Partner or Perish

Posted on December 5, 2021 by admin

While reflecting on recent conversations with colleagues across higher education, I’ve gotten the overwhelming sense that most universities are laser focused on how partnerships can further their mission…and increase enrollments. Partnerships can take many forms and have the potential to add great value to students, the workforce, and the economy. Whether in the form of articulation agreements between institutions seeking to improve pathways for students and showcase the complementary nature of programs, between businesses and education providers striving to better align graduates skills with employer needs, or one of many other forms, partnerships provide great opportunities for exploring how higher education can better meet the changing needs of society.

California Community Colleges have made headlines several times just this year for new partnerships that may improve the pathway to degree completion, increase equity, and improve sustainability. They are certainly not alone. Miami University, Eastern Gateway Community College, and many, many others have made headlines for the evolving role cross-sector partnerships are playing in the higher education marketplace.

Higher education leaders recognize the need to adapt to stay relevant and competitive, and partnerships are one of a few key approaches to achieving those goals. While partnerships may face criticism from some and praise from others, ultimately, accreditors are positioned to ensure partnerships are in the best interests of students. I’ve spent my entire career working closely with accrediting agencies and have faith they strive to balance innovation in areas such as partnerships with ensuring their member institutions put student needs first. I also trust that the majority of higher education leaders strive to find this balance as well.

As I continue to reflect on this dynamic environment, I find myself wondering how higher education partnerships will change the face of education forever. As our institutions face decreasing enrollments, dwindling funding, and increasingly diverse student needs, let’s take care to keep the needs of students and our communities in the forefront.

I would love to read your thoughts in the comments.

Posted in Education, Leadership | Tagged , | Comments Off on Partner or Perish

What’s the deal with innovation management?

Posted on September 11, 2021 by admin

In recent months, I’ve been excited to see an uptick in references to innovation management. I’ve noticed this in conference proceedings and industry publications. Innovation management is a little known field focused on precisely that – managing innovation. In practice, this may vary some by industry but there are several overarching components innovation managers cite as areas of importance. Before we get into the details, let’s pull back and start with some basics.

What is innovation management?

Innovation management is the systematic process through which an organization develops a new product, service, process, or business model. The purpose of innovation management is to provide greater value for stakeholders, which in turn enables the organization to remain competitive.

Why does innovation management matter?

Innovation experts agree that “like quality, innovation is everyone’s job.” (Jones et al., 2016). I concur. Just like with any goal, innovation goals are more likely to be achieved if managed using a comprehensive, intentional, methodological approach rather than leaving the outcome up to individual efforts and whims. An innovation management strategy allows organizations to target resources and hone collective energy. As organizations grow, more and more departments compete for resources. An overarching strategy provides consistency in how the organization assesses risk and allocates resources. Additionally, not all departments or people are equipped to successfully develop, vet, implement, and sustain innovative initiatives. Organizations form an innovation management strategy to organize and draw on expertise of innovation leaders, project managers, and others who have chosen to focus their career on driving change.

What does innovation management look like in practice?

Every organization is different, and therefore, the exact steps to developing and implementing an approach to innovation may not look the same, but there are some general phases (Pertuz and Perez, 2020; Praxie, 2021). The phases outlined below are drawn from a variety of sources as well as my own experience. Keep in mind these phases are not necessarily linear and many phases will be repeated when considering a specific initiative.

Phases:

  1. Exploration – identify core problems to which the organization seeks solutions
  2. Definition (aka Strategy Construction) – identify the best ways to prototype ideas for innovations which may help to solve the core problems
  3. Testing & Learning – get feedback from stakeholders
  4. Building a Business Case – outline the value added by this innovation and the costs associated with it to ensure the investment will yield an actual return
  5. Implementation – develop and launch the idea as a tangible solution that truly addresses the original problem
  6. Evaluation – measure the impact of innovation and the process by which the innovation was achieved

Research-Based Best Practices

Jones and colleagues (2016) identified five broad themes influencing the future of innovation management that any leader should consider when developing an innovation management strategy:

  1. Partnerships – invest in partnerships and break down barriers to forming or sustaining partnerships.
  2. Process – build processes that link open innovation with intentional innovation management strategies, integrate big data, and apply research-based rigorous processes to managing innovation.
  3. Position – understand local needs.
  4. People – tap into the energy and talent of millennials, attract and retain talented team members.
  5. Profession – identify and apply approaches to evaluating the value of innovation and management strategies to further establish innovation management as a profession.

