Change in community colleges through strategic alliances: a case study

Community College Review, Spring, 2003 by Pamela L. Eddy

Analyzing the case using Kotter's (1996) framework highlights that the consortium came up short in completing the change process. The shortcomings of the consortium are partially attributed to the lack of passage of time for the member institutions, but more so point to the lack of leadership in providing direction and the inability of the consortium to embed alliance visions and strategies into the cultures of the member institutions.

What Kotter's (1996) model does not include is a discussion of the impact of team leadership or change involving multiple institutions. The model does not address issues of working with multiple constituencies, the effect of different institutional cultures, or the influence of varying leadership styles among consortia presidents. Development of a functioning team leader structure, with associated goals and responsibilities, is critical for successful consortium efforts.

Facilitating an environment for team leadership (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993) would begin to address the lack of a leader advocate within the alliance's guiding committee. The hiring of an interim executive director starts to speak to the issue of advocacy and coordination of College Connection efforts. All of the college presidents, however, need to buy into alliance efforts and see the benefits for their individual campuses, ultimately relaying this commitment back to their home institutions and obtaining campus support. How the individual college presidents portray the College Connection at their colleges directly affects the perceptions campus members have of the consortium.

When Maron and VanBremen (1999) investigated the strategic alliance of two for-profit organizations, they found that the biggest issue was differences in organizational culture. A successful strategic alliance requires embedding change in institutional culture; otherwise, the changes obtained are merely short-term fixes. Since one feature of strategic alliances is their fluidity, once they fulfill the group's needs, they may need to dissolve. A main purpose of the College Connection was to protect the five colleges against closure--a goal that was met. Unless other common goals are articulated, there is no real need to maintain the alliance.

The fear of a move to a "super president" and the consolidation of the colleges initially resulted in reluctant participation by the individual campuses. Probably the greatest tension evident in this case study coalesces around the issue of trust. It is difficult for the survivor campuses to trust the resister campuses when, as recently as the summer of 1999, these latter campuses were trying to withdraw from the consortium.

Consortia need clear and defined roles for leaders of community colleges to obtain successful change. Research (ACE, 1999; Kotter, 1996; Rowley, et al., 1997) indicates that leaders play a critical role in obtaining campus member support for change initiatives and changes to the institution's culture.

As more strategic alliances form to address the pressures facing community colleges, certain points are important to consider. Potential member institutions need to enumerate the benefits of membership. Will the member institutions be able to retain their individual institutional diversity while advancing the goals of the alliance? A consortium change model needs to incorporate aspects of team building, multiple leadership, and shared decision making to elicit member commitment.