Case Study: An Exploration of Distributed Leadership and its Relation to Establishing a Culture of Evidence at a Two-Year Public Institution
A dissertationsubmitted
by
Jacqueline E. Snyder
to
Benedictine University
in partial fulfillment
ofthe requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
in
Higher Education and Organizational Change
This dissertation has been accepted for the faculty
of Benedictine University
Dr. Sarah Malone
Dissertation Committee DirectorDate
Dr. Tamara Korenman
Dissertation Committee Chair Date
Dr. Laura Saret
Dissertation Committee ReaderDate
Program Director, FacultyDate
______
FacultyDate
Dean, College of Education and Health ServicesDate
Abstract
Higher education leaders are responsible and answerable to many constituents. Society and national accreditors have used countless factors to measure levels of institutional success and to provide evidence that meet accountability expectations. This culture of evidence is the expectation and it encompasses reliable measures that are systemic, data-driven, and comprehensive in nature to understand the quality of an institution.It is a working assumption that higher education leadership is often organized and executed in a variety of ways depending on the higher education institution. A distributed view of leadership incorporates the activities of multiple groups of individuals in an institutionthat works at guiding and mobilizing individuals within the institutionto implement an initiative or change process. At a theoretical level, distributive leadership is an exploratory framework for understanding leadership practice.The purpose of the study was to explore how a distributed model of leadership practice influences the organizational development of a culture of evidence at a higher education institution.
The relevanttheories for this study include Schein’sorganizational culture theory and 2010 culture-embedded mechanisms, distributive leadership practice as defined by Spillane (2008), and Suskie’sleadership and culture of assessmentconcept. To complete the case study, the following questions were explored through interviews, historical documents, observations, and artifacts: how does this institution apply distributed leadership to advance a culture of evidence?; who are the institutional members involved and engaged as distributed leaders at this institution?; what demonstrated behaviors and actions do these distributed leaders use to nurture the current culture of evidence at this institution?; how effective is the distributive leadership model in meeting the expectations associated with a culture of evidence?; and, what distributive leadership themes are identified with promoting a culture of evidence?
Through this exploration, best practices and models of leadership practices to meet contemporary expectations surrounding a culture of evidence were identified, and the effectiveness of a distributive leadership model was evaluated by an external accreditation body. A flexibility to the distributed leadership model was found that allows for different groups to lead the culture of evidence. The leaders, regardless of group, identified a shared responsibility to foster the culture of evidence that resulted in parallel routines being executed by various leaders, and the work was often been duplicated across the campus. Thus, not one person or office was identified as responsible for leading the evidence culture. Two committees were identified as promoting and organizing activities to meet a culture of evidence expectations.Primary embedded mechanisms speak to the visible actions of the leaders. These include leaders’ actions, or role modeling, that is often emulated by people in the organization. Secondary mechanisms identified by Schein (2010) are considered to be methods that a leader may indirectly change in an organization’s culture.The secondary mechanisms, those behind the scenes engagements that are indirectly altered by actions and often affect culture, were evident at this institution. The term organic process surfaced as a theme throughout the research. This acknowledgment of owning the culture of evidence and being flexible in how to address stakeholder expectations are central to the success and effectiveness of meeting accreditation standards.
Distributed leader themes were identified through observation and interviewees’ comments. Collaboration was a consistent theme, one that was observed by the researcher and one that was described as necessary by the interviewees. Results identified disconnected themes such as the consensus of the importance of meeting accreditation standards and fostering a culture of evidence. A culture of evidence is an understood expectation; however, interviewees do not clearly understand the importance of the role he or she plays in building that culture of evidence. Finally, after multiple years of follow-up accreditation reports, this institution completed a decennial accreditation visit that resulted in full reaccreditation with minimal follow-up documentation due to the accrediting body.
Distributive leadership in a small public institution can foster a culture of evidence, one that has the potential to mature and improve the quality of documented evidence to meet stakeholders’ expectations.
Table of Contents
Chapter One
Introduction
Problem
Purpose of the Study
Theoretical Framework
Leadership and Culture
Remaining Chapters
Unique Terms
Chapter Two
Review of the Literature
Leadership and organizational culture
Primary mechanisms
Secondary mechanisms.
Organizational culture theory
National culture and organizational culture
National culture of higher education accountability supports a culture of evidence
Culture of evidence
Suskie’s concept: Enhancing an institution’s culture for evidence.
Distributive leadership
Conclusion
Chapter Three
Methodology
Ethnography
Case study
Data collection
Interviews
Confidentiality
Limitations and delimitations
Documents
Data analysis: coding
Verification
The role of the researcher and personal bias
Chapter 4
Findings
Application of distributed leadership to advance a culture of evidence
The distributed leaders
Distributed leadership advancing the institution’s culture of evidence.