What is the current landscape of innovation management practices?

In general, most businesses identify their innovation management as “developing” when asked if their innovation management practices are nascent, developing or mature. Additionally, most organizations are striving to identify ways to create more disciplined innovation processes (Jones et al., 2016). Furthermore, most organizations are unsure how to measure the value of innovation and assess the effectiveness of innovation approaches. This leads to limited resources being dedicated to innovation management, which slows the development of effective processes.

In higher education, IF a college or university has an innovation management strategy it is usually housed in a dedicated office or center where the leader reports to the president or the provost. These centers for innovation typically include employees dedicated to furthering strategic innovation with expertise in research, project management, product development (IT), and other areas aligned with strategic priorities (e.g., DEI). These centers also often control funding for innovative initiatives proposed across the college. The purpose of these centers is, obviously, to drive innovation. They do that in alignment with established priorities, by responding to department-specific proposals, and by soliciting calls for strategic and innovative proposals. A dedicated office or center is key to driving intentional, proactive change in large, bureaucratic organizations while incorporating ideas from diverse perspectives.

Closing thoughts…

While the research is clear that strategic innovation must be driven by a dedicated leader with a comprehensive innovation management strategy, others aspects, such as how to execute on an established strategy, are less obvious. One great place to start is by aligning strategic planning processes with innovation management. Doing so through a distributed approach enables executive leaders to draw on the ideas and expertise of team members at all levels. Empower department leaders to dream big and think innovatively, and then incorporate their goals into the planning process. Solicit feedback on strategic goals and innovation strategies from as many stakeholders as possible. We are all stronger when we consider perspectives beyond our own.

Posted in Education, Leadership, Organizational Learning, Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on What’s the deal with innovation management?

What do innovation teams really accomplish? A whole lot!

Posted on July 25, 2021 by admin

My last full update on PROPEL, American College of Education’s innovation incubator, was in 2020 and included a summary of what PROPEL teams accomplished in 2019. As I work towards bringing you up to speed on current organizational change and innovation efforts at the College, let me start by sharing a summary of what PROPEL teams accomplished in 2020 as well as an update on the status of all 2019 innovations.

In 2020, three PROPEL teams designed and proposed innovations to improve how the College serves students and meets strategic goals. These teams included a total of 15 faculty and staff from across departments including academic affairs, enrollment, student services, HR, academic programs, and admissions. Together they explored initiatives by researching best practices, engaging stakeholders, gathering data, and synthesizing their ideas and findings to propose initiatives that would add value for students, employees, alumni, and more.

Check out what these teams have accomplished!

