1

Faculty Leadership Program

Reform Agenda: The Development, Assessment Plan, and Evaluation of a Faculty Leadership Program.

Susan E. Barrett, MLA. M.S.Ed., Ed.D. November 2010

I. Developing a Faculty Leadership Program Program strategy is based on the development, assessment plan, and evaluation of a leadership program for faculty to determine what a leadership program should be. Program strategy encompasses defining leadership, determining what an academician needs to know about leadership, addressing an assessment component to the program itself, and defining how the leadership program enhances the faculty member individually as well as the institution, the students, and the community. Program strategy is based on the assessment and evaluation of a best model that can be determined and developed through the administration of a survey of participants in an existing leadership development program.

The Topic Before embarking on developing a leadership program, an institution must first define faculty leadership. This is no easy task, given the complexity of all the environments a faculty member must dwell. Consequently, the faculty member must be true to his or her own mission of research, a driving motivator and component to attaining tenure. It cannot be discounted that the faculty member is also a revenue generator for the institution; a service provider, carrying a predetermined teaching load. Additionally, the faculty member can also serve as a mentor, administrator, and counselor, and so on. Finally, no one faculty member is the same, so defining a pre-determined skill set could

3 be destructive to the leadership programs underlying mission of individual development and accommodation.

Overview The need for a clear mission and vision for a leadership program is commonsense. The complexity in establishing a vision is based on the programs ability to remain fluid and dynamic for those participating in the program. Can a leadership program be all things to all leadership skill seekers? Or should the program move in a direction, where, through programmatic initiatives, it self selects those who can move on to the next level? Is a leadership program meant for all? Are all faculty destined to be leaders? Is there not a need for followers, or are there core skills from which all can learn and benefit? Additionally, are only but a few participants truly dynamic and willing enough to move on to a more advanced, more developed study of leadership? According to Diamond (2002), the timing to make changes involving faculty leadership models may be opportune. Over 50 percent of faculty presently teaching are fifty years old or older, and most are likely to retire in the next decade or so. With the likelihood of huge numbers of faculty retirements over a ten-to-fifteen year period, we can meet financial and other accountability pressures by making fundamental changes in how faculty work (p.13). Here we see a need as well as an opportunity for readjustment in the way faculty work and manage their complex environments.

4 The Goals of the Leadership Program According to Kouzes and Posner, the domain of leaders is the future and the most significant contribution leaders make is to the long-term development of people and institutions so all can adapt, prosper, and grow ((2003). They state that leadership development is ultimately self-development and meeting the leadership challenge is a personal and daily challenge. The challenge for an institution is to determine through self-study if there is a best model for leadership development within academia. This challenge of this determination is magnified, as defined by Kouzes and Posner, in their presumptive assertion that the most significant contribution leaders make are not to todays bottom line but to the long-term development of people and institutions who adapt, prosper, and grow (p. 37).

II. Review of Current Literature According to Diamond, there are recurring themes in many leadership programs. These are fundamental points relevant to establishing a leadership program: 1. Each institution needs clearly articulated vision and mission statements that address the needs of students and society and are supported by everyone at the institution. 2. Each unit of the institution must have its own statement of priorities that specifically support the vision and mission. 3. Students learning and development are the primary functions of colleges and universities.

5 4. Research on change, leadership, learning and teaching, and knowledge of your institutional culture must be at the foundation of decision making. 5. Academic leaders must have a vision for their institution and a clear understanding of the process needed to get there. 6. Institutional change does not happen by chance; it requires effective and integrated leadership through the institution. 7. Successful leaders need a wide array of knowledge and skills and an understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses. 8. Good decision making requires continuous monitoring of quality and the collection and use of data. 9. The need for professional development of faculty at all levels is important and ongoing. (p. xxxi)

Brownlee states that successful planning and implementation of megaplans for a campus or system require a new kind of thinking about all the components that go into a multidimensional, moving activity like transformational change. She emphasizes this view of the complex nature of change and considers several key points: Initiatives cannot be taken piece by piece. Actions must be planned and integrated. Learning across the entire community is an integral part of the change process. As any initiative moves ahead, conditions change and responsibilities shift. As any initiative moves ahead, needs and goals may change, along with the criteria used to measure success.

