Francesco Marinucci
DEPM 604 Section 9040
6/19/2012
A2 Case study part-1
Strategic plan for the Regional University
Background
The Regional University (hereinafter RU), object of the strategic plan outlined below, has
been successfully delivering a master’s degree and a certificate of advanced graduate study for
the last 10 years. Since the beginning the university has offered both programs in a format
comprising online classes and a one-week intensive summer residency face-to-face session.
Despite the additional costs and disadvantage of travel and residency the summer residency has
been a hit with the students. The major reason for its popularity has been the opportunity
students have had to strengthen their sense of belonging to the institution through direct
interaction both with faculty and other students. As a result of improved empathy, students have
increased their social presence with the overall outcome of more satisfying learning experience
(Garrison, 2009). Besides the increased satisfaction of students, teaching staff has also benefitted
from the one-week residency since it has represented an additional source of income. Due to the
increasing enrollments in the master program in the last five years, the residency week has
become an optional activity but many students still have opted to cover the additional costs to
attend the face-to-face session.
Why intervention is warranted
The first intervention of the new director of online graduate programs has been to
advocate for the immediate termination of the summer residency considered not compatible with
true distance education programs. On one hand, this decision has raised discontent among
students who have planned to attend the face-to-face session, and among faculty who supported
the summer session in the past. Besides, the dean has been inclined to support the residency
because of the added value it has represented for the online program. On the other hand, the
department chair has been favorable to the elimination of the summer session for both programs.
As a consequence of the matters arising from the director’s announcement, RU has instituted a
task force with the goal of identifying potential strategies to solve the dilemma.
Diagnosis of the strengths
The primary strength of RU is that both advanced graduate study programs have
promoted a blended teaching and learning approach that has been quite successful among
students and faculty. These programs have had merit in creating a model that has led to increase
students’ population and to expand the geographic catchment area of RU over time. This has
represented a valid system for RU to improve the visibility of its educational offer beyond its
previous boundaries and, at the same time, to increase the revenues of the institution. The
significant expertise in terms of delivery mode and distance education pedagogy is a valuable
asset for RU distance education programs.
Diagnosis of the weaknesses
The primary weakness of RU is the leadership stalemate as it relates to future direction of
distance education within RU’s strategic plan. A major factor contributing to this impasse is the
different opinions key players within the institution have in regard to distance education. This
inconsonance is undoubtedly due to the different expertise and knowledge of distance education
that has led stakeholders to have biased perspectives on the future of these two programs. It is
likely that all the key players weigh differently the eight ingredients of blended learning
framework as described by Singh (2003). The newly appointed director is probably more focused
on the management aspect, while the dean is more concerned of the institutional dimension. At
the same time, it is likely that the department chair predominantly directs his attention to
resource support, while the faculty is more concentrated on the pedagogical aspect. While all the
key players seem to be interested in distance education, it is clear that there is neither a champion
nor enemy.
Development of a strategy for changing the situation
A major opportunity for RU is to continue building the distance education offer based on
the model positively evaluated by students and already implemented with success for the past 10
years. This uniqueness can consolidate RU’s role in the distance education arena and it also
offers tremendous opportunity for RU to grow distance education programs and student base.
When compared to full online and face-to-face programs existing at different universities, the
model developed at RU has the potential to attract students whose learning styles do not fit in
these two approaches.
The task force appointed by the dean has identified nine potential intervention strategies
summarized in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 - Potential intervention strategies at RU
Based on the present scenario at RU, and considering the dynamics among key
stakeholders and the previous experience at RU on distance education, author’s preference goes
to strategy 5. The other two options having identical delivery format (strategy 1 and strategy 9)
were rejected because they are considered too restrictive. Strategy 2 and strategy 3 were ruled
out because, in author’s view, it makes more sense to maintain the residency as optional for the
certificate. Similarly, strategy 4 and strategy 7 were considered unsatisfactory for master degreeseeking students willing to attend the face-to-face session. Lastly, even if strategy 6 and strategy
8 offer the summer residency for both programs, this is alternately mandatory. To reach broader
students’ population and accommodate different learning styles it is the author’s view that the
face-to-face component cannot be imposed.
The option recommended offers the best combination to ensure that each perspective on
distance education at RU is included by providing comprehensive educational offer to students.
By keeping the summer face-to-face session available as an optional basis, the director and the
head of department have the opportunity to evaluate better its efficacy and pedagogical effect. At
the same time, integrating the residency with online teaching and learning gives the director and
the head of department the chance of giving their imprinting to redesign online courses, and it
also allows them to work together with the dean by involving her in the process.
