The 2003 Frye Leadership Institute: A Recap

Citation

Leger-Hornby, T. (2003), "The 2003 Frye Leadership Institute: A Recap", Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 20 No. 8. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn.2003.23920haf.001

The 2003 Frye Leadership Institute: A Recap

Tracey Leger-Hornby

"This has been one of the best experiences of my career", "See you at Educause", "I'm going to miss all of you!" These were typical statements of some of the attendees at the 2003 Frye Leadership Institute at the last lunch on the final meeting day. Forty-seven people came from all regions of the USA, from small private colleges and large public universities, to this year's program hosted at Emory University in Atlanta. There were three international attendees: one from Canada, one from South Africa, and one from Australia. Approximately half of the group work in information technology areas and half work in a library setting. Several of the attendees also categorize themselves as faculty in either a current or a recent appointment. The diversity of people and backgrounds was impressive and exciting.

The purpose of the Frye Leadership Institute is to develop creative leaders to guide and transform academic information services for higher education in the twenty-first century. The Institute seeks to bring to tomorrow's higher education leadership the insights and understanding of the issues that will inform this framework, including academic, technology, economic, public policy, student, and constituent-relations dynamics (www.fryeinstitute.org).

The Frye Institute was established four years ago due to the vision of several leaders in the higher education industry. Patricia Battin, Brian Hawkins, Billy Frye and Deanna Marcum were instrumental in conceiving, funding, and organizing this special institute for potential leaders in information technology and libraries in higher education and continue to be actively involved in its operation. The class of 2003 was the fourth to be held. There were 30 faculty members, many of whom had presented in prior years. Each of them brought a particular slant to the description of higher education; each of them a leader in their own area of expertise.

From the first day the level of activity was intense. Groups joined one another for breakfast before starting the first session at 9:00 sharp. The sessions all began on time under the close watch of the staff and deans. We were still together discussing issues with one of the day's speakers at 10:00 that night. There were breaks to get lunch, go for a walk, check e-mail messages, or meet with others to discuss issues like digital repositories, but the schedule was brisk and full. The pace was fast and all presenters were excellent. The days passed quickly and our minds were kept spinning.

The two-week program began with an overview of the major issues in higher education, from many different perspectives, followed by segments on leadership styles, personality types, communication styles, and career development. Interspersed with these sessions were many opportunities for community-building between attendees and sharing of personal and professional experiences. One of the most valuable aspects was the case study approach used throughout the program. Small groups were assigned to create hypothetical universities or colleges and over the two weeks specific aspects of those schools were analyzed using different frames of reference, such as student life or technical infrastructure.

The discussions and participation in these sessions were particularly lively and informative because of the experience and insights of the attendees. In addition to their personal backgrounds, each attendee brought an appreciation of the issues of most concern to the senior administrators at their respective institutions. This appreciation was obtained through the three to six interviews that each attendee was required to conduct with key leaders, such as the president, provost, or vice-presidents, on his or her campus prior to arriving at Frye. The purpose of these interviews was to ensure that the attendees learn about the range of issues facing leaders in higher education and to gather insights on how leaders view their roles. In our everyday lives it is easy to become insulated and have a narrow focus. This exercise was the first step in making us realize that there are different areas within academia that have very different issues, in some cases, and very similar concerns in others.

By compiling a list of shared concerns we learned that, even though we came from many very diverse types of institutions, small and large, private and public, well-funded and financially struggling, there were many common threads. Among the issues reported are a lack of sufficient funding for important initiatives, a sense of increased competition for the best students, a perception that students are more demanding of services, a similar perception that faculty are also becoming more demanding of staff, and that the competition for resources within the college or university is leading to more isolation and less collaboration between units on campus.

The most striking common challenge was the change in funding levels combined with the impact of the current sluggish economy. Whether from an institution with a large or small endowment, there was a very strong sense of less money to spend and times that would get worse before they got better. Several speakers addressed the impact of the current economic situation on incoming students. Many parents or students themselves have lost jobs and therefore have less income to direct toward tuition costs. Many families who were counting on stock market returns to help support college fees do not have that resource available due to the market's swift decline.

