DEPM 604 Leadership in Distance Education

An introduction to the organization, management and administration of distance education systems. Topics include management theory, organizational behavior, leadership roles, human resource management, employee relations, the impact of information technology, faculty/staff development, interinstitutional collaboration, planning, policy and change. Both education and training environments, as well as the knowledge and skills necessary to function effectively in either type of organizational setting, are explored.
Course Attendance:              Summer Semester 2008 (May - August)
Professor:                                Michael Beaudoin

Final Grade:                             A
Personal Papers:            
      Critique of Beaudoin article - Appraising Theory & Practice
                                                   Annotated Bibliographies of DE leadership & management practices
                                                   DE strategic plan for the University of the 5th Age
                                                   Attributes of DE leaders and their challenges

Critique of Beaudoin article - Appraising Theory & Practice       June 19th 2008

Introduction
Beaudoin’s (2007), Distance Education Leadership - Appraising Theory & Advancing Practice, article is a follow up to his 2002 article, Distance Education Leadership for the New Century, where he lamented the lack of attention to the role of leadership to influence the future direction of distance education. In his latest article, Beaudoin asks “why is it that distance education, despite its obvious success in many quarters, has not yet established a stronger presence at so many institutions of higher education”(p.91). In debating this question, Beaudoin discusses the role and practice of leadership in education including the academic environment in which they are operating. This paper provides a review and critique of the salient points of the article.


Salient Points in Beaudoin’s Article
Beaudoin (2007)  argues that “the future of distance education is ultimately not so much about enhancing technology or improving pedagogy, but rather about managing change” (p.92). Managing change is the primary role of leadership and thus “the roles of leader/change agent and trainer [has] emerged as the most significant for successful implementation of distance education programs” (p.92). In discussing the appropriate leadership style required to implement change, Beaudoin confesses to a bias towards a transformative[1] leadership style which has been widely recognized as an effective leadership model to manage change. However, Beaudoin notes that “the most effective leadership style in academia is transactional[2] leadership” (p.94) due to the characteristics of the followers (faculty) and the academic environment. The challenge is to find a suitable leadership style to invoke change within an academic setting, and most importantly finding a leader, or set of leaders, who reflect this leadership style and have the conviction to embrace the opportunities that distance education provide . This leads to a critical point that Beaudoin makes that “although some academic leaders may possess good instincts regarding how best to take advantage of new technology-driven opportunities, they remain handicapped by a persistent preoccupation with the elite trappings of academia, and what they perceive as most important: stressing faculty scholarships, research and grants, prestige” (p.97).


Critique
Overall, I am in agreement with most of Beaudoin’s arguments. However I would argue that Beaudoin’s interest and passion in both leadership and distance education may have led him to be overly frustrated and thus too harsh on the current state of academic leadership and their apparent failure to respond to the opportunities presented by distance education. In a review of the “three main components of the leadership process…the leader, the follower, and the situation” (Hersey et al., 2008, p.95), I will argue that leadership in academia has followed a similar path of most corporate industries, and the slowness in the adoption of technological aids is not just a function of preserving academic trappings but also in the market place demands of traditional academia.


Distance Education Leadership
The argument that the role of leadership is leading change is well supported in the literature, Kotter (1990) in fact argues that function of leadership is not just to cope with change but to create and set the direction of change. Bennis (1990) argued to survive in the 21st century “leaders are needed to conquer the context – the volatile, turbulent, ambiguous surroundings” (p.44). The call for leaders as change agents in the nineties made a significant impact to the effectiveness, efficiency and competitiveness of organizations but it also resulting in turbulent era of the dot.com boom and bust. I would argue that the role of leadership is not just creating change but managing the pace of change.

The inability of academic leaders to adopt technological innovations is a challenge facing many industry leaders. Fusfeld (2004) laments that “despite the obvious role of technology in superlatively successful enterprises, technological issues only occasionally are included explicitly in typical corporate strategy reviews” (p. 62). In fact, Earl & Feeny (2000) argue that many Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) are ill-equipped for the new world and are sadly lacking in technological acumen. They further argue that many CEOs are intimidated by technology and, delegate their authority and decision making on technology matters to consultants and the lower ranks. These observations agree with Beaudoin’s observation that academic leaders delegate the direction of distance learning to a technology support group as oppose to educators. Contrary to Beaudoin’s assertion that the major influences of where technological innovation will occur rest with the senior leaders and not the president or chancellor, I would argue that given the investment and support needed to make an effective transition to distance education the active and sustained leadership of the most senior person is essential.  In a study of successful CEOs, Earl & Feeny (2000) found that CEOs who are demonstrating their capacity to lead in the information age are those who believe that technology enables strategic advantage and demonstrates this belief on a daily basis.

Followers – Faculty
I would fully agree with Beaudoin’s assertion, the followers in the traditional academic environment (tenured faculty) have little interest or motivation to make a shift to distance education. Thus the inspirational aspect on the transformation leadership style will have little impact on faculty, and given that their personal interest generally lies in research and publications (not teaching) even a transactional style will have little effect. The feasibility of inspiring/making tenured faculty embrace distance education is a daunting challenge, one which is not faced by leaders in other industries. I would suggest this will only change when the next generation of technology adapted faculty become the major influences of academic institutions.


