I am a true believer in the value of branch campuses. I cherish the fact that branches are about expanding access and opportunity—that at their best, branch faculty tend to be focused on teaching and that branches provide strong student support and meaningful community engagement. Some branches (in fairness, some colleges and universities) deliver better than others, but for me, higher education always is about the possibilities, as well as the current reality.
This summer, among other activities, I had opportunities to visit with branches at two institutions. The first was the relatively large Downtown Campus of St. Petersburg College. St. Petersburg College was a community college that added applied baccalaureate programs in recent years, and partly as a result, the Downtown Campus has grown rapidly. The enthusiasm of the faculty and staff members I met was apparent, as we were engaged in planning for their next stage up the mountain. With their long-time director, Yvonne Ulmer, preparing to retire, the positive attitudes will serve them well.
The other visit was to Central Washington University (CWU), which is a regional comprehensive university. CWU has eight relatively small centers that are co-located with community college across a large geographic area. These centers have grown more slowly, but steadily for a number of years, led by Margaret Badgley, who also happens to be president-elect of NABCA. Although Margaret has been at CWU for quite awhile, there are a number of relatively new people in leadership roles, most of whom recognize the strategic value that comes with branch campuses, in an era of emphasis on adult learners and online education.
As I’ve written before, this can be a golden era for branches, if they embrace their mission of outreach, offer the right programs, and assure strong student support services. Blending online and face-to-face learning in thoughtful ways is essential, especially if I am correct that disruptive innovation is a powerful force in higher education. As St. Petersburg College and CWU illustrate, there are multiple roads for branches to travel, but that is part of the creative opportunity.
Along these lines, I encourage you to read the new book by Clayton M. Christensen and Henry J. Eyring, The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out. Christensen has been an important writer on disruptive innovation, and I am pleased that he has now focused specifically on higher education. His books are a treasure trove of principles that institutions would be wise to consider seriously, but, again, each institution will need to develop its own strategy.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
A Partnership Story for Branch Campuses
A few years ago, the dean of one of our professional colleges approached me about arranging a conversation with several community colleges, to explore creating articulation agreements. I was pleased, but also surprised, because the college had always before been a reluctant partner.
Enrollments had declined in the college, however, and reduced state support had forced the university leadership to tie budgets more closely to student credit hour production. The dean knew that my staff had built strong relationships with community colleges, so it made sense to ask us to initiate a conversation.
We arranged the meetings, and the assistant dean of the college accompanied my staff to the community college. As soon as everyone was introduced and took their seats, the assistant dean spoke up, saying, “We would like to create an articulation agreement between our programs and your institution. I reviewed your curriculum and prepared curriculum sheets to show how your program articulates with ours. You’ll see that students cannot reach the baccalaureate in just two years, but if you make the changes I’ve indicated to your existing curriculum, the fit will be better.”
The community college dean asked a few questions about course scheduling at the university, given that most of her graduates were working full time and would need to commute to the university branch for some courses, and to the main campus for certain courses and labs. She wondered about online options or the possibility of offering some courses on the community college campus. She also asked for more detail about course transfer, hoping to find a few more matches than the curriculum sheet showed.
The assistant dean patiently explained that there was no way around lab requirements, and there were no facilities available other than at the main campus for certain critical lab experiences. Faculty members, he explained, are pressed by their research expectations, so travel to the community college, or even to the university branch, just wouldn’t happen, in most cases. He did express willingness to consider offering labs on Saturdays, but he couldn’t commit.
So, the articulation agreement was created and signed, but there was virtually no increase in transfer enrollment. Those of us involved in outreach (branch campus and distance learning staff) were frustrated at the failure to use this opportunity to build another bridge. The difference between what the assistant dean viewed as “partnering” and what we considered to be an engaged partnership was critical.
When universities come to listen, community colleges feel respected and valued, as colleagues. University representatives need to demonstrate some willingness to examine assumptions about curriculum and about serving new student audiences. When community college representatives come to listen, they get a better understanding of legitimate concerns that the university folks feel, so that the university does not appear simply to be rigid or arrogant.