Attributes of distributed leaders who nurture a culture of evidence
Distributive leadership themes identified with promoting a culture of evidence
Effectiveness of the distributed leadership model and meeting culture of evidence expectations
Summary of evidence and findings (Accreditation self-study team, 2016):
Culture of Evidence
Distributed Leadership
Excerpts from the IEP
Culture of Evidence
Distributed leaders identified in the IEP included:
Chapter 5
Discussion of the Findings
Application of distributed leadership to advance a culture of evidence
The distributed leaders
Distributed leadership advancing the institution’s culture of evidence
Attributes of distributed leaders who nurture a culture of evidence
Effectiveness of the distributed leadership model and meeting culture of evidence expectations
Practical Implications
Theoretical Implications
Recommendations for Future Research
Limitation
Conclusion
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
1
Chapter One
Introduction
This chapter in the case study exploringdistributive leadership and its relationship to establishing a culture of evidence at a two-year public institution identified the primary issues and framework of the research.A culture of evidenceis defined asusing direct, valid, and reliable measures in a systemic, data-driven, comprehensive approach to understanding the quality of its institution (Dwyer et al., 2006). This chapter states the problem, rationale for the study, thepurpose of the study, and guiding research questions followed by the research methods used in the study.A description and list of the main terms have beendefined for clarification at the end of the chapter.
Traditionally, the hallmark of visionary leadership and change is associated with higher education.This type of leadership concentrates on vision and extraordinary performance (Bass, 1985).A counter model is distributed leadership, which concentrates on leadership practice and rejects the hero leader (Spillane, 2006).Unlike the study of leadership, which focuses on the individual, distributed leadership examines the construct as interacting individuals (Bennett, Wise, Woods, & Harvey, 2003).A distributed model of leadership focuses on the interactions, rather than the actions, of those in formal and informal leadership roles (Spillane, 2008).Distributed leadership is primarily concerned with leadership practice and how leadership influences organizational and instructional improvement (Spillane, 2006).Spillane (2006) suggested that most accounts of leadership in higher education focus on people, structures, functions, routines, and roles, rather than leadership practice.This hierarchical model of leadership is abandoned in distributed leadership for a model that is focused on the goals of the group, rather than the actions of one (Copland, 2003).Distributive leadership supports the statement of Bolman and Gallos (2011) that no one person or group controls a higher education institution.Additionally, Wisniewski (2007) stated, “higher education must develop a cadre of academic leaders who can engage the institution and its faculty/staff in change and transformation processes”Higher education institutions truly must create an environment of collaboration and shared decision making in the contemporary world of higher education.Simple, straightforward rules of operation or universalistic principles of leading have been shownto be inadequate in a world of complex ever-changing conditions (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006).
As such,the definition of higher education leadership for this qualitative study focused upon Spillane’s (2006) distributive leadership theory that hypothesizes three features as essential for leadership in education:
•Leadership practice is the central and anchoring concern for improvements in academic leadership.
•Leadership practice is generated by the interactions of leaders, followers, and their situations; each element is essential for leadership practice.
•The phenomenon both defines leadership practice and is defined through leadership practice.
A distributed view of leadership incorporates the activities of multiple groups of individuals in an institutionthatworks at guiding and mobilizing individuals within the institutionto implement an initiative or change process. It implies a social distribution of leadership where the leadership function stretches over the work of a number of individuals where the leadership task is accomplished through the interaction of multiple leaders (Spillane et al., 2001).Distributed leadership, at the theoretical level, is an investigative framework for understanding leadership practice. Spillane et al. (2004) argued that the distributed perspective can serve as a tool for education leaders by offering a set of constructs that can be harnessed to frame diagnoses and inform the design process. In this respect, distributed leadership can serve as an exploratory tool that offers a lens on leadership practices within higher education. This tool provides an institution the opportunity to stand back and think about exactly how leadership is distributed and the difference made, or not made, by that distribution (Spillane & Harris, 2008).
The purpose of the study was to explore how a distributed model of leadership practice influences the organizational development of a culture of evidence at a higher education institution.
Problem
Higher education now faces an unprecedented period of accelerating change, shifting public attitudes, reduced public support, questions about priorities, and national demands for greater accountability (Wisniewski, 2007). Countless factors have beenused by public and national accreditors to measure levels of institutional success.Accreditation criteria continue to evolve for higher education institutions in the United States, and requirements for accreditation have become more onerous with required follow-up reports affecting as many as two-thirds of institutions undergoing accreditation review (Suskie, 2014).Accreditation itself has not produced this current climate.These contemporary conditions are because of the confluence of forces that include public distrust of social institutions and authority in general (Eaton, 2015).This shift in evaluation criteria from both public and higher education agencies emphasizes the fundamental view thathigher education institutions can no longer focus on quality without embracing a culture of evidence.As highlighted by the New Leadership Alliance, a culture of evidenceis defined as evidence-based practices that indicate how effectively institutions are achieving their goals (2012). Culp and Dungy (2012) echoed this definition by describing a culture of evidence as a means of offering protection for higher education institutions by documenting the hard data that identifies the significant contributions the college makes toward the institution’s mission and goals.A culture of evidence also offers higher education professionals opportunities to examine their work, make it more effective and efficient, and increase the probability that they will design and implement programs, processes, and services that really matter (Culp Dungy, 2012).Finally, Dwyer et al.’s (2006) definition of a culture of evidence is the demonstrated ability of a higher education organization to use direct, valid, and reliable measures in a systemic, data-driven, comprehensive approach to understanding the quality of its institution.For clarity, this study focused on Dwyer et al.’s (2006) definition of a culture of evidence.