Distance education institutions that have been successful in the US have been those who mainly utilize adjunct faculty. The interest of adjunct faculty is generally in teaching and thus they are more receptive to a transformational leadership style which promotes innovations in teaching and learning. Also given that adjunct faculty are hired on a per course contract basis, transaction leadership will also be effective.

Educational Environment
Technologies are essential to productivity-driven competition either by decreasing an organization’s costs or by increasing the value of its output (Porter, 2001). In the context of Distance Education, technologies increase value through providing students the opportunity to learn and study at any time and from any place. This capability is highly valued by adult students who “are gainfully employed and/or look after their families” (Holmberg, 1995; p. 12).  Thus it is not surprising that “most students in distance education are adults” (Moore & Kearsley, 2005: p.185). However, is distance education a value to traditional students (full time students 18 to 24 years old)? I would argue that it is not, traditional students are as much interested in campus-based activities, and forming relationship as they are with their studies. Peters (2001) maintains that distance education students “differ in several ways from the norm of those attending a campus-based university” (p.13). These differences include age and experience, higher education, a strong motivation to reach a higher socio-economic status, and a greater overall motivation and attitude towards study.


In terms of cost reduction, clearly all organizations have an interest to reduce costs. However, I would argue that for-profit universities have a much higher interest since making money (increasing revenues, decreasing costs) is the primary objective of its shareholders. In public institutions while cost are important, universities are judged by many other factors: quality of education, faculty honors and qualifications, research capabilities, publications etc. Even successful Public Distance Education Institutions like UMUC tend to be treated as the revenue generator for the rest of the Maryland system as oppose to an integral part of the Maryland education system.

In my opinion these factors are at the crux of the question why distance education has been very successful in some institutions and not in others.  The characteristics of distance education is ideal for for-profit institutions serving adult students, it is not so clear at this time whether it is ideal for the traditional campus-based schools or traditional students.

Conclusion
Beaudoin (2007)  argument that “the future of distance education is ultimately not so much about enhancing technology or improving pedagogy, but rather about managing change” (p.92) is undoubtedly true. However, change comes not just from leadership but motivations of the followers, and market demands. Beaudoin’s interest in distance education and frustration in its speed of adoption in some institutions may have resulted in him being too harsh on the inadequacies of the leaders in education; the pace of change is also influenced by the demands of the market.


References

Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leadership: Cases on transactional and transformational leadership. Center for Creative Leadership Studies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Bennis, W. G. (1990). Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century. Training.
Bensauo, M., Earl, M. (1998). The right mind-set for managing information technology.Harvard Business Review, 76 (5), 118.
Earl, M., Feeny, D. (2000). How to be a CEO in the Information age. Sloan Management Review, 41 (2), 11-24.
Fusfeld, A.R.(2004). How to put technology into Corporate Planning. In R.A. Burgelman, C.M. Christensen, & S. Wheelwright. Strategic Management of technology innovation, ( 4th ed.,pp.62-66).  Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin  
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., Johnson, D.E. (2008). Management of Organizational Behavior. Leading Human Resources, 9th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Holmberg, B. (1995). Theory and practice of distance education (2nd rev. ed.). London/New York: Routledge.
Kotter, J. (1990).   What leaders really do.  Harvard Business Review.  March-April.
Moore, M., Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A system view 2nd ed. CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Peters, O. (2001). Learning and teaching in distance education - Analyses and interpretations from an international perspective (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.  
Porter, M.E. (2001). Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review March, 62-79.

[1] “Transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible” (Avolio and Bass, 2002, p. 1).  Their descriptively expanded components of transformational leadership behaviors are (a) idealized leadership, where leaders behave like role models; (b) inspirational motivation leaders, who inspire those around them; (c) intellectual stimulation, to effectuate innovation and creativity; and (d) individualized consideration, where leaders pay particular attention to individual performance of others.

[2] Transactional leadership “occurs when the leader rewards or disciplines a follower depending on the adequacy of the follower’s performance” (Avolio and Bass, 2002, p. 3).  This leadership style maintains the status quo through an exchange process where followers get tangible rewards for carrying out the leader’s orders.

Selected Annotated Bibliographies of DE leadership & management practices   July 5th 2008

Cini, M.A. (1998). Learning leadership online: A synergy of the medium and the message. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5 (2), 103-115.
Cini, an online instructor in organization leadership, presents an interesting link between the contemporary theories of leadership, and the roles and responsibilities of online instructors and students. She argues that the “contemporary view of leadership empowers follows, disburses power and decision-making to all levels in an organization, and shares leadership among members of an organization” (p.105). In distance education, the role of the instructor is not to control the learning but to be a guide or facilitator to inspire the students to learn. The students must take a self leadership role, looking to themselves and their peers to make sense of the learning environment. Thus the instructor and students share the leadership in facilitating an effective online learning experience. Cini asserts that this process of interaction and leadership sharing between the instructor and students is at the essence of contemporary theories of leadership. Cini thus argues that the online environment “offers an intriguing advantage over face-to-face classrooms for leadership instructors” (p. 114). Furthermore, Cini argues that just as online instruction is causing educators to re-examine traditional teaching methods due to their ineffectiveness in an online environment, the virtual environment is also causing organization to re-examine their tradition leadership constructs.