In an engaged partnership, institutions have the potential to design curriculum and develop services that support student success. Because their relationship grows over time, the institutions might create entirely new programs or degree options, never before considered. They might engage in co-marketing, dual admissions, and shared advising. They surely will identify hurdles and overcome them, increasing the likelihood that community college students will naturally select the partnering university to continue their education.
These partnerships are happening, and for universities, it does make a difference in attracting enrollment. But engaged partnerships require deep listening and willingness to seek common ground, in creative ways that yield high quality programs, while adjusting to the legitimate expectations of our students.
Enrollments had declined in the college, however, and reduced state support had forced the university leadership to tie budgets more closely to student credit hour production. The dean knew that my staff had built strong relationships with community colleges, so it made sense to ask us to initiate a conversation.
We arranged the meetings, and the assistant dean of the college accompanied my staff to the community college. As soon as everyone was introduced and took their seats, the assistant dean spoke up, saying, “We would like to create an articulation agreement between our programs and your institution. I reviewed your curriculum and prepared curriculum sheets to show how your program articulates with ours. You’ll see that students cannot reach the baccalaureate in just two years, but if you make the changes I’ve indicated to your existing curriculum, the fit will be better.”
The community college dean asked a few questions about course scheduling at the university, given that most of her graduates were working full time and would need to commute to the university branch for some courses, and to the main campus for certain courses and labs. She wondered about online options or the possibility of offering some courses on the community college campus. She also asked for more detail about course transfer, hoping to find a few more matches than the curriculum sheet showed.
The assistant dean patiently explained that there was no way around lab requirements, and there were no facilities available other than at the main campus for certain critical lab experiences. Faculty members, he explained, are pressed by their research expectations, so travel to the community college, or even to the university branch, just wouldn’t happen, in most cases. He did express willingness to consider offering labs on Saturdays, but he couldn’t commit.
So, the articulation agreement was created and signed, but there was virtually no increase in transfer enrollment. Those of us involved in outreach (branch campus and distance learning staff) were frustrated at the failure to use this opportunity to build another bridge. The difference between what the assistant dean viewed as “partnering” and what we considered to be an engaged partnership was critical.
When universities come to listen, community colleges feel respected and valued, as colleagues. University representatives need to demonstrate some willingness to examine assumptions about curriculum and about serving new student audiences. When community college representatives come to listen, they get a better understanding of legitimate concerns that the university folks feel, so that the university does not appear simply to be rigid or arrogant.
In an engaged partnership, institutions have the potential to design curriculum and develop services that support student success. Because their relationship grows over time, the institutions might create entirely new programs or degree options, never before considered. They might engage in co-marketing, dual admissions, and shared advising. They surely will identify hurdles and overcome them, increasing the likelihood that community college students will naturally select the partnering university to continue their education.
These partnerships are happening, and for universities, it does make a difference in attracting enrollment. But engaged partnerships require deep listening and willingness to seek common ground, in creative ways that yield high quality programs, while adjusting to the legitimate expectations of our students.
Monday, June 13, 2011
In Praise of Outreach Centers
Let us sing the praises of outreach centers! When I started this blog, I wrote about the difference between branch campuses and centers. Briefly, a campus (according to me, among others) offers complete or nearly complete programs and has a permanent facility. There is a local administration, providing a reasonably wide range of student services and support programs, although not the range one would see at the main campus. It has a resident faculty, but curriculum control and the establishment of minimum faculty credentials come primarily from the main campus.
Not all branch campuses meet all of these criteria, but the description is typical. Outreach centers have a more restricted range of programs and services, probably do not have a resident faculty, and have a relatively small support staff to handle local operations. A center does have some sort of facility, so it is more than what we might call a “site,” but it probably is quite limited in the total space available.