There has also been a dramatic shift in the philosophy behind financial aid in the past 20 years. From the early days of the GI Bill after the Second World War the concept of financial aid was to provide money that would be used to educate returning soldiers. Financial aid, from the 1950s to the 1980s, was considered a public good. Since then there has been a shift in Federal financial aid policy from providing grants or scholarships for students toward a different model that provides low cost loans to students instead. The rationale for the change is that college-educated students gain financially from their education and can pay for the privilege after graduation. A college education is now considered an individual advantage, not a community or shared benefit. The actual financial benefit of a college education can be demonstrated by comparing lifetime income amounts between a college graduate and a high school graduate. The difference between the two is significant. However, for many lower income students this policy change makes funding of their education even more difficult and as a result the gap between income groups grows wider.

The combined effect of these changes is clear. Terry Hartle, Senior Vice President for Government and Public Affairs, American Council on Education, presented graphs comparing levels of income and rates of financial aid and tuition costs. While tuition costs as a percentage of family income have not increased for students from high and middle income groups, tuition costs as a percentage of income have grown substantially for the lower income group.

Another challenge to traditional not-for-profit higher education institutions is the growing number of for-profit schools. This was not listed among the concerns or issues that were expressed in our campus interviews. Frank Newman, leader of Futures Project (www.futuresproject.org) based in Providence, Rhode Island, persuaded us that it should be at the top of our lists. He listed several myths related to the for-profit sector of higher education. Most college presidents and other leaders in academe completely underestimate the impact and potential of these companies. For example, most estimated that there were 50 or so of these schools; in fact there are over 625. The number of students choosing the option of quick, convenient, and professionally-oriented programs is increasing at a phenomenal rate. Ignoring the opportunity to engage non-traditional students in non-traditional programs, in Newman's opinion, is to throw away millions and millions of dollars. Higher education continues to make changes very slowly and to look disdainfully at the for-profit sector. His analogy to changing the traditional institution of higher education was that it is like trying to move a cemetery. It is a lot of work and you don't get any help from inside!

Newman illustrated the impact of what US higher education is doing to itself by not making changes. The conventional wisdom of traditional institutions assumes that our current methods of assessing students are adequate and acceptable. Newman argues that they are not. Not-for-profit universities will find that, as the for-profits grow and demonstrate their effectiveness by clear and measurable standards, the public will not accept old and traditional answers from administrators and faculty. The public will demand more and better accountability for their education dollars. They will ask for measures such as statistics on success at finding jobs after graduation and other indicators of a return on investment in education.

Newman and Hartle each noted that Representative Howard McKeon is supporting the Affordability in Higher Education Act of 2003. This Act is an example of a new trend calling for greater accountability for publicly supported higher education. The bill would limit tuition increases to within the rate of inflation. If a college or university were to raise the tuition too quickly and could not justify the change, they would risk losing federally supported financial aid (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2001).

Another Federal initiative that is having an impact on the financial health of higher education is recent changes in regulations regarding the entry of foreign students. These new and higher barriers have diverted many students to other countries such as Australia and the UK (who aggressively seek them). The USA is losing a large number of students to other countries with high quality programs and less restrictive entry regulations.

David Shulenberger, the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor of the University of Kansas, spoke about changes in the way research is funded. He notes that federal support may be shifting toward more conservative perspectives. He worries that conservative religious views held by highly influential lawmakers may have a large impact on decisions regarding certain types of research. As the economy slows, it is likely that there will be a drop in the level of support for new research from both the public and the private sectors. Shulenberger suggests that there is a danger that basic research will be lost to the more profitable applied research areas. He also noted that the new for-profit institutions do not perform research at any level and most likely will not in the future. Their mission seems to be to provide as many courses as possible to as many students as possible in the most economical and efficient manner.

Another trend of interest to the participants was the characteristics of the current population of students. We learned that today's entering students are eager to work in groups – they have done that since their first days of school, they are sheltered and do not mind regulation, they are over-achievers who have no tolerance for mediocre grades, they are great schedulers – they have been booked with activities since day-care days, and they have different technical skills from those we expect – they instant message each other and use e-mail regularly, but may not know how to create a simple spreadsheet. Various annual surveys of students track these trends and report the results. The Cooperative Institutional Research Program (www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/cirp.html) is one example. Its results are published in the Chronicle of Higher Education each year.