As expectations for institutional performance and accountability in higher education have expanded over the past two decades, campuses have struggled to develop processes and strategies to promote and demonstrate the effectiveness of their institutions (Burke & Associates, 2005). There are three major players in the national accountability movement: government, academia, and the general citizenry (LeMon, 2004). Almost every day there seems to be some new report or statement on the perceived shortcomings and failures of U.S. higher education (Suskie, 2014).Altbach spoke of the public’s expectation of institutions to provide evidence of learning as taxpayers realize the importance of students gaining knowledge for the good of society and the future of the country (2011).Stakeholders, including parents, employers, students, taxpayers, and the government, are questioning and sometimes demanding evidence from higher education.
Understandably, moving an institution toward a culture of evidence, as defined above, is a complex process that requires leadership from a variety of people throughout the institution.Higher education institutions charge their leaders with the creation and execution of programs, services, and resources to promote the institution’s success.In an exploration ofdistributive leadership and the relationship it hasin constructing a culture of evidence, it is critical to define leadership.
Astin and Astin (2000) defined leadership in their report for the Kellogg Foundation as a process carried out by institutional leaders that is ultimately concerned with fostering change. As is the case in fostering a culture of evidence, leadership also implies intentionality, in the sense that the implied change is not random, but is rather directed toward some future end or condition that is desired or valued. This results in a purposeful progression thatis fundamentally value-based. Consistent with the notion that leadership is concerned with change, Astin and Astin viewed a leader chiefly as a change agent (2000). Among the distinctive features of a leader, Onoye (2004) found that a higher education leader’s ability to work in a collaborative manner with others on campuswasessential to solving problems. This supports Spillane’s (2006) definition of leadership as a relationship of social influence.Important to note is that leaders are not automatically those individuals on a campus who serve in a formal leadership capacity.Ingram shared that leaders are individuals who operate at all levels within a university (1993).This can include boards of trustees, chief academic officers, department heads, discipline coordinators, program chairs, full-time and part-time faculty, and unit or non-instructional directors and staff, and administrators. Thus, all people are potential leaders at an institution.
Historically, American higher education has been considered to be the engine driving national and international development (Hauptman 2009; Rudolph, 1990).However, in the past 25years evidence has suggested that there has been an unfavorable move for the U.S. global standing in higher education.According to a report by the NCAHE (2005):
- The U.S. does not lead the world in college completion rates.
- Four of 10students fail to graduate from a college or university within 6years of their initial matriculation.
- The majority of minority students in college do not graduate.
- Large developing economies (India and China in particular) are educating more students in science and math to compete in the global economy.
- Student costs for college have grown faster than the consumer price index and financial support programs, such as Pell Grants, have become woefully inadequate.
- One of four low-income students in the top quartile of academic ability and preparation fail to enroll in college within two years of high school graduation.
In addition to the disparaging worldwide comparisons, there have been national economic challenges decidedly intensified by the most recent economic downturn that affected the United States and most other nations.Higher education is under a microscope because it is fast becoming a necessity for economic development, rather than “a luxury or a privilege reserved for the elite” (Duncan, 2013). The increasingly escalating costs for attending colleges and universities have resulted in a heightened awareness of the financial value added by attending a postsecondary institution and a call for increased transparency and accountability in higher education (Duderstadt, 2007; NCAHE, 2005).National figures, including former New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, haveprovided advice to high school seniors that perhaps a service-related apprenticeship would be more appropriate for a student than going to college.The implication here is that the value of a higher education degree has changed as more students are taking on a larger burden of debt to pay for their own education.With the increasing costs of higher education and the decreased funding support from state and local governments, the bottom line metrics such as graduation, gainful employment, and meaningful salaries/wages must be taken into account (Islam Crego, 2014).
In late 2014, the federal government released its much anticipated framework that was introduced in 2013 by President Obama as a way to systematically rate higher education institutions.The rating was to promote transparency and higher education affordability.However, in the release, the Federal Education Department acknowledged how complicated it is to assess more than 7,000 colleges and universities.Released in December 2014,the framework is not an actual system, but rather a plan on how it could work.Many of the performance indicators mentioned by Islam and Crego as ideal metrics are the focus of the framework, particularly the number of students completing their degree (Associated Press, 2014).Many states have moved in this direction with several developing performance-based funding systems in an effort to enhance the strategic alignment of institutional outcomes with state needs and priorities.According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 25 of the 50 states had some form of performance-based funding in place as of March 2014 (AASCU, 2014).
Given these national concerns, as well as potential funding implications, it becomes all the more important to explore how organizational leaders in higher education create an evidence-based culture that meets accountability expectations raised by its stakeholders and the nation.Additionally, research of the literature on organizational culture completed by Schneider, Ehrhart, and Macy (2014) identified the need for more research that clarifies how organizational leaders influence culture.It is imperative to identify best practices and models of leadership practice to meet contemporary expectations surrounding a culture of evidence.