Four Aspects of a Community College President - Research Paper Example

? The President of a community college functions as the chief administrative officer of the college and is in direct reporting relationship to the Chancellor of Post-secondary Education. This is an extremely important position considering the vast list of obligations the President must fulfill. The President is responsible for administering and supervising the total college program in the assigned community college. As chief executive officer, the President must delegate authority and yet retain final responsibility for the effective operation of the college. Such responsibilities become even more important when considering the fact that the personality traits to complete the jobs are far and few between (Dearlove, 1997). Community college Presidents require the ability to communicate enthusiastically and energetically the role of the college to internal/external constituencies to achieve a sense of common purpose. Moreover, they must possess the ability to provide for the common purpose of the students, teachers, and community at large. Additionally, Presidents require the ability to provide for the fostering of excellence in all college offerings through enthusiasm, vision and innovation. The President must also demonstrate the capacity to assume a leadership role in involving the college in the economic growth of the community. This means that the President must have a commitment to keep the college technologically up to date while expressing a level of sensitivity to the unique needs of faculty, staff and students. In this paper I will focus on 4 primary tasks for the President: 1. The CEO Contracts and Performance Evaluations 2. Institutional Advancements 3. Politics and Media (Damage Control) 4. Institutional Governance The President of a community college must function as a CEO and provide regular evaluations of the faculty and other individuals that help make up the organization. In fact, the Community College's mission statement cannot be realized without a competent, motivated, and efficient workforce. The performance evaluation is a necessary component to any performance management and professional development program for employees. Performance evaluations are intended to support skill building of each employee and to encourage an efficient and effective operation (Brubacher, 1982). They are extremely important not only for identifying weak links within an organizational structure, but also for identifying the strong points that are responsible for much success. Meaning that performance evaluations will not only show individuals how to improve where their staff is lacking, but also it can indicate where an organization is succeeding. In fact, performance evaluations are created for 3 primary reasons. The first is that it measures the extent to which the employee's performance meets the requirements of the position. It is the opportunity to appraise past performance by recognizing and supporting good performance and identifying areas that might require improvement. The second purpose of performance evaluations are to establish goals for the future. This is important because it allows institutions to identify a method through which they can advance their human resources and consequentially the organization as a collective institution. The third and final objective of the performance evaluations is to strengthen the relationship between the supervisor and the employee. This is done so by opening channels of communication and creating opportunities to assess the employee, the position and plan for the future of the departmental human resources (Brubacher, 1982). These goals are best accomplished through interactive review of the position description, identifying opportunities for performance growth and focusing on enhancement of all areas of performance. While there are many professors at a single community college, most Presidents do not personally interview each professor, instead they select department heads who are in control of each of their departments. Beyond the presidents specific roles, the evaluations themselves are extremely important. The key ingredients in a successful evaluation are: identifying performance expectations; being consistent in measuring and communicating the extent to which those expectations are being met; and providing opportunities for feedback and clarification. The use of evaluation forms is the most widespread method of completing performance evaluations. While the mere completion of the form is not as significant as the discussion of performance that will naturally occur, the important factor is the fact that a discussion which should foster two-way communication between the supervisor and the employee. The document, once completed, also becomes a record of that evaluation discussion for future reference. The evaluation forms are constructed by the Community College President and are done differently pending the the president at hand. There are several distinct ways in which the evaluation forms are completed. The first is that the employee completes the form as a means of self-assessment or uses a self assessment tool, while the supervisor completes a copy of the form independently of the professor in question. The forms are then reviewed together over a two way discussion. After that discussion, the supervisor finalizes the evaluation, signs it and submits to the employee for his or her acknowledgement of receipt (Heller, 2001). This type of interactive approach frequently generates the most productive discussions, as both parties to the evaluation process will have assessed the performance relative to job standards prior to the joint discussion. This is important because of the discussion that is generated. Ensuring that organizational structures maintain a successful level of communication is not only key to employee satisfaction, but also to employee success. The second approach is one in which the employee and the supervisor work on the evaluation form together. This forces communication between the two individuals as they go through an evaluation form. Presidents that are more focused on the cooperation between the supervisor and