Centers, as described, may be established from the main campus, but there also is the interesting phenomenon of “twigs”: outreach centers created by branch campuses, as a strategy to extend their reach. Regardless, center directors tend to have their fair share of frustrations, similar to those of branch campus leaders, and fewer human, financial, and program resources with which to pursue their mission.
I’ve had great opportunities to be part of new things, but the creation of the Ohio University Pickerington Center was one of my most satisfying. The University also has a center in Proctorville, and although I was not involved in its creation, I did have a hand in supporting the construction of its present, exceptional facility. Both of these centers are “twigs,” and both have grown nicely.
Years ago, when I became involved with NABCA, I realized that a lot of the conference attendees were associated with what I would call outreach centers. That’s great, and NABCA is a strong resource for administrators who work at both campuses and centers. However, I feel a special affinity for those who carry the load at centers.
Frankly, centers probably make more sense in the emerging world of online and hybrid programs, because they offer the advantages of a dedicated facility and staff, without some of the costs of a full-blown campus. That isn’t to say that campuses lack value, but I do think most institutions contemplating opening new branches would be wise to think about the center-campus distinction, as they develop a plan and financial model. If we think of campuses vs. centers as a continuum, there is a lot of room for creativity.
The other thing I’d say is that I often find the sort of dedication, passion, and can-do spirit in center directors that is so vital to success. So, here’s to the outreach center! Center directors should seek out one another and invest time in building bridges of mutual support. You deserve some special attention.
Not all branch campuses meet all of these criteria, but the description is typical. Outreach centers have a more restricted range of programs and services, probably do not have a resident faculty, and have a relatively small support staff to handle local operations. A center does have some sort of facility, so it is more than what we might call a “site,” but it probably is quite limited in the total space available.
Centers, as described, may be established from the main campus, but there also is the interesting phenomenon of “twigs”: outreach centers created by branch campuses, as a strategy to extend their reach. Regardless, center directors tend to have their fair share of frustrations, similar to those of branch campus leaders, and fewer human, financial, and program resources with which to pursue their mission.
I’ve had great opportunities to be part of new things, but the creation of the Ohio University Pickerington Center was one of my most satisfying. The University also has a center in Proctorville, and although I was not involved in its creation, I did have a hand in supporting the construction of its present, exceptional facility. Both of these centers are “twigs,” and both have grown nicely.
Years ago, when I became involved with NABCA, I realized that a lot of the conference attendees were associated with what I would call outreach centers. That’s great, and NABCA is a strong resource for administrators who work at both campuses and centers. However, I feel a special affinity for those who carry the load at centers.
Frankly, centers probably make more sense in the emerging world of online and hybrid programs, because they offer the advantages of a dedicated facility and staff, without some of the costs of a full-blown campus. That isn’t to say that campuses lack value, but I do think most institutions contemplating opening new branches would be wise to think about the center-campus distinction, as they develop a plan and financial model. If we think of campuses vs. centers as a continuum, there is a lot of room for creativity.
The other thing I’d say is that I often find the sort of dedication, passion, and can-do spirit in center directors that is so vital to success. So, here’s to the outreach center! Center directors should seek out one another and invest time in building bridges of mutual support. You deserve some special attention.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Engaged Partnership
Partnerships are critical to the success of any modern organization. Partners may provide certain services better and less expensively than you can manage within your own organization. Partners may also provide critical collaboration on important projects, blending their expertise with your own, to support more nimble and higher quality development.
Branch campuses absolutely need reliable partners. Internally, campuses can partner in all sorts of interesting ways, but the most critical partners probably are main campus academic units. These often-difficult relationships can work much better if the campus and the academic unit think of each other as partners.
I was fortunate to carry the title of vice president for over eight years, and I realize that position provided access and encouraged cooperation in a way that titles like campus dean or executive director may not. Regardless, I maintained that our branches would partner with any academic program, assuming we had an audience for the program, and we worked hard to meet the expectations of our partners. On the other hand, we would walk away from the table, if we were treated as if we were only a location or a service provider. (I don’t mean that we jumped up and stomped out of rooms, but that we would let the conversation rest until the other side showed more willingness to acknowledge our contributions and interests.)
