Shared leadership for a green, global, and Google world: the authors propose that shared leadership will foster institutional success in the green, global, and virtual future world of higher education.

Duin, Ann Hill ; Baer, Linda L.

We are in the midst of a new era. Given the extreme economic challenges facing higher education, many refer to this as a "crisis" era. In their "2020 Forecast: Creating the Future of Learning," the KnowledgeWorks Foundation and Institute for the Future (2010, [paragraph] 1) note that "system shocks and disruptions in the arenas of energy, finance, climate, and health care are key forces of destabilization in this century" and that institutions must build "resilience into their systems."

Higher education institutions indeed must be resilient as we face vastly increased expectations for sustainable environments, global focus, and technological support. Speed of response to these expectations ultimately depends on shared vision, shared agreement, and shared accountability. Scholars emphasize that speed of response comes through shared leadership:

Speed of response to environmental pressures that are today far more turbulent than in the past is now a striking organizational reality--especially since the global financial crisis. This demand suggests that organizations cannot wait for leadership decisions to be pushed up to the top for action. Instead, leadership has to be more evenly shared across the organization to ensure faster response times to environmental demands. (Pearce, Manz, and Sims, Jr. 2009, p. 235)

In this article, we challenge all those engaged with planning in higher education to foster shared leadership throughout all levels of the organization as a means to meet the challenges and opportunities in our Green, Global, and Google (GGG) world and, in so doing, reinvent higher education. Here, "green" represents the need for ongoing attention to sustainability, "global" highlights the expanding global market for higher education and the evolution of approaches to global education, and "Google" denotes the increasing use of Internet (or "above-campus") resources in place of local computing resources. Each "G" force represents a complex issue in demand of shared leadership.

Defining Shared Leadership

To remain relevant in a GGG world, higher education organizations must evolve from machines with leaders at the top to living, dynamic systems of interconnected relationships, ready to change in smart ways to meet and exceed new expectations and demands. Such dynamic systems require new models of leadership. These new models "conceptualize leadership as a more relational process, a shared or distributed phenomenon occurring at different levels and dependent on social interactions and networks of influence" (Fletcher and Kaufer 2003, p. 21).

Figure 1 includes characteristics present in more traditional (i.e., vertical) and in shared leadership situations. According to Pearce, Manz, and Sims, Jr. (2009, p. 234), "Shared leadership entails broadly sharing power and influence among a set of individuals rather than centralizing it in the hands of a single individual who acts in the clear role of a dominant superior." For shared leadership to be successful, there must be balance of power, shared purpose and goals, shared responsibility for work, respect for each person, and willingness to work together on complex issues.

While higher education organizations largely embody vertical leadership models, given the complexities of GGG work, we attest that leaders must proactively identify, understand, and foster shared leadership characteristics. These characteristics are best illustrated through examples in which shared leadership is being practiced as a means to address GGG challenges and opportunities.

Figure 1 Characteristics of Vertical and Shared Leadership

Vertical Leadership

* Identified by position in a hierarchy and downward influence from
a superior

* Evaluated by whether the leader solves problems

* Leaders provide solutions and answers

* Distinct differences between leaders and followers

* Communication is formal

Shared Leadership

* Identified by individuals' knowledge sets and consequent
abilities to influence peers

* Evaluated by how well people work together

* Leaders provide multiple means to enhance process

* Members are interdependent

* Communication is critical

Green

The complexity of "green" requires shared leadership. Associations, colleges and universities, and local teams are sharing leadership to address sustainability issues across multiple sectors, as being "green" has become a major competitive factor in recruiting and retaining students as well as in addressing the ever-changing landscape surrounding energy costs. Students take climate change seriously and expect academic leaders to share leadership in providing sustainable environments. James Elder (2009), director of the Campaign for Environmental Literacy, emphasizes the need for students' greater understanding of the complex connections and interdependencies surrounding this landscape: "The education required to accomplish this is a new way of thinking and learning about integrated, systemic solutions not just to the economic and environmental challenges but also to the interdependent health, social, and political challenges" (p. 108). Stakeholders also expect shared leadership as we work to reduce computer power consumption (see climate saver initiatives at www.climatesaverscomputing.org/).

