To develop the leadership abilities of current and future leaders within higher education and to foster a civic spirit so that their institutions can better address the changing academic leadership needs in the mid-Atlantic region.

 

The Mid-Atlantic Consortium (MAC) comprises ten institutions of higher education with a regional bond and a history of working together on highly collaborative, inter-institutional projects. The mid-Atlantic region represents a rich and diverse geographic area that is heavily populated, urbanized, and industrialized yet includes important rural and agricultural communities. These diverse characteristics create common challenges for higher education institutions in the region as each address issues ranging from economic globalization, environmental concerns, and civic disengagement. Not linked by state lines or types of institutions, the structure of the consortium encourages member institutions to stretch beyond the relationships each might "normally" have. The institutions within the consortium have a wealth of resources and knowledge that can be tapped to benefit each institution as well as the entire region. Each institution is actively and creatively engaged in its respective local community as well as in national or international communities of one form or another. Yet each institution also recognizes the need to develop leaders who can inspire and create the climate for collaboration and service, since higher education cannot afford to be an isolated enterprise.The consortium embraced the Leadership for Institutional Change initiative (LINC) with the recognition and concern that the very institutions that educate future leaders lag behind in their ability to identify and develop their own leaders and to link leadership with a broader civic mission. Indeed, institutions of higher education are paradoxical: they are simultaneously sites of innovation and bastions of tradition. During the planning phase, it was determined that information about change is not lacking, but communication about the needs, values, and opportunities related to change remains haphazard at best. Models and opportunities for leadership development are available, but no effective means exists at present for intra- or inter-institutional sharing of information or translating it into institutional learning. Moreover, very few colleges and universities have formal, planned leadership development programs for their key staff. At the same time, many colleges and universities offer leadership education for students and external audiences. Opportunities to learn from each other, to identify "hidden skills" or successful practices within or between institutions, or to reward "lifelong learning" are soon lost without sustained institutional attention to leadership development and change. Internal and external expectations for leadership are not met. To address this gap, the MAC institutions have committed themselves to becoming less insular and to moving further from a culture of isolation and competition to one sharing and collaboration. To accomplish this, the consortium members have identified the need to leverage existing resources to advance, communicate, integrate and apply their knowledge, technology, and skills for their own transformation and for the common good of society. A regional institute that will draw upon the resources of the member institutions will focus needed attention on leadership development. By working together, sharing resources, building on each other's strengths and minimizing duplication, the Institute could have a significant impact on the quality and number of present and future academic leaders who are engaged leaders.

 

Home | Proposals | Resources | Centers of Excellence | Partners | Progress

During the planning phase, the MAC-LINC initiative had three goals that continue to guide our work together. Ongoing work from Phase I is listed under each goal.

1. Foster an environment within our institutions in which transformational leadership is recognized and rewarded across the breadth of our organizations

• During Phase I, MAC institutions identified leaders, administrators and faculty within our institutions who are committed to leadership development. Each institution created a committee or task force with the responsibility for focusing on issues of leadership development and change.
• These committees conducted assessments of the various resources and activities for leadership development that already existed on their campuses. Since leadership activities for different populations had rarely been considered together, the resulting inventories provided recognition for existing strengths and weaknesses in the area of leadership development.

2. Use the MAC institutional framework to propose transformational leadership programs and activities for both existing and future institutional leaders.

• Over the course of three regional events and five national workshops, MAC members shared strategies for leadership development programs being sensitive to common and unique elements for member institutions to implement.
• In particular, participants shared information and best practices related to service learning, development programs for department chairs, issues related to community responsiveness, and approaches to institutional change.

3. Develop long-lasting programs within MAC institutions for leadership development.

• The support for leadership development within each institution, and the exchanges of information among consortium members has strengthened the leadership development efforts at member institutions.
• For example, during Phase I, Rutgers' LINC partner QCI -Center for Organizational Development and Leadership developed a training and mentoring program for department chairs which they then shared with MAC members. Through the regional meetings and planned regional institute, Cumberland County College found greater support and inspiration for its new Institute for Leadership, Community, and Neighborhood development. Programs such as these will draw strength from each other and serve the region through the regional institute proposed here.

 

Home | Proposals | Resources | Centers of Excellence | Partners | Progress

1. The development of a group of leaders, administrators, and faculty within our institutions who are committed to leadership development and to the civic mission of higher education.

2. The development and sharing of leadership models, particularly models that emphasize responsiveness to community and societal needs and collaboration with external partners.

3. A highly collaborative and sustainable program for leadership development in higher education that draws upon the resources and responds to the needs of the mid-Atlantic region.

The purposes of the regional institute are to identify and develop leaders at all levels who possess the knowledge, skills, competencies, ethics, values, and wisdom required to deal effectively with the current and future challenges confronting the public in the mid-Atlantic region; to foster a culture within each institution that recognizes a civic purpose of higher education and develops socially-conscious leaders; and to develop improved regional inter-institutional collaboration. The regional institute will be a highly collaborative initiative that will serve as a clearinghouse for leadership development opportunities for MAC members. The groundwork for the institute has already been laid during Phase I, so it can be brought into existence in Year I. Key participants have been identified to provide direction, web support, and evaluation assistance for the institute at the central and local levels. The main administrative functions of the Institute will be located at the University of Delaware and will draw heavily on the resources and expertise of Rutger's Center for Organizational Development and Leadership and the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland. Activities of the institute, along with many of its resources and trainers, will be located throughout the region enabling the institute to draw upon the strengths of the consortium members as a whole. A small grants program, administered by a steering committee comprised of representatives from the member institutions, will award grants for collaborative initiatives with matching funds that foster engaged leadership development in the mid-Atlantic region.