This paper was selected for two reasons. First the subject is very applicable to this course as we are studying leadership online and as such can appreciate the author’s assertions. Second for a very practical reason that Marie Cini was recently appointed as the Dean of the School of Undergraduate Studies at University of Maryland University College, as such she is the leader of the area in which I work. Thus as a follower, it is important to understand the views of ones leader especially in an area that is directly related to my interest.

Kanungo, Rabidindra N. (1998) Leadership in Organizations: Looking Ahead to the 21st Century. Canadian Psychology, 39 (1-2), 71-82.In a review of leadership literature, Kanungo suggests that to understand the leadership phenomenon one must analyze properties of three basic elements – leader, followers and the situational context – and three major relational processes: leader-follower, leader-context, and the context-follower relational process. This analysis led to a focus on three major leadership role dimensions; people concerns (relationship orientation, consideration, supportive), task-concern (work facilitation, initiating structure, and goal emphasis) and concern for making and implementing decisions. Kanungo asserts that the conventional leadership paradigms of 1940’s to 1970’s emphasizes transactional mode of influence, which he argues is too narrow and sterile and does not suggest how a leader can be innovative, entrepreneurial, change oriented, visionary and ethical. Kanungo maintains that in a changing environment, organizations require executives to take a change-oriented leadership role while maintaining organizational stability, and in doing so balance their leadership and management roles. Kanungo argues that in a charismatic role, the leader critically examines the status quo with a view of developing and articulating future strategic goals or vision for the organization.

This paper was selected for three reasons. First it provides an excellent historical breakdown and analysis of leadership theories. Second, the paper argues that leadership requires an analysis of the situation – leader, follower and situational context - as discussed in the Hersey et al. (2008) text as the most appropriate leadership process. Finally Kanungo concludes that to meet the challenges of the 21st century leaders need to shift from a transactional to a charismatic leadership style. According to Yukl (2002), “the terms transformational and charismatic are used interchangeably by many writers, but despite their many similarities there also appear to be important distinctions” (p.240). While both charismatic and transformational leaders inspire and motivate followers through setting a compelling vision. The essential difference being that charismatic leadership focuses on the charisma quality of the leader to inspire the followers, while transformation leaders focus on empowering followers, creating a culture of self confidence and self management (Yukl, 2002). Beaudoin (2002) confesses to a bias towards a transformative leadership style for Distance Education leadership in the 21st century.
 
Hallinger, P (2003). Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education Vol. 33 (3), p. 329-351.
Hallinger reviews the conceptual and empirical studies of two leadership models, instructional and transformational, which in his view have emerged as the two primary models in the field of education leadership. Instructional leaders are characterized as hands-on charismatic leaders who focus on “coordinating, controlling, supervising, and developing curriculum and instruction” (p.331). The transformational leadership model in the education context builds on Leithwood (2000) adaption of Bass’ (1995) conceptual model in  developing the organization’s capacity to innovate through “individualized support, shared goals, vision, intellectual stimulation, culture building, rewards and high expectations” (p.335). Hallinger’s analysis found that there were many similarities between the two models – creating a shared sense of purpose, developing a culture of high expectation, developing a reward structure to reflect goals, and the leader modeling school values – but there were a number of differences. The key differencing being that the instructional model is a top-down approach focused on the individual leader whereas the transformational model is a bottom-up approach focusing on shared commitment and innovation between the principals and teachers. Hallinger suggests that integrating the two models leads to a synergistic power of leadership shared by individuals throughout the school. However in a subsequent discussion on contingency models, Hallinger concludes that the effectiveness of a particular model is linked to factors in the external environment and the local context of the school.

The article was chosen as it discussed conceptual models in educational leadership. Beaudoin (2007) noted “the most effective leadership style in academia is transactional leadership” (p.94). This observation was fundamentally supported in this article through the recognition that the instructional leadership model was currently the predominant method of choice by school principals; instructional leadership “would be characterized as transactional in the sense that it seeks to manage and control organizational members” (p.338). However, similar to Beaudoin’s (2002) argument that distance educational leaders need to shift to a transformation style to influence the traditional educational leadership in embracing distance education, Hallinger argues that school principals need to shift to a transformation leadership style to respond to the changing needs of schools in the context of global educational reform. 

