Leadership challenges in higher education institutions and accreditation

¶ … sizes are faced with many of the same challenges when it comes to recruiting and retaining qualified candidates, and these challenges are particularly acute in higher educational institutions where the fundamental mission and type of leadership team are different from the private sector in ways that preclude the wholesale application of industry best practices. Despite these constraints, it is possible to identify those aspects of private sector practices that can be used to good effect in educational settings, making a review of the current literature in these areas an important and timely enterprise. To this end, this chapter provides a review of the juried literature concerning accreditation in higher education to gain some fresh insights in this area, followed by a discussion concerning the purpose and importance of mission statements. Finally, an in-depth examination of the need for more effective succession planning is presented, including an examination of the respective advantages and disadvantages that have been associated with the practice in public and private sector settings.

Accreditation in Higher Education

During the early part of the 20th century, a number of professions became the focus of accreditation to help instill a sense of confidence and integrity and to provide timely guidance concerning best practices and expectations (Barker & Smith, 1988). According to Barker and Smith, "Accreditation on a nationwide basis can trace its roots to the beginning of [the 20th] century. It came into being from a meeting of the National Association of State Universities in 1906. In 1909, the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools drew up standards to accredit colleges, and specialization accreditation had its start when the American Medical Association developed a rating system for medical schools in 1905" (p. 742). Accreditation is defined by Eaton (2009) as being "a process of external quality review created and used by higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities, and programs for quality assurance and quality improvement [that] emerged from concerns to protect public health and safety and to serve the public interest" (p. 79).

Since its introduction more than a century ago, a number of accreditation agencies have been created in response to this need, including those for institutions of higher education. Likewise, scholars formulated systems of accreditation that can be used by educational institutions that include mission, organization, administration, relations with students, standards of progress, financial relations, student services, educational activities, educational facilities, and publications (Barker & Smith, 1988). In an educational context, there are four main types of accrediting organizations as follows:

1. Regional accreditors. These accredit public and private, mainly nonprofit and degree-granting, two- and four-year institutions;

2. National faith-related accreditors. These accredit religiously affiliated and doctrinally based institutions, mainly nonprofit and degree granting;

3. National career-related accreditors. These accredit mainly for-profit, career-based, single-purpose institutions, both degree and non-degree;

4. Programmatic accreditors. Finally, these are responsible for accrediting specific programs, professions and free-standing schools, such as law, medicine, engineering, and the health professions (Eaton, 2009).

Currently, 80 institutional and programmatic accrediting organizations that are recognized by the educational community operate in the United States (Eaton, 2009). It is important to point out, though, that these organizations were formed in response to and with the support of the educational community rather than the government (Eaton, 2009). With respect to the part played by the accreditation process, Eaton (2009) cites four primary roles:

1. To provide quality assurance. Accreditation is the primary means by which colleges, universities, and programs assure quality to students and the public. Accredited status is a signal to students and the public that an institution or program meets at least threshold standards regarding, for example, its faculty, curriculum, student services, and libraries. Accredited status is conveyed only if institutions and programs provide evidence of fiscal stability.

2. To provide access to federal and state funds. Accreditation is required for access to federal funds such as student aid and other federal programs. Federal student aid funds are available to students only if the institution or program they are attending is accredited by a recognized accrediting organization. The federal government awarded more than $86 billion in student grants and loans in 2006 -- 2007.

3. To engender private sector confidence in higher education. The accreditation status of an institution or program is important to employers when evaluating the credentials of job applicants and when deciding whether to provide tuition support for current employees seeking additional education. Private individuals and foundations look for evidence of accreditation when making decisions about private giving.

4. Accreditation exercises an important role in easing transfer. Accreditation is important to students for smooth transfer of courses and programs among colleges and universities. Receiving institutions take note of whether the credits a student wishes to transfer have been earned at an accredited institution. Although accreditation is but one among several factors that receiving institutions take into account, it is viewed carefully and is considered an important indicator of quality (Eaton, 2009, p. 81)..

The systematic approach to accreditation created a fairly complacent environment that was characterized by layers of bureaucracy that hampered innovation and precluded any changes that were not in strict conformance with accreditation standards, even if industry best practices demanded otherwise because the accreditation survey was far distant in the future. For example, Bardo reports that, "It was only a few years ago that regional accreditation was an episode in a higher education institution's life. Every ten years, the institution would gear up for a self-study; the accrediting team would visit; the institution would provide final responses; accreditation would be voted; and the institution would 'return to normal'" (p. 47). Similarly, Brittingham (2009) describes the traditional accreditation process that was used just a few years ago thusly: "The basics are well-known: a set of standards, a self-study, a review by peers, and a decision from a commission" (p. 7).