  • ACE Course Test Drive – In 2019, this proposal was approved, and a mock course was developed and implemented that enables prospective students to experience an example of an online course before enrolling. Status: Operational
  • Virtual Affinity Groups – In 2019, this proposal was approved, and in 2020, the ASK Network was launched to facilitate mentoring, collaboration, alumni-to-student support, relationship-building, and more. This launch began with alumni and is progressing to include students. Status: Operational
  • Recognition of Military/Veterans/First Responders – In 2019, this proposal was approved, and the College began offering additional benefits for students who are part of the military and first responder community. Status: Operational
  • Video Presentations Showcasing Doctoral Dissertation Research – In 2020, this proposal sought to provide doctoral students with an opportunity to showcase their dissertation research via a short video. Lack of evidence of demand resulted in this proposal not progressing. Status: Not Approved
  • Dual Credit Offerings for High School Students – In 2021, this proposal sought to offer high school students dual credit courses through the College’s online offerings. Due to lack of alignment with the College’s mission and business model, this proposal did not progress. Status: Not Approved
  • Open Dissertation Defenses – In 2020, this proposal was approved, and in 2021, the College implemented a process for doctoral students to open their dissertation defenses to audiences beyond their dissertation committee. Status: Operational
  • Scholarships for HBCU Graduates – In 2020, this proposal was approved, and in April 2021, the College began accepting applications from HBCU graduates seeking to secure one of two full ride scholarships. Status: Operational
  • Course Design Competition – This proposal is the first to be developed in 2021 and will be presented for consideration in August. Status: Proposal Pending
  • Lifelong Learning/Career Coaches – This proposal is the second to be developed in 2021 and will be presented late this year. Status: Proposal Pending

Its important to remember that we don’t expect all ideas we prototype to be implemented. Vetting ideas and only developing those that clearly add value is part of the innovation process. The role PROPEL teams play in exploring and evaluating ideas for innovation is critical to the College’s ability to systematically and sustainably innovate.

PROPEL teams prototype the innovation and propose an approach to implementation, but they are not necessarily the same people who must follow through with implementation.  Each team consults with the critical stakeholders connected to their innovation, but once approved, an implementation team is identified to put the idea into action. Reflecting on this part of the process, as well as data gathered over the prior two years of PROPEL, led to some significant changes in how we manage innovation. Stay tuned for more info about how this process has evolved in 2021 and what is on the horizon for 2022 and beyond!

Posted in Organizational Learning, PROPEL | Tagged , | Comments Off on What do innovation teams really accomplish? A whole lot!

Back after a year! Updates and more to come…

Posted on July 16, 2021 by admin

It’s been a while since I last posted. My apologies. The past 12-18 months have been a real journey for all of us, and I’m really looking forward to getting back to writing, researching, and sharing. I have a couple of exciting developments to share!

In August 2020, I successfully defended my dissertation on The Role of Leadership and Group Processes in Innovation. Over the past few years, I’ve shared a lot of my dissertation research focused on PROPEL innovation teams I lead at American College of Education. Presenting the full body of my research at my dissertation defense was exciting, and I’m eager to share the current status with you all in upcoming posts! You can also access my entire dissertation through ProQuest Dissertations (citation below).

In December 2020, I officially graduated from Arizona State University with my doctorate in education leadership and innovation! Woohoo!

In February 2021, my husband and I welcomed our first child into this world a whole month early! The rollercoaster ride has only just begun.

Just last week, my first solo author scholarly journal article, The Role of Team Processes in Innovation Development to Sustain Learning Organizations, was published in an upcoming special issue of The Learning Organization! It’s available through Early Cite HERE and recommended citation info is below. In this article, I share a bit about the factors that impacted success of PROPEL innovation teams in relation to American College of Education as an active learning organization. I’ll share excerpts from my research in upcoming posts as well as highlights from the leadership thread of my work not included in this publication.

The innovation process and PROPEL teams at ACE have also evolved over this time, and I will be back soon to share more with you all!

Recommended Citation Format for Above Referenced Work:

Witherspoon, A. (2020). The role of leadership and group processes in innovation: An emerging theory of leadership for active learning organizations in higher education. Dissertation. ProQuest.

Witherspoon, A. (2021). The role of team processes in innovation development to sustain learning organizations. The Learning Organization, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-09-2020-0164

Posted in Education, Organizational Learning, PROPEL, Research | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Back after a year! Updates and more to come…

The Efficacy of Online Education

Posted on March 8, 2020 by admin

Market conditions are driving universities to expand educational programs beyond traditional face-to-face and into blended and online formats. This is relatively common knowledge in the field of higher education, although not all faculty, administrators, or students support the direction. Conversations about online learning have multiplied recently due to the (presumably temporary) shift some universities are making to online teaching as they respond to COVID-19. Twitter threads and conversations with faculty about online education reminded me of the need for ongoing advocacy of this delivery model.