6 The president or chief academic officer is responsible for ensuring that people share the vision articulated by the leadership and work collaboratively toward its goals. (Brownlee in Diamond, p. 22)

Literature Review Summary There simply may be no choice but for an institution to participate in numerous reform agendas, one being faculty development. Despite the difficulties involved and the many barriers to overcome, most colleges and universities musty address this reform agenda. They have no choice. The need to serve a growing and more diverse student body is combined with decreasing financial support per student and revised accreditation standards to make major academic reform a necessity. In addition, there are pressures from employers and taxpayers and increased competition from the for-profit educational service providers. With ever advancing new technologies we have entered a new era of continuous and ongoing institutional change (Diamond, p.15).

III. Overview of the Program Hypothesis There simply may be no choice but for an institution to participate in numerous reform agendas, one being faculty leadership development. (See Appendix 1 for an overview of existing leadership programs.) An institution may benefit from determining

7 the best leadership program for their population through a qualitative as well as quantitative longitudinal study. The control group will be a selection of university faculty who do not participate in an existing faculty development program. This particular group does not receive the intervention or treatment, namely the faculty development program. The hypothesis is that through participants involvement in the development, assessment plan, and evaluation of a leadership program participants will determine what a leadership program should be based on their participation, their buy-in as well as the skill they have acquired in the process. The control group will not receive the treatment: the leadership program, and through the lack of participation, will be asked to see if this lack of participation has influenced their leadership abilities. The research problem encompasses defining leadership, determining what an academician needs to know about leadership, addressing an assessment component to the program itself, and defining how the leadership program enhances the faculty member individually as well as the institution, the students, and the community. The research problem asks if there is a best model that can be determined and developed for the institution. The administration of a survey of participants in a leadership program can serve as the vehicle for evaluation.

Introduction Diamond examines Lick and Kaufmans, Change Creation Process Model, and supports their plan of implementation. In developing a plan for evaluating faculty leadership development programs, this model could be integrated as a qualitative

8 assessment/survey piece. Likewise, by using this process as a model, it could serve as a framework of comparison or control for both the group who have embarked on a leadership program and group who have not (the control group). The model can serve as an internal evaluation vehicle for determining best practices. (2002) Lick and Kaufmans process model incorporates eleven strategic steps which move through a development/implementation/evaluation structure of a leadership development program. Each step can serve as a transitional point in the survey instrument developed to evaluate the programs progress, effectiveness and success.

The eleven steps are defined below: 1. Prepare Your Leadership Team for Planning and Change Prepare your leaders for defining the world and the organization you would create for tomorrow and for change. Before proceeding, leaders (a broadly representative leadership-sponsoring team that includes faculty and staff) must reasonably understand the substance, complexities, and ramifications of the planning and change efforts. 2. Prepare Your Institution for Major Planning Your leadership team is responsible for the planning effort (which represents potential change to others), so you must provide your stakeholders with sufficient learning for them to gain a sense of the anticipated planning effort, its long-term importance to the organization, and its implications to them and others. 3. Complete Megalevel Strategic Planning Megalevel strategic planning sees society as the primary client and beneficiary of everything an organization uses, does, produces, and delivers. It provides an ideal vision, a mission, objectives, and the framework and direction for the balance of the change creation effort. 4. Write a Description of Your Desired Change Project It is important that your project be described in sufficient detail and in writing so that all stakeholders have the same understanding of the project, its parameters, and its expectations. Multiple change efforts require coordination. 5. Clarify Scope and Commitment Clarify the scope of your change project and the level of commitment necessary for its success. Before you announce a major change project, your