My point was that branch campuses bring something important to the table and deserve to be respected as partners of the academic unit. Branch campus leaders have knowledge of the local market and how that market can most effectively be reached, as just one important example. Given escalating competition, branch campuses also should bring a level of targeted services and technical support that contributes to long-term enrollment success.
Branches also need external partners, in my opinion. I object to labeling certain contracts “vendor relationships,” when I believe they should run deeper than that. For example, in Ohio University’s distance learning programs, we established strong ties with certain companies that could bring marketing knowledge or excellent course design skills to the table. At the time, we could not create these services at the level of excellence we believed necessary, and by creating a financial partnership, instead of a typical vendor relationship, we set an expectation for collaboration that led to considerable success. I recognize that some administrators do not agree with this point of view, but I stand my ground.
Finally, I think branch campuses need external academic partners, as well. I am proud of the Community College Partnership program we built in my last few years, although that work did not directly involve our regional campuses. (I think it will, eventually, but that isn’t up to me.) We set a goal to become a “preferred partner” of certain community colleges, by engaging more deeply than simply creating articulation agreements, and it has paid off in significant, rapid enrollment growth. To my mind, the key was coming to the table as colleagues, something a lot of universities fail to do, according to community college leaders with whom we worked.
I encourage you to be thoughtful about partnerships. Choose them carefully, but also consider what it means to be a real partner and why it matters. Engaged partnerships bring substantial opportunity, but develop them selectively and strategically.
Branch campuses absolutely need reliable partners. Internally, campuses can partner in all sorts of interesting ways, but the most critical partners probably are main campus academic units. These often-difficult relationships can work much better if the campus and the academic unit think of each other as partners.
I was fortunate to carry the title of vice president for over eight years, and I realize that position provided access and encouraged cooperation in a way that titles like campus dean or executive director may not. Regardless, I maintained that our branches would partner with any academic program, assuming we had an audience for the program, and we worked hard to meet the expectations of our partners. On the other hand, we would walk away from the table, if we were treated as if we were only a location or a service provider. (I don’t mean that we jumped up and stomped out of rooms, but that we would let the conversation rest until the other side showed more willingness to acknowledge our contributions and interests.)
My point was that branch campuses bring something important to the table and deserve to be respected as partners of the academic unit. Branch campus leaders have knowledge of the local market and how that market can most effectively be reached, as just one important example. Given escalating competition, branch campuses also should bring a level of targeted services and technical support that contributes to long-term enrollment success.
Branches also need external partners, in my opinion. I object to labeling certain contracts “vendor relationships,” when I believe they should run deeper than that. For example, in Ohio University’s distance learning programs, we established strong ties with certain companies that could bring marketing knowledge or excellent course design skills to the table. At the time, we could not create these services at the level of excellence we believed necessary, and by creating a financial partnership, instead of a typical vendor relationship, we set an expectation for collaboration that led to considerable success. I recognize that some administrators do not agree with this point of view, but I stand my ground.
Finally, I think branch campuses need external academic partners, as well. I am proud of the Community College Partnership program we built in my last few years, although that work did not directly involve our regional campuses. (I think it will, eventually, but that isn’t up to me.) We set a goal to become a “preferred partner” of certain community colleges, by engaging more deeply than simply creating articulation agreements, and it has paid off in significant, rapid enrollment growth. To my mind, the key was coming to the table as colleagues, something a lot of universities fail to do, according to community college leaders with whom we worked.
I encourage you to be thoughtful about partnerships. Choose them carefully, but also consider what it means to be a real partner and why it matters. Engaged partnerships bring substantial opportunity, but develop them selectively and strategically.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Branch Campus Opportunities
I haven’t posted on Branch Campus Life in awhile. Instead, I’ve been developing a new blog, Creating the Future, which addresses topics that could be of interest to branch campuses, but reflect my personal focus on innovation in higher education, including programs for adult learners and distance learning. You can find the new blog at www.drcharlesbird.com/creatingthefuture. You also can link to my personal web site from the blog or by clicking on this link: www.drcharlesbird.com.