I should start by sharing my bias. I whole-heartedly believe in online education. I hold a senior leadership position at an online university, American College of Education, and in 2020 I will earn my doctorate completely online at Arizona State University. I have seen and experienced the benefits and challenges of completing courses/programs online. I contrast these experiences to completing my undergraduate education face-to-face at a state university (Southern Illinois University Edwardsville) and earning my master’s degree face-to-face at a private university (DePaul University) while working full-time and taking night classes. Across these my personal educational experiences, I have seen amazing and awful courses and instructors regardless of delivery method. Simultaneously, I have the privilege of working for a university that offers some of the best online courses available anywhere (as we’ve been repeatedly told by external reviewers and students).

As I reflected on my experience and recent conversations, I recognized the need to summarize recent literature on this topic to communicate my perspective grounded in more than just my personal experiences and opinions. Today I am sharing a brief summary of several studies examining the efficacy of online education. This post is not comprehensive. I hope to extend it as I have more time and new research becomes available. Experimental research comparing student learning outcomes across delivery models (e.g., online, blended, face-to-face) is limited. This makes sense given the difficulty of randomly assigning a representative sample of students to different delivery methods and to holding constant all other elements such as instructor, motivation, and digital literacy. This results in an inability to definitively claim one mode of learning is better than the other. Given the multitude of factors impacting learning outcomes, results are mixed. A review of the literature helps clarify some important factors relevant to student learning outcomes across modalities, which should be considered by faculty, administrators, support staff, and students.

Means, Toyama, Murphy, and Baki (2013) conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies providing a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the effectiveness of online and blended learning. The authors examined the influence of specific conditions, including pedagogical approach, synchronous / asynchronous delivery, and fully online v. blended, on over 50 effect sizes. Results indicate that students in blended learning environments performed significantly better than students receiving face-to-face instruction only, and that no significant difference was found between online and face-to-face conditions. Additionally, there was no significant difference between fully online and face-to-face conditions. The authors found that differences in effect size relate more to moderator variables such as pedagogical approach and curricular/instructional materials than to delivery modality. These findings support my experiences, that regardless of delivery method, learning depends heavily on instructional method and materials.

This meta-analysis provides a great comparative snapshot of education delivery models at a point in time. However, as technology and teaching practices change, the applicability of these studies is reduced. Therefore, I’m including a few more recent studies on this topic to contrast.

Research examining undergraduate student performance indicates that the average student performs worse on course exams when completing an online course versus a face-to-face course (Alpert, Couch, & Harmon, 2016; Arias, J., Swinton, & Anderson, 2018). While these studies attempt to create similar samples across learning modalities, the degree to which they account for individual student and/or instructor differences or pedagogical approaches differs across studies. Numerous studies have found no significant difference in learning outcomes when comparing blended and face-to-face delivery models (Alpert, Couch, & Harmon, 2016; Joyce et al., 2015; Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013; Bowen et al., 2014), which supports Means et al (2013) meta-analysis results in support of blended learning.  Researchers also recognize the choice of outcome measures (e.g., GPA, exam score) have limitations and other measures of student learning should be considered.

Given the complex nature of evaluating the efficacy of different learning modalities, researchers often use student satisfaction or engagement as proxy measures. Factors that impact satisfaction may not clearly impact learning. Therefore, engagement has been identified as a factor that more clearly impacts learning. Research comparing online, blended, and face-to-face learner engagement identified areas where online learners are at a disadvantage as well as areas where online learners have opportunities not shared by face-to-face students (Paulsen & McCormick, 2020). When controlling for individual differences, Paulsen and McCormick (2020) found that face-to-face and blended learners are more engaged in collaborative learning and rate student-faculty interactions more highly than online learners.

