Dec 31, 2019
Dr. Lori Varlotta is president of Hiram College, a small liberal
arts college with approximately 1,000 students in the traditional
college and 200 in the adult program. She is the campus’ 22nd
president, the first female to serve in that role.
Hiram recently completed a major organizational redesign that
followed closely on the heels of a very inclusive strategic
planning process. The strategic plan had two overarching goals – to
grow enrollment and to increase the campus’s financial
sustainability. However, to achieve those two goals, the plan
called for several action items, one of which was an academic
prioritization process.
An Inclusive Approach
The strategic planning process was a year-long process that
included approximately half of the institution’s 80 faculty and 100
staff. When it came time to do the academic prioritization
process, Varlotta and her team invited all faculty to the table to
participate, as well as student government, staff assembly, the
Board of Trustees and the administration.
During both the strategic planning and the academic
prioritization processes, the institution’s mantra was that the
outcomes would be shaped by the hands of many so everyone could see
their fingerprints on the end product. This approach helped with
getting stakeholder buy-in. Varlotta noted that the means by which
these were accomplished, i.e., the transparency and inclusiveness
that were front and center, were as important as the ends in moving
through these processes.
Action Steps
The steps in the implementation process, which were led by the
college’s chief academic dean, Dr. Judy Muyskens, included:
- The dean worked with faculty to identify the
intellectual framework that would guide the academic
reprioritization process. Muyskens worked with faculty to
review the types of metrics from the Delaware Study. This
benchmarking study provides suggested metrics that help
administrators and faculty members do an analysis of departmental
costs, instructional costs, scholarly activity, etc.
- A timeline for the academic reprioritization process
was created. This timeline projected when the
administration would seek approval from the Board of Trustees and
then worked backwards to set up key deadlines. This helped ensure
that stakeholders were not surprised by how the planning process
was proceeding.
- While there was a data-driven process with benchmarks
and milestones, the administration clearly communicated that they
would not be beholden to the process. The administrators
wanted to make the process iterative and allow for changes and
mid-course adjustments. If there needed to be more time for
discussions –or an acceleration of the process—administrators
wanted to embrace having that latitude.
- A Strategic Academic Team was created. This
ad-hoc committee of five faculty members, each from separate
programs, was appointed jointly by the dean and the chair of the
Faculty Senate. This group represented various stakeholders across
campus in relation to the academic background, diverse populations
and research backgrounds. The individuals also had to agree to put
the needs of the campus before any departmental needs. The SAT,
which met weekly and also worked with the entire faculty, were
charged with working with the academic dean on the self-assessment
and developing the criteria that programs would be evaluated by.
They then helped prioritize the college’s programs. This ranking
included programs that the college needed to add or grow, programs
that the college needed to keep in place, and programs that the
college needed to reduce or cut.
This was very emotional and difficult work. Later in the
process, the administrators were criticized for not having this
committee elected by the faculty as a whole; however, the chair and
the dean both felt that the need for diversity among committee
members was more important when making the selection of who to
serve.
- Develop criteria for the prioritization.
Through a collective and inclusive process, the SAT identified
criteria to guide the prioritization process. These criteria, which
were endorsed by the faculty as a whole, included:
- departmental connection to the college’s mission;
- the level of departmental faculty work and faculty productivity
as defined in large part by metrics laid out in the Delaware
Study;
- faculty had to demonstrate that they were helping bring
institutional priorities to fruition;
- the departments had to show a track record of securing external
resources through gifts, grants or regional acclaim; and
- student interest and workforce demand.
These were agreed upon by all before prioritization took
place.
- Significant research went into identifying
institutional priorities and criteria. The administrators
and SAT were guided by the research of Dr. Robert Dickenson, who
authored a seminal work on academic prioritization. In addition,
Varlotta was able to tap into her network of other presidents who
are members of the Council of Independent Colleges to identify
those who went through processes like the one at Hiram College. She
also talked to several consultants that she had worked with in the
past to provide a reality check about the criteria being used.
- Criteria and related prompts were disseminated to every
faculty member. The SAT and administrators sent the
criteria out and asked faculty to join with their departmental
colleagues to address the prompts and then post the responses on a
faculty portal. This offered a significant level of transparency
for all faculty members, administrators and student
government.
- Data analysis took place in Spring 2018. The
SAT was charged with reviewing the data while the Academic Program
Committee, which was charged with the college’s shared governance,
shared the task. These two committees separately downloaded the
information from the portal, analyzed the information and
prioritized the programs, majors, minors and programs of
distinction.
