how they talk about their actions with respect to degree completion, I
drew some useful inferences with respect to the shared mental models/cognitive frames of reference /
cognitive schemata of the dominant coalition.
Dominant Logic
The concept of dominant logic (also referred to as dominant general management logic) was
first proposed by Prahalad and Bettis in 1986. Dominant logic is a shared mental model developed in an
organization that influences how the organization thinks about and makes sense of the environment in
which it operates; “it is stored as a shared cognitive map (or set of schemas) among the dominant
coalition” (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986, p. 491). The concept of dominant logic is grounded in Kuhn’s (1970)
work on scientific paradigms. Allison (1971) characterized a paradigm as a set of assumptions, concepts,
and propositions that constitute a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them.
-
23
Prahalad and Bettis (1986) were interested in understanding why some firms were able to
successfully diversify by acquiring other businesses, and other firms were not as successful. They found
that prevalent models of organizational performance related to firm diversification were able to explain
less than 40% of the variance in performance after the acquisition of a firm from a distinct business
segment (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986). They proposed that the organization’s “dominant logic” was an
important, and understudied, element in explaining firm performance after diversification had occurred.
They suggest that dominant logic is the organizational equivalent of a genetic factor; “Its influence is
pervasive. It permeates the organization, yet it is invisible. It predisposes the firm to certain kinds of
strategic problems and often interacts with organizational systems and structures in a complex way in
causing these problems” (Bettis & Prahalad, 1995, p. 8-9). It is important not to take the genetic code
analogy too far. A person’s genetic code cannot be changed. Though an organization’s dominant logic
does not typically change easily or quickly, it can be changed.
In an earlier study focusing on organizational outliers, Bettis, Hall and Prahalad (1978) concluded
that the quality of management was as important as any factor in explaining performance in a
diversified firm. Prahalad and Bettis (1986) suggested that managers process events through pre-
existing knowledge systems known as schemas (Norman & Shallice, 1980). Schemas, shared mental
models and cognitive frames represent “beliefs, theories, and propositions that have developed over
time based on the managers’ personal experiences” (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986, p. 489) permitting
managers “to categorize an event, assess its consequences, and consider appropriate action (including
doing nothing), and to do so rapidly and often efficiently” (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986, p.490). They can be
somewhat inaccurate simplifications of the world, and tend to reflect past experiences, and may not
accurately reflect current realities (Kiesler & Sproul, 1982). The concept of dominant logic has clear
implications beyond its ability to help explain the connection between firm diversity and performance.
The authors suggest that the concept of dominant logic is useful in understanding strategic change in
-
24
complex organizations of all kinds (Bettis & Prahalad, 1995) and that as firms diversify, they become
increasingly complex. The senior leaders, therefore, need to learn how to successfully manage and lead
increasingly complex organizations if the diversification strategy will result in improved financial
performance over time. From a community college perspective, increased complexity may be the
consequence of the need to balance multiple missions and achieve multiple outcomes, including
improving the percentage of students who complete a degree, transfer successfully, or get a job in their
field. This study focuses on associate degree completion, while recognizing that community college
dominant logic also contributes to how other (and likely competing) priorities are understood.
Several authors (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Hedburg, 1981; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984; Starbuck &
Hedburg, 1977) suggest that an organization cannot effectively modify organizational behavior and
improve organizational performance until the organization has developed the capacity to unlearn. The
importance of unlearning as a precondition for learning may help explain why new competitors often
displace experienced incumbents when major structural change occurs in an industry or sector (Bettis &
Prahalad, 1985): the new competitors do not have to unlearn before they are able to learn. Incumbents
that have experienced success doing things a certain way may have difficulty accepting that what
worked before is not necessarily relevant in a new environment. This appears to be the case with
American community colleges. Community colleges have provided access to higher education to a
significant percentage of the American working population since the middle of the 20th century.
Developing dominant logics that include a strong focus on degree completion in addition to providing
access requires community college senior administrators to think, manage, and lead in ways not
required of those who mentored them (Eddy, 2010). Community colleges may need to unlearn many of
the behaviors which were essential to their growth and success in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s.