I will continue to post on Branch Campus Life, from time to time, to address specific branch campus topics. I know how important it is for people on branch campuses to find others with similar experiences, as a way to identify best practices, test their own ideas, or assure themselves that they are not alone.
To that end, I want to mention the two annual conferences that support branch administrators. The first, NABCA, is coming up April 20-23, in Seattle. You can learn more at www.nabca.net. The second, the RBCA Leadership Conference will be June 19-22, on Longboat Key, FL. Information can be accessed at http://www.outreach.ohio.edu/rbca/. Most participants especially value the networking opportunities these conferences provide.
Changing directions, I’ve had a remarkable journey, the past nine months or so. Moving to my encore career provided time to read and reflect, talk with colleagues, consult, and coach. The experience reinforced my belief that there are golden opportunities for branch campuses and centers. Given the challenge of budget reductions and increased competition, more institutional leaders recognize the importance of attracting new audiences. Branch campuses are in an excellent position to combine traditional face-to-face courses with online or hybrid courses to maximize student access and flexibility.
The difficulties remain the same, of course. Leadership may want to see campuses and programs grow, but their understanding of higher education entrepreneurship is often limited and naïve. As I’ve written before, the rate of change inside most established institutions is slower than the rate of change from emerging competitors, and that also is not good. My own recent experience reinforces my belief that revenue sharing plans tend to be out of balance, if they exist at all, missing the potential energizing effect that a well-conceived plan can provide.
For branch campus leaders, I urge greater attention to the power of revenue sharing plans. If branch campus folks fail to appreciate the expectation that they will contribute to solving institutional budget challenges, or if main campus leaders get too greedy, everything else will be for naught.
Some institutions and campuses will respond creatively, and some will not. Look deeply at how you add value for prospective students, focusing on their point of view, not yours. Step up your market research, because the cost of mistakes will be higher than ever. Network and learn from colleagues’ successes and failures. This could be your time!
Monday, October 18, 2010
Branch Campus Libraries
Over the years, libraries have been an important part of my life. I worked in the library, as an undergraduate, spent nearly countless hours doing research in libraries, and had library directors reporting directly to me for at least a dozen years. I’ve even published in the Journal of Academic Librarianship.
I’m also genuinely impressed by the way libraries and librarians have transformed over the years. I’m confident that libraries will continue to evolve and to serve a critical function at colleges and universities.
Against all that sits my belief that a disruptive environment has emerged in higher education. One prediction I’ve made is that newly emerging options will offer high quality online and hybrid programs at prices that are sharply lower than we see currently. However, even if that doesn’t happen, institutional leaders will be forced to take a hard look at programs and services, to make sure that spending is tied closely to recruitment and retention. All services and programs need to serve a strategic purpose, or they need to go.
I’m not suggesting that libraries are unnecessary, but that branch campus libraries need to be thought of strategically. The library budget and the library’s programs and services need to be evaluated based on how they contribute to the success of the institution. Simply asserting that you have a great library is relevant only to the extent that your targeted audience cares.
For example, some branch campuses have converted part of their library space into a “student commons,” providing commuter students with an excellent place to meet and study, while also providing access to materials, online data bases, and staff support for research projects. That makes intuitive sense to me, and if the campuses are obtaining data that demonstrates the commons receives heavy use, then it may be a strategic success.
In contrast, I have heard some faculty members argue that there are certain materials that must be in the library, regardless of whether or not anyone uses them. Those faculty members, Platonists all, believe that there is some library ideal that begins with a core collection of books and periodicals. If you are reading this blog, you probably don’t agree with that point of view, but for those who do, the future promises to be even more frustrating than the present.