Portugal, L.M. (2006). Emerging Leadership Roles in Distance Education: Current State of Affairs and Forecasting Future Trends. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume IX, Number III. Retrieved July 2nd 2008 from the World Wide Web at www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall93/portugal93.pdf  

Portugal provides a review of some of the key changes impacting higher education; globalization, technological advancements, the growth in adult education, and government policies. She asserts that these “are the driving forces that are compelling traditional institutions to move towards the distance education model” (p.2). Portugal bases much of the emerging higher education leadership discussion on Beaudoin’s (2002) paper on Distance Education leadership. She calls on Distance Education leaders not to act as protectors of an isolated branch of education but to be inspirational leaders to motivate the traditional education skeptics to embrace the distance pedagogical models. Portugal supports Beaudoin’s (2002) bias that DE leaders should be transformational leaders but she argues that they “must also become situational leaders who are innovative visionaries that can motivate, energize, inspire, and induce others to move forward while fully articulating a shared and competitive distance learning agenda” (p.6).

This article was chosen as it is one of the few articles in the literature which discusses the emerging leading roles in distance education. The paper is particular relevant to the course as it discusses DE leadership, situational leadership and Beaudoin’s (2002) article. However, to scholars of Professor Beaudoin, this article really doesn’t provide any deeper insights.

Vroom, V.H., & Jago, A.G. (2007). The role of situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62 (1), 17-24.
This is an excellent scholarly article written by two of the leaders in situational leadership research, Victor Vroom and Arthur Jago. The authors initially review the definition of leadership, concluding that “leadership is a process of motivating people to work together collaboratively to accomplish great things” (p.18). This definition highlights their view that leadership is a process not a state, and it includes a particular form of influence called motivating. The authors then provides a historical journey through leadership theories starting with the Great Man theory, Behavior Science theories, to the Situational Leadership concepts – Fiedler’s Contingency Model, Path-Goal Theory, and their own Vroom, Jago & Yetton Contingency theory dealing with the leadership-follower interaction in the decision-making process. The authors provide an in-depth review of their studies and resultant theories including its grounding in scholarly research. Vroom & Jago conclude by identifying three distinct roles that situational variables play in the leadership process: (1) organizational effectiveness is affected by situational factors not under leader control; (2) situations shape how leaders behave; (3) situations influence the consequences of leader behavior.


This article was chosen as it was a recent article written by two of the leading researchers on situational leadership, Victor Vroom and Arthur Jago. The paper augments the reading in Hersey et al. (2008) by providing an insiders view into their research and the role that situational variables play in leadership. The paper is relevant to Distance Education in how the current situational variables in higher education (technological advancement, globalization, traditional higher educators biases, growth in adult education and the rapid growth in DE education in some sectors) can and will impact the leadership style and decision making processes of leaders in higher education.

Additional References

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press
Beaudoin, M.F. (2002). Distance Education Leadership: an essential role for the new century, The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 131-145. 
Beaudoin, (2007). DE Leadership - Appraising Theory & Advancing Practice, ASF Series, Vol 8,  91-101.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., Johnson, D.E. (2008). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principle and teacher effects: a replication. School Leadership and Management, 20 (4), 415-434.
Locke, E.A. (1999). The essence of leadership. Lanham: Lexington Books
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations, 5th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

DE strategic plan for the University of the 5th Age      July 18th 2008

Background
The University of 5th Age (U5) is a small private non-profit institution which over the past ten years has developed quite a successful distance education program. In fact the most successful program in the university is a Master degree for experienced teachers (MT) which is a hybrid program utilizing a combination of video-tapes, text guides, text, with email communication between faculty and students.  This program is currently offered in conjunction with a for-profit corporate partner who provides a battery of services including production of video-based materials, marketing and recruitment, warehousing and distribution of study materials. U5 offers two other distance education programs, a stand-alone video Teachers Training course and an entirely online Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study in Educational Leadership (CAGS. The teachers training course has been reasonably successful, with the courses marketed by the same corporate partner. The CAGS program has not been too successful only managing to break-even, and is offered in conjunction with a corporate partner who supplies the instructional platform and server. There is no formal marketing program for the CAGS program.


Why intervention is warranted
The corporate partner in the MT and teacher training programs has announced that as a result of being acquired by another company that they were severing their ties with U5 effective January 1st 2008. The partner has agreed to continue to market and recruit up to and including the spring 2008 cohort, and continue to current level of support for these and existing students for up to two years. This means that U5 has approximately nine months[1] to reconfirm its DE strategic direction, and, if it does decide to maintain or augment the DE direction, be ready to assume the marketing responsibility for the Summer 2008 semester and have a plan in place to take over the entire operations.


While this announcement is a set back, it does in effect force U5 to reflect on its Distance Education program and determine the role and direction that DE should take in the within university’s strategic plan.