In particular, the institute will:

1. Link "centers of excellence" among the member institutions that can be used for dealing with specific leadership issues at member institutions. Examples include Cornell's Discovering Leadership program, the Institute for Community and Neighborhood Development at Cumberland County College. The institute will also endeavor to connect with centers not currently part of the Consortium, particularly with the Pennsylvania LINC program with which we have been in contact.

2. Provide training opportunities related to common interests, challenges, and opportunities emphasizing that institutional challenges are not idiosyncratic, nor are they permanent. The institute will emphasize problem-based learning utilizing real (and when possible, regional) issues in developing future leaders.

3. Establish a program for "leadership sabbaticals" or "externships," primarily but not exclusively, for faculty and administrators to spend time with a mentor in another institution, drawing from the American Council on Education (ACE) model.

4. Strengthen internal networks that work across the institution to foster leadership development through, in part, the administration of small grants in support of collaborative leadership activities.

5. Utilize existing technology & distance education to build a highly collaborative institute. Maintain an interactive web site for disseminating research findings, best practices, and other information on leadership development, particularly emphasizing regional opportunities for collaboration or participation in leadership development activities. The web site would include a bulletin board and agenda of events at each member institution and would provide opportunities for active problem solving using an interactive electronic medium. Connect distance learning capabilities at each institution to facilitate communication and make courses or programs on leadership available.

6. Encourage each institution to build collaborative relationships with local businesses, community groups, or government bodies for the identification of cross-institutional leadership development activities that improve the leadership skills and deepen the civic commitment of leaders within institutions serving the public (higher education or community-based) within the mid-Atlantic region.

The evaluation questions address the three purposes of the regional institute that are identified in the project goals. The specific questions are:

1. In what ways, if any, has regional inter-institutional collaboration improved since the introduction of the regional institute?

2. In what ways, if any, has the regional institute developed leaders with the skills and characteristics required to meet regional challenges?

3. In what ways, if any, has the regional institute fostered a culture of civic purpose and social consciousness in the region and its member institutions?

4. What, if any, are the unintended effects of the regional institute?

The benchmarks and evaluation tasks for each question are detailed below. Except for performance data that will be collected directly from the Institute, the evaluation tasks will be conducted by evaluators at the institutional level. The MAC-LINC evaluator will be responsible for collecting data from the Institute and for compiling and synthesizing the results of the institutional evaluations.

 

In the following discussion, the term "benchmarks" is used to signify the variables that have been selected as critical to the success of the MAC-LINC initiatives. Performance targets have not been established yet because we do not have baseline data. Thus, the first year of evaluation will be dedicated to describing the current status of each of the variables. Then, performance objectives for each variable will be specified based on the baseline data.

Question 1: In what ways, if any, has regional inter-institutional collaboration improved since the introduction of the regional institute?

To answer the evaluation question about collaboration, the Institute coordinator and each institution will document the activities identified in the program description, such as linking centers of excellence, providing training activities, and so on. These activities identify specific ways in which collaboration is expected to take place. The evaluators' tasks will be to review the documents and come to conclusions about the nature and extent of implementation.

Question 2: In what ways, if any, has the regional institute developed leaders with the skills and characteristics required to meet regional challenges?

Benchmarks Evaluation Tasks
To evaluate the skills of current leaders within each institution, 360 degrees assessments will be conducted before an individual participates in an Institute training activity and again 6-12 months after the training.
Pool of skilled potential leaders within the institution Track the number of people who are not in leadership positions but are interested in receiving leadership training; report the number as a proportion of each institution's population of people in similar positions.

Question 3: In what ways, if any, has the regional institute fostered a culture of civic purpose and social consciousness in the region and its member institutions?

Benchmarks Evaluation Tasks
Retention of faculty and staff in leadership roles who collaborate with external partners to address pressing social concerns

Interview by phone or e-mail staff supporting leaders in community service and/or review campus directories

Nature and extent of the support given to civic engagement by the institutional leaders

Review policy documents and interview faculty and staff involved in implementing projects related to the civic mission of the institution

Question 4: What, if any, are the unintended effects of the regional institute?
In order to identify any unintended effects of the regional institute, the institute director and the institutional leaders will monitor the process and outcomes of the MAC-LINC activities through participant observation. The evaluators will be responsible for interviewing the director and leaders in order to discover unintended effects. Documents will also be reviewed.

 

Home | Proposals | Resources | Centers of Excellence | Partners | Progress

The Consortium is dedicated to this project and that support is reflected in the budget that provides a 1:2 match in actual dollars for the leadership grant initiatives and offers a further 2:1 match through in-kind contributions. Furthermore, the institutions have indicated a commitment to continue collaboration following the conclusion of the three-year grant.

The Institute aims to create a "niche market" that will provide leadership products and services that will attract other institutions, community groups, or individuals within the region. The institute will develop relationships and collaborate with local business and community groups for future funding mechanisms. The focus on engaged leadership and higher education may also be attractive to other foundations from which the institute will also seek funding. However, barring further funding, the institutional commitment, along with programs provided on a cost-recovery basis, will be sufficient to sustain the institute following Year III.

 

Home | Proposals | Resources | Centers of Excellence | Partners | Progress