These "good old days," though, are now gone, though. For example, Volkwein (2010) recently observed that, "At most universities, it seems as if there is an unending stream of self-study documents and site visit teams from regional, state, and discipline-based bodies" (p. 3). Indeed, Bardo (2009) emphasizes that in an era of increasing calls for accountability on the part of educators at all levels, the burden involved in remaining accredited will become far more onerous, with a corresponding need for improved approaches to implementing and integrating change throughout the organization that satisfies accreditation requirements. Indeed, Bardo (2009) points out that today, "Presidents and chancellors can expect to have their institutions under nearly continuous scrutiny by regional accrediting bodies. The number of reports, the expected details of outcomes measures, and the level of ongoing interaction between the institution and the regional association will continue to increase" (p. 47). In fact, Bardo (2009) suggests that recent trends indicate that educational accreditation agencies will likely require even more frequently reporting by educational institutions, perhaps as frequently as annually, across a broad array of performance standards and indicators that will make the process even more challenging for educators struggling to do more with less.

Mission Statement

Organizations of all types and sizes have followed industry best practices in recent years by formulating mission statements that are intended to reflect their institutional imperatives, values and goals in ways that are aligned with the interests of the various stakeholders, a process that has been met with less than universal acceptance. Typically, proponents of mission statements proceed with their arguments in support of the practice based on the presumption that they are a valuable enterprise that must be followed to conform to stakeholder expectations (Morphew & Hartley, 2008). In this regard, Lake and Mrozinksi (2011) recently reported that, "Over the last 40 years, the mission statement has been consistently viewed as an indispensable management tool for organizations in both the public and private sectors" (p. 5). Given this proliferation in use, it is not surprising that many organizations accept the need for a mission statement at face value without scrutinizing the fundamental need for the practice from the outset. For example, Sidhu (2003) emphasizes that, "A mission statement has long been argued to lead to better performance by aiding strategy formulation and implementation. Empirical evidence to support this argument is however lacking in the literature" (p. 439).

Given this lack of supporting evidence, formulating an effective mission statement becomes especially challenging for institutions of higher education that are struggling to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world. In their study, "Mission Possible: Enabling Good Work in Higher Education," Berg, Csikszentmihalyi, and Mihaly (2003) examine ways that institutions can reevaluate their missions in order to better align them with their fundamental values and goals as well as the requirements established by regulatory and accrediting organizations. According to Berg and his associates, "Associated with the domain of higher education is a social field made up of gatekeepers, such as accrediting agencies, who judge the performance of colleges and universities and evaluate the organizational, curricular, pedagogical, and other developments introduced into the domain. Alignment exists when the version of higher education that a school embodies possesses legitimacy by the lights of the domain and field" (p. 42).

In the context of higher education, then, redefining mission statements to reflect this wide range of influences requires a balancing act between the interests of all of the stakeholders involved. This not a static, one-time analysis, either, but requires constant reevaluation to ensure that the educational institution is delivering the type of graduates with the skill set needed in the 21st century workplace. For instance, Berg et al. (2008) emphasize that, "It is out of the complex set of alignments as well as realignments in response to changing conditions, that institutional missions are created and, when necessary, transformed. For example, the goals of the external stakeholders and those of the institution must constantly be realigned" (p. 44).

Properly developed in this fashion, some proponents of mission statements maintain that the payoff is worth the effort. According to Bartkus, Glassman and McAffee, "The aim [of the mission statement] is to publicly declare the purpose, goals, products, markets, and philosophical views of the organization" and even suggest that, "Mission statements can be motivating and inspiring" (p. 23). Although every institution is unique, of course some of the common advantages of developing timely mission statements include the following:

1. They communicate a sense of the organization's direction and purpose;

2. They serve as a control mechanism to keep the organization "on track";

3. They help in making a wide range of day-today decisions; and,

4. They inspire and motivate employees (Bartkus et al., 2008, p. 24).

In reality, it is reasonable to suggest that real-world employees who are actually inspired and motivated by an organization's mission statement are few and far between. Moreover, it is also reasonable to suggest that a mission statement alone will not do much to change employee behavior in any substantive way unless it is matched by corresponding changes in the organizational culture (Bartkus et al., 2008). Notwithstanding this consideration, though, Morphew and Hartley (2008) confirm that mission statements can serve to motivate and inspire, but limit the other benefit of mission statements to the following:

1. Mission statements are instructional. A clear mission helps organizational members distinguish between activities that conform to institutional imperatives and those that do not.