On the other hand, online learners found their interactions to be of higher quality than face-to-face or blended learners. Additionally, online learners showed greater higher order learning and reflective and integrative learning than face-to-face learners. No significant difference existed between learner groups regarding learning strategies used or perceived supportiveness of their learning environment (Paulsen & McCormick, 2020). Results from a meta-analysis conducted by Broadbent and Poon (2015) support these results related to learner strategies. Their research revealed that learner strategies of time management, effort regulation, and critical thinking were positively correlated with student academic achievement regardless of a course setting being online or face-to-face.

These results emphasize the role of pedagogical approach and instructional materials in student achievement and provide guidance for faculty and support staff to tailor practices to different learner groups based on program or course modality. For example, faculty teaching online may need to employ more creative eLearning practices to facilitate student collaboration such as in group assignments. Conversely, faculty teaching face-to-face may need to try different instructional strategies and assignment complexity to facilitate higher order learning.

Additionally, this research provides a reminder that learning strategies are critical to student success and should be fostered regardless of delivery modality. Finally, factors such as motivation and experience with online education impact student achievement, but results related to these factors is limited. At American College of Education, for example, we recognize that learners come from a variety of backgrounds and may need time to acclimate to the online learning environment. During the first two courses in a program, we provide special student support and faculty dedicated to helping students transition to online learning if that is the best option for them.

Education is not one size fits all, yet historically limited models have been available for educators to offer choices for the range of students seeking education. I view the opportunity to offer face-to-face, online, or blended learning to be the exact type of progress we need to expand access to all types of education, be it college, technical, professional development or otherwise, to the increasingly diverse pool of learners. The scholarly research does not conclusively show that one delivery model is better than another, but rather there is more research to be done and much to be considered when offering educational opportunities in different formats. The clearest result from the studies considered herein is the benefits of blended learning models. This research suggests that universities considering expanding online should consider if blended programs would meet their goals and needs of their target students.

References

Alpert, W. T., Couch, K. A., & Harmon, O., R. (2016). A randomized assessment of online learning. The American Economic Review, 106(5), 378-382.

Arias, J. J., Swinton, J., & Anderson, K. (2018). Online vs. face-to-face: A comparison of student outcomes with random assignment. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 12(2), 1-23.

Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., & Nygren, T. I. (2014). Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from a six-campus randomized trial. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(1), 94-111.

Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievements in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1-13.

Joyce, T., Crockett, S., Jaeger, D. A., Altindag, O., & O’Connel, S. D. (2015). Does classroom time matter? Economics of Education Review, 46, 44-67.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115, 1-47.

Paulsen, J., & McCormick, A. (2020). Reassessing disparities in online learner student engagement in higher education. Educational Researcher, 49(1), 20-29.

Posted in Education, Research | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on The Efficacy of Online Education

There’s No “I” in Collaborate

Posted on January 26, 2020 by admin

As part of my ongoing research on innovation in higher education, I have been gathering and analyzing data from innovation teams participating in our PROPEL initiative at American College of Education.  After a recent round of qualitative coding, I found myself reflecting on what it means to collaborate with the goal of innovating. If an innovation team decides on a goal and begins developing an innovation with that shared goal in mind, is it collaboration if each team member conducts portions of the work independently? Innovation is complex and certainly requires sharing responsibilities and dividing up tasks, but what truly constitutes collaboration? Is collaboration pursuing a shared goal even if most of the work completed to that end is done in isolation?  Does contributing to shared working documents through Office 365, Google, or similar platforms constitute collaboration?

There is a lot to consider around this topic, but right now, my answer would be no. To collaborate, individuals must come together to share ideas, knowledge, and skills to create something together. I believe part of that process requires synthesizing the work done independently, together.  That sharing of knowledge, experience, and questions sparks the deep conversations that are necessary to truly create something meaningful.  Synthesizing with others (what I’m coming to see as true collaboration) also brings different perspectives to the conversation. Rather than sharing static documents as products of one’s work, coming together to discuss the products of one’s work and critically consider next steps is a vital part of innovating collaboratively.  