Proposed leadership style required to affect intended outcome
In the author’s view, either the lack of leadership or the wrong leadership style is the
major cause of the current impasse at RU. Because of the two distinct schools of thought on
distance education among RU key players, the transformational leadership style is probable to be
ineffective. Similarly, the fact that there are two opposite perspectives makes transactional
leadership style, based on reward and punishment, not the best approach to start the process
change at RU. The process change cannot be achieved by one person at RU; therefore,
charismatic leadership is considered not a valid option for this specific scenario.
The style proposed encompasses elements of both distributed and situational leadership.
The decision-making process at RU should involve all the key players for the institutional
change process to be successful. Distributed leadership allows retaining both individual leaders
and hierarchy, and it perfectly fits the RU organizational structure by promoting multi-style,
multi-participant process without altering the authority of the individuals involved. As pointed
out by Dean (2007) “in distributively led organizations, leadership is a collective achievement
based on the contributions of every participants” (p.4) that, in the author’s opinion, needs to take
into account also the political role-played by each participant within the institution. While
expanding the decision-making process to multiple participants is likely to avoid wrong
assumptions and favor a more equitable process, personal interests and leaders competing for
influence are factors that might undermine the practice of distributed leadership.
While distributed leadership perfectly applies to RU at the macro level and therefore it
should be fostered for the entire length of the change process, situational leadership is also
needed at different stages of the same effort. In the model presented by Hershey and Blanchard
(1969), effective leaders should have the capacity of adjusting their leadership style to the
readiness levels of subordinates. The level of maturity of the followers is among the situational
factors not under leader control that, as described by Vroom and Jago (2007), determine the
organizational effectiveness. In RU scenario leaders at different level of the hierarchical structure
have to adapt their leadership styles based on the ability and willingness of their specific
followers. Therefore it is likely that the dean, as top manager at RU, will have to adopt her style
when dealing with the commitment and motivation of the head of department and director to
accomplish the specific task. Having a common institutional goal as it relates to distance
education shared by top management at RU is probably the first step to move forward the change
process. It is the dean’s role and responsibility to initiate this important step that will hopefully
trigger off distributed leadership at RU.
Analysis of likely reaction from stakeholders involved
The status quo will be presented as an opportunity for RU stakeholders to renovate
format and delivery mode of DE programs by maintaining the blended approach. The strategy
will contain valid elements of each player so to be seen as a common goal.
Due to the fact that she is not enamored with DE, the dean’s reaction at the
recommendation of the task force of initiating the change process will not likely be positive. To
soften her position the task force will provide valid argumentation to sustain the pedagogical
benefits of the blended learning approach and the potential economic advantages DE offers to
increase the revenues at her institution. Similarly, the feedback of the director and head of
department to the proposal will likely be negative. To prevent their negative reaction, the task
force will complement the proposal by providing track records of students’ satisfaction for the
past 10 years and appropriate literature on the importance of satisfaction on students’ learning. It
is likely that the response of the faculty who were previously involved in the summer sessions,
and that of students planning to attend the upcoming session, will be positive.
Description of next steps
The process of implementing strategy 5 will comprise the following steps based on the eight
stages described by Kotter (1996):
1. The task force presents the strategy to the stakeholders complemented by market
analysis of the offer of DE courses in the same area and the role of students’ satisfaction on drop-
out rates. By presenting this data, the task force aims at establishing a sense of urgency described
by Kotter as a crucial factor to gaining needed cooperation.
2. A guiding coalition comprising the dean, head of department, director, and few
faculties creates a shared vision and strategies for achieving it.
3. Champions within the guiding coalition communicate the transformational vision to
the stakeholders.
4. The head of department revisits department structure, and redistributes roles and tasks
of faculty and staff to empower people.
5. The director creates short-term goals and rewards people responsible for the
improvements.
6. The guiding coalition monitors the change process and takes action accordingly to
reinvigorate the process with new initiatives.
Concluding comment
The different positions on DE of key stakeholders at RU have created an impasse that
needs a new leadership style to be overcome. For this purpose the task force has used the
dilemma as an opportunity to establish a sense of urgency and hence starting a change process by
balancing authority-based leading and participation-style decision making. Based upon the
reality of the situation, the best strategy aims at involving in the process all the stakeholders and
at the same time differentiating the hierarchical roles within the institution. A further hope is that
the participatory approach will create a shared vision and strengthen the common goal of all
players by allowing RU to expand DE offer in the near future.
References
Dean, D.R. (2007). Thinking globally: The national college of school leadership--A case study in
distributed leadership development. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(1),
1-62
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Implications of online learning for the conceptual development and
practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 93−104.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and
Development Journal, 23(5), 26–34.
Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology,
43(6), 51-54.
Vroom, V.H. & Jago, A.G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17