Home Uncategorized What's Next?

Uncategorized

What’s Next?

In the attachment below use pages 181-185 to complete question:

Practical Leadership in Community Colleges

text:

“Conclusion,” pages 181–185.

Question:

400-500 words

Read the concluding studies and share your thoughts on issues, trends, challenges, and best practices that may not have been covered.

In addition, share your thoughts on what leaders should prepare for next in addressing the needs of community colleges and their surrounding communities.

ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGE TO PROMOTE

STUDENT SUCCESS

Leading Organizational Change

Community colleges have a proud history of serving their communities, but
they are in the midst of an evolution that will more clearly focus increas-
ingly limited resources on the success of their students

Like many institu-
tions that have several years of history, the policies, practices, and structures
that may have worked in an earlier time no longer make sense in an era of
constrained resources, increased accountability for student success, and the
demand to close achievement gaps. Leaders frequently encounter practices
that are historically based and perhaps memorialized in college policies or
union contracts that prove to be hindrances to effective management of the
colleges and their ability to serve students and their communities.

Leaders are often selected for their positions with a mandate to imple-
ment changes in their institutions. Both new and existing leaders might be
asked to deal with institutional problems that include financial or
accounting issues, low employee morale, enrollment decline, poor
community relations, or a need to improve student success rates. However,
changing higher educational institutions is rarely an easy task, and it can
be risky. Leaders invariably encounter resistance and, sometimes, hostility,
and they may even lose support for needed changes and perhaps even
their jobs if changes are not approached carefully. It is wise to approach
change cautiously and gradually. Leaders should not try to initiate too
much change at once. When George Boggs was a new college president, a
seasoned leader cautioned him to “pick your battles.” There are always a
great many practices, procedures, and policies that need to be revised, but
a wise leader should focus on the most important ones and those that are
possible to change first.

Boggs, George R., and Christine J. McPhail. Practical Leadership in Community Colleges : Navigating Today’s Challenges,
John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4560554.
Created from capella on 2020-09-15 20:10:02.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

6.
J

oh
n

W
ile

y
&

S
on

s,
In

co
rp

or
at

ed
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

138 practical leadership in community colleges

Daniel Phelan, President of Jackson College in Michigan, points out
how important it is for a college president to have the full support of the
board of trustees before initiating significant institutional change. He
relates a particularly meaningful interaction he had at a retreat with the
seven‐member board of trustees at Jackson College about driving institu-
tional change through the collective bargaining contract negotiations
process. He said to the board members, “If I am going to deal with this
issue, I want to know that when things get rough—and they will—that
when I am pushed back one step, I will feel fourteen hands on my back.”
The board members all agreed and lived up to that commitment
(Phelan, 2016, p. 84). Although top‐down directives can work in private
businesses, they do not often succeed in public higher education. A more
appropriate approach for higher education might be to follow the
example of the leaders who facilitated social change, leaders such as
Martin Luther King, Jr., who, standing in the shadows of the symbols of
our nation, pointed out that our country was not living up to its own
democratic ideals while he described a vision of a better future for all of
our people.

People are often less resistant to change when there is a clear need,
especially during times of significant challenge to the institution. When
Rahm Emanuel was chief of staff in the White House, he was famously
quoted as saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” It is
often much easier to implement organizational change during a recog-
nized crisis. Recommendations from outside groups, especially accredit-
ing agencies or consultants who are recognized authorities, can also help
leaders bring about change. Affiliation with nationally recognized pro-
jects, such as Achieving the Dream or Completion by Design that intend
to bring about improvement in outcomes, can be effective in getting the
necessary internal support for change. The models described in this
chapter can be utilized for any desired organizational change. For illus-
tration, one of today’s most urgent challenges—improving student suc-
cess rates—is the change described in this chapter.

Policy makers, researchers, and educators are in the midst of an
extended national debate about the very future of community colleges.
The narrative not only challenges programs and services offered by the
community college sector but also the policies and practices that imple-
ment them. The demand to improve college completion rates is at the
center of the current call for change, one that both critics and advocates
label the “Completion Agenda” (American Association of Community
Colleges [AACC], 2010; Complete College America, 2014; MDRC, 2013).
The core concern is that students are not completing what they start, and

organizational change to promote student success 139

community colleges can and must do better. To advance the Completion
Agenda, institutions must change.

The Completion Agenda

The focus of the debate about student success is on organizational change,
the need for it, and whether community colleges are up to the challenges.
Although access to higher education is still an issue for some populations,
the concern most commonly expressed today is that not enough students
are progressing through the institution and attaining degrees or certifi-
cates or transferring to four‐year colleges and universities. Traditionally,
community colleges have stressed access, especially for underrepresented
students. Community colleges enroll large numbers of low‐income, adult,
and minority students, providing educational opportunities that were not
available to these students at other institutions. The access to education
and training and the opportunities provided by community colleges are
the reasons they are referred to as the “open‐door” colleges. As important
as access and opportunity are, however, they are not sufficient. As early
as 2000, Robert McCabe, president emeritus of Miami Dade College,
argued that it was necessary to guarantee quality in order to keep the
“open door” open. McCabe observed that, even though hundreds of
underprepared college students enter community colleges, many of these
students successfully complete remediation and go on to do as well in
standard college courses as those students who begin academically pre-
pared (Callan, 2000; McCabe, 2000). Leaders of the community college
movement are often asked, “How can community colleges respond to the
Completion Agenda without sacrificing either the open‐door mission or
academic rigor?” As educational reform and accountability efforts—
especially since 2010—have placed an increasing number of demands on
community colleges nationwide, the leaders of local institutions have
been forced to reevaluate their commitment to both access and student
success. There are a number of ways community colleges can improve
student success rates while maintaining or even improving access and
quality, and all of them require a commitment to organizational change
and to thinking differently about how to use resources to educate, train,
and support students (Alfred & Carter, 1999; AACC, 2013).