Several authors (Arnould, 2007; Tokman & Beitelspacher, 2011; Vargo & Lusch, 2004) argue that
the dominant logic in the corporate sector has evolved from one focused on the exchange of goods to
-
25
one that is grounded “in the exchange of intangibles, specialized skills and knowledge, and processes
(doing things for and with)” (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, pp. 1-2). This new dominant logic is referred to as the
Service-Dominant Logic (or S-D logic). The Service-Dominant logic views supply chains as value co-
creation networks (Tokman & Beitelspacher, 2011). A fundamental shift in this emerging dominant logic
is a focus on operant resources as opposed to operand resources. Operand resources are resources on
which an operation or act is performed to produce an effect; they are the material and processes
required to produce a product. Conversely, operant resources are resources that produce effects
(Constantin & Lusch, 1994); they are the stakeholders who will both produce and use the product. This
shift in focus began in the late twentieth century as “humans began to realize that skills and knowledge
were the most important types of resources” (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 2). This shift from operand
resources to operant resources could be more simply described as a shift from a focus on production to
a focus on relationships and service. In the industrial age, the value of the product was largely
determined by the costs of the raw materials required and the costs to transform those materials into
finished products. In the knowledge economy, value is largely a function of the perception of quality
and utility as defined by the consumer. Day (1999, p. 70) argues for a focus on “self-reinforcing value
cycles” rather than value chains. A value chain is a set of activities that an organization carries out to
create value for its customers and the value chain model is based on the premise that value is added in
each step in the production process. The more value an organization creates, the more profitable it is
likely to be (Porter, 1985). The value cycles model is based on systems thinking (Forrester, 1968; Senge,
1990). The firm and customer are engaged in a relationship in which the product or service is
continually revised as the customer uses the product and provides feedback and input regarding her or
his experience. The value chain model places a heavy emphasis on the product being produced; the
value cycles model places greater emphasis on the values of the people involved in both making and
purchasing the product or service produced. The product’s value is less about the sum of the costs of
-
26
production, and far more determined by the perceptions and values of the customer. As the global
economy transitioned from the Industrial Age of the 19th and 20th centuries to the Information Age of
the 21st century, organizational dominant logics adapted to this shift by transitioning from a production
focus to a focus on the needs and desires of the consumer. Haeckel (1999) explained this emerging
dominant logic as a shift from “make and sell” strategy to “sense and respond” strategy.
In higher education in the United States, the importance of focusing on outcomes (one of which
is degree completion) as opposed to inputs has been discussed for the last twenty years. In their
seminal article “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education” (1995), Barr
and Tagg suggest that a paradigm shift has begun, and needs to continue, if the United States hopes to
keep pace with the emerging knowledge economy. They did not argue for a focus on degree
completion, per se; their focus was on student learning. I suggest that a focus on degree completion is
one element in developing a more outcomes-focused approach to higher education in general. From
Barr and Tagg’s (1995) perspective, a primary goal of a college or university is (or should be) producing
learning as an outcome. Though the quality and depth of a student’s learning is more difficult to assess
than the percentage of students who earn a degree, in both cases the focus is on the achievements of
the student – what they know, what they can do, and what they have successfully been able to
complete.
For institutions that embrace the learning paradigm as their dominant logic, the implications
transcend what is happening in the classroom. As Barr and Tagg propose, “the Learning Paradigm
envisions the institution itself as the learner – over time, it continuously learns how to produce more
learning with each graduating class, with each entering student” (Barr & Tagg, 1995, p. 14). In the
learning paradigm, continuous learning is occurring at all levels – for students, for faculty, in programs,
departments and colleges, and institutionally. For the institution to become learning-centered, senior
administrators must also commit to on-going learning – individually and collectively (Alfred, Shults,
-
27
Jaquette, & Strickland, 2009; Amey, 2005; Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Driscoll & Wood, 2007;
Sorcinelli, et al., 2006). It would be reasonable to conclude that a community college that has
successfully and significantly improved performance with respect to degree completion has a visible
commitment to the ongoing personal and professional development of faculty and staff throughout the
institution.