9 leadership team must understand the scope and basic commitments necessary for its success, including project expectations, transition process, markers for success, sponsorship commitment, and consistency with the culture, past history, and other restraints and barriers. 6. Communicate Communicate about your change project and its importance and implications to your stakeholders (trustees, administrators, faculty, staff, students, alumni, parents, and key community leaders). Communications must be well planned and executed; the process should identify the stakeholder groups, analyze their initial learning requirements, and execute a communication plan for each group. 7. Diagnose Diagnose our institutions present status and capacity to accomplish the change goals. If you reduce the risks and meaningfully use the institutions exiting capacity, it will significantly increase the probability of successful change. Critical elements include the organizations change history, its readiness for change, change assimilation resources, change sponsorship strength, cultural issues, change agents preparation, and targets resistance and commitment. 8. Create Transition Plan Create a detailed transition plan for the implementation and long-term success of your change project. This plan must not only lead to the transition of processes and circumstances from the old paradigm to the new but must, most importantly, effectively provide for the transition of a critical mass of people from the old to the desired paradigm. The universal change principle (that is, learning must precede change) becomes the key tool for the design of the plan. In a comprehensive manner, each facet (structure, process, people, and culture) of the organization involved must be identified and a specific subplan developed for it. For each facet identified, this question must be asked: What learning (that is, capacity for effective action) must be provided and to whom? 9. Execute, Monitor and Refine the Transition Plan For a major change project, the transition plan will be a comprehensive approach to change that contains a multilevel, multidimensional, iterative process for helping people, processes, and circumstances make the transition from the old paradigm to the new. The implementation (change agent) team, together with the leadership team, will execute the plan, monitor its progress and developments, and coordinate its unfolding to project completion. 10. Assess and Report Assess and report regularly the progress and status of your change project to stakeholders, seek their input, and celebrate success milestones. Because people have a reasonable comfort level with change when they feel a sense of control or at least can anticipate what is going to happen, it is critical that the progress and status of the unfolding change process be regularly and effectively

10 communicated to stakeholders and that they be given an opportunity for additional input. 11. Evaluate Evaluate the final results of your change project, what worked and what did not work. Every change project should have a final evaluation of its results so that they are known and so that the lessons learned may be appropriately applied in the future as you prepare for your institutions next major change effort. (2002) Variables Size of institution, size of department, status of tenure, institutional culture, faculty buy-in, transition plan, defined goals and objectives, and strong institutional leadership are all variables for consideration in the programs development. For the purpose of evaluation, these variables will need to be narrowed down. Between the two groups the need to assess the role of the program is clear. Measuring the effectiveness of the program through the assessment and evaluation of skills and improved leadership effectiveness will need to be measured. Future identification may be needed or warranted to help determine best practices. In the short tern, the need to measure benefit of the program will be the foundation in interpreting what worked. One way to determine the value of many of these variables could be through a point scale: by assigning numerical figures to pre-determined levels. For example, the size of an institution can be determined based on enrollment figures, size of endowment, or size of full time faculty. Faculty buy in can have a pre-determined range assigned to acceptance figures, five defined as a high level of faculty buy-in, 1 defined as low level buy-in and the numbers in-between establish the range of acceptance within these values. Another way to determine the success of the program is through interviews of participants.

11 These variables can help justify the leadership plans existence as well as its function and its success. Contextually, a survey and or oral interview can evaluate the overall perception by the faculty in terms of its success. Participating and nonparticipating faculty in the longitudinal study will answer the survey and oral interview questions following a year-long intervention leadership development program intervention.

Proposed Plan for Collecting the Data/Instrument Numerous requirements should be evident in the collection of the data related to the survey and or interviews: 1. The purpose should be clear 2. The evaluation methods should be clearly explained 3. Terminology should be defined 4. Audiences should be defined 5. Important stakeholders should be identified 6. Contextual factors should be explored 7. The relationship of context to the study should be explained 8. Procedures should be appropriate 9. Information used to answer primary questions should be collected from an adequate number of sources 10. Evaluation evidence should be cross referenced 11. Criteria for selecting subjects, data, and methods should be clearly stated

12 12. The method of data selection: needs assessment, data acquisition, and evaluation tools should be clearly explained 13. Criteria for evaluation; quantitative and qualitative evaluation measures and approaches should be utilized

To minimize threats to internal validity, the post-test only control group design can be considered an effective research design and as such will be used to determine effectiveness. According to Leedy and Ormond, (2005) the true experimental design post-test only control group determines the effects of a treatment when pre-testing cannot or should not occur. In this design, random assignment to groups is critical for ensuring group equivalence. Without random assignment, the researcher has a difficult time drawing inferences about cause and effect. Additionally, when an evaluative program does not have a control group, and subjects are not randomly assigned it is impossible to say without uncertainty that significant findings are attributed to the program. Without a control group, benefits of the program may show a before-and-after sequence but the researcher cannot substantiate that the sequence is a cause-and-effect relationship. One cannot preclude that even with random assignment, threats to internal validity have not occurred. According to Trochim, threats to validity in research design include: 1. History 2. Maturation 3. Mortality 4. Sampling