As a first step, community college leaders must acknowledge that
existing policies, practices, programs, and services are not producing the
desired results. It is important to set appropriate goals for improvement
before developing corresponding change strategies to achieve them.
Leaders need to identify the key stakeholders and their roles in realizing

140 practical leadership in community colleges

the vision of the future of the institution (AACC, 2012). Finally, in imple-
menting change, community college leaders will need to more effectively
utilize resources and the skill sets of employees to produce desired results.
In short, organizational change must go beyond changes in strategic
planning models or changes in job descriptions, as important as they are.
Effective organizational change must involve all constituent groups:
boards of trustees, administrators, faculty, staff, students, and community
partners (AACC, 2012; Kotter, 2008). Essentially, colleges will have to
make necessary adjustments in the way they conduct the business of the
institution in order to produce the desired results (AACC, 2012).

Leaders need to create an environment in which the college community
can work collaboratively to define the changes needed and to develop
strategies to respond to the diverse learning needs of students. Active
leadership support to incorporate a variety of innovative strategies and
new policies and procedures is necessary to improve student pathways to
learning that stimulate, bring to scale, and institutionalize an effective
array of learning experiences (Jacobs & Dougherty, 2006; Watson,
Williams, & Derby, 2005).

Models for Change

There are many ways of thinking about organizational change that can
apply to community colleges (Kotter, 2008; Maginn, 2005; Weick, 1995).
As colleges struggle with the challenges of the Completion Agenda,
leaders need to undertake a careful review of the role and purpose of the
institution (AACC, 2012). At the same time, leaders must define the pro-
cess by which the college should determine changes in structure, strat-
egies, operational methods, technologies, or organizational culture and
assess the effects of those changes on the organization (AACC, 2014;
Floyd, Haley, Eddy, & Antczak, 2009). Leaders must always be aware of
the fact that organizational change can be contentious, time-consuming,
highly political, and, at times, risky to the career of a leader.

Van de Ven and Poole (1995) argued that change is measured by the
observation of difference over time in one or more dimensions of an insti-
tution. Burnes (1996) noted that organizational change requires under-
standing alterations within organizations at the broadest level among
individuals and groups and at the collective level across the entire orga-
nization. However, these general descriptions of change do not entirely
capture factors inherent in community colleges such as the demographics
of stakeholders and their values. It can be informative to think of change

organizational change to promote student success 141

through a cultural or social‐cognition lens, focusing on values and beliefs
of the stakeholders within the organization. Although there is no single
model for organizational change, certain concepts are common across
change models, such as the overlap between elements of the Kotter (2008)
and Lewin (2007) models. For example, Kurt Lewin’s model proposed a
straightforward change management process consisting of a three‐stage
theory of change commonly referred to as unfreeze, change, freeze (or
refreeze). Kotter (2008) believed that change followed a process consist-
ing of eight sequential phases:

1. A sense of urgency

2. The guiding team

3. Visions and strategies

4. Communication

5. Empowerment

6. Celebrating short‐term wins

7. Never letting up

8. Making change stick

Both models examine why change happens and refer to outcomes of
the change process. Based in observational theory, these models can
assist leaders as they prepare to chart a course for change in their col-
leges. In particular, when colleges engage in a change process, constituent
groups need to know why change is important, how much change is
needed, and what might be the best approach to implement the change
(Gumport, 2000).

Resistance to Change

Community college leaders who want to improve their institutions must
carefully determine the changes that will move their institutions toward
desired goals (AACC, 2012). The changes that community colleges will
need to make should align with the core values of the institution (Alfred
et al., 2009; Erwin, 1997; Kim & Mauborgne, 2003). However, institu-
tional leadership is embedded in a network of influence and power that
comes from a variety of sources. Leaders cannot assume that all of the
sources will even agree that change is necessary. Even if they do, they may
not agree on what needs to be changed or what strategies to use.
Leadership within this context calls for an effective analysis of stakeholder

142 practical leadership in community colleges

values and resistance to change. What does resistance to change look
like? What are its causes, and where does it come from? Resistance to
change can emerge from both internal and external sources and can be
viewed as the act of opposing or struggling with modifications or trans-
formations that alter the status quo in the workplace (Kotter, 1998).

Overcoming resistance to change is often extremely challenging.
Although Burke (2008) argued that organizations strive to succeed in an
increasingly complex global, political, and economic environment that
requires change to remain viable, he noted that organizations experience
different types of change, and some changes are more difficult than
others. Resistance to change can emerge from internal or external groups
or individuals. It can be covert or overt, organized or spontaneous. In
some instances, resistance emerges when there is a threat to something
the individual values. For example, Evans (2001), in discussing the human
side of school change, noted that resistance may arise either from a gen-
uine understanding of the change or from a misunderstanding of the
issues. Failure to adequately consider the complexity of the resistance can
compromise the implementation of the change or even stop it. Viable
change requires the involvement of the entire campus community.
Resistance to change can affect the entire institution in areas such as the
feelings, opinions, and work habits of employees at all stages of imple-
mentation of the change process.

If community college leaders are to be successful in implementing
change, they must first examine the key reasons people might resist it.
Implementing change involves altering human behavior and the
acceptance of change. According to John Tagg (2012), one of the leading
spokespersons for the Learning Paradigm:

The key to designing and executing productive institutional change
is not simply to build a better academic mousetrap. Faculty will not
beat a path to the doors of those with the best arguments. We need
to not only design change for our institutions but also redesign our
institutions for change. At base, we must recognize that we can’t
change without changing. We cannot create a better future unless we
are willing to embrace a future that is different from the past. (p. 6)

There are a number of reasons people resist change: a lack of clarity of
the rationale for the change, a lack of appropriate consultation and com-
munication, a perceived threat caused by the change, or weak perceived
benefits and rewards for making the change (Demers, 2007; Erwin, 2009;
Kotter 2008).

organizational change to promote student success 143

Resistance Management

Strebel (2006) observed that the reason for the less than favorable success
rate in leading change is differences between the perceptions of leader-
ship and employees. It is necessary to develop a distinctive approach that
bridges these perceptions in order to change higher education
(Hearn, 1996). Hearn noted that overlooking these factors may result in
mistakes in analysis and strategy, and using concepts foreign to the values
of the academy will most likely fail to engage the very people who must
bring about the change.