- Creating a faculty committee designed to focus on
innovation. A third group, brought to Dr. Varlotta by two
senior faculty members, was stood up to focus on innovations, i.e.,
what kinds of priorities needed to be added to keep the college
forward-looking. Recommendations included overhauling the
first-year experience and reorganizing all of the departments into
4-5 interdisciplinary schools, which created more collegiality
among students and faculty.
Making the Hard Decisions
The SAT worked for 2-3 months prioritizing the programs. The
hardest decisions were focused on which programs, majors or minors
would be reduced or cut. They also identified which programs should
remain at the same level and which programs should grow through the
addition of faculty members or resources. These were data-driven
decisions which included fact-checking against the CFO’s metrics
and doing one-on-one interviews.
These recommendations were forwarded to Dr. Varlotta in May
2018. At the same time, the shared governance committee brought a
list, which paralleled the SAT’s recommendations. That confirmed
that the work had been thorough, rational and practical.
All of these recommendations were forwarded back to the faculty
as a whole to review and make commentary. This commentary was part
of the package that Dr. Varlotta brought to the Board of Trustees.
She supported both sets of recommendations in entirety. In
addition, the Board, which includes 38 trustees, voted on each
recommendation separately and gave each their unanimous
approval.
The Cuts
As part of this process, the college decided to end its
religious studies program, downgrade five majors into minors and
eliminate six faculty positions. Dr. Varlotta and the college’s
vice president of development worked together to raise funds to
give each of the affected faculty members a full-year buy-out and
full-year benefits.
Hiccups and Challenges
Dr. Varlotta said it was important to have a sound rationale
when forming specific committees prior to doing an academic
prioritization process. Transparency was critically
important. In addition, leaders needed to translate the
rhetoric into reality. For example, Dr. Varlotta held 100 different
meetings with various stakeholders while the vice presidents held
80 additional meetings during the spring semester.
3 Recommendations for Higher Education
Leaders
Dr. Varlotta suggested three take-aways for university
presidents:
- If an institution embarks on an academic prioritization
process, it can’t just be about cuts and reduction. There also
needs to be opportunities for growth and augmentation. Institutions
with financial issues must grow while making reductions at the same
time. “You cannot cut your way to growth.”
- There is an enormous amount of training that needs to take
place to help faculty members become data-driven in order to
translate the rhetoric into reality. Faculty members are
extraordinary intelligent and know their disciplines well, but
often don’t have the understanding of how to use organizational
data to make evidence-based institutional decisions.
- A public timeline needs to be created to ensure that
stakeholders know what’s coming next.
Bullet Points
- During both the strategic planning process and the academic
prioritization process, Varlotta and her team invited stakeholders
from across the campus to be involved.
- Administrators need to identify the intellectual framework that
will guide the academic reprioritization process. This should be
done in concert with faculty members and should include metrics
that will guide decision-making.
- It’s important to set up and publicize a timeline that allows
all stakeholders to understand the decision-making process.
- An iterative process that allows for changes and mid-course
adjustments will help keep stakeholder buy-in strong.
- A small committee of faculty members who represent the span of
the institution and its diverse interests should be involved in the
academic prioritization process. This group can serve as an
intermediary with other faculty members and also can provide
critical leadership in helping make difficult decisions. In
addition, this group needs to agree to put the institution’s
well-being above departmental needs.
- Institutional priorities were identified, based on
research.
- Agreed-upon metrics were identified that gauged departmental
connection to the college’s mission, faculty work/productivity,
faculty’s ability to bring institution priorities to fruition,
departmental external fundraising, student interest and workforce
demand.
- All faculty and departments were asked to respond to the
criteria through specifically written prompts. These responses were
then reviewed and analyzed by the SAT committee.
- A separate innovation committee was created through faculty
suggestion. This committee focused on offering ideas of where the
institution should move in the future.
- The SAT committee took 2-3 months to review faculty and
departmental feedback in order to prioritize programs. They also
worked with the CFO to look at budgetary issues. Ultimately, the
committee made recommendations to the president and dean of which
programs, majors and minors to eliminate/downgrade as well as which
to remain the same or expand.
- The shared governance committee also did their own analysis and
came up with similar recommendations.
- These recommendations went to the Board of Trustees, which
considered each recommendation separately and gave separate
votes.
- President Varlotta and the college’s development officer worked
to secure funds to provide a generous severance package to each
faculty member whose position was eliminated in the academic
prioritization process.
Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during
the interview:
Guests Social Media Links:
The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: