leadership development for the next generation

This chapter addresses the critical need for leadershipdevelopment, the current options, and recommendedsolutions for meeting the training needs of a newgeneration of community college leaders.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES, no. 120, Winter 2002 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 59

8

Leadership Development for the NextGeneration

Gordon E. Watts, James O. Hammons

For well over a decade, researchers and writers have predicted that a significant number of faculty not only would be approaching retirement,but would, in fact, be retiring by the late 1990s and early 2000s (Berry,Hammons, and Denny, 2001; Illinois Community College Board, 1988;Parsons, 1992). All decry the potential problems associated with a shortageof qualified faculty members, and rightly so. That researchers did not alsopredict a concomitant loss in leadership positions is somewhat surprising,especially because faculty status has traditionally been one of the majorpathways into leadership positions.

Nevertheless, in the past year or so, the looming retirement of lead-ers at all levels created the need for the American Association ofCommunity Colleges’ (AACC’s) Community College Leadership Summitand prompted an AACC study on the retirement plans of community col-lege presidents. The purpose of the leadership summit, according toMcClenney (2001), was “to promote a clear and shared understanding ofthe state of community college leadership and the challenges ahead, toheighten awareness of initiatives underway, and to begin building a frame-work for a national plan of action” (p. 25). As for the AACC study, Shults(2001) reported that within five years, community colleges will face a crit-ical shortage of leaders at all levels due primarily to planned retirements.Shults concluded that “[c]ommunity colleges are facing an impendingleadership crisis” (p. 1).

Clearly, the immediate concern is the preparation of future communitycollege leaders, and it is to that concern that this chapter is addressed.

60 ENHANCING COMMUNITY COLLEGES THROUGH PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Specifically, we will address the need for and importance of leadership devel-opment, options that currently exist for professional development, issues thatneed to be resolved to meet training needs, and solution strategies.

Need

According to Shults (2001), 45 percent of current presidents are planning toretire between now and 2007, and 79 percent are planning to retire by 2011.The number of people in traditional pipelines to the presidency—those earn-ing doctoral degrees through community college leadership programs andcurrent faculty, division chairs, and senior level administrator—is also rap-idly declining. Shults (2001) reports that presidents are projecting the retire-ment of at least 25 percent of their top administrators and faculty by 2006.Kelly (2002) reports that in California alone, 50 percent of the faculty willturn over by 2010, and she also points out that between 1982 and 1997, thenumber of advanced degrees awarded in community college leadershipdeclined by 78 percent. Despite the pessimistic tone of the Shults report(2001), he concludes by stating, “The skills community college leaders willneed in the future have been identified, however, and professional develop-ment activities exist to help teach those skills” (p. 11). Because there arenumerous resources available that address leadership skills, that topic willnot be addressed here.

Importance

In discussing the importance of the retirement of community college lead-ers, Shults (2001) points out that “inestimable experience and history, aswell as an intimate understanding of the community college mission, val-ues, and culture, will disappear, leaving an enormous gap in the collectivememory and the leadership of community colleges” (p. 2). Community col-leges certainly need strong leadership to maintain their overall effectivenessand to maintain their competitive position with four-year institutions inseeking state funding.

Perhaps of greater importance, however, is the need to maintain thenational stature that community colleges have acquired, as evidenced bycomments from prominent business figures. According to Jim Adams, chairof Texas Instruments, “The community college system is an absolutelyimperative part of the fabric of education in this country. It’s the thing thatwill help us be competitive leaders in the world, and corporations like minehave to retain a competitive leadership throughout the U.S., throughout theworld” (as cited in American Association of Community Colleges, 2002).Tom Peters, management guru and author, has urged, “Support your com-munity colleges; the unsung, under-funded backbone of America’s all-important lifelong-learning network” (as cited in American Association ofCommunity Colleges, 2002). According to an article in Work America, a

monthly newsletter by the National Alliance of Businesses, “Clearly, com-munity colleges play a pivotal role in fueling the knowledge economy withqualified workers and, as such, are a critical link in the knowledge supplychain” (2000, p. 4).

