Leadership Abstract
(continued)
*Governments are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to
maintain funding allocations on a par with rising costs, while
simultaneously requiring more public accountability by measuring
performance indicators. Accessing adequate operating monies presents a
serious long-term problem. Unlike some private institutions, becoming
financially self-sufficient is not a realistic possibility for any
public community college. There is a limit to how far shortfalls in
revenue can be made up through increases in tuition, particularly for
the typical community college student. College leaders today not only
have to spend an inordinate amount of time chasing scarce
nongovernmental dollars, but they must also find a recipe for
guaranteeing long-term financial health and stability.
Colleges are challenged to find solutions to the recent convergence of
these critical 21st century issues. This abstract describes how Humber
set about, in 1995, to find ways to reinvent itself by (1) evolving
into a learning organization, (2) creating new multiple-learningpathway opportunities for its students, and (3) containing costs and
seeking new sources of annual funding.
The date was not picked randomly. The process of reinvention received a
catalytic, not to say inauspicious start when the newly elected
provincial government carried through on its pledge to cut operating
budgets across the spectrum of the public sector by 15 percent. For
Humber, that meant about $13 million, exclusive of any additional
monies the college had to spend on early retirement or layoff packages.
Nor did these monies ever return to the college on an annual basis,
even though enrollments continued to rise in every year following. With
a caveat that deficits were not allowed, the government otherwise did
not intervene in any college’s efforts to bring its budget into
balance. As a result, strategies fluctuated widely as each college
proceeded to carry out its own fiscal and programmatic reductions
according to its own institutional priorities, values, and modus
operandi.
DEALING WITH REALITY
Fortunately, necessity is also the mother of invention for those
willing to seize the initiative. Humber was determined to think
creatively to preserve its relevance and health in an exciting but
unknown future. A new college strategy was conceptualized, a critical
path developed, and tactical implementation plans fine-tuned. However,
any action taken had to conform to two inviolable college operating
principles: (1) The college could not emasculate itself by cutting
services considered essential to successful achievement of long-term
goals. An example was the professional development program for staff,
long considered the backbone of keeping the college on the cutting
edge. (2) There could be no deviation from long-standing college
values, namely innovation and risk taking, excellence and quality,
customer service, and respect for all people, as well as professional
development and continuous learning for staff.
Several cost-containment moves appeared obvious and were acted upon
immediately. For example, because all staff were aware of the budgetary
crisis and the college took great care to avoid layoffs of full-time
staff, Humber was able to eliminate programs weak in enrollment, job
placement, or quality. Conversely, realizing that if a program was cut
entirely it would be very difficult to re-establish, few programs were
totally eliminated, although in many cases first-year enrollment was
limited temporarily. Also, where appropriate, enrollment cuts were
aligned with faculty who chose to leave, thus at once preserving a core
of committed faculty and avoiding layoffs of some excellent but junior
faculty with low seniority. By providing incentives for faculty and
staff who wished to retire, the college was able to hire lessexperienced, cheaper, but more technologically up-to-date replacements
who relished the challenge of being part of building a new learning
environment.
Other doable moves to cut costs, preserve service, and increase
revenues were acted upon as follows:
*Raising tuition as high as the government, the students, and the
market would allow
*Outsourcing services hitherto run by the college – namely the
bookstore, campus security, food services, and maintenance – thereby
eliminating fixed costs while achieving productivity gains and
generating new guaranteed revenues
*Increasing fee-for-service programs in conjunction with outside
professional groups (e.g., firefighters) where students would pay
significant surcharges in return for guaranteed employment after
graduation
*Increasing revenues via contract training with private- and publicsector organizations
*Increasing international registrations, at $11,000 tuition per
student, up to 5 percent of total full-time enrollment
Additional factors helped mitigate a discouraging situation. Unlike the
private sector, which faces the reality of the market every day, it
appeared unlikely that a public college would be driven out of business
entirely. The college realized that it could contemplate a trial-anderror process of adjustment without penalty, other than citizen
complaint of reduced service. Humber was able to take advantage of
falling prices of educational technology to experiment with new ways to
deliver education. Again, because distance education did not respect
traditional institutional geographical boundaries, there was potential
to increase market share if high-quality programming could be made
available online.