Of course, it isn’t just about libraries. I also enjoy athletics and nice fitness centers, but I suspect it is going to take unambiguous data to support continued growth in spending at many institutions. Whereas an outstanding library—or an outstanding football team—may contribute to the value of an institution’s brand, they will not typically contribute to how branch campus students, never mind distance learning students, make their decision to enroll, unless those students see the value added.
Libraries and athletics stand out only because their costs are a bit easier to identify than some others. Indeed, I hear repeatedly, from different institutions with quite different missions, that no one seems to be able to get a handle on the marketing budget, the communications budget, or the IT budget. It’s tough to calculate the return on investment, when you don’t even know what you are spending! Moreover, there are opportunity costs that come with the investment of time and money without a clear strategic purpose.
So what will the branch campus library of the future look like? Clearly, it will depend on the type of branch, its size, and its mission. However, staffing, collections, and services should be those that have a demonstrable effect on student recruitment and retention. In addition, campuses of the future may want to consider carefully how they can gain access to collections, without the full expense of creating and maintaining them.
Electronic data bases have an obvious value, in that respect, but I can imagine the creation of collaboratives or of customizable electronic collections, and I know examples of online providers contracting with universities to provide collection access. Of course, current projects that are scanning entire university collections may have an impact, and the general trend toward open access may be significant.
Students still will need to learn how to use the technology, conduct effective searches, and evaluate the information they find, although the physical location of librarians may not have much to do with the location of a branch campus. I’d expect even more of the 24/7-type of service orientation, given the growth of online programs and the increasing emphasis on student service excellence.
Identifying essential elements of how libraries impact recruitment and retention, then providing appropriate services with an eye on cost, is simply an example of how successful branches approach every decision. Assessment is not just for academic programs!
I’m also genuinely impressed by the way libraries and librarians have transformed over the years. I’m confident that libraries will continue to evolve and to serve a critical function at colleges and universities.
Against all that sits my belief that a disruptive environment has emerged in higher education. One prediction I’ve made is that newly emerging options will offer high quality online and hybrid programs at prices that are sharply lower than we see currently. However, even if that doesn’t happen, institutional leaders will be forced to take a hard look at programs and services, to make sure that spending is tied closely to recruitment and retention. All services and programs need to serve a strategic purpose, or they need to go.
I’m not suggesting that libraries are unnecessary, but that branch campus libraries need to be thought of strategically. The library budget and the library’s programs and services need to be evaluated based on how they contribute to the success of the institution. Simply asserting that you have a great library is relevant only to the extent that your targeted audience cares.
For example, some branch campuses have converted part of their library space into a “student commons,” providing commuter students with an excellent place to meet and study, while also providing access to materials, online data bases, and staff support for research projects. That makes intuitive sense to me, and if the campuses are obtaining data that demonstrates the commons receives heavy use, then it may be a strategic success.
In contrast, I have heard some faculty members argue that there are certain materials that must be in the library, regardless of whether or not anyone uses them. Those faculty members, Platonists all, believe that there is some library ideal that begins with a core collection of books and periodicals. If you are reading this blog, you probably don’t agree with that point of view, but for those who do, the future promises to be even more frustrating than the present.
Of course, it isn’t just about libraries. I also enjoy athletics and nice fitness centers, but I suspect it is going to take unambiguous data to support continued growth in spending at many institutions. Whereas an outstanding library—or an outstanding football team—may contribute to the value of an institution’s brand, they will not typically contribute to how branch campus students, never mind distance learning students, make their decision to enroll, unless those students see the value added.
Libraries and athletics stand out only because their costs are a bit easier to identify than some others. Indeed, I hear repeatedly, from different institutions with quite different missions, that no one seems to be able to get a handle on the marketing budget, the communications budget, or the IT budget. It’s tough to calculate the return on investment, when you don’t even know what you are spending! Moreover, there are opportunity costs that come with the investment of time and money without a clear strategic purpose.
So what will the branch campus library of the future look like? Clearly, it will depend on the type of branch, its size, and its mission. However, staffing, collections, and services should be those that have a demonstrable effect on student recruitment and retention. In addition, campuses of the future may want to consider carefully how they can gain access to collections, without the full expense of creating and maintaining them.