13 5. Regression to the mean 6. Pre-test sensitization 7. Instrumentation or poor quality of measurement 8. The interaction of sampling with other rival influences (p.213) The threats most significant to this study are maturation as well as history. Proposed Plan for Analyzing the Information In analyzing the data resulting from the survey and interviews it is important to ensure the questions asked are dealing with the disparate groups of faculty and their relevant issues related to the program. For example, bench researchers and historians vary significantly in technique, motivation, and interest. The survey could posit: is the program effectively meeting their needs? Does the program address timely issues related to faculty development? Will the findings enable the institution to adjust and realign faculty goals if they are not meeting the standards established through the survey? Building in an evaluative component to the survey may be helpful in addressing these concerns. In the short term, addressing needs of the faculty through the survey may assist the institution in outlining a strategy for readjustment. The survey and its findings may assist the institution in building a case for realignment. The results may serve as a platform in the assessment of what has been working and what has not. The survey may serve as an impetus for the continued use of assessment, data acquisition regarding successful leadership activities, and an ongoing evaluative process. The survey can be viewed in a number of capacities, one being the assessment of faculty participation, and two utilizing the findings for institutional readjustment.

14 Limitations of the study can include its inability to be representative of all faculty. Its applicability to all groups may not be impossible. Also, because participants vary in personality and temperament, their inclination and interest in leadership varies, therefore, results, even for those willing and interested may be biased simply because of innate temperaments. The following list identifies areas of significance related to the study: What has or has not been successful? Obtaining support from academic leadership of the institution Adapting faculty development efforts to institutional contexts Leveraging resources and support What has not been successful? Is or has there been a lack of sustainable effort over the long run?

Conclusion Issues derived from the programs assessment may or may not be vital to long term success of the leadership program, these issues include: Tangible, long-term, consistent support from the highest levels of leadership at the institution Maintaining a broad base of support for the program Address tensions among institutional priorities Enable for the preparation for changes in plans as the environmental context changes Use change to the institutions and faculty advantage

15 Significant questions related to the context of program assessment may ask: 1. To what extent is the survey shaped by knowledge that is up-to-date, cross disciplinary, and appropriate to the issue of faculty leadership development? 2. Has knowledge in the university community been utilized? 3. To what extent is there an awareness of competing methodologies, replicable models, and expertise related to the program? 4. How well were the surveys objectives defined?

The survey as well as its assessment of a successful faculty leadership program must be clear in purpose as well as initial evaluation methods. These methods must define objectives, outcomes and issues vital to long term success in changing the landscape for the future of faculty leadership development. The survey and program evaluation must utilize numerous approaches to research such as surveys, individual interviews as well as post program surveys to quantifiably and quantitatively measure and evaluate faculty assessment as well as success with the faculty leadership development program.

Appendix 1. An Audit/Assessment of Current Leadership Programs (information gathered from Internet home pages)

16 Faculty leadership training programs and the types of institutions administering them run the gambit from independent offices to special seminars and workshops to formal institutes. The goal of these programs is to provide faculty opportunities to develop knowledge and gain experiences that might help prepare them for future leadership roles. A sample of the various programs is provided below: Independent Offices of Faculty Development: Children's Hospital Boston The mission of the Office of Faculty Development is to facilitate the career advancement and satisfaction of faculty at Children's Hospital Boston, fostering careers of all junior faculty, and increasing the leadership opportunities for women and minorities. Services include career planning, workshops and panels, leadership development, mentoring and networking programs, newsletter and electronic communication, resource center, and policy and program development. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center The Office for Faculty Development (OFD) facilitates the academic development of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Faculty. Working with academic leaders, the OFD develops programs and policies to nurture and reward faculty for excellence in clinical care, teaching, research and academic service. The office supports mentoring and educational programs focused on the retention and promotion of talented physicians who, because of gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, traditionally have not advanced in the world of academic medicine.