A recent study by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research titled Powering Down: Green IT in Higher Education (Sheehan 2010) summarizes green information technology (IT) practices in higher education and the influence of these factors on environmental outcomes. Further, in a prospectus titled A Call for Climate Leadership, the American College and Universities Presidents Climate Commitment (2007) sets out an agenda for the future that would embrace a concern for the environment and for sustainability as an institution-shaping goal of the nation's colleges and universities. Hundreds of university presidents have signed the Climate Commitment, pledging to share leadership on eliminating greenhouse gases. In 2006, the group now called the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (which supports the work of the Climate Commitment) had about 35 members. As of July 2010, the Climate Commitment had nearly 700 signatories. (For more information, see www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org.)

Example: Winona Green. One of the participating campuses in the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education is Winona State University in southeastern Minnesota. President Judith Ramaley regularly promotes shared leadership as she articulates the campus commitment to "green." Figure 2, taken from the Winona Goes Green Web page, illustrates the breadth of shared leadership surrounding this initiative. In fact, in 2010, two Winona State University seniors won an international contest for their green solutions technology design.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

President Ramaley determined that the bottomline is that colleges and universities that create smart, connected, and open environments in their campus operations, physical spaces, approach to education, and approach to scholarship and creative activity will be successful. In summary, a sustainability agenda--spearheaded through shared leadership--can transform higher education institutions and confer advantages that will allow us to make a successful transition into the 21st century while preserving and accentuating our distinctive qualities.

Global

According to the recent international report The Future of Higher Education: Beyond the Campus (2010), a key driver of change is the expanding global market for postsecondary education: "The number of students pursuing tertiary education has skyrocketed worldwide over the past 37 years, growing from 28.6 million in 1970 to 152.5 million in 2007" (p. 3). The evolution of approaches to global partnerships--international, transnational, and ecosystem--illustrates how global education has changed over time:

* An international focus was in place largely throughout the 20th century, with the goal of building understanding through faculty and student exchanges. These exchanges usually require relatively few partners and limited shared leadership, and metrics report numbers of exchanges, countries, and resources invested.

* Expanding largely in the 1990s as a result of increased access to the Internet, a transnational focus has the goal of expanding particular niches or areas of excellence; as a result, branch campuses or franchises are established abroad. This transnational focus requires increased levels of shared leadership to develop a shared strategic vision, performance metrics, and overall direction to support the initiative.

* Most recently, the ecosystem focus works to position global regions as creative knowledge hubs. Here, higher education, business and industry, and political leaders share leadership to create an ecosystem in which complementary and interconnected campuses and curricula are designed, launched, and assessed. A prime example of this focus is the Bologna Process in the European Union (European Commission Education and Training 2010).

The new learning and research environments resulting from these global partnerships require shared leadership; those developing them must deliberately encourage participation and shared understanding of faculty, programs, institutions, companies, civil society organizations, community organizations, and/or other entities (Starke-Meyerring et al. 2008).

A key resource to guide the development of global initiatives is International Partnerships: Guidelines for Colleges and Universities, developed by the American Council on Education (ACE). In this book, Van de Water, Green, and Koch (2008) ask university officials from a variety of institutions around the world about their biggest challenges in partnering with a U.S. college or university and what advice they would provide. The advice includes clear requests for shared leadership, noting the need to "make sure the partnership is based on a real exchange where both sides benefit," to sustain "ongoing communication and review of agreement goals and outcomes," and to include "commitment to support personnel to accomplish and sustain partnerships" (p. 31).

Example: lUPUI's strategic partnerships. The ACE book contains useful resources for establishing global partnerships that focus on shared leadership; these resources are also available online at www.acenet.edu /Content/NavigationMenu/ProgramsServices/cii/pubs/ace /partnership_guide.htm. Of particular note is Appendix A1, in which Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) shares details of its Strategic Partnerships initiative. IUPUI's Memorandum of Strategic Partnership with Moi University, Kenya, states:

In contrast to more ordinary university partnerships, Strategic Partnerships cut across disciplinary boundaries, harnessing the full capacity of each institution for work that is of significant mutual benefit. Strategic Partnerships reflect key interests of both university and community, create linkages to important areas of the world, and have the capacity to advance international learning, research, and engagement for all involved. Such Partnerships both model and encourage the international dialogue and collaboration that are critical to life in the 21st century. (Memorandum of Strategic Partnership n.d., [paragraph] 6)

This memorandum also states that such a shared vision "demonstrates the power of robust, reciprocal university partnerships for tackling some of the most pressing challenges of our times. And it has drawn agencies, organizations, and individuals from both communities into active engagement with this work as well" (Memorandum of Strategic Partnership n.d., [paragraph] 10).