The leader must be able to identify and manage resistance at different
levels of the organization (Benjamin & Carroll, 1996; Maginn, 2005). In
an organization that has a culture of trust, transparent communication,
involvement, engaged employees, and positive interpersonal relation-
ships, resistance to change is easy to see—and also much less likely to
occur (Kotter, 2008). In this type of environment, employees feel free to
tell the leadership team what they think and to have open exchanges
with unit administrators. When a change is introduced in institutions in
which people feel engaged, the resistance to change is decreased.
Resistance is also minimized if there is a widespread belief that a change
is needed. The president and leadership team must communicate the
need for change and must highlight the consequences that may develop
if the change is delayed. Kotter (1995) recommended that effective com-
munication should be used to promote or market the proposed changes,
while at the same time demonstrating the shortcomings of the old way of
doing business.

One of the key factors in reducing resistance to change is widespread
acceptance that a change is needed. So, one of the first tasks for the leader
is to build the case for the reasons for change (Amey, VanDerLinden, &
Brown, 2002). Specifically, the leader must first inform the college
community about the need for change. But it does not stop with an
information session. The leader must engage the campus community in
active dialogue and spend time discussing the urgency for change, how to
implement the change, and how to make it work. Among the major rea-
sons for engaging the campus community in conversations about change
is that leaders can share their vision for a better future and personally
identify the benefits of change to individuals, departments, and the orga-
nization. Further, stakeholders must feel that the time, energy, commit-
ment, and focus necessary to implement the change are compensated by
the benefits they, the institution, and students will attain from making
the change.

144 practical leadership in community colleges

Employee Pride as Motivation for Change

Most community college educators and staff members are proud of their
colleges and the work they do, but these are challenging times for
community colleges as pressure builds to improve the ways they meet the
needs of the students and communities they serve. Leaders interested in
facilitating organizational change must understand the critical link bet-
ween the employee’s pride in the institution and willingness to support
organizational changes. Jon Katzenbach (2003) recommended that senior
management sponsor and support activities to inspire employees to take
pride in the organization. Katzenback made the point that “pride is more
powerful than money. Employee pride—the admiration of co‐workers as
well as family and friends, the spirit of teams in pursuit of a dream, and
the high that comes from having done a job well—is the powerful moti-
vational force that compels individuals and companies to excel” (p. 24).

Community college leaders can build upon employees’ pride in the
organization by ensuring that the mission, vision, and institutional goals
are made clear to all employees and to let them know how their work
supports the college mission. Leaders must strive to help all employees
take pride in their work and to understand how their work contributes to
institutional excellence. Helping employees to take pride in their jobs
takes time and effort. Individual pride in the organization and the buy‐in
to overall instructional excellence cannot be mandated. Leaders must
make pride‐building a continuing part of their leadership agenda.

We have visited a great many community college campuses and are
often told by faculty and administrators, “Our college is the best
community college in the country.” It is always rewarding to hear the
sense of pride that employees have, but we often wonder what data the
colleges have to back up the claims. Leaders should recognize and cele-
brate the pride that employees have in their college and then use outcome
data to show that the college can help more students to succeed. Then,
leaders should ask for recommendations from the employees about how
to improve.

Organizational Change and Classroom Practice

Community colleges have made some meaningful changes in the teaching
and learning environment to help more students experience success
(Achieving the Dream, 2012). The following teaching and learning prac-
tices illustrate some of the most promising strategies that have been
shown to be beneficial for community college students from a variety of

organizational change to promote student success 145

backgrounds. These practices can take many different forms, depending
on learner characteristics and on institutional priorities and contexts.

1. Guided Pathways

As mentioned in chapter 2, in October 2015, AACC announced a national
partnership to build capacity for community colleges to implement a
pathways approach to student success and college completion (Bailey,
Jaggers, & Jenkins, 2015). There is almost universal agreement that
giving entering students more guidance is necessary if we are to improve
rates of student success. Davis Jenkins, senior researcher at the Community
College Research Center (CCRC) at Columbia University and an early
proponent of guided pathways for students, has identified key compo-
nents of the Guided Pathway model:

❍ Clear road maps to success are provided and academic programs
are clearly defined.

❍ Exploratory majors are designed for students who do not have
majors when they enter the college.

❍ Contextualized instruction in foundation skills are linked to the
student’s field of interest.

❍ Predictable schedules provide a defined program of study on a
full‐time and part‐time basis.

❍ Students are provided frequent feedback on how they are doing.

❍ Colleges use early alert systems to keep students informed about
their progress so that they can stay on track.

2. Flipped Classrooms

The flipped classroom is a pedagogical model in which the typical lecture
and homework elements of a course are reversed. Students view short
video lectures at home and read supporting text before the class session,
and in‐class time is devoted to exercises, projects, debates, or discussions.
The video lecture is often seen as the key ingredient to the flipped
approach; the instructor or guest presenters create the lectures that are
posted online or selected from an online repository. The notion of a
flipped classroom draws on such concepts as active learning, student
engagement, hybrid course design, and course podcasting. The value of a
flipped class is in the repurposing of in‐class time into an active work-
shop in which students can inquire about course content, test their skills

146 practical leadership in community colleges

in applying knowledge, and interact with one another in hands‐on activ-
ities. During class sessions, instructors act as facilitators, moderators,
coaches, or advisors, encouraging students in individual inquiry and col-
laborative effort (Bichsel, 2012).