In “Community Colleges on the Horizon: Challenge, Choice, or Abundance” (Alfred, Shults,
Jacquette & Strickland, 2009), the authors propose three community college archetypes in the United
States. They labeled these three archetypes as “challenge”, “choice”, and “abundance”. These
archetypes are based on two conceptual pillars – leveraging and abundance. Leveraging refers to “the
achievement of superior performance through optimal use of resources” (p. xiii). The other pillar,
abundance, is “a state achieved by an organization when its resources are leveraged beyond a
reasonable state of expectation” (p. xiii). The authors believe that the immediate future of community
colleges will be a time of both turbulence and opportunity. The relationship between these three
community college archetypes and general management dominant logics may be significant in order to
understand and improve associate degree completion in community colleges in the United States. The
three archetypes identified by Alfred, et al., have some clear parallels with the three dominant logics
identified in Further Education Colleges in England (Smith, Gidney, Barclay & Rosenfeld) in 2002.
Further Education Colleges (or FE Colleges) are the British equivalent of a community college.
Similar to an American community college, students may attend an FE college for workforce training in a
broad range of skills, to begin a program that requires transferring to a university to complete the
degree, and for personal enrichment. Smith, et al. (2002) studied the dominant logics of strategy in
Further Education Colleges using interviews with principals, governors, and Senior Management Team
(SMT) members in 25 FE colleges. Their study addressed two questions: what are the dominant
strategic management logics of FE colleges and what implications do these have for the management of
-
28
change in those colleges? Three sets of dominant logics became apparent from their data, which they
labeled stability optimizing, market optimizing and resource optimizing (Smith, et al., 2002).
The focus of the senior administrators at the stability optimizing colleges was operational
efficiency. Senior managers believed it was the role of the funders and stakeholders outside of the
college to develop strategic direction while the role of the senior managers was to operationalize that
direction as effectively as possible (Smith, et al., 2002). In short, the senior administrators saw
themselves fundamentally as managers, not leaders. The senior administrators at the market
optimizing colleges saw the college as a business that needed to do as much as possible to improve
financial performance. They focused on meeting the demands of the markets they served. These
managers were sometimes criticized for putting financial performance ahead of the needs of students
(Smith, et al., 2002). The resource-optimizing colleges had a supply-led orientation. The senior
administrators saw the college as a set of educational resources and capabilities. These colleges do not
ignore the markets, but are not fundamentally market-driven. They tend to embrace a participatory,
bottom- up management philosophy and have a culture that “is the embodiment of why many people
chose to move into education as a career many years ago” (Smith, et al., 2002, p. 54). The resource-
optimizing colleges tend to be more student and learning-focused than the stability and market-
optimizing colleges. The authors suggest that more than one logic tends to operate in most further
education colleges. There may be other logics that appear to dominate in some colleges, but these
three present themselves consistently, and other logics can normally be understood as a variation of
one of these three (Smith, et al., 2002).
A limitation of the Smith, et al., (2002) study was its focus on senior managers, principals and
governors of the F.E. colleges. I suggest that, to understand a community college’s dominant logic, it is
important to understand how faculty and mid-level managers process information and determine what
information is valued in the organization. Capturing the reflections and behaviors of the senior
-
29
managers will provide an understanding of the college’s espoused theories. To understand how
decisions are being made “on the ground”, it is important to interview faculty and staff who are not a
part of the senior leadership team. Organizational performance in a community college is largely
determined by the day-to-day operational decisions being made by faculty and staff in the classroom
and in the administrative departments and programs in the institution. It is therefore important to
understand if the responses of the senior leaders are aligned with the responses of mid-level managers,
supervisors, faculty and staff.
There is a growing understanding that the United States needs to increase the percentage of the
workforce with a college degree if this country is going to maintain a globally competitive workforce
(OECD, 2011). The dominant general management logic in American community colleges may be
focused more on institutional enrollment levels and access to education than on degree completion. If
significant improvement in community college degree completion rates is going to occur, we need to
develop our understanding of the shared mental models of those faculty and staff actively working to
shift the college’s dominant logic from a focus on issues around student access to a dual focus on issues
of access and completion. We need to understand how these faculty and staff work together in what
have become increasingly complex environments – both within their community colleges and nationally.
