CASE 2 INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS 1

3.6 Case 2: Individual Analysis

Tracy Liu

Department of Education, Michigan State University

EAD 867: Case Studies in Education Leadership

Professor Nate Clason

June 8, 2020
CASE 2 INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS 2

Introduction

Capital City Community College’s (CCCC) new online associate degrees initiative is a

change that has revealed many complex leadership considerations. In this paper I will attempt to

highlight three particular facts and corresponding tensions through the lens of contemporary

leadership theories. I will then conclude with next immediate steps that synthesize how these

recommendations address these tensions and could serve as a guide for CCCC’s future.

Tension 1: External Community Pressures and Slow Adaptation to Change

CCCC is experiencing pressure from dissatisfied employers around the seven counties

that the school services to offer courses resulting in highly trained employees with specific skills.

The school is experiencing space issues from increased student attendance and more adjunct

faculty teaching. Additionally, the school is under pressure to carry out the governor’s

technology initiative to deliver associate degrees online through securing state funding as a way

to address needs from the community and space issues. These facts seem to imply that CCCC

has not gone through much needed changes under the previous president Harvey Millcent’s

tenure. This is evidenced by Dr. Miller’s reflection to how much change has happened recently

“in sharp contrast to the last several years of Harvey’s tenure.” Between the seemingly lack of

initiatives to respond to community needs and the fact that now “campus was bursting at the

seams”, something needed to change. Fullan (2007) acknowledges that “for some situations,

when there is an urgent problem and people are at sea, visionary leaders can be crucial” (Fullan,

2007, p. 40). The trustees felt it was necessary to “revitalize the college” and brought in

President Ming as an outside candidate to lead this charge.

CASE 2 INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS 3

Tension 2: Inexperienced Leadership

Upon her entrance into office, President Ming displayed troubling signs of ineffective

leadership qualities. She came from a previous community college with a significantly smaller

population with an agenda to implement the same type of solutions from her previous role.

Moreover, President Ming displays signs of Fullan’s (2007) description of coercive and

pacesetting leadership styles in saying “I expect you all to get on board and make it happen” as

well as her unwillingness to interface with concerned faculty. The problem with this, as Fullan

states, is that these two styles in particular “negatively affected climate and, in turn,

performance” (Fullan, 2007, p. 35). I also observe the way Dr. Miller describes the new

leadership in a way that highlights tensions in their relationship and is perhaps indicative of

resistance to change. Dr. Miller describes President Ming as “energetic” and also made a

comment on Chad Korman’s age. It seems that the President is not fully prepared to handle these

significant changes due to her inexperience with CCCC as a far larger college that already has

had existing pressing problems.

Tension 3: Lack of Transparency and Engagement

Finally, interim decisions up until the Degree Requirements Committee have been made

from the leadership group without consent of other key stakeholders such as the faculty in the

academic senate and Mike Mason, the Dean of student affairs. The tensions caused by these

aforementioned facts is a key missed opportunity for what Aguirre & Martinez (2002) deem

necessary for effective leadership. Specifically, they say through “the engagement of persons in a

goal attainment socializes them to a shared vision or shared mind-set of what needs to change”
CASE 2 INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS 4

(Aguirre & Martinez, 2002, p. 55). President Ming’s lack of engagement is leading to more

tensions between the faculty and staff because people are not informed of what changes are

necessary and therefore do not have shared expectations. In addition, feedback thus far on the

few ongoing online courses have been both positive and negative. For example, Dennis Harbell

expresses concern that teaching online would invite the school to take their materials and easily

give to new hire adjunct faculty to sidestep union demands. These concerns are juxtaposed

against claims of legitimate values such as Myron Green where offering degrees online has

afforded flexibilities to his students who have work and family obligations that previously were

not possible. According to Fullan (2007), these opinions are reasons we need to respect resisters

because “they sometimes have ideas that we might have missed” (p. 42).

Conclusion

As indicated by Dr. Miller’s worry over the Degree Requirements Committee meeting the

next morning, “the issues surrounding online education [has] become so divisive” with a high

probability that it will not get approved. The most immediate guidance that is important for Dr.

Miller is incorporating Heifetz & Linsky’s (2002) third challenge in leading adaptive change

which is to orchestrate conflict. They say that “successful leaders manage conflict; they don’t shy

away from it or suppress it but see it as an engine of creativity and innovation” (Heifetz &

Linsky, 2002, para 22). Dr. Miller should use the meeting as an opportunity to hear out the

different ideas and considerations. Additionally, the authors go on to say that “it is a sacred task

to receive people’s anger, and not to do so in an arrogant or defensive way (Heifetz & Linsky,

2002, para 18) in order to effectively manage change. In other words, it is important that Dr.
CASE 2 INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS 5

Miller is compassionate during these conversations as not everybody will agree. Furthermore, I

believe President Ming needs more support as she does not seem fully prepared to lead this

change. She came from a background where she had successfully seen alternate delivery systems

for growth expansions get implemented and tried to make that solution work here without

consideration for the context, other methods, nor developing a working relationship with the

faculty. In contrast, Dr. Miller has had 6 years of experience as a respected faculty member prior

to her transition to administration and may be better positioned to assist. Therefore, it is

imperative that the tensions between President Ming and Dr. Miller are cleared up and an

understanding is reached on a collaborative plan moving forward. In this newfound collaboration

built on respect and clear vision, President Ming alongside Dr. Miller would be exercising

trans-vigorational leadership qualities through “accumulat[ing] credits before attempting

dramatic changes [through] engaging in exchange processes with constituents, and by acting in

ways that demonstrate[s] conformity to group norms” (Bensimon, 1989, pg. 44). The benefit

through having a more collaborative approach along with Dr. Miller to solicit faculty for ideas

engenders Seifter’s (2001) “Orpheus Process.” Specifically by putting the power of ideas back

into the faculty’s hands will “empower [them] with true authority and responsibility and can

expect better products and services” (Seifter, 2001, para 9). Ultimately, the leadership should aim

for reculturing in order to “deepen moral purposes through collaborative work cultures that

respect differences and constantly build and test knowledge against measurable results” (Fullan,

2007, p. 44). Only through reculturing will differences be welcomed as more effective ideas as

demonstrated through Sefiter’s (2007) conductorless orchestra and Fullan’s (2007) redefinition

of resistance.
CASE 2 INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS 6

References

Aguirre, A., Jr. & Martinez, R. (2002). "Leadership Practices and Diversity in Higher Education:
Transitional and transformational frameworks." Journal of Leadership Studies, 8 (3),
53-63.

Bensimon, E. M. (1989). Transactional, transformational, and trans-vigorational leadership.

Leadership Abstracts 2.

Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heifetz, R. A. & Linsky, M. (2002). Leading with an open heart. Leader to Leader, No. 23. The
Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Management.

Seifter, H. (2001). The conductor-less orchestra. Leader to Leader, No.21. The Peter F. Drucker
Foundation for Nonprofit Management.