3. Online Classes

The convenience of online education has attracted working adult stu-
dents who benefit from education delivered in ways that meet their
schedules and the demands of working, family obligations, and social
lives. However, learning under these circumstances is not easy. Major
problems reported by students are feelings of isolation, lack of self‐
direction, time management, and eventual decrease in motivation
(Ludwig‐Hardman & Dunlap, 2003). Faculty who teach online courses
must find ways to engage students, to keep them motivated, and to
encourage them not to fall behind in their assignments.

4. Blended Classes/Learning

The traditional learning environment, especially lectures in which stu-
dents are passive, simply does not engage most students. “Blended classes”
utilize both the classroom environment and technology to meet the
learning and motivational needs of students. Ideally, a blended classroom
offers deeper content online, gives students the ability to master basic
skills, and grants them more autonomy (Bonk & Graham, 2006).

5. Project‐Based Learning

Project‐based learning, focused on learning through engagement in
individual or group assignments, is a meaning‐oriented and student‐
centered instructional approach that allows students to discover content,
engage in higher‐level thinking, make personal connections, construct
their own meaning, and reflect on what they have learned (Savage, 2007).

6. First‐Year Seminars and Experiences

Many schools now build into the curriculum first‐year seminars or other
programs that bring small groups of students together with faculty or
staff on a regular basis. First‐year experiences place a strong emphasis on
critical inquiry, frequent writing, information literacy, collaborative
learning, and other skills that develop students’ intellectual and practical
competencies (Franklin, 2000; Gardner & Barefoot, 2011).

organizational change to promote student success 147

7. Learning Communities

The key goals for learning communities are to encourage integration of
learning across courses and to involve students with “big questions”
that matter beyond the classroom. Students take two or more linked
courses as a group and work closely with one another and with their
professors. Many learning communities explore a common topic and/or
common readings through the lenses of different disciplines (Levine &
Shapiro, 2004).

8. Collaborative Assignments and Projects

Collaborative learning combines two key goals: learning to work and
solve problems in the company of others; and sharpening one’s own
understanding by listening seriously to the insights of others, especially
those with different backgrounds and life experiences. Approaches range
from study groups within a course, to team‐based assignments and
writing, to cooperative projects and research (Gabriel, 2004).

9. Service Learning and Community‐Based Learning

Field‐based “experiential learning” with community partners is an
instructional strategy—and can be a required part of a course. The idea is
to give students direct experience with issues they are studying in the cur-
riculum and with ongoing efforts to analyze and solve problems in the
community. A key element in these programs is the opportunity students
have both to apply what they are learning in real‐world settings and to
reflect in a classroom setting on their service experiences (Hatcher,
Bringle, & Muthiah, 2004).

10. Cooperative Work Experience

Internships, cooperative work experience, and apprenticeships are
included in a wide range of integrated work and education strategies.
Typically, institutions use an external worksite as a source to provide the
skills training required for the program of study. Participating students
earn college credit for their work experience attaining the skills and
knowledge related to the program of study. Institutions use the coopera-
tive work experience programs to bridge the gap between the institution
and business and industry. Collaborative work experience programs also
contribute to local economic development efforts by providing a flow of
qualified and skilled employees for local business and industry partners
(Cates & Cedercreutz, 2008).

148 practical leadership in community colleges

11. Supplemental Instruction

Academic assistance programs that utilize peer‐assisted study sessions are
classified as supplemental instruction (SI). SI sessions are regularly sched-
uled, informal review sessions in which students compare notes, discuss
readings, develop organizational tools, and work on predicted test items.
Students learn how to integrate course content and study skills while
working together. The sessions are facilitated by “SI leaders,” students
who have previously done well in the course and who attend all class lec-
tures, take notes, and act as model students (Stone & Jacobs, 2008).

Organizational Change and Student Support Services

Simpson (2002) defined student support in the broadest terms as all
activities beyond the production and delivery of course materials that
assist in the progress of students in their studies. Support systems include
tutorials, technical support, library resources and information services,
advising or counseling, and peer support. According to Simpson (2002),
there is clearly little point in providing a student service without
connecting it to a demonstrated student need. In an attempt to better
serve the contemporary student, community colleges have made changes
in the types of support services offered. The following list highlights some
of the key enhancements to student support programs offered to provide
services aligned with the mission of the college.

1. Electronic Tutorial Support

Since distance education students often report a feeling of isolation, it is
crucial to have online problem and discussion sessions, known as tuto-
rials. According to Vincent and Eisenstadt (1998), the benefit of tutorials
is only partly academic; the tutorial is an important social support system
that allows students to build relationships with their instructors and
other students (Garrison & Anderston, 2003).

2. Virtual Office Hours

Within an online course, instructors may be perceived as inaccessible
when they do not respond in a timely fashion (Howland & Moore, 2002).
One solution is to schedule online virtual hours (e-office hours) (prefer-
ably after 6:00 p.m.) and days for students to contact the instructor via
email, telephone, and/or chat rooms.

organizational change to promote student success 149

3. Help Desks and Technical Support

The most common practice is to have an online help desk available to
students at all times, during which support personnel can reply through
email or chat to assist with issues like password and access problems.

4. Online Counseling (or Personal Tutor)

Counseling services, like tutoring and technical support, can be scheduled
to give advice and information to students on a wide range of educational,
financial, and practical issues (Mallen,Vogel, Rochlen, & Day, 2005).

5. Online One‐Stop Centers

“One‐stop” is a student services model that relies heavily on highly devel-
oped and intuitive online portals, sophisticated transaction‐enabling
self‐service, cross‐trained staff, and thorough integration of “traditional”
services such as registration, financial aid, and billing all under one roof
(or two roofs really: one digital and one physical). This model is student-
centered and technologically rich, and, from a student’s perspective,
simple. It aims also to liberate institutions from archaic, inefficient, often
redundant models suited for a bygone era (Burnett & Oblinger, 2002).

