Running Head: COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP

Collaborative Approach to Leadership in Community Colleges

Louis Arokiasamy

ISDL 825

Dr. Lori Sundberg and Dr. Gary Wheeler

Ferris State University

October 22, 2017

COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP 2

Abstract

This paper explores the collaborative approach to community college leadership. In the introduction,

the rationale for shifting away for the traditional top-down model is discussed—the complexity of issues

confronting community colleges demands this shift. A qualitative study carried out by Grasmick et al

(2012) that studied the experience of seven college presidents who undertook the introduction of a

collaborative approach to governing in their respective community colleges is presented as a means to

explore the issues involved in undertaking such an enterprise. All the literature consulted for this paper

tended to use various terms for collaborative leadership. Hence, the terms shared leadership,

participative leadership, distributed leadership, webs of inclusion, participative governance,

collaborative decision-making, collegial governance are used interchangeably with collaborative

leadership. Furthermore, the terms “leadership” and “governance” are also used interchangeably.

Keywords: collaborative, distributed, participative, shared, collegial, leadership, governance

COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP 3

Collaborative Approach to Leadership in Community Colleges

Introduction

Community colleges today confront prolific challenges: declining fiscal support from local and

national governments, the demographic changes in the student body (growing number of older adults

seeking to retool themselves for the changing economy), the increasing diversity of students, the

increasing need for developmental education, the need to globalize the campus, the greater

accountability demands, and such are some of the salient ones (Roueche et. all, 1989). Compounding

further the situation is the expected wave of college president retirements (Shults, 2001, Weisman &

Vaughan, 2007). To face current and future challenges, traditional top-down leadership style will not

serve community colleges adequately anymore. We need to radically shift our ideas about leadership.

Bensimon (1994) views the college “not as a rationally managed, hierarchical organization but as a

collectivity of interacting people” (as cited in Cohen et al, 2014, p. 142). Cohen et al sought answers to

why some colleges are consistently successful by all the key measures: maintaining a positive public

image, meeting fundraising goals, meeting student learning benchmarks, keeping staff morale up,

sustaining growth in student numbers, succeeding in fundraising efforts, and showing an ability to meet

every challenge in a timely way (2014). They found these successful institutions had the good fortune of

having leaders who could motivate people to work towards common goals—leaders who knew “how to

guide their colleagues, stimulating each to put forth maximum effort toward attaining the proper goals”

(2014, p.141). In other words, leaders who took a collaborative approach to governing. Through a

collaborative approach, these leaders empowered the internal and external constituencies of the

college to participate, motivated the constituencies to take ownership in the decision-making process,

and prepared their institution for future challenges (Eddy, 2010). I will argue in this paper that
COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP 4

collaborative approach to leadership holds a lot of promise for governing community colleges

considering the complex challenges facing them.

Towards a Collaborative Approach

For a long time, the notion of leaders possessing innate traits or leaders with well-honed skills to

direct others were considered ideal characteristics for leadership. But astute leaders on college

campuses knew that governing by executive actions, directives, and memos had very “little influence on

the way decisions were made or people behaved. Face-to-face contact, small group meetings, and one-

on-one explanations were the dominant influence. Administrators who exercise leadership interact with

the people involved” (Cohen et al, 2014, p. 142). Current research on leadership have gone past the

hierarchical model and expanded the notion of leadership to include “a more humanistic approach to

leadership in which relationships between leaders and followers were acknowledged and valued” (Eddy,

2010). Horner (1997) suggests we conceptualize leadership as “a process in which leaders are not seen

as individuals in charge of followers, but as members of a community of practice” (as cited in Eddy,

2010, p.23).

As more and more community colleges are shifting towards collaborative governance, the terms to

describe this type of leadership or governance have also multiplied: shared leadership, distributed

leadership, participative leadership, collaborative leadership, webs of inclusion, participative

governance, collaborative decision-making, and collegial governance are some of the ones that

frequently recur in the literature (Grasmick et al, p. 67). Though, these terms may have slightly nuanced

or subtle differences in definition, the common denominator undergirding these concepts is a striking

change in thinking about leadership, which is a shift away from the top-down model or the hierarchical

model. Another underlying key concept is that the “campus constituents are actively involved in the

decision-making process” (Grasmick et al, 2012, p. 67). Furthermore, the concepts of participative or

collaborative leadership connote relationships, teams, groups, and processes. “This new model equally
COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP 5

values the contributions of positional leaders and followers in decision making to address challenges and

obtain successful outcomes” (Eddy, 2010, p. 23).

Role of Leaders in Collaboration

In their qualitative study on participative leadership, Grasmick, Davies, and Harbour (2012), posed this

central question: “How do selected community college presidents practice participative leadership to

develop a culture of participative governance?” (p. 67).

According to Grasmick et al (2012), while the corporate world is much further along in embracing

participative leadership (p. 68), the concept is still evolving in higher education as to the meaning and

nature of participative leadership. Grasmick et al (2012) carried out a study to discover “how model

community college presidents, known nationally for their commitment to participative leadership,

understand and explain their role in promoting and implementing participative governance” (2012, p.