The decision to elevate partnerships to "shared leadership" levels enabled IUPUI to move well beyond student and faculty exchanges. This same strategic framework continues to guide IUPUI as it forges alliances throughout the world, for example, with Sun Yat-sen University in China (Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis 2009). The challenge for IUPUI will be to foster shared leadership with other institutions of higher education to develop an ecosystem focus in which complementary and interconnected campuses and curricula are designed, launched, and assessed.

In summary, shared leadership for addressing the expectations of an increasingly global world and global curriculum begins with identifying interdependent members who develop a shared vision and goals emanating from real exchange where all sides benefit. The global platform of choice for the collaborative development of such shared vision, goals, and implementation plans increasingly involves the use of Google Apps, a prime example of the third force, "above-campus" computing resources.

Google

The "father of Google Apps," Rajen Sheth, was interviewed recently about how he organized and brought Gmail into the business enterprise. Interviewing Sheth, Jon Brodkin (2010) reports that "more than two million businesses run Google Apps" ([paragraph] 15). In addition to services like Google Apps, Sheth emphasized that the proliferation of new types of devices, such as netbooks, tablets, and smart phones, will completely overhaul the way users interact with their data and applications.

Google's goal is to organize the world's information. According to an article in The Futurist, "Google is not only on track to meet its lofty goal; it's actually ahead of schedule" (Tucker 2009, [paragraph] 15). Clearly, what Google represents--i.e., cloud computing--represents a force equal to or possibly even greater than that of green and global in terms of its impact on higher education. Despite one's political or philosophical views of Google, one might argue that its increasing prominence is a direct result of shared leadership; that is, shared opportunity with millions of users who click through to gain access to its latest applications and resources.

Again, note that we use "Google" here to refer to more than Google Apps per se; we are referring to cloud or "above-campus" computing support and the changing face of the higher education enterprise that results. People can choose whatever computing resources they need directly from the Internet rather than relying on software programs available through campus licenses and the associated computing support. As The Future of Higher Education:

Beyond the Campus (2010) notes:

   In a traditional model, an institution
   estimates current and future capacity
   needs, invests time and money in
   building an infrastructure and associated
   systems to meet those needs, and uses
   operational resources to maintain those
   systems. With cloud computing, the
   operation of services moves "above
   the campus," and an institution saves
   the upfront costs of building technology
   systems and instead pays only for the
   services that are used. As capacity needs
   rise and fall, and as new applications and
   services become available, institutions
   can meet the needs of their constituents
   quickly and cost-effectively. (p. 13)

Further, the Society for College and University Planning's Trends in Higher Education emphasizes that "options for providing connectivity and storage via cloud computing will require institutions around the world to fundamentally rethink their information technology strategies" (Grummon 2009, p. 9). Any higher education organization's assumption of a monopoly on computing resources has now dissolved into messy complexity. And once again, institutions struggle in this environment if they depend on a vertical leadership model; rather, this environment requires shared leadership as institutions share services with other institutions and/or companies.

According to Sheth and as reported by Brodkin (2010),

      Google's biggest challenge, most likely, is
      convincing customers with complex legal
      requirements that it's safe to move
      e-mail and collaboration systems into
      the cloud. Many companies [and higher
      education institutions] want assurances
      that their data won't be moved outside
      certain legal jurisdictions, but Google's
      systems are designed to move data
      from country to country at will in order
      to provide the best possible experience
      for users, possibly running afoul of
      government regulations.... That being
      said, Google has complied with the
      United States and European "Safe
      Harbor" framework, and is building
      a government cloud to meet the
      specific needs of customers in the
      public sector. ([paragraph] 36, 38)

In addition, Google has built interoperability bridges so institutions can keep protected/private data outside of the Google cloud while still using the Google Apps to collaborate.

Example: University of Minnesota's Google initiative. The Office of Information Technology at the University of Minnesota is in the midst of launching Google Apps for use by the entire university community (see figure 3). [cr] In addition to e-mail, a university Google account provides access to the university Google Apps suite and allows users the opportunity to share documents with others in the university Google space. Prior to launching Google Apps with all faculty, staff, and students, the university completed due diligence that involved shared leadership with the Office of the General Counsel, internal audit department, internal IT security and assurance department, HIPAA compliance officer, and information technology directors across the university system.

Working from a model of shared leadership, the university's Office of Information Technology identified a working team based on individual knowledge sets. These leaders continue to connect with the broader community through an open and transparent Web site and associated Listserv; ongoing communication and transparency is critical to the project's success. In addition, senate committees, faculty consultative groups, deans, IT directors, and academic technology advisory groups are all involved in this process.