Because they are quantifiable, cutting costs and increasing revenues
tend to be more straightforward than the complex process of managing
change. The latter has more potential to upset the established
equilibrium, particularly if not carried out humanely, subtly, and
incrementally. The most effective way of achieving progress is to
demonstrate a flawless transition over time that does not negatively
affect the desired mix of managerial style, institutional culture, and
staff morale. In fact, it can be argued that the ability to manage the
change process smoothly is ultimately more critical to the long-term
organizational health of the college than the changes themselves. To
give one concrete example, teachers who sincerely believe that they
have long provided successful learning experiences for their students
resent any suggestion that they must alter their behavior to adapt to
the concept of a learning organization.
In order to alleviate fears of those who might have felt that the
college was attempting to change too dramatically and too quickly, it
was critical that the leadership take direct ownership by demonstrating
full-time commitment, and by knowing how and when to pull the levers of
change. The president in particular had first to provide overall and
positive direction, performing much as the orchestra leader who must
coordinate all composite parts.
Part of that responsibility was to procure acceptance of an integrated
strategic plan that would simultaneously create a series of flexible,
laddered learning pathways and ensure a sound, ongoing funding base. To
smooth that transition, it was important that staff and students
understood that there was no intention of throwing the baby out with
the bathwater. Although new programming would be introduced, the
associate’s degree (postsecondary diploma in Ontario) would remain the
core of the college academic offerings. The argument was presented that
the college would build on its traditional strengths and continue to
respond to new societal demands from its community as always. Above
all, in no way would it betray the original mandate and mission. Humber
was able to alleviate concern that it was either trying to elevate
itself to university status or eliminate faculty and programs in
nonacademic (e.g., apprenticeship, English as a second language) areas.
Also, while transfer to university had never been part of the college’s
mandate, most observers accepted the argument that it was time students
gained better access to ongoing educational opportunities.
THE NEW VISION
Humber realized that it must build learning pathways linked by
integrated curriculum in appropriate specialty areas, something not
done adequately in the past. This meant that students theoretically and
in practice could advance systematically from one level, like
apprenticeship, through to associate degrees, to eventually degrees
themselves. If at any point students chose to opt for work experience,
they would not only be able to re-enter easily, but could also be given
appropriate credit through prior learning assessment and recognition
(PLAR). The intent was to enable students to continue career and
personal enhancement with less duplication, fewer administrative
barriers, and increased credit transfer. It was the college’s
commitment to use the integrated curriculum framework to facilitate the
planning of lifelong learning for each student by clarifying pathway
options.
This ambitious design was not as naïve or unconnected to reality as
first might be thought. There were some important external developments
that provided support for new initiatives. First, after many years of
Ontario being the only jurisdiction in North America to require 13
years of school – Grade 12 graduates could go to college, hence the
lack of transfer programs – the government announced that the 13th year
was to be eliminated. This meant that with all high school graduates
coming from Grade 12, the playing field for the universities and
colleges was suddenly to be leveled. More importantly, in 2003-2004, a
double cohort of high school graduates would be seeking admission to
postsecondary education. To cope with this influx, and because
participation rates from the general population for postsecondary
education continued to rise in any case, the government announced a
massive capital expansion program.