17 Faculty Leadership Development Programs: Medical College of Wisconsin The faculty leadership development program at the Medical College of Wisconsin operates in collaboration with faculty from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and School of Business Administration. The program's goal is to impart business-related knowledge and develop leadership skills among the senior and selected junior faculty members. The course is given over nine days in segments of three days over a five-month period. University of Virginia School of Medicine Initiated in 1994, the School of Medicine's Faculty Development Program is designed to support and provide new faculty with the skills necessary to facilitate a successful career in academic medicine and as members of the community of the University of Virginia Health System. The programs and offerings for faculty development are innovated annually, with each successive program building upon the identified strengths and successes. University of Connecticut The Human Resources Department and the College of Continuing Studies have formed a partnership to offer leadership and development training to University of Connecticut faculty and staff. The program consists of a series of workshops on topics such as ethics at work, business writing, and customer service internal and external.

18 UC Santa Cruz The UC Santa Cruz Faculty Chair Leadership Program is a three-day program that explores the challenges of leading and managing within a university by focusing on the unique leadership role of a faculty chair. Johns Hopkins University Recognizing that academics who have spent years in the classroom and research laboratory often are suddenly asked to assume administrative responsibilities for which they may not be fully prepared, Johns Hopkins formed an Administrative Training for Academic Leadership task force in 1999 to examine the administrative training needs of new university faculty, continuing faculty and academic leaders within the university. Recommendations made by the group included the establishment of an annual university wide orientation program for new faculty; divisional orientations; the creation of faculty handbooks prepared by all divisions; and the development of specifically designed courses, leadership programs and Internet-based resources focused on enhancing administration and management skills among faculty. This university-wide orientation takes place under the auspices of the Provost's Office. Faculty Development Institutes: APAP Faculty Development Institute The Association of Physician Assistant Programs Faculty Development Institutes mission is "to provide an ongoing mechanism for faculty development for PA

19 program and staff functioning at all levels, and to serve as the national clearinghouse for faculty development resources. The Institute will consist initially of six core programs Basic Faculty Skills, Enhanced Faculty Skills, Senior Faculty Skills, Leadership Training, Management and Policy Training, and Executive Leadership Training. (Source) Leadership Award Programs: UTHSCSA Faculty Senate - Faculty Leadership Award: Beginning in 2004, the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio ((UTHSCSA) established an annual award to be given to an outstanding member of the faculty, nominated and selected by the UTHSCSA Faculty Senate. The purpose of the award is to provide peer recognition, from UTHSCSA faculty leadership, of the outstanding, long-term contributions of a faculty member with regard to endeavors that significantly enhance faculty development and welfare, and/or the effectiveness of strategies to accomplish teaching, service and research missions. It is expected that individuals who are awarded this honor will likely serve as an exceptional role model, particularly in matters concerned with promoting communication among faculty, communication between faculty and administration, and communication between the university and outside community administrations, agencies or organizations. University of Alabama

20 The T. Morris Hackney Endowed Faculty Leadership Award honors a faculty member who exemplifies the leadership qualities that advance and add to the stature of the College of Engineering.

References APAP Faculty Development Institute. Online Search. November 10, 2005. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Online Search. November 10, 2005. Childrens Hospital of Boston, Online Search. November 10, 2005. Diamond, R. M. (2002). Field Guide to Academic Leadership, a Publication of the National Academy for Academic Leadership. John, Wiley & Son, Inc. San Francisco, CA. Johns Hopkins University, Online Search. November 10, 2005.

21 Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Academic Administrators Guide to Exemplary Leadership. John, Wiley & Son, Inc. San Fransisco, CA. Leedy, P. D. & Ormond, J. O. (2005) Practical Research, Planning and Design, Eighth Edition. Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Lick, D., & Kaufman, R. (2002). Change Creation: The Rest of the Planning Story. Planning for Higher Education, 29(2), 24-36. Medical College of Wisconsin, Online Search. November 10, 2005. Trochim, W. The Knowledge Base. Ithaca, NY: Cornell. Atomic Dog Publishers. UC Santa Cruz, Online Search. November 10, 2005 University of Alabama, Online Search. November 10, 2005. University of Connecticut, Online Search. November 10, 2005. University of Virginia School of Medicine, Online Search. November 10, 2005. UTHSCSA Faculty Senate, Online Search. November 10, 2005.

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch2255/72479490.doc