This effort, however, hardly represents something revolutionary: Google Apps for Education are currently being used by thousands of higher education institutions. Our point is the need for fostering shared leadership as a means to reinvent an organization as faculty, staff, and students use above-campus resources. Starting from a model of shared leadership, higher education leaders can work to ensure that an above-campus technology or support system is well managed and cost effectively supported by an internal or outsourced technology unit; safe, secure, and compliant with data protection policies; and innovatively applied, with expert help, to redesign academic and administrative programs and services to improve institutional performance.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

In short, Google--i.e., above-campus resources--empowers faculty, staff, and students to think and work in new ways. Embracing shared leadership as we integrate and deploy such resources offers a means by which to reinvent higher education.

A Model for Shared Leadership

Sustainability and success in higher education require leadership that can navigate the constant, turbulent, and complex factors of change. Figure 4 represents a model for shared leadership in a GGG world. This model is a highly modified version of a leadership model that, along with Doreen Starke-Meyerring, we put forth in 2001 as a means to examine the ways in which leaders might enhance their ability to foster partnerships.

To begin, a critical competency of shared leadership is the clear demonstration of GGG literacy, i.e., the requirement that leaders are conversant in and knowledgeable about green, global, and above-campus resources and build teams of experts and project managers to implement needed work. Additional competencies include regular communication to increase accessibility to the work underway and the sharing and transparency of all information. The ability to distinguish between different types of change is also paramount; details of these types of change can be found in a Planning for Higher Education article titled "Smart Change" (Baer, Duin, and Ramaley 2008).

Competencies in shared leadership across GGG also require new and expanded ways of doing business. Some practices require routine changes, such as the environmental practice of recycling; some are more strategic, such as cost containment plans and energy conservation planning; others are transformative, as campus leaders establish new awareness; cultures of inquiry; curricular changes; and collaboration with communities, businesses, and industries as a comprehensive and integrated approach to climate commitment evolves. And all of these practices or ways of doing business may in fact result in disruptive changes to the status quo.

Given these essential competencies for shared leadership, how does one identify if a leader is "authentic"; that is, if he or she is genuinely committed to developing these competencies and sharing leadership. To check for authenticity, one can look closely at how leaders work with others and at the value they place on the resulting relationships. Any number of references point to the need for emotional intelligence or one's self-perceived ability to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. In the case of shared leadership, one can identify authenticity by determining if leaders visibly work to develop and promote shared leadership in others and in their organizations. One can watch for collaboration and trust, work to develop these dimensions in others, and exhibit transformational leadership through a focus on shared vision. One idea is to use the characteristics of vertical and shared leadership included in figure 1 as a means to examine GGG work currently underway, evaluating a project for evidence of authenticity in shared leadership.

Managing polarity refers to the need to pay attention simultaneously to what appears to be opposites. As part of sharing leadership, one must foster the ability to work simultaneously on both "poles" of an issue; e.g., seeking to verify and convey the security of using an above-campus computing system amid the need for protected health information. Through managing polarity, one can identify disparate interests and bring them toward a shared vision. Indeed, managing polarity requires the ability to seek partners among one's competitors or among competitive views; it also requires the ability to view innovation as a balance between improving existing processes and creating new ones.

Above all, sustainability and success in higher education require shared leadership in reimagining higher education. Leaders must share leadership to design multiple approaches/ scenarios for the future; to articulate the flexible and adaptable organizations required for resiliency in the "new normal"; to join with all stakeholders in new visions of sustainability, competencies, and affordability; and to use analytics and risk assessments to determine when and how to launch and sustain an agenda of reinvention.

Reinventing Higher Education

Leadership in higher education requires increased resiliency during these difficult times. In a speech at the 2009 annual meeting of the Society for College and University Planning, George Pernsteiner, chancellor of the Oregon University System, challenged the audience with an address titled "Are We Wasting a Perfectly Good Crisis?" (Pernsteiner 2009). Pernsteiner called for institutional leaders to engage faculty, staff, students, community partners, and business leaders in reinventing themselves and how they do business in order to improve student learning, increase degree production, refocus research and innovation, and reduce costs. This was a call for reinvention in the way higher education conducts the fundamental business of the day; this was also a wake-up call, indicating that what we have now is not sustainable. The shared leadership principles, when applied to the major foundational initiatives of sustainable environments, global opportunities, and technological support, can provide a powerful roadmap for leaders and institutions seeking to reinvent themselves.