Identification of relevant literature

There are a number of areas of literature relevant to this case. First the underlying requirement is to develop a strategic DE plan for U5, this requires an understanding of the principles of strategic plan. A good overview of strategic planning is found in Mann (2002), and Porter (1980) is the guru of competitive strategic analysis. Next one needs a better understanding of the trends in Distance Education; a general overview can be found in Moore & Kearsley (2005), Bates (2005), Howell et al. (2003). However given that the field is perceived to be rapidly expanding, an environmental scan of the website of the major DE players may yield a better view of DE opportunities and threats. Two other key attributes that needs to be analyzed are leadership and DE costs. Beaudoin (2002,2007), Latchem & Hanna (2001) provide an excellent understanding of DE leadership attributes and skills while Hersey (2008) offers a good grounding in leadership theories. Rumble (2004, 1997) and Bates (2005) provide the costs and economics of distance education.
Diagnosis of the strengths & weaknesses


Strategic Analysis The analytical foundation of strategic analysis is Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) model (Mann, 2002), which “may be used more than any other technique in the process of decision making” (Panagiotiou, 2003, p. 8).  The model assists an organization in developing the best fit between the internal strengths and weakness (SW) and the external environment opportunities and threats (OT).

Strength
The primary strength of U5 is that it has developed extensive experience in Distance Education over the last 10 years. The net profit generated from DE of $500,000 indicates that U5 has developed a reasonably successful DE operation; cost effective enough to both generate profit and to attract approximately 1225 student (650 – MT; 500- Teachers Training; 75 – CAGS). In the process of developing their DE operations they have developed significant expertise in terms of distance education pedagogy, technological capability, student support and administrative services. This is a valuable skill as distance education pedagogy is different from the traditional face-to-face teaching (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). In addition, U5 have developed the material to deliver DE class over a number of mediums: video-tapes, study guides, text and online. 


Weakness
The primary weaknesses of U5 are the heavy reliance on a corporate partner, and U5’s leadership and organizational structure as it pertains to integrating DE and traditional face-to-face teaching.


The current withdrawal announcement its corporate partner highlights U5’s vulnerability due to its dependence on marketing and technology support by an external vendor. The fact that CAGS is the only DE program that is not doing well is also the only program was not being marketed by the corporate partner, would indicate that U5’s core competency is in teaching not marketing.

U5’s senior leadership team appears to be indifferent to DE, neither a champion nor opponent. This lack of drive and energy towards embracing DE is reflected in the organization structure where DE programs operate in relative isolation from the traditional departments. An even higher concern is that the expertise that U5 has acquired is not spread throughout the organization but contained within a small core administrative staff, one senior professor and fifty adjunct faculty. Thus U5s DE expertise advantage is extremely vulnerable to employee attrition, especially if U5 lacks leadership commitment to DE.

Opportunities Distance education offers educational institutions with a tremendous opportunity to grow their programs and student base. According to Howell et al. (2003) in 2003 “the annual market for distance learning was $4.5 billion and is [was] expected to grow to $11 billion by 2005. While it is difficult to verify the precise growth, for-profit organizations are doing exceptionally well in online education, leading on line for-profit universities have substantially increased their revenues and income over the past few years. Since 2005 the stock price of DeVry University has tripled and Strayer University has doubled. Public universities focused on adult education have also seen their enrollments rise dramatically; in 2007 the University of Maryland University College had over 177,000 online course enrollments. “It seems inevitable that universities will become ‘clicks and mortar’ institutions, structured more like ‘virtual universities” expanding their global reach and operating like businesses (Latchem & Hanna, 2001, p.13).

Threats
Porter (1980) cites five forces in determining the competitiveness of an industry. On of these forces is ‘easy of entry’, the technology reach of DE enables universities to easily access students that they would not previously have access to. Another is the ‘threat of substitution’, DE offers student with an open flexible educational medium, which substitutes for the fix time and place classroom. In summary the education industry is becoming increasing competitive, threatening the very existence of small “traditional universities” like U5.


Development of a strategy for changing the situation
Potential intervention strategies are:

1.      Aggressive lever the U5 expertise in distance education: build up U5 DE marketing & support capability, integrate DE with the traditional programs, increase the number of DE courses and programs offered, rationalize the technology medium.

2.      Status quo plus: seek another corporate partner to handle the same responsibilities as the previous corporate partner plus handling the marketing for all of U5’s DE programs.

3.      Cancel the DE program.

Option 1 is the author’s preference; however it will require a significant amount of investment and a strong commitment from the university’s leadership. Given the new president is not arriving until the summer and the current university leadership team has shown ambivalence to DE, this option will probably be met with too much resistance to  be viable at this time.

Assuming a suitable corporate partner can be found, Option 2 is a reasonable solution to the immediate  problem. The 50/50 agreement on tuition revenue netting $500,000 per year would look to be substantial enough to attract other corporate vendors. The option is consistent with U5 current operations as such U5’s leadership style should be amenable.

Option 3 means that the university would lose $500,000 per year; although U5’s leadership’s maybe ambivalent DE they will not be ambivalent to the revenue so unless there is a viable revenue alternative this option is not viable.

Based upon the above assessment of the outcomes, the proposed strategy in the near-term is to focus on Option 2 but use the opportunity to educate the university’s leadership on the opportunities of DE and develop a future vision proposal to expand the DE program.