6. Learning Analytics

Learning analytics emerged from the business sector and are designed to
help institutions learn more about student trends and, to some extent,
predict behavior patterns of students. Learning analytics enhance the
institution’s capacity to build large data bases that can be used to improve
teaching and learning effectiveness. For example, learning analytics are
the foundation for early alert programs that signal when a student is
struggling, allowing instructors and advisors to intervene in time to assist
students before they fail (Gonzalez, 2012).

7. Gaming

The games culture has grown to include a substantial proportion of the
world’s population, with the age of the average gamer increasing with
each passing year. Community college educators have discovered that
games can be used to teach cross‐curricular concepts that touch on many
subjects in a more engaging way than traditional teaching methods.

150 practical leadership in community colleges

For example, Cuyahoga Community College implemented a project
called Edugaming Positively that has improved college completion rates.
The college also established the Gaming Incubation Group that creates
games and encourages their use in both face‐to‐face and online learning:
go.nmc.org/games (Wu, 2012).

8. Social Media

Many community college educators are attracted to social media because
it enables institutions to employ two‐way communication between exist-
ing and prospective students. Using such tools as Facebook and Twitter,
instructors can establish and maintain interactions with students that
were not possible in traditional teaching and learning environments. For
example, educators can use video platforms such as YouTube and Vimeo
to reach students and share lectures and other classrooms activities that
students can access from anywhere and at any time (Gesser, 2013).

A Time for Change: AACC’s Reclaiming the
American Dream

Community college leaders have two choices: they can change the stu-
dents they serve or they can change their support services and teaching
and learning approaches to accommodate the students they have. In the
first instance, community colleges can require that students who enroll
must possess demonstrated college‐level skill sets. This approach would
likely increase college completion rates, but it would also result in dimin-
ished access to higher education for a high percentage of low‐income and
minority students. In the second scenario, community colleges are con-
fronted with the challenge of making changes in the manner in which
they accommodate the diverse learning and support needs of their stu-
dents (DeMers, 2007).

The reform initiatives, including those advocated by AACC, call for
community colleges leaders to understand the change process. Calls for
change are not new for higher education. In 1996, Barrow encouraged
higher education institutions to look at strategies for selective excellence
that could better position American higher education institutions for
global competiveness. The recent reform initiatives that are focused on
changing community colleges to promote higher levels of student success
are, in many ways, a continuation of work to address long‐term challenges.
Bailey and colleagues (2015) make a persuasive argument for the type of
changes that are needed to help more community college students succeed.

http://go.nmc.org/games

organizational change to promote student success 151

In AACC’s 2012 Reclaiming the American Dream, Walter G. Bumphus,
President and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges,
challenges community colleges to “redesign, reinvent, and reset (The
3 Rs). We need to completely reimagine community colleges for today
and the future” (AACC, 2012, p. VI).

The 3 Rs consist of the following: redesign students’ educational expe-
riences, reinvent institutional roles, and reset the system to create incen-
tives for student and institutional success. The specific recommendations
of the 3 Rs can serve as both motivation and guidance for a change
agenda for community colleges.

1. Increase completion rates of students earning community college
credentials (certificates and associate’s degrees) by 50 percent by
2020, while preserving access, enhancing quality, and eradicating
attainment gaps associated with income, race, ethnicity,
and gender.

2. Dramatically improve college readiness. By 2020, reduce by half
the number of students entering college unprepared for rigorous
college‐level work and double the number of students who
complete developmental education programs and progress to
successful completion of related freshman‐level courses.

3. Close the American skills gaps by sharply focusing career and
technical education on preparing students with the knowledge and
skills required for existing and future jobs in regional and global
economies.

4. Refocus the community college mission and redefine institutional
roles to meet twenty‐first‐century education and employment
needs.

5. Invest in support structures to serve multiple community colleges
through collaboration among institutions and with partners in
philanthropy, government, and the private sector.

6. Strategically target public and private investments to create new
incentives for institutions to educate and train their students and
to support community college efforts to reclaim the American
Dream.

7. Implement policies and practices that promote rigor, transparency,
and accountability for results in community colleges.

If implementing the organizational changes recommended by AACC’s
Reclaiming the American Dream report is considered a prescription for

152 practical leadership in community colleges

changing the community college, what actions can leaders take to realize
the expected outcomes? Only time will tell if community colleges have
the capacity to meet the challenges, but community colleges have evolved
throughout their history to respond to the needs of society. Today’s chal-
lenges will require them to shift some basic assumptions and long‐held
traditions about the support they should provide to students and the need
to raise expectations for student performance. Some community college
educators will need to open their minds to serve learners through a differ-
ent array of programs and delivery systems. It will not be enough for
community colleges to continue making changes through collections of
scattered pilot interventions (MDRC, 2013). Far too often, reform efforts
have focused on starting pilot program after pilot program. While the
pilots unleash a lot of small and often positive interventions, they are usu-
ally isolated and do not lead to sustained or scalable outcomes.
Community colleges must find ways to stimulate and bring to scale
changes across the institutions—as well as to sustain those changes—if
they are to create models that can serve the expanding needs of twenty‐
first‐century learners.

Sustaining Momentum: Managing the Change

Often, the most difficult period in managing change is the final phase,
when leaders work to adjust plans and sustain the momentum of imple-
mentation. Change efforts often encounter a wide variety of obstacles—
for example, strong resistance from members of the organization,
untimely departure of a key leader in the organization, or a dramatic and
sudden reduction in finances (Aune, 1995).