Institutional leaders will need to join with all stakeholders in developing this shared vision of sustainability, competencies, and affordability. Insights will be drawn from understanding the current and future savings and sustainability gained from a strategic Green, Global, and Google agenda. The roadmap also must include robust development in analytics, risk management, and predictive modeling. If an agenda of reinvention is to be sustained, it must seek shared insight from short-term decisions, mid-term commitments, and long-term strategies for the future.

To conclude, the following is a list of five directions and a streamlined graphic (figure 5) to use in developing roadmaps for reinventing higher education:

1. Locate identifiers that indicate your institution's understanding of the transforming and significant context of GGG work. For example: What green initiatives are underway, such as recycling, videoconferencing to reduce travel expenses, increases in telecommuting, and/or compliance with green standards?

2. Determine level of commitment to GGG work. For example: Is your institution a signatory of the American College and Universities Presidents Climate Commitment? What level of shared leadership is evident in your institution's international memoranda of understanding?

3. Embed commitment to GGG in curricular and overall institutional planning and development, evaluation, and accountability initiatives. For example: How are above-campus computing resources being identified and used to provide greater efficiency and effectiveness? How are ongoing faculty and student advisory groups involved in prioritizing the uses of these resources?

4. Seek public and private partners to leverage GGG actions. For example: How are community and advisory groups integral to the initiatives? How might resources be leveraged and expanded through shared leadership?

5. Communicate, foster, and promote commitment to shared leadership. For example: How do the initiatives underway represent a focus on building understanding, expanding presence through partnership, and/or positioning the campus or region to increase relevance in the global economy?

As leaders in higher education, we must call upon multiple approaches and scenario-based planning as we strive for best-preferred futures within the Green, Global, and Google landscape. The organizational culture of higher education requires us to share leadership as we work in this new normal. The constant cycle of budgetary uncertainty further forces us to build on core foundational efforts and claim value-added measures from work within the GGG landscape. Such work both demands and builds resilience. In fact, we contend that fostering shared leadership is the most critical asset for building and sustaining resilience as we face these challenges and, in so doing, reinvent higher education.

References

American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. 2007. A Call for Climate Leadership. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: www2.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/pdf/climate _leadership.pdf.

Baer, L. L., A. H. Duin, and J. Ramaley. 2008. Smart Change. Planning for Higher Education 36 (2): 5-16.

Brodkin, J. 2010. Meet the Father of Google Apps. Network World, June 22. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: www.networkworld.com/news/2010/062210 -google-apps- rajen-sheth.html?page=1.

Duin, A. H., L. L. Baer, and D. Starke-Meyerring. 2001. Partnering in the Learning Marketspace. EDUCAUSE Leadership Strategies Series, vol. 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Elder, J. L. 2009. Higher Education and the Clean Energy, Green Economy. EDUCAUSE Review 44 (6): 108-109. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: www.educause.edu /EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume44 /HigherEducationandtheCleanEner/185407.

European Commission Education and Training. 2010. The Bologna Process--Towards the European Higher Education Area. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc1290_en.htm.

Fletcher, J. K., and K. Kaufer. 2003. Shared Leadership: Paradox and Possibility. In Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, eds. C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger, 21-47. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grummon, P T. H. 2009. Trends in Higher Education, vol. 6, no. 1. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: www.scup.org/asset/53017/SCUP_TrendsWeb_v6n1.pdf.

Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. 2009. IUPUI, Sun Yat-sen University Sign Memorandum of Strategic Alliance. News release, December 14. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: newscenter.iupui.edu/4383/IUPUI-Sun -Yatsen-University-Sign-Memorandum-of-Strategic-Alliance.

KnowledgeWorks Foundation and Institute for the Future. 2010. 2020 Forecast: Creating the Future of Learning--Platforms for Resilience (Systems). Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: www.futureofed.org/driver/platforms-for-resilience.aspx.

Memorandum of Strategic Partnership. See Memorandum of Strategic Partnership Between Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, USA and Moi University, Kenya.

Memorandum of Strategic Partnership Between Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, USA and Moi University, Kenya. n.d. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: www.acenet.edu/Content/NavigationMenu /ProgramsServices/cii/pubs/ace/IUPUI_MemoStrategic Partnership_MoiUKenya.pdf.

Pearce, C. L., C. C. Manz, and H. P. Sims, Jr. 2009. Where Do We Go From Here?: Is Shared Leadership the Key to Team Success? Organizational Dynamics 38 (3): 234-38.