What all of these sources are saying, in effect, is that community col-leges have become a vital link between education and the nation’s economy.The next generation of leaders must have the knowledge and skills to main-tain that position of prominence.

Certainly it would appear that ample skills and competencies are iden-tified to guide and inform the development of the future cadre of leaders, andthe importance of the task is clear and compelling. The burning question,however, as McClenney (2001) points out, “is whether the leadership devel-opment system that served a movement well in the second half of the 20thcentury is now adequate to meet the leadership needs of the 21st. Theanswer, many people believe, is ‘no’” (p. 26). The remainder of this chapterwill hopefully lead to a more affirmative response.

Options

Currently the three main options for providing leadership developmentare through graduate programs, in-house programs, and institutes andworkshops. Each is described below, along with their positive and nega-tive aspects.

Graduate Preparation Programs. For several decades, traditionalgraduate preparation programs have been the primary suppliers of trainedleaders. On the positive side, there are enough of these programs nation-wide that most potential students have access to one or more. However,McClenney (2001) expressed the concern that too often, graduate pro-grams focus on institutional and faculty needs rather than student needs.Institutions have residency and admissions policies that are antiquated,unnecessary, or do not take into account the needs of nontraditional grad-uate students. Further, classes are frequently scheduled at the convenienceof faculty, and the curriculum is based on what faculty want to teachrather than what students may need to learn in today’s workplace.Together these can be barriers to effective graduate programs. Perhaps theideal graduate program would provide students with the opportunity toassess their own learning needs and then with faculty assistance, designtheir own program learning objectives and activities.

In-House Programs. In-house programs—or “grow-your-own” pro-grams, as they are sometimes called—are based on community college cam-puses. Some are simple and may include nothing more than an internshipexperience for potential leaders while others are fairly elaborate and formal.These programs have the benefits of potentially being developed on everycommunity college campus, can include all potential leaders on campus,and usually operate at no cost to participants. However, the quality of

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION 61


such programs can be uneven, and the training rarely translates into grad-uate credit.

Institutes and Workshops. There are a variety of special institutesand workshops for leadership development at the national level. For cur-rent presidents, AACC has created a number of development experiences,which are detailed elsewhere in this volume. For aspiring presidents, theLeague for Innovation in the Community College, in cooperation withAACC and the University of Texas’s Community College LeadershipProgram, has designed the weeklong Executive Leadership Institute. Twotraining opportunities are operated by the Maricopa Community CollegeDistrict located in Tempe, Arizona, the Academy for Leadership Training(sponsored by the Chair Academy), and the National Institute forLeadership Development. Although it once focused exclusively on trainingfor division and department chairs, the yearlong Academy for LeadershipTraining and Development now provides leadership training at all organi-zational levels. The National Institute for Leadership Development offersthree-day national conferences, four-day issues forums, and weeklong insti-tutes for leadership development specifically for women who are either inor aspiring to leadership positions.

Additional leadership development programs have been developed fora statewide audience. One example is the Leadership Institute for a NewCentury. Sponsored by the Iowa State University Higher EducationProgram, the Iowa Association of Community College Trustees, and theIowa Association of Community College Presidents, it is designed toencourage participants to move into leadership positions in the Iowa com-munity colleges. The format is a day-and-a-half seminar once each monthfor the nine months of the academic year. The program is notable becauseit has overcome a number of the negative aspects inherent in university-sponsored programs similar to this one. Typically, university bureaucraciesare too cumbersome, the costs for credit too high, and the pay for programfaculty too great to ensure any type of success.

Solution Strategies

Given the options for leadership development discussed earlier in the chap-ter, it should be clear that no single option will be able to satisfy all devel-opment needs. The best strategy for developing the next generation ofcommunity college leaders is a combination of both preservice and in-service programs. All options, however, can be strengthened, and otherstrategies can be implemented to bolster the overall effectiveness of leader-ship development programs. Those strategies are outlined below.