In the second week, after a weekend of rest, baseball, and rafting, we began again by looking more at the aspects and characteristics of leadership. To become leaders we need to know ourselves and those around us. One approach to gaining these insights is to learn about the Myers-Briggs personality types. Otto Krueger led a very lively session on the strengths and differences of each of the personality types. To illustrate the differences between people's preferences for sorting information, for example, we were split into groups on the basis of our "type." We discovered that those of us who like to make lists, really like to make lists and those of us who do not, really do not like them. The exercises illustrated the deeply held preferences we all use to gather and use information and to relate to one another. No preference is better or worse than another, but knowing that it is a preference for synthesizing information and not a plot to drive a coworker crazy may come in handy.

In the second week we were also treated to talks by Patricia Battin and Brian Hawkins, co-founders of the Frye Institute and leaders of libraries and information technology for many years. Patricia Battin shared some of her experiences in leadership at Columbia University and the Commission on Preservation and Access and Brian Hawkins gave us hints on how to "Sit at the Big Table" of administration. Battin focused on the importance of integrity in leadership and the need for honesty with all interactions. She reflected on her career development and noted that she was in the "right place at the right time" and worked hard to do the "right thing" whenever she could, despite the obstacles. She was a pioneer in her professional life as a librarian, and as a technologist. In many ways she was ahead of her time. Her talk was inspiring and much too brief.

Brian Hawkins, President of EDUCAUSE, noted that once you move into a senior level position your colleagues, who are from many other segments of the university, are not always familiar with what you do. He advised learning about what they do and understanding how your work impacts their area and the whole university. Hawkins told us to inform our colleagues about technology issues in a positive way. Rather than whine, he told us to learn to become team players and to always work for the good of the whole institution, not just a single unit. He also directed us to read the Chronicle of Higher Education, thoroughly – not just the jobs – on a regular basis. Understanding what is happening in the world of higher education takes some effort. He also warned that moving up the ladder of administration requires a significant commitment of time. The first year or two of a senior management position may consume 60 to 80 hours per week. He advised us to become a positive reflection of the university, not just ourselves, echoing the words of three college presidents, who also provided their perspectives during the second week.

So, what does the Frye Leadership Institute have to do with libraries and information technology? Rick Detweiler, former president of Hartwick College and one of the Frye Leadership Institute deans, told us on our first day. We were there to learn about the "big picture" and to become leaders in the field of higher education. It really did not matter whether we returned to a library or an information technology center. What mattered is that we understand the broad context of our work and see the challenges facing us. By learning what is ahead and the factors driving those challenges, our sponsoring institutions expect that we will be able to make a greater contribution. The mission of the Frye Leadership Institute is to create a cohort of future leaders, to build a community of practitioners who can work together on issues, and thereby solve some of the problems facing higher education. We were there to get a "leg up" on solving the problems. Detweiler showed a slide with arrows pointing in all directions. He said that this is what higher education looks like if you do not understand it. Our goal was to get a few arrows moving in the same direction. Creating and managing change takes passion, effort, and an understanding of the issues. We were caught up in the passion, learned about the effort, and gained some perspectives on issues in our industry. Looking ahead also requires a clear vision, and to do that, as Detweiler told us, you need to keep your chin up!

Note: The Frye Institute is a competitive program requiring the applicants to write a statement of interest and a proposal for a year-long practicum. Each applicant must have a letter of support from a senior member of his or her institution and the institution must commit to pay the Institute fee. There are scholarships available for applicants whose institution cannot afford the fee. The institute fee covers only a small portion of the total cost of the program. The bulk of the costs are currently funded by donations from the following major contributors: the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Emory University and EDUCAUSE also contribute significant levels of support (www.fryeinstitute.org).

I attended the Frye Leadership Institute in Atlanta in early June 2003.

In this article I have described some of the highlights of this powerful and somewhat overwhelming experience. It is by no means an extensive report on all aspects of the two weeks. It was difficult to decide what to mention and what to leave out. My summary is a subjective view of some important issues that were new to me and one that provides, I hope, a sample of the flavor of discussions at the Institute. I am grateful for the fellowship and experiences shared with my colleagues and the faculty. All views presented are my own.

ReferenceChronicle of Higher Education (2001), Vol. 49 No. 44, available at: http:chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i44/4462001.com

Dr Tracey Leger-Hornby(tleger@ brandeis.edu) is the Associate CIO/Director ITS, Brandeis University Information Technology Services, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.