Electronic data bases have an obvious value, in that respect, but I can imagine the creation of collaboratives or of customizable electronic collections, and I know examples of online providers contracting with universities to provide collection access. Of course, current projects that are scanning entire university collections may have an impact, and the general trend toward open access may be significant.
Students still will need to learn how to use the technology, conduct effective searches, and evaluate the information they find, although the physical location of librarians may not have much to do with the location of a branch campus. I’d expect even more of the 24/7-type of service orientation, given the growth of online programs and the increasing emphasis on student service excellence.
Identifying essential elements of how libraries impact recruitment and retention, then providing appropriate services with an eye on cost, is simply an example of how successful branches approach every decision. Assessment is not just for academic programs!
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Coaching for New Branch Campus Administrators
I’ve taken a couple of months off from posting on this blog, as part of the transition to my “encore” career. One of the things I did over the summer was to attend a week long coach training program. I’m interested in executive coaching, in several respects, including working with individuals in transition to new jobs or to their own new career.
All this led me to think about the challenges that many people face, when they accept a position as the chief administrator (CAO) of a branch campus. Some people, like me, have a regional or branch campus background, so they come into the CAO role with an understanding of the issues, politics, and so on. However, I’ve met many people whose first branch campus role is as a CAO. For example, he or she may have been a department chair or dean in a more traditional environment, although I’ve also known individuals who became CAO of a university branch, after years of service at a community college.
All of these transitions bring challenges, and nearly everyone I’ve met has spent some time bewildered by the implications of serving on a branch campus. If there are multiple branch campuses at the institution, then the new CAO may have one or more peer mentors available. Most will have a “first officer,” or key administrator who can be something of a confidant. However, many new CAOs are likely to feel that they have arrived in a foreign land and that they have no one with whom they can be both completely candid and also receive support, as they think through a wide range of issues and concerns.
I’m suggesting that being a branch campus CAO can be a lonely and isolating experience, in some ways. The rewards may far exceed any challenges, of course, but one of my favorite things is to meet first-time attendees at a NABCA or RBCA conference, and to see how relieved and happy they are. It is not at all uncommon for these people to become truly excited that they have found people who face the same challenges or frustrations that they face. The networking and “therapeutic” value of these conferences are important!
In this context, I think that many CAOs, including some who have plenty of experience, could benefit from having a coach. If you simply Google “executive coaching,” you can find lots of information on what coaching is. Fundamentally, however, a coach is someone who works as a “thought partner.” More than anything, coaches provide support and ask questions in ways that help an individual (or, in some cases, a group) think through their goals, options, and obstacles, then settle on actions that will lead toward the goals. (A nice introduction to coaching is provided by Jeff Auerbach, in Personal and Executive Coaching (2001), and I have adapted my description from him.)
Ideally, a branch CAO would begin working with a coach prior to assuming the new job, as part of developing a strategy for the first weeks and months. A lot of coaching is done over the telephone, and so one might schedule conversations every two weeks or so, until the CAO is feeling comfortable in the new role. After that, calls might come as needed, whenever the CAO wants to think through an issue or an idea, believing that a conversation with the coach could be helpful.
Finally, as I’ve been pursuing coach certification, several people have expressed an interest in coaching, as part of their own work. This makes sense, given that I talk to a lot of Baby Boomers in transition, and coaching could be an excellent avenue for staying engaged and contributing to the development of other people. If you find coach training of interest, you can find information on a variety of programs online. Some are affiliated with a university, many have a specific conceptual perspective, and some are face-to-face, whereas others are online or use a mix of delivery methods. I enjoyed the 50-hour program I attended, for a number of personal/professional reasons. It was offered by the College of Executive Coaching (Jeff Auerbach is the president), but I strongly recommend that anyone interested in coach training explore the options for him or herself.