Assess Needs. As mentioned earlier, leadership skills and competen-cies have been identified in other articles, studies, and reports. However,the degree of overlap in identified skills from one study to another for a sin-gle position such as presidents is unclear, as is the consistency of identified

skills and competencies across positions. In any case, it would appear thatthe quality and effectiveness of any leadership development effort would beenhanced by a clear and consistent set of skills and competencies. Perhapsthat could be accomplished through a complete and thorough nationalneeds assessment of all administrative positions in the community college—an assessment that would ascertain both leadership and position-specificskills and competencies.

Strengthen All Existing Avenues. Outlined below are ways in whichcurrent options for leadership development can be strengthened.

University Preparation Programs. Universities should consider alterna-tives to the traditional doctoral programs. One alternative that offers sev-eral advantages is the graduate certificate. A certificate in community collegeleadership, for example, that could provide fifteen to eighteen hours of tai-lored graduate work with no residency requirements and nontraditionaladmissions criteria would be a boon to those seeking shorter-term trainingwithout the burden of degree requirements. A model of such a certificate isoutlined in Campbell (2002), and a similar certificate is now being offeredthrough the Community College Leadership Development Initiative andClaremont Graduate University in California.

Doctoral programs themselves can be strengthened in several key ways.In conjunction with a thorough needs assessment mentioned earlier, pro-grams should make a concerted effort to match content with needs. In addi-tion, instructional approaches need to be broadened to include more casestudies, discussion, problem solving, critical thinking, and internships.Further, program faculty should be trained in those instructional approaches.Also, programs would be well advised to consider using advisory commit-tees to ensure that courses are meeting needs and that graduates possess theappropriate levels and types of skills. Finally, programs should reexamineresidency requirements; the times, locations, and sequencing of coursesoffered; and admissions criteria.

Institutes and Workshops. As mentioned earlier in the chapter, theLeague for Innovation in the Community College has a successful leader-ship training program for aspiring presidents. That model could be usedto provide a high-quality leadership development opportunity for thoseinterested in moving into senior-level leadership positions other thanpresidencies.

It is assumed that any leadership development workshop or instituteor even graduate program provides training that matches the needs of cur-rent and aspiring leaders. However, what is needed in the workplace andwhat is provided in development activities may not always be the same. Oneway to strengthen that link between training and need would be to havesome agency certify that a program had indeed developed that essential link-age. Another way to ensure the congruence between training and needswould be to establish a national advisory panel that would monitor the over-all system of leadership development.



Open New Avenues. New opportunities for senior and midleveladministrators could be opened up by using as models the leadershipdevelopment opportunities that AACC has created for presidents. Anotheravenue for leadership development is an academic-year institute. The insti-tute would be linked to either a graduate program or an association suchas AACC and would use mentors, leader shadowing, leader interviews, tra-ditional reading assignments, and discussion and information sharingamong participants over an academic year to prepare them for leadershippositions.

Traditionally, most senior-level and many midlevel community collegeadministrative positions have required the doctorate. The assumption is thatthe doctorate confirms that an individual has achieved a certain level ordepth of knowledge and skill. However, in the crisis situation that commu-nity colleges are facing or soon will face, perhaps short-term non–graduateschool development programs certifying the attainment of one or morecompetencies would be a better initial alternative for aspiring leaders.

Finally, despite high start-up costs, the costs to participants, and thelack of trained faculty to provide the instruction, beginning a leadershipdevelopment program via distance education needs serious consideration.It would offer one more way that access to leadership development oppor-tunities would be opened to potential leaders.

Improve the Selection Process. Although potential new leaders maybe adequately trained, they still have to progress through a selection pro-cess. Baker (2002) has recently put forth a number of ideas on improvingthe selection process for new institutional leaders. That theme is repeatedin Campbell’s new publication, The Leadership Gap: Model Strategies forLeadership Development (2002). The philosophy throughout these publica-tions is that it is far more cost-effective to make a good hire initially than itis to train or retrain a new hire or to have to start the search process overagain because of a person-position mismatch. They also focus on usingnewer techniques such as outcomes-based hiring and leadership profileinstruments that will help identify the best candidates and finally help selectthat one candidate who best matches identified institutional needs. Clearly,our impending shortage of leaders will not improve without careful selec-tion processes.