employees are more likely to use this method of evaluating employees. It is customary for each employee to be provided an advance notice of the evaluation meetings (Coaldrake, 2003). In terms of the discussion that is facilitated from the performance evaluation it is most effective when it includes a planned discussion the President and the employee (Dearlove, 1997). The discussion should concentrate on the development of, or clarification of, clear performance criteria. This means that it should address standards that determine, what are the specific job responsibilities and what performance expectations will be used to measure the employee's success in achieving them. It is most often recommended that the position description serve as a starting point for review of job responsibilities. This does not only function for community colleges but fortune 500 companies as well. If the position description needs to be revised to reflect changes in operations, it is recommended that revisions be made each year to reflect changes in job responsibilities. Additionally, in order to reinforce the two-way communication process of successful evaluations, employees should be encouraged to identify their most important achievements over the evaluation period. When giving feedback, it is useful for Presidents to focus first on the positive aspects of the employee's performance. It is even more important to a President that employees be informed of any incidents of mediocre or dissatisfactory performance or even misconduct. When addressing these performance shortfalls, the President may find it helpful, and less irritating, to seek the employee's input in identifying these deficiencies. Yet again opening the lines of communications between the supervisor and employee strengthens organizational structures. Structuring developmental plans and timetables to improve deficiencies or to improve performance level is often completed by department heads and then approved by the President. Presidents often err on the side of their employees and avoid assessments based on vague impressions or comparisons with other employees (Dearlove, 1997). The most successful evaluations concentrate on concrete examples of job performance. A successful evaluation is one in which the supervisor and the employee feel that they had the opportunity to participate and contribute to the assessment. In fact, The purpose is to create an evaluation that includes employee information and utilize objective criteria related to the position requirements. While this will not always mean that the employee will fully agree with the results of the performance evaluation, the employee should be able to acknowledge that the evaluation has been completed and the results have been provided. In terms of institutional advancement, The president of a Community College is responsible for not only growing the organization in terms of prestige, but also in terms of its brand appeal to the population. It is indeed true that branding is an important factor for community colleges. In some areas, community colleges can grow to be more prestigious than the surrounding universities. This can only be done by developing communal relationships that increase the colleges connections and network strength (McMaster, 2007). Community college presidents are forced to develop plans and sometimes committees that handle institutional development. Some colleges even have a department that is dedicated specifically to Institutional Development (Hall, 2005). “Image” is an extremely part of a community college and the development of the institution. How individuals perceive the institution is perhaps more important than the services actually provided within the institution. Those with primary responsibility for the image of a community college work in the area of Public Relations and Marketing. A broad-based Public Relations and Marketing Committee is typically established in order to develop such ends (Coaldrake, 2003). Thus, with the hiring of a Director of Public Relations and Marketing However, because because such committee's operate as a team, they are able to produce print media sources such as News Papers and Magazine. Moreover they can play for Alumni reunions, and can worked with the members of the Alumni Board to develop a long-range plan that is included in the colleges’ overall plan (McMaster, 2007). A primary focus of Institutional Advancement is to identify, cultivate and maintain relationships with corporations, foundations, and donors to support the college’s mission (Rudolph, 1990). The President of community colleges sometimes serve as the Executive Director of their College Foundation, which exists to foster partnerships and vital connections by encouraging gifts and stimulating investments to further the cause of the specific college at hand. Foundations attract private funds for community colleges through coordinated annual and capital giving campaigns. It also receives incoming gifts as well as disbursing gifts from private sources. The Foundation is the proper legal vehicle through which private philanthropy can be received at Community Colleges. Presidents are crucial to these organizations because they allow them to function as a source for additional funding outside of the anticipated budget. Insofar as this is true, the better the campaign, the more funding the college receives, which translates into the more amount of extra projects a college can complete outside of its anticipated budget (McMaster, 2007). Community college presidents also engage in damage control in terms of their management of the media and political issues. It is important for Community College presidents to maintain active in terms of the political arena and media relations because it is important to developing connections and furthering the institutional image (Hall, 2005). On the other hand, Presidents must be careful in terms of the political statements they make. While remaining pro-education is always beneficial to the political platform of a Community College President, the issues that are hot in terms of the political arena should be avoided. Not only to avoid organizational conflicts, but because of the funding issues coming from alumni (Heller, 2001). The president does not want to upset potential donators to the college due to ideological differences. On the other-hand, a President can benefit by using its facility to foster political discourse. Debates between local officials are often held at community colleges being that community colleges students constitute a portion of the active voting class. In terms of the media, the President has a responsibility to ensure that the brand image remains consistent with the College’s mission. This is important because of the college’s relationship to the students (Coaldrake, 2003). The more positive the institutions’ image is in the media, correlates to the total amount of new incoming students. This is especially true for markets that possess more than one community college. Moreover, the rise of online schooling is making it increasingly difficult for community colleges because students who do not go to universities now have more choices beyond just community colleges. In terms of Institutional Governance, it is important for effective presidents to determine the best method of governing their college (Altbach, 2005). As a consequence of the influences of public sector reforms, many scholars and professionals indicate that next to the concept of shared and participative governance a new form of governance has emerged, i.e. the notion of corporate governance of institutions that has increasingly become a more dominant approach to tertiary management. Indeed it is the rise of the notion of corporate governance and the decline of the shared or consensual governance that can be identified to be a result of the decline in academic participation, growing tendency towards managerialism and the new environment where the universities are operating. Presidents bring their own unique styles to the table and it is important for them to ensure that the remainder of the College not only adheres to the standards but understands the concepts. In fact, it was the American Association of University Professors which was the first organization to develop a statement on the governance of higher education based on principles of democratic values and participation. Ironically this correlates with the Yale Report of 1828 which is known by scholars and historians as the “first attempt at a formally stated philosophy of education” for universities, emphasizing at that time that such Liberating and Enlightening curricula following the establishment of democratic constitutional governance ought not be replaced with regression to religious curricula (Heller, 2001). In terms of the American Association of University Professors, they published their first "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities" in 1920, which emphasized the importance of faculty involvement in personnel decisions, selection of administrators, preparation of the budget, and determination of educational policies. This is key to the President of Community Colleges because it requires the faculty to be well informed as well as involved in the decision making structure of a college. Refinements to the statement were introduced in subsequent years (Hall, 2005) The document does not provide for an actual plan for the governance of higher education. Also, the purpose of the statement was not intended to provide principles for relations with industry and government; despite the fact that it identifies solutions for the correction of existing weaknesses (Butts, 1955). Rather, it is intended to establish a shared vision for the internal governance of institutions. While student involvement is not addressed in detail, the statement primarily concerns general education policy and internal operations with an overview of the formal infrastructures for organization and management. While institutions and their presiding officers do not directly possess the same genealogy with the ideological belief of shared, collegial governance, most colleges and universities are vaguely constructed based upon similar departments and institutions. Different cultures in universities and the traditional relationships between faculty and administration, characterizing historical transitions and suggesting that modern colleges and universities are undergoing transitions in culture. Moreover, the substance of governance has transformed over the course of the last few decades with more emphasis being placed on high stake issues and more incremental decisions made in a less collegiate method (Altbach, 2005). Some argue that the reasons for this transformation stem from trends that have deflated the concept of cooperation and also from the external pressures for more accountability and demands for quicker decision-making. The President of a Community College is forced to make critical decisions concerning the infrastructure of their organiction. Specifically in terms of management resulting from the growing amount of additional administrative work at all levels within the college, coupled with the requirement for a wide range of specialist skills in areas such as marketing, HR management, management accounting, web development and instructional design (Butts, 1955). With the growing size of the college student body and as demand grows for post secondary education, it is difficult for the community college president to avoid the need for some sort of bureaucratic management and organisation, though this does not mean that the importance of informal discipline and profession based authority can totally be ignored. Such internal governance is required to ensure that the organization sets boundaries for acceptable and unacceptable behavior (Mingle, 1997). The Community College President is important in terms of engendering the rules and regulations that the staff must adhere to. Scholars and Presidents often advocate a model of collegiate governance with the positive aspects of corporate and collegial approaches (Altbach, 2005). It is important to note that the reason why the President of a University or College functions much like a CEO is because of recent and modern developments in the organizational structure of the collegiate atmosphere. Indeed colleges are experiencing their highest levels of attendance, are required to expand