With so many ways to connect, how do you collaborate in a meaningful way? Do you collaborate on social media platforms? I could imagine using messaging platforms like Slack or microblogging/social networking sites like Twitter effectively to collaborate, although I can’t say my efforts to do so have been successful.  What tools works for you?

How do you define collaboration and how do you foster it in a virtual environment?

Posted in Organizational Learning, PROPEL | Tagged , | Comments Off on There’s No “I” in Collaborate

Creating Diverse Innovation Teams

Posted on January 3, 2020 by admin

Each year, I recruit PROPEL team members from our pool of what is now over 300 employees. Participation is open to all employees including full-time and part-time staff as well as full-time and part-time/adjunct faculty. Teams are formed intentionally with the goal of building the most diverse teams possible to ensure inclusion of broad perspectives. Based on college-wide faculty to staff ratios and employee demographics, I aim to create representative teams with three staff and two faculty with at least one team member being an employee of Color and one team member being male. Each team consists of five people, and while I would love to bring more diversity to each team, I also recognize that the diversity of PROPEL teams is contingent upon the diversity of our employee base overall. Our employee population is made up of 24% employees of Color and 76% employees who are White with overall 32% male and 68% female. (Note that at my organization employees are currently asked to self-identify as male or female).

Let me pause for a moment to explain why I categorize employees in these two buckets regarding race/ethnicity. I recognize that by lumping all non-White employees into an employees of Color category, we lose the detail regarding which races and ethnicities truly exist within our team. However, when convening PROPEL teams, we simply do not have a representative number of employees volunteering from each demographic category, and therefore, it is practical to try to mimic the general proportions of employees who are White and employees of Color. I do, however, have the raw data to inform team composition if (and hopefully when) more employees of Color begin volunteering for PROPEL.

What has become clear is that we do not currently have a representative number of employees of Color volunteering to participate in PROPEL. We see a similar and even greater disparity when we examine the number of interested employees by gender. The current volunteer pool consists of 18% employees of Color and 82% employees who are White with overall 16% being male and 84% female.

Demographic Categories College-Wide PROPEL Volunteers
Employees of Color 24% 18%
Employees who are White 76% 82%
Female 68% 84%
Male 32% 16%

These disparities have real implications not only for the types of innovations developed by each PROPEL team, but also for the individuals who are and who are not participating. Innovation is stimulated by diverse perspectives, and homogeneous teams may struggle to produce truly innovative ideas to stay on the cutting edge of education. While the main goal of PROPEL is to foster ongoing innovation, several sub-goals exist related to employee satisfaction as well as personal and professional growth. PROPEL team members have reported that some of the biggest benefits of participating is the connections they make with colleagues they would not typically engage with during routine work. Team members have shared mentoring relationships they have built within teams and supportive relationships they cultivated. Additionally, PROPEL team members gain exposure for their innovations across the College and with the executive leadership team.

The lack of representation of employees of Color and males in the PROPEL team pool means that individuals in these groups are missing opportunities to build relationships, enhance experience, and gain visibility. Existing PROPEL team members are missing the chance to learn from a wide range of colleagues. It also means our innovations may lack diverse perspectives and may miss opportunities to be relevant to a broad range of stakeholders.

Why might these disparities exist?

I examined my recruitment strategies in hopes that I was simply missing some group and could easily reach out to any overlooked population. Over the last 14 months, I have recruited participants through virtual coffee chats, announcements at department meetings (including every dept across the College), a College-wide newsletter, and emails. I have also shared status updates of PROPEL team formation and innovation development to maintain relevance and awareness. These methods were chosen because they reach every employee. I do not see any gaps in opportunity created by the recruitment method.