Proposed leadership style required to effect intended outcome U5’s academic leadership style appears to be consistent with a transaction leadership style which Beaudoin (2007) observes is “the most effective leadership style in academia” (p.94). Option 2 fits with this style as it is maintaining the status quo and the activities are organizing, managing and controlling the process of finding a new corporate partner. Option 1 requires leadership who will embrace change. Beaudoin (2007)  argues that “the future of distance education is ultimately not so much about enhancing technology or improving pedagogy, but rather about managing change” (p.92). However, Latchen & Hanna (2001) suggest managing change in DE requires entrepreneurial leadership who creates an organizational culture of boldness, energy and risk taking. These attributes are clearly not present in the current leadership and thus Option 1 is not viable, however the intervention discussions do give the DE champion an opening to highlight the extensive DE opportunities to U5’s leadership. It also enables the DE champion to determine if there is a DE ally in U5’s leadership team whom may help in developing and supporting a DE strategic vision plan. An executive ally is vital in convincing a new President to make such a significant change in the organizational direction (Maurier, 1996).

Analysis of likely reaction from stakeholders involved
The stakeholders are the U5’s board of governors, management, faculty & students. Maintaining the revenue and income streams are the primary interest of U5’s board of governors and management team, as such any option that does this would be favorably received by these stakeholders. The traditional teaching faculty’s primary interest is in maintaining status quo, so any solution which does not impact them would be received favorably. The minimum requirement of the DE faculty would be to maintain the status quo although they would be disappointed that there is no expansion of DE capability. Current students will react positively to no disruption in their program; future students in assessing their educational options may view U5 as an “old school” and enroll in a school that is more technologically progressive.


Description of next steps

The process of implementing Option 2 would be as follows:

1.      IV Quarter 2007

·         Develop a DE corporate partner requirements document

·         Contact prospective Corporate Partners

·         Select Corporate Partner based upon (i) educational marketing expertise (ii) student support capability.

2.      I Quarter 2008

·         Work with new Corporate partner to develop a comprehensive marketing plan based on a survey of student’s needs and incorporating all three DE programs.

·         Work with new and old Corporate Partner to develop a comprehensive transition plan for all DE operations.

3.      IIQ 2008

·         New Corporate Partner starts the implementation of an aggressive student marketing campaign to establish U5 as an exciting high quality educational institution offering a variety of flexible programs to meet the needs of students.

·         DE champion develops a comprehensive strategic DE direction proposal, if possible in conjunction with a university leadership ally

4.      IIIQ 2008

·         New Corporate partner takes sole control over U5’s DE marketing, recruitment, and operations.

·         DE prime presents the strategic DE direction proposal to the new President.

·         If approved start the process of introducing new DE programs in conjunction with the traditional school management & faculty and the new corporate partner.

Concluding comment
The discontinuation of the current corporate partnership offers U5 with a valuable opportunity to reassess its DE strategic direction. Unfortunately although DE has been a successful venture for U5 over the past 10 years, it has only been embraced by a small segment of the university and has not received full support and recognition throughout the university. Based upon the reality of the situation, the recommendation is for U5 to follow a status quo strategy by finding a new corporate partner. An additional responsibility for the new Corporate Partner would be to market the CAGS program.
A further hope is that the intervention discussions will allow U5’s DE champion to heighten the awareness of the extensive DE opportunities to the current university leadership team such that they will give enthusiastic support to an expanded DE vision when the new president arrives.  

References
 
Bates, A.W. (2005). Technology, E-learning and Distance Education 2nd Edition. New York NY: Routledge
Beaudoin, M.F. (2002). Distance Education Leadership: an essential role for the new century, The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 131-145. 
Beaudoin, (2007). DE Leadership - Appraising Theory & Advancing Practice, ASF Series, Vol 8,  91-101.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., Johnson, D.E. (2008). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Howell, S.L., Williams, P.B., Lindsay, N.K. (2003). Thirty trends affecting Distance Education: An informed foundation for Strategic Planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume VI, Number III, Retrieved July 16th 2008 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html
Mann, C.J. (2002). Strategic Decision Making. In C.J.Mann, & K. Gotz, Management Theory and Practice in the United States, Massachusetts: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Maurier, R. (1996). Beyond the wall of resistance. Austin: Bard Press
Moore, M., Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A system view 2nd ed. CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Panagiotou, G. (2003). Bring SWOT into focus. Business Strategy Review, Summer2003, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p8-10
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: techniques for analyzing industries andcompetitors. New York: Free Press
Rumble, G. (1997). The Costs and Economics of Open and Distance Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Rumble, G. (2004),Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssytem der Universitat Oldenburg.

[1] Assumption made that the Corporate partner made the Announcement in October 2007.

Attributes of DE leaders and their challenges                       July 20th 2008

Introduction
These are exciting times for the distance education sector, “the 9.7 percent growth rate for online enrollments far exceeds the 1.5 percent growth in the overall higher education student population” (Allen & Seaman, 2007). The continued advancements in educational technology and the increasing demand for distance education in all academic sectors are further fueling this growth. However, distance education is still in a relative infancy and there remain significant challenges for DE leaders to tackle. This paper discusses five attributes that the DE leader must posses to successfully meet these challenges and three of the most crucial issues that must be faced.