I’m not sure where my interest in coaching will take me. I see it as an aspect of positive psychology, so it fits with my interest in Appreciative Inquiry and other related areas. I think it would be very satisfying to bring a coaching approach to work with Boomers in transition to the next part of their lives, and I see potential to use coaching as a tool in consulting, perhaps helping with the implementation phase that follows initial recommendations. Regardless, I recommend that new CAOs on branch campuses consider attending NABCA and RBCA conferences, as well as connecting to a “trusted advisor,” who can help with the transition, whether you do so informally, or through a professional coach. This work is challenging enough without thinking that you are all alone out there!
All this led me to think about the challenges that many people face, when they accept a position as the chief administrator (CAO) of a branch campus. Some people, like me, have a regional or branch campus background, so they come into the CAO role with an understanding of the issues, politics, and so on. However, I’ve met many people whose first branch campus role is as a CAO. For example, he or she may have been a department chair or dean in a more traditional environment, although I’ve also known individuals who became CAO of a university branch, after years of service at a community college.
All of these transitions bring challenges, and nearly everyone I’ve met has spent some time bewildered by the implications of serving on a branch campus. If there are multiple branch campuses at the institution, then the new CAO may have one or more peer mentors available. Most will have a “first officer,” or key administrator who can be something of a confidant. However, many new CAOs are likely to feel that they have arrived in a foreign land and that they have no one with whom they can be both completely candid and also receive support, as they think through a wide range of issues and concerns.
I’m suggesting that being a branch campus CAO can be a lonely and isolating experience, in some ways. The rewards may far exceed any challenges, of course, but one of my favorite things is to meet first-time attendees at a NABCA or RBCA conference, and to see how relieved and happy they are. It is not at all uncommon for these people to become truly excited that they have found people who face the same challenges or frustrations that they face. The networking and “therapeutic” value of these conferences are important!
In this context, I think that many CAOs, including some who have plenty of experience, could benefit from having a coach. If you simply Google “executive coaching,” you can find lots of information on what coaching is. Fundamentally, however, a coach is someone who works as a “thought partner.” More than anything, coaches provide support and ask questions in ways that help an individual (or, in some cases, a group) think through their goals, options, and obstacles, then settle on actions that will lead toward the goals. (A nice introduction to coaching is provided by Jeff Auerbach, in Personal and Executive Coaching (2001), and I have adapted my description from him.)
Ideally, a branch CAO would begin working with a coach prior to assuming the new job, as part of developing a strategy for the first weeks and months. A lot of coaching is done over the telephone, and so one might schedule conversations every two weeks or so, until the CAO is feeling comfortable in the new role. After that, calls might come as needed, whenever the CAO wants to think through an issue or an idea, believing that a conversation with the coach could be helpful.
Finally, as I’ve been pursuing coach certification, several people have expressed an interest in coaching, as part of their own work. This makes sense, given that I talk to a lot of Baby Boomers in transition, and coaching could be an excellent avenue for staying engaged and contributing to the development of other people. If you find coach training of interest, you can find information on a variety of programs online. Some are affiliated with a university, many have a specific conceptual perspective, and some are face-to-face, whereas others are online or use a mix of delivery methods. I enjoyed the 50-hour program I attended, for a number of personal/professional reasons. It was offered by the College of Executive Coaching (Jeff Auerbach is the president), but I strongly recommend that anyone interested in coach training explore the options for him or herself.
I’m not sure where my interest in coaching will take me. I see it as an aspect of positive psychology, so it fits with my interest in Appreciative Inquiry and other related areas. I think it would be very satisfying to bring a coaching approach to work with Boomers in transition to the next part of their lives, and I see potential to use coaching as a tool in consulting, perhaps helping with the implementation phase that follows initial recommendations. Regardless, I recommend that new CAOs on branch campuses consider attending NABCA and RBCA conferences, as well as connecting to a “trusted advisor,” who can help with the transition, whether you do so informally, or through a professional coach. This work is challenging enough without thinking that you are all alone out there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)