Understanding the shared mental model of the dominant coalition at one community college and the
influence of that shared mental model on the college’s degree completion rate may be of value as
community college leaders, managers and faculty attempt to address this issue on their campus.
-
30
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
Selecting an appropriate methodological approach is critical to the success of a study. For this
particular study, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were considered in light of their ability to
contribute to the primary research questions. The decision to move ahead with a qualitative design was
driven by an intent to study, interpret and make sense of a complex phenomenon that plays out in a
particular context (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). The environment in which community colleges must
function is increasingly complex (Eddy, 2010). The range of outcomes senior administrators are held
accountable to accomplish, coupled with the range of factors that may influence degree completion
suggest the use of a qualitative approach, in that it allows for a deeper, richer interpretation of the
phenomenon of dominant general management logic and its influence on completion rates than would
be possible with a quantitative study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
Merriam (1988, pp. 11 – 12) identifies four characteristics that are essential in a qualitative case
study: 1) particularistic, meaning that the case study focuses on a particular situation, event, program or
phenomenon; 2) descriptive, meaning that the product of the case study is a “thick description” of the
phenomenon studied; 3) heuristic, meaning that the case study will enhance understanding of the
phenomenon under study; and 4) inductive, meaning that the case study relies on inductive reasoning.
This study focuses on the phenomenon of dominant general management logic in a community college
context and my design adheres to Merriam’s (1988) case study tenets as follows. Interviews with senior
administrators, faculty and staff identified as important stakeholders with respect to degree completion,
meeting observations, and review of relevant documentation (e.g., strategic planning information,
degree completion task force meeting notes, etc.), provided sufficient data to develop a thick
description of the phenomenon of dominant logics at the college being studied. The study is inductive
in that I draw conclusions from the data gathered which can, hopefully, be helpful in understanding
dominant logics in community colleges and the influences they may have on community college degree
-
31
completion. I used a single site case study because the phenomenon of dominant logic in a community
college context is not well understood, nor is how the dominant coalition emerges at a community
college. Developing a deeper understanding of dominant coalition formation and dominant logic
transformation can best be accomplished by devoting as much time as is available at one site.
Selection of Case
Given that the focus of this study is associate degree completion, it was important to identify a
college that has made a sustained commitment to improving the college’s associate degree completion
rate. Great Lakes College (GLC; a pseudonym) has been a member of Achieving the Dream since 2007.
A primary goal of Achieving the Dream is improving community college associate degree completion
rates. In my initial discussion with the provost of Great Lakes College, she indicated that improving the
College’s associate degree completion rate has been a focus at the College for many years, pre-dating
her arrival in 2009. Faculty and staff confirmed that GLC has a long-standing commitment to improving
student success and degree completion. Several study participants indicated that student success
generally and degree completion specifically have been key strategic priorities at Great Lakes College for
at least a decade.
Data Collection
Once the appropriate research approvals were secured, I contacted the Provost at Great Lakes
College to confirm their willingness to participate in this study. I indicated to the Provost that I would
like to interview twelve to fifteen faculty and staff, including senior leaders, faculty, and mid-level
administrators. I requested that at least one faculty member who was a member of the Strategic
Planning Council be included. The Provost sent an email to fourteen faculty and staff members she
believed would be appropriate participants for this study. Based on the comments of some of those
interviewed, I scheduled two additional interviews – one with the lead faculty member for the First Year
Seminar, and one with the director of Institutional Research. The case study included interviews with
-
32
fourteen senior leaders, faculty and staff at Great Lakes Community College. Twelve of the interviewees
were identified by the provost as key faculty and staff involved in degree completion. These twelve and
the relevant committees or councils they are on included:
- English faculty member: member of the Foundations Studies Committee
- Lead faculty for the Reading program: member of the Foundations Studies Committee
- Director of the Center for Student Success: member of the Foundations Studies Committee
- Business faculty member: Strategic Planning Council member
- Assistant Dean of Student Service