Is there something about the nature of PROPEL teams that makes participation less appealing to males and employees of Color? Is there something about the nature of innovation, collaboration, or team work that appeals more to some groups than others? Could the fact that PROPEL is led by a White female (me) contribute to White females being over represented in the volunteer pool?

A dozen research projects could grow out of these questions, and I feel a sense of urgency to understand what is missing. I may never be able to pinpoint the cause of the disparity, but I can develop outreach strategies to appeal to a wider audience. For now, that is where I will focus my attention. I would love to hear from you all…what strategies should I employ to reach a wider audience within my organization? What factors may be contributing to the lack of representation in PROPEL?  I look forward to your comments below.

Posted in Organizational Learning, PROPEL | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Creating Diverse Innovation Teams

PROPEL Part V: 2019 Innovations

Posted on December 29, 2019 by admin

In 2019, 18 PROPEL team members created numerous innovations designed to improve service to students and attainment of college-wide strategic goals. During the development of PROPEL in 2018, the College established its own definition of innovation based on employee feedback from focus groups and surveys. To us, innovation is applying creative approaches to create value-added change. This means that something is innovative if it is new to us even if it is not new to you. While we may dream of developing ground-breaking innovations in artificial intelligence, for example, we recognize that we need innovations of all sizes to address the changing needs of students and society. The range of innovations developed this year reflect this understanding.

In 2019, PROPEL teams…

  • Developed and implemented an online course test drive, which enables prospective students to experience an example of an online course before enrolling. We know online education is new to some and providing prospective students with an opportunity to experience an online course in Canvas not only shows off our amazing course design, but it also empowers prospective students to begin the journey of an online program.
  • Developed, budgeted, and planned a virtual affinity group platform for students, alumni, and employees, which provides a place for everyone to engage online around topics beyond one’s program of study or primary job duties. Online affinity groups will facilitate mentoring, collaboration, student-to-student support, relationship-building, and more.
  • Developed and implemented additional benefits for students who are part of the military and first responder community. These benefits required changing policies to reduce fees for these students who are dedicating their lives to ensuring the safety and security for us all.
  • Currently in development is the final proposal of 2019, which focuses on providing doctoral students with an opportunity to showcase their dissertation research via a short video. If approved, doctoral candidates would receive support from the College to develop a video that showcases their use of technology and research expertise. Videos would enable graduates to market themselves and share their research broadly.

PROPEL teams develop the innovation and propose an approach to implementation, but they are not necessarily the same people who must follow through with implementation.  Each team consults with the critical stakeholders connected to their innovation, but once approved, team members may choose not to be involved in implementation. We included this option so team members could pull back if they no longer had the capacity to remain heavily involved. From there, I coordinate implementation and involve team members based on their preferences. While some of these innovations begin as pilots, others are approached as strategic initiatives that require greater planning, approval, and budgeting. Turning PROPEL innovations into reality requires investment from colleagues across the College. Whether we pursue a small pilot or full launch, implementing each innovation is an area of PROPEL we continue to refine.

Posted in Organizational Learning, PROPEL | Tagged , | Comments Off on PROPEL Part V: 2019 Innovations

The Great Wisdom of Bill Murray and My Father – Put Yourself Out There

Posted on December 22, 2019 by admin

A great man once said  “I try to be available for life to happen to me. We’re in this life, and if you’re not available, the sort of ordinary time goes past and you didn’t live it. But if you’re available, life gets huge. You’re really living it.”  That great man was Bill Murray. I’m not an actor.  Thank goodness.  I don’t think I would make very entertaining movies.  But the minute I read this quote many years ago, it stuck with me.  I have reshaped it a bit in my mind and have come to capture the sentiment in one phrase – put yourself out there.  To me that means taking risks, big and small.