Attributes of Distance Education Leaders
The challenges and complexity of leading a DE successful organization require the leader to possess many attributes. “To be sure, there are no facile formula that can be matched with particular settings that will ensure infallible leadership performance; ultimately, a sense of vision, resoluteness, and the ability to operationalize concepts are essential for success” (Beaudoin, 2002). This paper will discuss five key attributes of a DE leader: visionary, change agent, persistence (resoluteness), knowledge of DE and academia, and a lifelong learner.


VisionaryJack Welsh the former CEO of General Electric stated “the effective leader leads through a vision, a shared set of values, and a shared objective” (Hersey et al. 2008, p. 64). Bennis & Nanus (1985) captured the meaning of vision in these words: “a leader must first develop a mental image of a possible and desirable future state of the organization. The image that we call vision may be as vague as a dream or as precise as a goal or mission statement. The critical point is that a vision articulates a view of a realistic, credible attractive future for the organization, a condition that is better in some important ways than what now exists. A vision is a target that beckons” (p.63). However the vision has no value unless it is communicated, Beaudoin (2002) maintains that “current and emerging distance education leaders must also advocate, articulate and advance their vision of where they want to go, and where they need to take others” (p.144).Visionary leaders create new ideas, new policies and new methodologies, in other words they create change.

Change agent
Bennis (1990) argued that to survive in the 21st century “leaders are needed to conquer the context – the volatile, turbulent, ambiguous surroundings” (p.44).  This is undoubted true in DE where rapidly changing social, economic and technological environments are creating a tremendous demand for change in the education sector. Beaudoin (2007) maintains that “the future of distance education is ultimately not so much about enhancing technology or improving pedagogy, but rather about managing change ……….the roles of leader/change agent and trainer [has] emerged as the most significant for successful implementation of distance education programs” (p.92). In order to break the established teaching principles and methodologies, the DE leader not only needs to manage change, he or she must be an instigator of change. As such, the DE leader needs have the aptitude and develop the skills necessary to be a successful change agent. These skills include the ability to inspire, persuade, listen, be tolerant, patient and persist (Hersey et al. 2001).


Persistence (resoluteness, tenacity, determination)
Interviews with DE leaders highlightes the need for persistence, not yielding to organizational resistance, and continuing over many years to follow their DE vision despite numerous obstacles (Latchem & Hanna, 2001). Bass (1990) observes that effective leaders are more persistent than non-leaders in the face of obstacles, and they have the capacity to work with distant objects in view and have a degree of strength of will or persistence. Munsey (1999) quotes billionaire businessman H. Ross Perot, “I think a lot of my business success comes from my inability to recognize that I have failed”. However, as Locke (1999) warns, persistence must be applied intelligently; the dogged pursuit of inappropriate strategy can bring an organization to ruin.

Knowledge of Distance Education and Academia.Knowledge of the organization and industry often has greater importance than formal education (Gabarro 1987). According to Kotter (1982), leaders must possess extensive information about the business and their organization in order to achieve success. Yukl (2002) asserts that technical knowledge is especially relevant for entrepreneurial managers. This is especially true for DE leaders who not only have to understand the academic environment but also needs to have a good understanding of how technology can be used to effectively facilitate learning. Knowledge of the academic world and technology allows a DE leader to fall back on past experiences (Fiedler & Garcia, 1997). Sir John Daniels, former Vice Chancellor of the UK Open University, is quoted in Latchem & Hanna (2001) as saying “I do believe that prior knowledge of open learning systems is helpful, even if the new environment calls for systems that will be different from those of the 20th century”(p.146). The inspirational vision of a new educational service or support system may seem to spring from out of nowhere but it is actually the result of many years of learning and experience.

Lifelong  Learner Kotter (1999) argues that the more remarkable leaders will be those who absorb new technology and develop their skills through lifelong learning. “Leaders must pursue information, research future trends, and educate themselves if they are to effectively anticipate opportunities. This relentless pursuit of knowledge gives the leader a particular advantage to perceive and determine the most likely future trend” (Goldsmith et al., 2003, p.252). The pursuit of lifelong learning is a key attribute of Distance Education which the leader should exemplify. Glenn Jones, the CEO of Jones International University in discussing leading educational change took his inspiration from family, teacher, military commanders and business leader role models who pursued lifelong learning: “they embraced knowledge as the basis for power and success” Latchem & Hanna (2001, p. 231).

Critical Issues facing Distance Education Leaders There are multiple challenges facing distance education leaders, two of the three selected for discussion in this paper is a reflection of success – increase competition and coping with rapid student growth. The third critical issue which is unique to traditional institutions is overcoming the faculty resistance to change.

Competitive Forces The open access nature of Distance Education allows universities to easily access students that they would not previously have access to.  In the United States, DE is dominated by for-profit universities who spend a lot of money marketing educational online opportunities in every corner of the country.  There are a few public universities, such as University of Maryland University College, who have successfully introduced a large scale DE education program, but they too spend a significant portion of their revenue on marketing. Rumble (2004) maintains that these Distance Teaching Universities (DTUs) “were set up in a competitor-less environment” (p. 84) serving a market segment that traditional campus-based universities were not interested in: the part-time adult learners market. However Rumble (2004) argues that shifts in the demographic, social, and economic environments have created a much stronger interest in this market and have resulted in a growth of Dual Mode Universities (DMU) who have the mandate to teach both on- and off-campus (external or distance) students. The DMU growth has increased competitive pressure on DTUs and thus increasing the overall competitiveness of the DE market.