more quickly and are competing with colleges closer and closer to their primary demographic. Community college Presidents vary in terms of the their style of institutional governance, while some are critical of the transition toward “corporate governance. They indicate that there is a need for the re-balancing of university governance, indicating that such alignment would equate to a crystillization of shared governance. With changing roles in human resources and the external pressures for accountability affecting collegiate relationships internally, it provides insight by determining management styles in terms of cultivated partnership between faculty and administration, contiguous partnership, and segmented partnership. With debates over the recent trends, university organizations, governing associations, and numerous post-secondary institutions and their Presidents themselves have set forth policy statements on governance. As stated in the 1987 publication of "Policy Statement on Higher Education Faculty Governance", in 1989 the NEA released a "Policy Statement on Higher Education Policy for Community College Governance." The NEA elaborates on issues in confirmation of shared governance for the management of community colleges, junior and technical colleges not addressed in their previous statement. The statement is predicated on the exact same principles, understanding cooperative decision-making and collective bargaining in governance ought to be based on collegiate relationships. Formerly, statements from the NEA and the AAUP advocated the importance of faculty involvement in governance, while the community college statement noted that many do not exercise the right when available and that faculty at public institutions were not permitted to bargain collectively in many states. Presidents in the modern era must recognize the need for accepting the input of their staff. This becomes increasingly important when attempting to build a strong institution with a dedicated staff. The only means of doing so is by ensuring that each individual has their voice heard within the institution. Again, the "Policy Statement of Community College Governance" correlates based upon the same underlying principles of the AAUP and NEA statement on faculty governance. The community college statement also elaborates upon structure and procedure not addressed in the previous statement, including the “ad hoc” and standing committees as discussed in the AAUP policy statement on governance. Where the AAUP statement discusses policy on students and their academic rights, with the community college statement the NEA does conclude on student involvement (Altbach, 2005). Sponsored by the AAUP and the American Conference of Academic Deans, the 2001 Survey of Higher Education Governance is a study done by Gabriel Kaplan, a doctoral student at Harvard University interested in replicating research done by Committee T of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) thirty years ago. Available from the AAUP are the general findings and the preliminary results. The findings of the report detail the method with summary of the present state of shared governance. The findings include the state of the locus of authority and reforms as well as the analysis of the challenges facing Liberal Arts Colleges with the pressures of the current economic climate (Altbach, 2005). The preliminary results contain the raw data on the landscape of governance in higher education from a population of 1303 4-year institutions in the United States, with data compiled from both administrative structures and the faculty. The survey did not include participation from any population of students. In conclusion, community college presidents find themselves in a very tough position. While on one hand they are forced to ensure that each individual is heard within their organization, on the other they have to make decisions at times that lead the institution in the best direction the deem possible. Moreover, Presidents of institutions function much like CEO’s of companies. This is important due to the fact that they have to manage the media and political relationship. Moreover, ensuring institutional advancement is a critical aspect of the growth of the community college that the president is also in control of. Such growth can only occur if the president consistently evaluates its staff to ensure that all members are pulling their weight or are receiving the necessary training to do so. References Altbach, G.P. 2005. "Patterns in Higher Education Development." In P.G. Altbach, R.O. Berdahl, and P.J. Gumport, (Eds.), American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, (2nd ed.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Butts, R.F. 1955. A Cultural History of Western Education; its social and intellectual foundations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Brubacher, J.S. 1982. On the Philosophy of Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Coaldrake, P., Stedman, L, and Little, P. 2003. "Issues in Australian University Governance." Brisbane: QUT. Dearlove, J. 1997. “The academic labour process: from collegiality and professionalism to managerialism and proletarianisation?” Higher Education Review, vol. 30, no. 1: 56-75. Hall, M & Symes, A. 2005. “South African higher education in the first decade of democracy: from cooperative governance to conditional autonomy.” Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 30, Issue 2, pp. 199–212. Heller, D.E., (Ed.). 2001. The States and Public Higher Education Policy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. McMaster, M. 2007. "Partnerships between Administrative and Academic Managers: How Deans and Faculty Managers Work Together. Association of Tertiary Education Management, Retrieved May 10, 2007, http://www.atem.org.au/downloads/doc/018_mcmaster.doc Mingle, J.R. & Epper, R.M. 1997. "State Coordination and Planning in an Age of Entrepreneurship." In Goodchild, Lovell, Hines, & Gill, (Eds.). Public Policy and Higher Education, Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing Rudolph, F. 1990 [1962]. The American College and University: A History. Athens and London: The university of Georgia Press. Read More