68). When carried out properly, they contend that participative leadership is a “highly interactive,

dynamic process fundamentally linked to the visioning process” (p. 68). Grasmick et al (2012) found that

when a leader who is committed to participative leadership puts in place the necessary organizational

changes to introduce participative leadership, it inevitably will lead to a culture of participative

governance.

The Study

The authors of this study selected seven college presidents who had implemented collaborative or

participative approach to their governance. They take us step-by-step through the implementation

process. The authors further state that these presidents were nationally known for implementing

participative governance in their respective institutions. Several of these presidents have published

articles on the topic at hand. But, most importantly, the participants in this study were selected because
COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP 6

of their reputation for their keen ability to bring about high levels of involvement from the various

campus constituencies into the decision-making processes (Grasmick, 2012).

Table 1 details the relevant demographic information of the college presidents selected for in-depth

interviews for this study. Pseudonyms were used to hide the participants’ identity. Table 2 summarizes

their findings.

Source: Grasmick et. al (2012, p. 69 )

Upon sifting the data from their in-depth interviews, the authors of the study found that the

presidents’ implementation of participative governance took them through four stages. In addition,

from the study of the presidents’ practices, a core concept emerged that was central to participative

leadership.

The four stages were:

“(a) envisioning the participative organization,

(b) negotiating the passages leading to the participative organization,

(c) the emerging web of participation, and

(d) re-visioning the participative organization” (p.70)

COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP 7

After carefully studying the four stages the presidents and their institutions went through and the

notions behind these stages, the authors distilled a core concept that served to tie the entire enterprise.

They called it “visioning participative environments” (Grasmick et al, 2012, p. 71). It underscored the

notion of participative leadership as being a highly dynamic process involving various campus

constituents or stakeholders (Grasmick et al, 2012).

First Stage: Envisioning the Participative Organization

The first stage delved into the college presidents’ personal and professional backgrounds to reveal

how their experiences and deeply held believes helped shape their envisioning or imagining on how the

participative approach could potentially take shape. The first stage itself came about in three sub-

phases. In sub-phase one, as the presidents envisioned the introduction of this participative concept of

leadership, they were drawing on the matrix of their personal values and belief systems. In sub-phase

two, their envisioning took in their college organizational environment with considerations given to

responsibilities and expectations. In sub-phase three, the current context of their individual college

environment was interwoven with their own vision for the participative institution they hoped to create

(Grasmick et al, 2012).

Second Stage: Negotiating the Passages Leading to the Participative Organization.

At this stage, the presidents were focused on the process of getting from where they were to

where they wanted to be, and the presidents were cognizant of the very interactive nature of the

process. In the course of this process, organizational dynamics and the presidents’ participation came

into play. In addition, it was vitally important that the presidents’ ethical commitment “to work towards

mutuality” (Grasmick et al, 2012, p. 72) is evident. The overarching goal in this stage was “to move the

organizational climate from a sense of separateness to mutuality, thereby laying the groundwork for

building a participative organization” (Grasmick et al, 2012, p. 72). The presidents understood that when

embarking on this process, they had to guide the organization step by step and move the organization
COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP 8

through a series of “specific stages of interaction” (Grasmick et al, 2012, p. 72). The authors identified

four distinct sub-stages the presidents discovered on their way to developing a participative

organization: “encountering the resistance to participative governance, combating the resistance to

participative governance, building the climate for participative decision-making, and mutuality” (2012,

p.72).

Though participative governance strives to involve the various campus constituents in decision-

making, the presidents, to their dismay, found that not everyone was ready to embrace it. Some of the

resistance stemmed from the fact that this change process towards participative governance was being

carried out within a hierarchical environment with unequal power distribution. Hence, the presidents

had to work assiduously to create a climate of trusting relationships (Grasmick et al, 2012).

Third Stage: The Emerging Web of Participation

When the institution and its constituents had successfully gone through the transformative process

indicated in the second stage, it naturally led to an “emerging web of participation” (Grasmick et al,

2012, p. 73). The transition during this transformative process was “from a hierarchical, bureaucratic

organization into a more open and integrated organization” (Grasmick et al, 2012, p. 73). The ultimate

goal, of course, was to effect change to the organization’s climate and culture. The goal here was not

meant as arriving at a static situation—climate and culture imply a dynamic state. After having gone

through the transformative process, the organization encountered an environment where the

hierarchical landscape began loosening up, a climate of mutual involvement started to emerge, a culture

of commitment began to surface, and also the challenges to working participatively became apparent

(Grasmick et al, 2012, p. 73).