Stober (2008) suggested that coaching could be used as a tool to sus-
tain change. He points out that coaching can guide employees through
the change process. Leaders are encouraged to provide clear messages
to achieve organizational acceptance of the process. Internal and
external environmental pressures that influence institutional effective-
ness; organizational inefficiency; and student, faculty, and staff dissatis-
faction are additional issues that can impede the change process
(Burke, 2011). In fact, most change initiatives do not succeed and last
(Senge et al., 2008). Strong, visible, ongoing support from top leader-
ship is critically important to show overall credibility and account-
ability in the change effort. How the leader communicates the change
process to the stakeholders has an important impact on how much
resistance there will be to the changes (Kotter, 2008). Everyone in an
organization has a role to play in a performance transformation of the
magnitude envisioned by the Completion Agenda. The role of CEOs is

organizational change to promote student success 153

unique in that they stand at the top of the pyramid, and all the other
members of the organization take cues from them. It is up to the leader
to ensure that the right people spend the right amount of time driving
the necessary changes.

Community college leaders can use technology as a vehicle for respond-
ing to societal changes (Waters, 2014). The NMC Horizon Report: 2015
Higher Education Edition, in partnership with the EDUCAUSE Learning
Initiative (ELI), stated that improving digital literacy is considered one of
the solvable challenges facing higher education. The report also identi-
fied two long‐term objectives: (1) advancing learning environments that
are flexible and drive innovation and (2) increasing the collaboration
that takes place between higher education institutions. Organizational
changes and enhanced technological developments can support innova-
tion and improved outcomes in community colleges. The ELI report can
serve as a planning guide for technology for community college educa-
tors (Waters, 2014). Those participating in change efforts often need
training and coaching on how to implement change. The role of targeted
professional development cannot be overstated when launching a
change agenda.

It is important for leaders to use a change model or process that people
can understand and follow. Kotter’s (1997) change model, employing an
eight‐step process, is a good one to consider. His eight‐phase model is
summarized as follows:

1. Establish a Sense of Urgency. President Barack Obama’s college
completion challenge, the five national associations’ call to action,
the visibility of recent reform initiatives, and AACC’s Reclaiming
the American Dream all outline a sense of urgency for community
colleges and can be used by leaders to launch a change effort to
better serve students.

2. Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition. Kotter suggests that, during
Phase 2, it is important to identify three to five people to lead the
change effort. Involving respected leaders from key areas of the
institution is critical to success of the change effort. Some leaders
have found that an existing committee, such as a curriculum
committee or a task force, can serve as a guiding coalition to
launch a particular change effort.

3. Create a Vision. According to Kotter, “Vision helps clarify the
direction in which an organization must pass in order to arrive at
the desired future.” One or more of AACC’s 3 Rs can serve as an
excellent platform to advance a vision and a meaningful agenda to
improve student success.

154 practical leadership in community colleges

4. Communicate That Vision. Kotter suggests that communicating
the vision is needed and ongoing. It is not a single event. The
principle is simple: use existing communication channels and
identify opportunities to speak to the campus community on a
regular basis about the change effort and its progress.

5. Remove Obstacles. Continually check for barriers to the change
effort. The president and the leadership team can identify or hire
change leaders whose main roles are to implement the change,
identify people who are resisting the change, and help them see
what’s needed.

6. Create Short‐Term Wins. Nothing motivates people more than
success. Thoroughly analyze the progress toward meeting the
change goals. If the process doesn’t succeed with an early goal, it
can hurt the entire change initiative. The people who help the
institution meet the change targets can be rewarded on a routine
and consistent basis.

7. Build on the Change. Kotter argues that many change projects fail
because victory is declared too early. Real change runs deep. After
every win, analyze what went right and what needs improving.
The engagement of institutional research professionals can be
useful by providing data and reports to support data‐informed
decision making to facilitate needed changes in administrative,
academic, and support services.

8. Anchor the Changes in the College’s Culture. Finally, to make any
change stick, make it part of the college’s mission. A first step is to
place the change initiative into the institution’s strategic plan. The
president must talk about progress often. Create plans to replace
key leaders of change if they move on. This will help ensure that
their legacy is not lost or forgotten.

If community college leaders are to embark on a change initiative that
is truly transformative, it is essential that all stakeholders get engaged in
the process. Facilitating dialogue about the impact of organizational
change is a major undertaking for the president and the senior leader-
ship team. They must ensure that all stakeholders are appropriately
included in the decision‐making and change process. To engage stake-
holders in organizational change conversations, leaders can arrange
meetings in which stakeholders can come together to discuss the organi-
zational challenges they face, while at the same time looking for sustain-
able solutions. The issues below are intended to stimulate discussions

organizational change to promote student success 155

designed to provide an opportunity for the college community leaders to
gather feedback and to review the perspectives of stakeholders by orga-
nizational changes.

Issues to Consider

A. How should a college leader instill pride in employees while also
challenging them to improve outcomes?

B. A community college was placed on warning status by its regional
accreditor for not having specified student‐learning outcomes
(SLOs) on file. The faculty association has taken the position that
developing SLOs is not within the scope of faculty job
descriptions, and that faculty should be paid extra for writing
them. How should the college leadership deal with this issue?

C. Complete College America has called developmental education
“the bridge to nowhere” because of its low success rates and the
fact that very few students progress from developmental education
to college‐level coursework. Some states are limiting the number of
developmental education courses that students can take. Other
states are giving students the option of taking developmental
education courses. Should community colleges admit students who
have very low basic skills abilities? What can be done to improve
student success rates in developmental education courses? Are
there better ways to remediate basic skills weaknesses?

D. Major funding foundations are now supporting community college
reform efforts. In the past, foundations, with a few exceptions,
generally did not fund community colleges. What has caused this
change? Is the foundation support helping or hindering the
colleges? Can community colleges meet the goals set by President
Obama, foundations, and community college associations?

E. Evaluations of the Achieving the Dream initiative have shown
mixed results. What do you think are the factors that determine
whether a college is going to be successful or not in improving
student success rates?