2. Mission statements provide a shared sense of purpose has the capacity to inspire and motivate those within an institution and to communicate its characteristics, values, and history to key external constituents (p. 457)

The danger exists, though, that even the most well-designed and carefully crafted mission statement will be viewed as just so much academic lip service paid to the community and other stakeholders and does not truly reflect the core values and goals of the institution (Bartkus et al., 2008). This point is also made by Morphew and Hartley (2006) who caution, "Mission statements are normative -- they exist because they are expected to exist, much the same way that students expect colleges and universities to award credit in the form of hours and persons inside and outside higher education expect college campuses to include "quads," well-landscaped gardens, and football stadiums" (p. 458).

To help avoid this perception of irrelevancy, Bartkus and her associates suggest that a useful approach to developing a mission statement is to conduct a conventional SWOT analysis to ensure that all of these perspectives are included in the statement development process. According to these authorities, "The mission is to create a 'fit' between available resources and external opportunities. Such a process is undoubtedly beneficial to most firms because it requires that they examine and clarify their operations and goals" (p. 24). Taken together, the several benefits and advantages of crafting a timely mission statement appear to be worth the time and effort that are required, but these same arguments have been applied to the utility of succession planning in higher education and these issues are discussed further below.

2. Who is your backup?

3. How many people do you have as backups, and how long would it take to prepare them to do your job without further need for training or coaching?

4. How many people in your area can serve as your backup in case of emergency?

5. How many people do you have as backups for other key people or positions? (2008, p. 91).

Honest answers to these questions may serve as the wakeup call that the organization's top leadership team needs to accept the reality of the need for an informed and well-managed succession planning program. Assuming that the argument has been made and accepted by the top leadership team, though, institutions of higher education are still faced with the significant differences that exist between them and their private sector counterparts that require careful scrutiny to ensure they align with organizational goals that may be dramatically different in ways that will affect the way the program operates.

Unfortunately, it is not usually possible to apply best practices in one setting in a wholesale fashion to another and expect the same positive outcomes and this is certainly the case with succession planning in higher educational settings. In this regard, Giambatista, Rowe and Riaz (2005) emphasize that they are "not arguing for all firms to use the same succession process," but these authorities add that it is important to "ensure that board members, CEOs, and those who are senior enough to be considered for the CEO position are all aware of the succession process that will be used and the conditions under which that process may change. This requires openness and transparency at the board and senior management levels" (p. 987). Indeed, applying industry-derived best practices to educational settings make require identifying what others have done wrong to apply these lessons learned in order to avoid experiencing these same problems. For example, even when organizations do engage in succession planning, many do not use the approach to its best effect because they transfer responsibility for managing these leadership development programs away from those who are in the best position to provide it. For instance, according to Groves (2007), "Organizations often fail to utilize managerial personnel effectively for leadership development and succession planning systems, and many execute these critical practices through separate human resource functions that shift the responsibility for leadership development away from line managers" (p. 239). This point is also made by Giambatista and his associates (2005) who note that, "We encourage practitioners to pay close attention to the abilities and backgrounds of successor candidates, as these factors do matter. Finer points -- does the successor come from within the firm, the industry, a related industry, etc. -- could have important consequences" (p. 987).

Likewise, Abdullah and her colleagues (2009) also cite a lack of a coordinated approach for succession planning as being among the principal reasons for its failure irrespective f the setting that is involved. In this regard, Abdullah et al. emphasize that, "Although succession planning has spelt many affirmative returns to organisations, several reviews have indicated that this corporate initiative lacks in its planning, implementing and managing" (2009, p. 129). Other authorities have also weighed in on the need for succession planning and recommend a coordinated approach that takes an organization's long-term goals into account. For instance, McDonald (2008) reports that, "Companies can best address staffing issues by taking a bigger-picture view of their needs. Succession planning initiatives can help organizations address in a holistic manner the seemingly separate issues of recruitment, retention and planning for an organization's future" (p. 19). In fact, it would appear that one of the major strengths of succession planning is its ability to reduce costs through improved talent management and retention (Rothwell, 2008).