Fourth Stage: Re-Visioning the Participative Organization

COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP 9

At this stage, the organization was focused on looking forward to the future—an organizational

future that was designed collectively by its constituents. When the emerging web of participation stage

had worked out successfully, the outcome was a “more cohesive, integrated organization grounded in

forms of interaction that allow people at every level to participate in the broad scope of work”

(Grasmick et al, 2012, p. 75). In other words, in the daily working life, campus members were

contributing constructively for accomplishing the participative vision. In the fourth stage, the focus

shifted to taking a long-term view of the future and securing the fruits of their labor—the vision of the

many had become a unified vision of the institution. “The participative vision becomes the vehicle for

incorporating the interests of the broader environment into the institutional mission. When re-visioning

is successful, the presidents’ participative vision becomes the vision of the institution. Significantly, the

presidential vision is continually informed through the visioning process that increasingly pervades the

organization” (Grasmick et al, 2012, p. 75).

It takes monumental leadership to transform an organization used to a hierarchical culture into an

institution that practices participative governance. This is pointedly illustrated by Grasmick et al (2012)

in their study of seven presidents who systematically took their institutions through this transformative

process. The authors recurrently used the terms “visioning” and “re-visioning” when distilling the

experiences of the seven participants in the study. As mentioned earlier, it began with the strongly-held

beliefs and values of the president to initiate the process of transforming, and then it took a committed

president to guide the campus constituents stage by stage. “The term visioning refers to the processes

of conceptualizing, perceiving, and imagining. The notion of environments refers to the contextual

aspects or structures, circumstances, and situations in which phenomena are embedded. Environments

provide the context in which relationships among people, processes, structures, and systems coexist.

Environments may be fluid, dynamic, rigid, static, hostile, supportive, or conflictive” (Grasmick et at,

2012, p.76).
 COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP 10

Change in an institutional environment does not happen spontaneously—it takes leadership

(Kanter, 1983). Furthermore, Kanter asserts that “masters of change must also be masters of the use of

participation” (as cited in Grasmick et al, p. 76). Transforming a community college into a participative

institution is an arduous process, yet a necessary one. The authors underscore that this type of lasting

change cannot emerge from a hierarchical leadership (Grasmick et al, 2012, p.77). More importantly

they point out a participative institution will necessarily develop “the commitment from faculty and staff

and other constituencies to address the challenges for the American community college.” (Grasmick et

al, 2012, p.77).

Table 2

Cornerstone Practices

A. 1. Envision the organization around the tenets of the participative philosophy

Envision the participative
organization 2. Embrace the role of change agent to address the challenging external environment
B. Negotiating the passages leading 3. Engage with the conflictive dynamics of the campus environment
to the participative organization 4. Lay the groundwork for mutuality
5. Construct agreements for participation
C. 6. Establish participative decision-making arrangements
The emerging web of 7. Strengthen the culture of commitment through critical institutional processes
participation
8. Face the challenges of the web
D. Re-visioning the participative 9. Shape the personal and institutional visions
organization 10. Reaffirm commitment to the mission

Source: Grasmick et. al., 2012, p. 78

[Note to instructors: For the rest of the paper, I intend to include other studies that looked at the
benefits of collaborative leadership for community colleges in the current environment. Furthermore,
the collaborative approach engenders the concept of lifelong learning—all the leaders are learning and
making adjustments as they get involved in participative governance. I intend include material on how
lifelong learning intersect with the collaborative approach. The reference list includes works consulted
and am currently reading.]
COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP 11

References

American Association of Community Colleges. (2005). Competencies for community college leaders.
Washington, DC: Author.

Amey, M. J. (2005). Leadership as learning: Conceptualizing the process. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 29(9-10), 689-704.
Cohen, A.M., Brawer, F.B., and Fisker, C. The American Community College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
2014.
Eddy, Pamela Lynn. (2010). Community College Leadership: A Multidimensional Model for Leading
Change. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Grasmick, L, Davies, G. D. & Harbour, C.P. (2012). Participative Leadership: Perspectives of Community
College Presidents. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36: 67-80, 2012. DOI:
10.1080/10668920802421496.

Kezar, Adrianna J., and Elizabeth M. Holcombe. 2017. Shared Leadership in Higher Education: Important
Lessons from Research and Practice. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
O’Connor, Patricia M. G., and Laura Quinn. 2004. “Organizational Capacity for Leadership.” In The Center
for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, vol. 2, edited by Cynthia D.
McCauley and Ellen Van Velsor, 417–437. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pearce, Craig L., and Jay A. Conger, eds. 2003. Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of
Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roueche, J.E., Baker, G.A., III, & Rose, R.R. (1989). Shared vision: Transformational leadership in
American community colleges. Washington, D.C: Community College Press.
Senge, Peter M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York:
Doubleday/Currency.
Shults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impending retirements on community college leadership.
Leadership Series Research Brief no. I. Washington, D.C: American Association of Community
Colleges.
Wallin, Desna L., ed. 2010. Leadership in an Era of Change: New Directions for Community Colleges, vol.
208. John Wiley and Sons.
Weisman, I.M., & Vaughan, G.B. (2007). The community college presidency 2006. Washington, D.C:
Community College Press.
Wheatley, Margaret J. 1999. Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. 2nd
ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Press.