I should also diverge here briefly to point out that I was raised by a father who is a financial manager, a CPA, and who raised me with the boy scout motto to always be prepared.  This says a lot about who I am today and the types of risks I take.  For many years, I perhaps lingered on the side of being too conservative….I had to plan everything to the letter.  Then one day, I learned the hard lesson that even all the best laid plans may still not lead to the expected outcome.  Recovering from that hard lesson I discussed with my father a change in my plans. If my dream was too risky, well, I just wouldn’t pursue it.  I would pursue something sensible and responsible.  It was then that my father taught me a new lesson, sometimes you just have to go for it and trust your gut.  Sometimes, you just have to put yourself out there.

Over the years I’ve learned that putting myself out there, being available for life to happen to me, requires living in a grey area that can sometimes be uncomfortable.  For me, it means never saying never.  There are endless opportunities ahead if we are open to seeing them. 

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Great Wisdom of Bill Murray and My Father – Put Yourself Out There

PROPEL – Part IV: Implementing an Organizational Change Initiative in Higher Education

Posted on December 15, 2019 by admin

In Part III of this series on PROPEL, I shared how I developed the PROPEL initiative including gaining approval from my College president and executive team as well as solidifying employee engagement and support.  Today, I would like to share more about implementing PROPEL, including recruiting team members, developing team training, and creating an Idea Bank.

A few months prior to launching the first PROPEL team, I began recruiting team members through what I called my PROPEL Roadshow.  I presented at regular department meetings for all teams across the College, held a virtual Coffee Chat, and sent email announcements.  I shared the purpose of PROPEL and how it connected to the feedback they provided earlier in the year.  My goal was to ensure every employee had the information they needed to decide if they wanted to join a PROPEL team.  Then, I asked interested employees to complete an online interest form. By completing the form, employees had to indicate their interest, when they preferred to participate, and acknowledge the participation requirements. The form was automatically routed to the individual’s supervisor to approve participation, and all completed forms and approvals were routed to me via email.  This approval process helped me stay organized while giving each of our more than 250 employees the opportunity to join.

I also began working with the College training and development department to build an online, self-paced training in Canvas for all PROPEL team members.  This was an amazing experience and my first time building an online training.  I wrote the content and worked closely with a designer who added the videos, audio, and other bells and whistles.  The training gives team members the tools they needed to understand how to complete their work (e.g., resource locations, strategic goals) while building knowledge and awareness of how to plan and lead change.  The content aligns with Kotter’s 8 steps for leading change (Kotter, 1996). This alignment generates energy within the team while demonstrating application of each step.  The training then concluded with a walk through of the 8 steps and how they relate to being a PROPEL team member.  Team members complete various activities during the training including discussion posts about their motivations for joining PROPEL, knowledge assessments such as matching “quizzes,” and a final assessment.  All team members also complete a Pre-Participation Survey before the training begins.

In addition to the training, we had to set up an Idea Bank that would house all employee ideas for innovation.  Employee feedback in 2018 indicated the desire for employees to share innovative ideas and to better understand the types of innovations in progress in other departments.  Of all PROPEL components, the Idea Bank has experienced the greatest variation over the past year, and I will devote an entire post to the continued evolution of the Idea Bank at some point.  For now, I’ll just say that we established a common place, accessible online to all employees, where anyone could share their ideas and learn about exciting projects in development around the College.

Implementation of PROPEL was supported by numerous colleagues.  I simply didn’t have the time or expertise to do everything necessary to support this initiative.  I couldn’t even figure out how to set up automatic routing from the team member interest form to secure supervisor approval.  I cannot underscore enough the importance of collaboration and shared ownership that brough this dream to life.  For that, I owe a debt of gratitude to my colleagues and College leadership. 

In January 2019, the first PROPEL team launched. Since that time, 18 employees on four PROPEL teams have participated and new teams are developing now for 2020.  Now that I’ve shared the journey to get the PROPEL initiative off the ground, I can finally get to the most exciting part – the innovations developed by these teams and what they mean for students!  More on that coming soon!

Reference

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Posted in Education, Organizational Learning, PROPEL | Tagged , , | Comments Off on PROPEL – Part IV: Implementing an Organizational Change Initiative in Higher Education