            Whether one is a DE leader of an established DTU or trying to introduce distance education into a campus based environment the competitive challenges are significant. Established Distance Education providers will have to establish a strategy to compete against DE programs from traditional university with a high-regarded brand name. Traditional school will not only have to learn to develop and support DE programs but they will need to learn to market their DE programs, an area which they have little skill to date.

Faculty Resistance to Change
“Despite the rapid growth of distance learning programs, faculty are often resistant to moving their courses into a distance learning format” (McLean, 2005, p.1). The 2007 Sloan report on the state of online education chief academic officers cited the lack of acceptance by faculty as a barrier to online learning more frequently than other factors such as cost, retention or acceptance by potential employers (Allen & Seaman, 2007). In the traditional academic environment, tenured faculty whose interest generally lies in research and publications (not teaching) have little interest or motivation to make a shift to distance education (Beaudoin, 2007). Thus the feasibility of inspiring tenured faculty to embrace distance education is a daunting challenge, one which is not faced by leaders in other industries. Distance education institutions that have been successful in the US have been those who mainly utilize adjunct faculty. The interest of adjunct faculty is generally in teaching and is therefore much more receptive to a future vision which promotes innovations in teaching and learning. In addition, adjunct faculty are hired on a per course contract basis, which provides the DE leader much more flexibility to move out those who resist.

Managing & Supporting rapid Student Growth
Despite the challenges, “online enrollments have grown at an unprecedented rate over the five-year period [2002-2006]…..the number of students taking at least one course has more than doubled [to 3.5 million students]” (Allen & Seaman, 2007, p. 15). This growth while positive puts a tremendous strain on an online university’s finances, its technological infrastructure, and its ability to deal with different student cultural needs.


Distance education programs require high up-front cost to design and develop, and so require a high level of student enrollments to breakeven. However new online learning management system technologies which foster interactive teacher-student communication by their very nature increase the cost of student support and erode distance education cost-efficiency advantages from economies of scale (Bates, 2005). The growth of online student also requires an increase technical support services and systems not just in teaching and learning, but in administration services like class registration, grade reports and financial services. These are significant business and operational challenges facing DE leaders.

Conclusion           
Distance Education is starting to become a viable tool in teaching and learning in all sectors of education. The transformation from the introduction to growth stage in its development requires skills of highly effective leaders to face some critical growing pains. The attributes and issues selected reflect the requirement for leadership in a turbulent, fast-paced environment. There is not one fixed list of attributes for DE leaders but the attributes discussed: visionary, persistent, knowledgeable in distance education and academia, lifelong learners, and above all change agents, will put the leader in good stead to meet the increasing competitive and rapidly changing environment of distance education


References
Allen, I.E., Seaman, J. (2007). Online Nation: Five years of growth in online learning. The Sloan Consortium: Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved July 28th 2008 at  http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf

Bates, A.W. (2005). Technology, E-learning and Distance Education 2nd Edition. New York NY: Routledge
Beaudoin, M.F. (2002). Distance Education Leadership: an essential role for the new century, The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 131-145.
Beaudoin, (2007). DE Leadership - Appraising Theory & Advancing Practice, ASF Series, Vol 8,  91-101.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985).  Leaders: The strategies for taking charge.  New York: Harper & Row.
Fiedler, F.E., & Garcia, J.E. (1987). New Approaches to Effective Leadership: Cognitive Resources and Organizational Performance. New York: Wiley.
Gabarro, J.J. (1987). The Dynamics of Taking Charge. Boston, Mass.: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.
Goldsmith, M., Greenberg, C.L., Robertson, A., Hu-Chan, M. (2003). Global leadership. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., Johnson, D.E. (2008). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Howell, S.L., Williams, P.B., Lindsay, N.K. (2003). Thirty trends affecting Distance Education: An informed foundation for Strategic Planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume VI, Number III, Retrieved July 16th 2008 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html
Kotter, J. 1982. The General Managers. New York : The Free Press
Kotter, J. (1999).   What leaders really do.  Harvard Business Review.
Latchem, C., Hanna, D.E. (2001). Leadership for 21st Century Learning. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Locke, E. A. (1999).  The essence of leadership: The four keys to leading successfully.  Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
McLean, J. (2005). Address faculty concerns about distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume VIII, Number IV, Retrieved July 29th 2008 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/mclean84.htm
Moore, M., Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A system view 2nd ed. CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Rumble, G. (1997). The Costs and Economics of Open and Distance Learning. London: Kogan Page.
Rumble, G. (2004),Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssytem der Universitat Oldenburg.
Yukl, G. A. (2002).  Leadership in organizations. 5th Edition.  Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall, Inc.