To help overcome the constraints to succession planning, Groves (2007) recommends that the leadership development process should begin early on with the identification of qualified candidates and the use of mentors to help aspiring leaders learn the ropes, a step that is regarded as being especially important for minority and women candidates who have traditionally lacked equitable access to mentoring resources in the workplace. Following the identification of high-potential employees for leadership development by human resources, the next step in the succession planning process is to have candidates demonstrate their leadership and administrative abilities, followed by a careful assessment of the candidates using a broad range of criteria for managerial positions besides depending only on the direct reports from line managers (Groves, 2007).

Although succession planning remains rare in non-profit organizations, the implementation of the process can be facilitated and its effective administration promoted in institution of higher education by taking into account the comparative value of the respective core principles involved which are outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Comparative values of core principles in succession planning between for-profit organizations and institutions of higher education

For-Profit Organizations

Institutions of Higher Education

They have strong, involved boards

They have strong, involved trustees

They continually expose their top management to the board

They continually expose their vice-president / vice chancellor to the trustees

They encourage next generation CEO's to gain exposure to outside board service, to the media, and to the investment community

They encourage next generation president/vice chancellor to gain exposure to outside community, to the media, and to the alumni membership

They form executive committees or operating committees to facilitate the development of several executives who are aware of the challenges, business plans and strategies across the entire organization

They form executive committees or operating committees to facilitate the development of several administrators who are aware of the challenges, business plans and strategies across the entire institution

They pay their directors increasingly in stock and require the directors to make a personal investment in the company

They require the trustees to make a personal commitment to the institution

They periodically calibrate likely internal candidates for CEO against comparable outside leaders

They periodically calibrate likely internal candidates for president/vice chancellor against comparable outside leaders

Source: Abdullah et al., 2009, p. 132

As can be readily seen from the comparisons presented in Table 1 above, there are some significant similarities between the values of core principles in for-profit organizations and institutions of higher education that can be used in formulating comparable succession planning needs for similarly situated educational institutions. It should be noted, though, that the leadership development process must recognize the fundamental differences in other values that exist between the Old Guard and the up-and-comers in any organizational setting. Indeed, some different strategies will be required to recruit, retain and groom the so-called Millennial Generation (those aged between 21 to 28 years) for leadership positions compared to the retiring cadre. Some of the recruiting and retention strategies recommended by McDonald (2008) as part of a larger succession planning program include the following:

1. Higher upfront salary offers (since Millennials are accustomed to rapid results);

2. Clearly define responsibilities and a career path;

3. Emphasize perquisites that are offered besides just salary;

4. Develop a mentoring program;

5. Provide challenging assignments.

6. Foster high-quality relationships between supervisors and leadership candidates to promote job satisfaction.

There is also the issue of improving the representation of minorities and women in the top leadership echelons of the ivory towers of academia. In this regard, Greer and Virick (2008) emphasize that, "Although practitioners and academics alike have argued for succession planning practices that facilitate better talent identification and creation of stronger 'bench strength,' there has been little attention to the incorporation of gender and racial diversity with succession planning" (p. 351).

Once again, though, higher educational institutions are at a distinct disadvantage because of a dearth of timely and relevant research in this area. As Greer and Virick (2008) point out, though, "Although we are unaware of any empirical evidence on the combined effects of diverse succession planning, the importance placed on both diversity and succession planning by several leading companies makes the topic relevant for consideration" (p. 352). These observations suggest that what worked well for an organization in the past may be completely inappropriate for the future and higher educational institutions that embrace diversity in their succession planning programs may gain a competitive advantage over those that do not. In this regard, Greer and Virick conclude that, "Although the demand for talent is driven by business strategy and the approach to diversity, the talents and behavioral competencies identified as requirements for future executive positions are likely to change" (p. 357).

Finally, there are two schools of thought concerning the optimal times in which to actively pursue leadership succession initiatives, with one school maintaining that slow business periods provide organizations with the time executives need to spend with candidates while the other school argues that experience is the best training and that especially busy periods are optimal. For instance, Giambatista et al. report that, "It is highly desirable for firms to consider timing in their succession planning efforts and make every effort to bring on new executives during relative downtimes. An alternative suggestion is to bring new CEOs onboard during the busiest times to give them the opportunity to observe their senior management teams during stressful periods" (p. 988). Because both of these approaches have their respective advantages, it would appear that timing of the leadership development program as part of the succession planning initiative is less important than how that time is spent.