Expand Institutional Programs. More institutions should considerdesigning in-house programs for developing leadership potential and cre-ating more opportunities for employees at all levels of the organization toparticipate in institutional leadership. Model programs currently exist atCollege of the Desert in Palm Desert, California, which features a year-long internal leadership academy for those interested in moving into lead-ership positions; the Los Angeles Community College District, whichfeatures an eighteen-month set of development activities for midleveladministrators, with an optional semester-long internship; and a three-day leadership institute designed to facilitate faculty involvement in

institutional planning and decision making at Parkland CommunityCollege, Champaign, Illinois, to name just a few. Those programs couldbe easily adapted to fit other institutions.

Tap Existing Expertise. The breadth and depth of leadership knowl-edge that currently exists must be passed on to the next generation.Possibilities for doing so could include special articles, national summits orassemblies, or published training materials, all prepared or conducted bycurrent experienced and knowledgeable leaders. In addition, there is anample reservoir of talent among those who have retired from leadershippositions in the nation’s community colleges. Those individuals can be aninvaluable asset and should be actively sought to assist in the process ofdeveloping our next generation of leaders.

Assess Outcomes. Regardless of the leadership or administrativedevelopment program, those responsible for implementation must includeassessment as an integral part of the program. Program personnel need toknow how participants are reacting to the program, what they are learning,how they are using what they have learned, and how all of that affects theirperformance.

Share Information. Whatever strategies are used or developed, every-one involved in preparing people for community college leadership posi-tions should be encouraged to share their materials, strategies, and programdescriptions through the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)or through some other means so that the most effective training materialsand methods can be available to all.

Conclusion

Although the retirement of a large number of current community collegeleaders from division chairs to presidents will leave a significant gap in theranks of administrators, there are current options that can be strengthenedand new strategies that can be developed to alleviate the shortage. By thor-oughly identifying the skills and competencies that community college lead-ers will need in the future and providing a wide range of strategies fordeveloping those skills, the current leadership of America’s community col-leges can feel confident that their successors will be well prepared for thechallenges and opportunities that await them. America’s community col-leges will continue to be the “people’s college” and will continue to be posi-tioned as the prime linkage between education and the economic well-beingof the country.

References

American Association of Community Colleges. “People Are Talking.” [http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCommunityColleges/WhoAreYou/BusinessAndIndustry/PeopleAreTalking/PeopleAreTalking.htm#4]. Access date:March 12, 2002.


Baker, R. L. “Effecting a Successful Transition of Leadership.” In N. Thomas (ed.),Perspectives on the Community College. Phoenix: Macomb Community College and theLeague for Innovation, 2002.

Berry, L. H., Hammons, J. O., and Denny, G. S. “Faculty Retirement Turnover inCommunity Colleges: A Real or Imagined Problem?” Community College Journal ofResearch and Practice, 2001, 25(2), 123–136.

Campbell, D. F. The Leadership Gap: Model Strategies for Leadership Development.Washington, D.C.: Community College Press, 2002.

“Community Colleges Play Pivotal Role in Knowledge Supply Chain.” Work America,2000, 17(5), 1–5.

Illinois Community College Board. Report on the Study of Projected Full-Time FacultyRetirements in the Public Community Colleges of Illinois. Springfield: Illinois CommunityCollege Board, 1988. (ED 300 104)

Kelly, E. “The Changing of the Guard.” Community College Week, May 27, 2002, pp.6–9.

McClenney, K. M. “Converting Crisis to Opportunity: The AACC Community CollegeLeadership Summit.” Community College Journal, 71(6), 24–27.

Parsons, M. H. “Quo Vadis: Staffing the People’s College, 2000.” In K. Kroll (ed.),Maintaining Faculty Excellence. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 79. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992.

Shults, C. The Critical Impact of Impending Retirements on Community College Leadership.Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges, 2001.

GORDON E. WATTS is professor of higher education at the University ofArkansas at Little Rock.

JAMES O. HAMMONS is professor of higher education at the University ofArkansas.


leadership development for the next generation

Documents