Pernsteiner, G. P. 2009. Are We Wasting a Perfectly Good Crisis? Presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for College and University Planning, Portland, Oregon.

Sheehan, M. C. 2010. Powering Down: Green IT in Higher Education. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: www.educause.edu/Resources/PoweringDownGreenITin HigherEdu/203028.

Starke-Meyerring, D., A. H. Duin, T. Palvetzian, and M. Wilson. 2008. Enabling and Sustaining Globally Networked Learning Environments: Visionary Partnerships and Policies. In Designing Globally Networked Learning Environments: Visionary Partnerships, Policies, and Pedagogies, eds. D. Starke-Meyerring and M. Wilson, 19-36. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

The Future of Higher Education: Beyond the Campus. 2010. Joint report of the Council of Australian University Directors of Information, EDUCAUSE, Joint Information Systems Committee (United Kingdom), and SURFoundation (Netherlands). Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB9008.pdf.

Tucker, P. 2009. Google Searches Its Future. Futurist 43 (2). Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: www.wfs.org/Jan-Feb 09/TechMA09.htm. University of Minnesota. 2010. Google Apps for the University of Minnesota. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: www.oit.umn.edu/google.

Van de Water, J., M. Green, and K. Koch. 2008. International Partnerships: Guidelines for Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Winona State University. n.d. WSU Goes Green. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from the World Wide Web: www.winona.edu /green/index.asp.

Ann Hill Duin is associate vice president and associate chief information officer in the Office of Information Technology at the University of Minnesota, where she provides strategic alignment and oversight for academic computing, administrative applications, network and telecommunications, and operations/infrastructure/ architecture. She is also a professor in the Department of Writing Studies at the university. Her more than 30 years of teaching, scholarship, and administrative experiences focus on collaboration and excellence through innovative uses of technology. She has spearheaded state- and system-wide partnerships and facilitates interinstitutional teams in the design of sustainable partnerships. Her recent publications and Webinars focus on shared leadership and the transformation of higher education. Her ongoing goal is to serve as a catalyst for leveraging technology to advance and support extraordinary education, breakthrough research, and dynamic public engagement.

Linda L. Baer is a senior program officer for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Before joining the foundation, she was the senior vice chancellor for academic and student affairs for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system. She also served as the senior vice president and interim president at Bemidji State University. She has chaired the Internet System for Education and Employment Knowledge (ISEEK), a statewide resource for information about careers, education, jobs, and business. Her recent publications and presentations focus on building successful partnerships and alliances with K-12 and industry and the dynamics and dimensions of smart change in higher education. She currently provides leadership in the delivery of workshops on smart change in higher education and the development of action analytics for improved student success.

Figure 4 Shared Leadership Model

Competencies      Authenticity       Managing          Reimagining
                                     Polarity          Higher
                                                       Education

Demonstrates      Exhibits           Works             Seeks multiple
GGG literacy      emotional          simultaneously    approaches and
                  intelligence       on both poles     scenario-based
                                     of an issue       planning to
                                                       work toward the
                                                       best preferred
                                                       GGG future

Communicates      Demonstrates       Balances an       Articulates the
and consults      values of          environment of    organizational
regularly to      collaboration      openness with     culture
increase          and trust          validity of       required amidst
accessibility                        information       GGG forces

Functions in      Develops           Seeks             Joins with all
multi-linear      multidimensional   multi-sector      stakeholders in
mode, networks,   leaders            partners          a new vision of
and shares                           among             sustainability,
resources                            competitors       competencies,
                                                       and
                                                       affordability

Distinguishes     Exhibits           Seizes            Uses analytics
between           strategic and      innovation as a   and risk
routine,          transformational   balance between   assessment to
strategic, and    leadership         improving         launch and
transformative    through focus      existing          sustain an
change            on a shared        processes and     agenda of
                  vision             creating new      reinvention
                                     ones

Source: Based on Duin, Baer, and Starke-Meyerring 2001, p. 112.

Figure 5 A Streamlined Roadmap for Reinventing Higher Education

[right      [right        [right          [right       [right
arrow]      arrow]        arrow]          arrow]       arrow]
Identify    Locate        Join with       Foster       Seek
complex     identifiers;  stakeholders    robust       shared
green,      determine     in              development  insight
global, or  commitment;   developing      of           from
Google      seek          shared          analytics,   short-
challenge   partners;     vision,         risk         term
            promote       direction,      management,  decisions,
            shared        and             and          mid-term
            leadership    accountability  predictive   commitments,
                                          modeling     and long-
                                                       term
                                                       strategies