For Humber, this meant two things: (1) It would provide the opportunity
to seek new partnerships, particularly with the hitherto intransigent
universities; and (2) the enrollment growth allowed experimentation
with new programming while minimizing internal fear or opposition that
might have arisen from anxious faculty. The college was able to assure
the faculty that not only was it unlikely there would be layoffs due to
program change, but there would also be opportunity to hire
considerable numbers of new staff. Humber realized that it could not
easily add new pathways, such as its own degrees, if that meant
widespread elimination of existing programs. It was able to position
program expansion as a natural extension of planned growth. Even the
student government accepted this hypothesis, and with unselfish
foresight agreed to a long-term, per-semester, per-capita building
enhancement fee worth about $10 million over five years, with the sole
caveat being that these funds be used to improve the students’ learning
environment.
PLAN FOR ACTION
Having gained general consensus for the conceptual overview, Humber had
to successfully carry out the implementation plan. It was recognized
that this would not be an easy task. Many stakeholders in Ontario’s
higher education community would not support the direction the college
was taking. The universities believed Humber was attempting to encroach
on credentials and resources hitherto considered solely in their
domain, and some colleges feared they might be left behind, as Humber
and a few other colleges gained an inordinate amount of available
resources. Private-sector support for better qualified graduates to
compete in the worldwide economy helped make Humber’s case, as did the
government’s antipathy toward the monopolistic attitudes of the
universities. Yet in the final analysis, Humber realized that it must
help itself by
*not unduly alienating the sensitivities of its internal and external
communities;
*cultivating and deepening relationships with strategic allies in
colleges, universities, and political circles; and
*negotiating its way carefully, systematically, and with utmost
diplomacy.
Following resolute efforts over several years, by 2003, the college
could report the following program mix:
APPRENTICESHIP. Although always a part of academic programming, in
recent years, students’ seats were funded by federal and provincial
governments on a competitive basis; in 2002-2003, over 2,000 students
were registered at Humber in various fields.
ASSOCIATE DEGREES (i.e., two and three year diplomas). Humber grew from
11, 500 full-time per-semester students in 2000-2001, to 14,000+ in
September 2003, all with college-level funding.
POST-DIPLOMA PROGRAMS. These are one-year, accelerated curricula for
university graduates only, in 38 fields, enrolling about 1,400 students
annually, all at college-level funding with tuition surcharge.
TRANSFER TO UNIVERSITY. Numbers increased dramatically from the past as
universities, many outside Ontario, began to respond to changing times
and accept more Humber students with advanced standing.
NURSING. The government mandated all nurses to hold a baccalaureate
degree for entry to practice by 2005; 75 percent of the province’s
nursing students were enrolled in colleges. University-level funding
was provided by the government to encourage and assist colleges to
build collaborative partnerships with degree-granting institutions. Not
surprisingly, the universities made this difficult in terms of funding,
curriculum, and control. Humber prevailed upon the Minister of
Training, Colleges and Universities, to approve the only special
consent given in eight years for a partnership outside Ontario, whereby
all four years of the degree would be offered by Humber, at Humber,
under the supervision of the degree granting of the host University of
New Brunswick. Humber presently has the largest program in the
province, with 240 first-year student intake, all at university level
funding, which is double that for colleges.
APPLIED DEGREES. Working with several colleges, Humber prevailed upon
the Minister, against wishes of the universities, to allow colleges to
grant degrees in applied fields. Tactically, the decision hinged on
making the case that economic need could be demonstrated, private
sector support was forthcoming, and universities were not presently
offering such programming, e.g., paralegal. A competitive pilot-program
project allowed a maximum of four degrees per college, processed
through the arms-length Quality Assessment Board, for a system total of
24, later hiked to 34. A small government funding increase was
supplemented by charging university-level tuition.
INSTITUTES OF TECHNOLGY AND ADVANCED LEARNING. Three colleges made the
case that the pilot project maximum was insufficient to create a
critical mass of degrees which would make substantial impact; they also
agreed that a legislated name change was necessary in order to compete
successfully with universities, for students and for job placement with
industry. In February 2003, Humber was given approval to offer up to 15
percent of its programming – i.e., 25 out of 160 – in degrees, with no
cap on enrollment, and its name was legally changed.
UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH-HUMBER. Capitalizing on the upcoming elimination
of grade 13 and the concomitant enrollment explosion in postsecondary
education, Humber sought and established a partnership with the
University of Guelph. The university is situated less than one hour’s
driving time from Humber’s main campus, and is consistently ranked at
or near the top of comprehensive universities in Canada. After due
diligence, the partners chose each other carefully. Humber’s
aspirations were access to more degrees for its students, as well as
funding improvement. Guelph was restricted in growth at its own main
campus and desired a foothold in the large Toronto market. The real
intent of the partnership, however, was to create a new postsecondary
option that blended the practical strength of the college curriculum
with the theoretical muscle of the university; the partnership went
beyond an articulated transfer agreement. Programs were designed in
seven areas, will enroll almost 3,000 full-time students by 2006, and
will enable students to earn both a college diploma in one field, e.g.,
wireless technology, and a Guelph honors degree in another, e.g.,
Bachelor of Science – all in four years, at one location: Humber.
Through extraordinary cooperation and mutual respect on the part of
staff at the two institutions, curriculum was totally reworked and
integrated, joint faculty appointed, admissions coordinated, and costs
cut for students because they would be expected to commute. A capital
grant of $28.6 million was received from the government, while the
institutions put up another $14 million. An impressive building will
open in September 2003. Most important, even though Guelph’s research
and graduate school activities would not be a priority for Humber’s 50
percent share of courses and staffing, funding and tuition were secured
at university level for all four years.
RANDOM THOUGHTS IN RETROSPECT
The developments of the last few years have been challenging and
exhilarating. Clearly, focused perseverance in taking advantage of
emerging opportunities can simultaneously neutralize difficulties,
broaden student options, and stabilize institutional finances. However,
bold visionary thinking is only as effective as an institution’s
ability to deliver implementation effectively. In that connection, it
might be useful to enunciate several insights that proved crucial in
facilitating Humber’s overall change strategies:
*There is no magic formula or cookie-cutter approach to fit all; vision
and strategy must differ from college to college, region to region.
*Implementation plans need to remain elastic, with regular realistic
assessments to decide midcourse redirection if necessary.
*No action can be a one-off, and any action must be integrated within
the overall activities of the college.
*Tactics and activities must be designed to gain buy-in and to advance
the process, which must be deep, wide, and constantly reinforced.
*The importance of collaboration, consensus building, and taking
personal responsibility through ownership can never be minimized; there
can be no success without involvement, empowerment, and approval of
stakeholders.
*Use professional development experts, especially from faculty, to
mentor late bloomers – in the exciting potential of educational
technology, for example – and to make the process positive.
*Measure outcomes regarding progress regularly, preferably through a
campus-based office of institutional research.
*Publicize successes and best practices – e.g., responses to how your
actions improved learning – and constantly foster an organizational
climate that promotes learning.
*Set up structures that reflect the learning organization, such as vice
president of learning services; imbed learning into college values.
*Be careful of overemphasis on one-time, quick-hit revenue generation,
or on the wonders of costly innovative technology.
*Make sure information technology is used as a creative tool, and that
systems serve the needs of the learning organization and not just the
administration.
*Curtail the role of those who oppose the agenda; take care in
selecting positive people with institutional influence for strategic
steering committees.
*Be cautious of excessive rhetoric regarding vision and
accomplishments; let results speak for themselves.
Contemporary college leaders should take satisfaction in knowing that
their efforts are making a difference in ensuring a solid future for
their colleges as 21st century learning organizations. But they should
also intuitively understand that development of a healthy learning
organization can only be viewed as an ongoing journey – never as a
destination. In that sense, they should also take comfort in knowing
that their successors will build on the foundation laid today, as this
generation embraces new ideas and implements new solutions in dealing
with the organizational and learning challenges that inevitably lie
ahead.
Robert A. (Squee) Gordon mailto:robert.gordon@humber.ca is President of
Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning.
___________________________________________________________