F. AACC encourages community colleges to “redesign, reinvent, and
reset (The 3 Rs).” Further, in the book, Redesigning America’s
Community Colleges: A Clearer Path to Student Success (Bailey
et al., 2015), the authors suggest ways that community colleges
should redesign academic programs for student success. How do

156 practical leadership in community colleges

you envision making the organizational changes at your college to
respond to these challenges? What factors will need to be taken
into consideration to make the changes? Which constituent groups
will need to be engaged? What steps will need to be taken to
engage them?

R E F E R E N C E S

Achieving the Dream. (2012). Building Institutional Capacity For
Data‐Informed Decision Making (Cutting Edge Series, No. 3).
Retrieved from http://www.achievingthedream.org/_images/_index03/
ukperfaccnt .

Alfred, R. L., & Carter, P. (1999). New Colleges for a New Century:
Organizational Change and Development in Community Colleges. In
J. Smart, (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research
(Vol. 14, pp. 240–286). Bronx, NY: Agathon Press.

Alfred, R. L., Shults, C., Jaquette, O., & Strickland, S. (2009). Community
Colleges on the Horizon: Challenge, Choice, or Abundance? American
Council on Education Series on Higher Education. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Education.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2010). College Completion
Challenge: A Call to Action. Retrieved from: http://www.aacc.nche.edu/
About/completionchallenge/Pages/default.aspx.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2012). Reclaiming the American
Dream: Community Colleges and the Nation’s Future. A report of the

21st‐Century Commission on the Future of Community Colleges.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://aacc.wpengine.com/
wp‐content/uploads/2014/03/21stCenturyReport .

Case Scenario

You receive a memorandum from the chair of your college’s English
department informing you that the department faculty members have
voted against scheduling classes at a neighboring military base because
of the transient nature of the students, many of whom are deployed
during the term. What issues does the scenario create? What leader-
ship competencies are involved? Who should be involved in address-
ing this situation? What actions would you take? Are there lessons to
be learned?

http://www.achievingthedream.org/_images/_index03/ukperfaccnt

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/About/completionchallenge/Pages/default.aspx

http://aacc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/21stCenturyReport

organizational change to promote student success 157

American Association of Community Colleges. (2013). AACC Competencies for
Community College Leaders, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from: http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/Events/leadershipsuite/
Documents/AACC_Core_Competencies_web .

American Association of Community Colleges. (2014). Empowering Community
Colleges to Build the Nation’s Future: An Implementation Guide.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.aacc21stcenturycenter.
org/wp‐content/uploads/2014/04/EmpoweringCommunityColleges_final .

Amey, M. J., VanDerLinden, K. E., & Brown, D. F. (2002). Perspectives on
Community College Leadership: Twenty Years in the Making. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 573–589.

Aune, B. P. (1995). The Human Dimension of Organizational Change. Review
of Higher Education, 18(2), 149–173.

Bailey, T., Jaggars, S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s Community
Colleges: A Clearer Path to Student Success. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins
University Press.

Barrow, C. W. (1996). The Strategy of Selective Excellence: Redesigning Higher
Education for Global Competition in a Postindustrial Society. Higher
Education, 31(4), 447–469.

Benjamin, R., & Carroll, S. J. (1996). Impediments and Imperatives in Restruc-
turing Higher Education. Educational Administration Quarterly,
32, 705–719.

Bichsel, J. (2012). Analytics in Higher Education: Benefits, Barriers, Progress,
and Recommendations (Research Report). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE
Center for Applied Research.

Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The Handbook of Blended Learning
Environments: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey‐Bass/Pfeiffer.

Burke, W. W. (2011). Organization Change: Theory and Practice (3d ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burnes, B. (1996). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational
Dynamics. London: Pitman.

Burnett, D. J., & Oblinger, D. G. (Eds.). (2002). Innovation in Student Services:
Planning for Models Blending High Touch/High Tech. Ann Arbor, MI:
Society for College and University Planning.

Callan, P. (2006, Fall). Interview: Robert McCabe. National Cross Talk. National
Center for Public Policy. Retrieved from: http://www.highereducation.org/
crosstalk/ct1000/interview1000.shtml.

Cates, C., & Cedercreutz, K. (Eds.). (2008). Leveraging Cooperative Education
to Guide Curricular Innovation: The Development of a Corporate

Feedback System for Continuous Improvement. Cincinnati, OH: Center
for Cooperative Education Research and Innovation.

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/Events/leadershipsuite/Documents/AACC_Core_Competencies_web

http://www.aacc21stcenturycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/EmpoweringCommunityColleges_final

http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct1000/interview1000.shtml

158 practical leadership in community colleges

Chermak, G. L. D. (1990). Cultural Dynamics: Principles to Guide Change in
Higher Education. College and University Professional Association for
Human Resources, 41(3), 25–27.

DeMers, C. (2007). Organizational Change Theories: A Synthesis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vincent, M., & Eisenstadt, T. (1998). The Knowledge Web: Learning and
Collaborating on the net, First Edition (Open and Flexible Learning
Series). New York, NY: Routledge.

Erwin, D. (1997). Developing Strategies and Policies for Changing Universities. In
S. Armstrong, G. Thompson, & S. Brown (Eds.). Facing Up to Radical
Changes in Universities and Colleges (pp. 64–73). London, UK: Kogan Press.

Floyd, D.L., Haley, A., Eddy, P.L. & Antczak, L. (2009). Celebrating the Past,
Creating the Future: 50 Years of Community College Research.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(3–4), 216–237.

Franklin, K. K. (2000). Shared and Connected Learning in a Freshman Learning
Community. Journal of First‐Year Experience 12(2), 33–63.

Gabriel, M. A. (2004). Learning Together: Exploring Group Interactions Online.
Journal of Distance Education 19(1), 54–72.

Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2011), Your College Experience. Strategies for
Success. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Garrison, D. R., & Anderston, T. (2003). E‐learning in the 21st Century:
Framework for Research and Practice. London, UK: Rutledge Flamer.

Gesser, C. M. (2013). Using social media in the classroom: A community
college perspective. American Sociological Association Footnotes, 41(1).
Retrieved from http:// www.asanet.org/footnotes/jan13/
social_media_0113.html.

Gonzales, J. (2012, August 13). Real‐Time Jobs Data Show Community College
What Employers Need Now. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
from: go.nmc.org/realda.

Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic Restructuring: Organizational Change and
Institutional Imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67–91.

Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., & Muthiah, R. (2004). Designing Effective
Reflection: What Matters to Service Learning? Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, 11(1), 38–46. Retrieved from: http://quod.
lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer‐idx?c=mjcsl;cc=mjcsl;rgn=full%20text;
idno=3239521.0011.104;didno=3239521.0011.104;view=image;
seq=00000001.

Hearn, J. C. (1996). Transforming U.S. Higher Education: An Organizational
Perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 21(2), 141–154.

Howland, J. L., & Moore, J. (2002). Student Perceptions as Distance Learners in
Internet‐Based Courses. Distance Education, 23(2), 183–196.

http:// www.asanet.org/footnotes/jan13/social_media_0113.html

http://go.nmc.org/realda

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=mjcsl;cc=mjcsl;rgn=full%20text;idno=3239521.0011.104;didno=3239521.0011.104;view=image;seq=00000001

organizational change to promote student success 159

Jacobs, J., & Dougherty, K. J. (2006). The Uncertain Future of the Community
College Workforce Development Mission. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2006, 53–62. doi: 10.1002/cc.259.

Katzenbach, J. (2003). Why Pride Matters More Than Money. New York, NY:
Crown Business.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (2003). Tipping Point Leadership. Harvard
Business Review, 81(4), 60–69.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). The New Rules: How to Succeed in Today’s Post‐corporate
World. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kotter, J. P. (1997). Leading Change: A Conversation with John P. Kotter.
Strategy & Leadership, 25(1), 18–23.

Kotter, J. (2008). A Sense of Urgency. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Levine L. J., & Shapiro, N. (2004). Sustaining and Improving Learning

Communities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass
Lewin, K. M. (2007, June). Improving Access, Equity and Transitions in

Education: Creating a Research Agenda (Create Pathways to Access
Research Monograph No. 1). Retrieved from http://www.create‐rpc.org/
pdf_documents/PTA1 .

Ludwig‐Hardman, S., & Dunlap, J. (2003). Learner Support Services for Online
Students: Scaffolding for Success. International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.
org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/131/602.

Maginn, M. (2005). Managing in Times of Change. San Francisco, CA:
McGraw‐Hill.

Mallen, M. J., Vogel, D. L., Rochlen, A. B., & Day, S. X. (2005). Online
counseling: Reviewing the literature from a counseling psychology
framework. The counseling Pychologist. 33(6), 819–871.

McCabe, R. (2000). Underprepared Students. Measuring Up 2000: The State
by State Report Card for Higher Education. Retrieved from:
http://measuringup.highereducation.org/2000/articles/
UnderpreparedStudents.cfm.

MDRC. (2013). Developmental Education: A Barrier to a Postsecondary
Credential for Millions of Americans. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.
org/sites/default/files/Dev%20Ed_020113 .

Phelan, D. J. (2016). Unrelenting Change, Disruptive Innovation and Risk:
Forging the Next Generation of Community Colleges. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.

Savage, R. N. (2007, June 24–27). A Design Methodology for Empowering
Project‐Based Learning (AC2007–3119). Proceedings of the 2007 ASEE
Annual Conference “Riding the Wave to Excellence in Engineering
Education.” Honolulu, HI.

http://www.create-rpc.org/pdf_documents/PTA1

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/131/602

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

http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Dev%20Ed_020113

160 practical leadership in community colleges

Senge, P. (2008). The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and
Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World.
New York, NY: Doubleday.

Simpson, O. (2002). Supporting Students in Open and Distance Learning
(2nd ed.). London, UK: Kogan.

Stober, D. (2008). Making It Stick: Coaching as a Tool for Organizational
Change. Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1(1), 71–80.

Stone, M. E., & Jacobs, G. (Eds.). (2008). Supplemental Instruction: Improving
First‐Year Student Success in High‐Risk Courses (Monograph No. 7, 3rd ed.).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for
The First‐Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Strebel, P. (2006). Why Do Employees Resist Change? Harvard Business Press
Review, 11(1), 45–62.

Tagg, J. (2012). Why Does the Faculty Resist Change? Change, 44(1), 6–15.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. (1995). Explaining Development and Change in

Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.
Vincent, M., & Eisenstadt, T. (1998). The Knowledge Web: Learning and

Collaborating on the Net, First Edition (Open and Flexible Learning
Series). New York, NY: Routledge.

Waters, J. K. (2014, April 14). The Great Adaptive Learning Experiment.
(1105 Media Inc.) Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/Articles/
2014/04/16/The‐Great‐Adaptive‐Learning‐Experiment.aspx.

Watson, L. W., Williams, F. K., & Derby, D. C. (2005, Spring). Contemporary
Multicultural Issues: Student, Faculty, and Administrator Perceptions.
Community College Enterprise, 11(1), 79–92.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense Making in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wu, M. (2012, October 9). Gamification 101: The Psychology of Motivation.

Retrieved from http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/science‐of‐social‐blog/
Gamification‐101‐The‐Psychology‐of‐Motivation/ba‐p/21864.

http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2014/04/16/The-Great-Adaptive-Learning-Experiment.aspx

http://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/science-of-social-blog/Gamification-101-The-Psychology-of-Motivation/ba-p/21864