I have been working away at a post about my experience at the Educause Leadership Institute for weeks now. In particular, I have been trying to contrast it to the Learning Technology Leadership Institute, a similar program from the same group, but with different faculty, curriculum, and type of attendees. I have realized that I just need to get my review out so here goes…
I’m a day late on this one, and I will in fat roll the last two days into just this one post. Some of my thoughts have been formulating over a while anyway. Plus, due to some technical issues, I am having trouble effectively composing posts from anywhere but our meeting room. So it just hasn’t been easy.
One thing that has really impressed me, as my team has been working on our presentation to the “executive council” (played by our faculty) and while talking to other attendees, is that so many of the attendees have made these kinds of presentations already. They have already been on the radar of their upper tiers of their organizations. In a way, this means that this really isn’t all that hard of a task and that arguably attendees are far closer to being high-level leadership positions than perhaps I had anticipated. I figured everyone would be high level directors, but the director of, say, all customer or systems support for some major state university is pretty high up there. Even in terms of scope of work, what I do as CIO at Menlo College is not that far off from their work. The only difference I’ve generally felt about my role has been its scope. Not so much even by now, before the workshop has even ended. It’s really impressive.
As far as the workshop itself, a few things have jumped out at me. The first is that, while we did spend time talking to our executives as prep work so that we understood that level of leadership. So that we could separate really high level strategy from the “tactical” work we do. This was very useful, but we haven’t really returned to the strategic during the presentations as I would have expected. We’ve talked a lot about regulations, about what we need to worry about as leaders, and even how to manage relationships, but that’s really it.
Without an explicit, ongoing emphasis on strategy, it’s really easy for us to all get “into the weeds” and talk tactics and specific solutions during our conversations. We get out of the strategic. There are some important points here and there. Looking at governance from a high level (see my note below about emphasis on size of institution making these solutions less relevant to me, however). Examining IT security as part of a general campus risk security model is a powerful one. But those were not really the core emphasis of some of these presentations.
Also, and I’m borrowing from another attendee here, there hasn’t been a lot of talk about how to maintain innovation while handling all these other issues. Yes, we need to care about compliance and cyber-security, but what about our responsibility to foster creativity and the ability for faculty to be free to be innovative?
Finally, there is the empahsis on large institutions. The faculty are all from fairly large ones, and I can understand a bias. But while it’s always diffficult for me to take ideas and apply them to an institution of our size, all the talk about deputy CIOs, relying on large staff with multiple layers, etc makes it tougher than I had thought. I’m getting stuff out but, in the case of governance, for instance, I was generally taking information from about 1/3 of any other institution’s solutions, with full knowledge that I hav no capacity to dfo the other 2/3s. That is truly frustrating, and more of an effort than I had anticipated.
On a more…personal interaction note, I really need to learn to shut up more. We all have great ideas, and they will conflict at times. It’s not quite an issue of “put 7 leaders together on a team and it’s chaos,” but if some don’t step back, it is a lot of discussing and less productivity at times. And I personally feel that I’ve been contributing less valuable content than others. In no way has my group made me feel like an outsider or have they ostracized me in any way. I do feel that my opinions are contrary to the general flow perhaps more often than not, but that itself doesn’t mean I should step back. But for the sake of getting things done, I need to sit back more and just listen. Of course, this is a lot easier when the overall work of the team is really excellent.
The jury is still out on whether this will be a good educational experience. I’m learning more through direct conversations with the faculty than the curriculum, it seems, We’ll see.
A while back, I did a series of relatively short posts on a leadership program I attended. The Learning Technologies Leadership workshop offered by the Educause Institute. Many may wonder why I am now reviewing this program again. In fact, this is a different one. One month later, I find myself back at the Hilton Orrington in Evanston, IL. This time, it’s a general leadership program, with a very different crow.
Yesterday was just a half day so my observations are more about the differences in the crowd. I don’t think I know enough to make comments on the curriculum. I can certainly talk about my trepidation prior to the start of the session.
Before things commenced I was very concerned about how I’d fit in. Would everyone be from really big universities? Even against a director, my experience at such a small college might not translate. I might be this useless appendage. I’d still learn just from hearing everyone’s experience but I want to contribute.
Fortunately, my fears did not come true. While I am a bit surprised by the number of folks that work in administrative systems (rather than customer-facing programs), but overall there is a lot of diversity, in jobs, age, years in job, and institution (or department). I think things will work out. More on that as the week goes by.
The team project, which was a linchpin of the LTL program, is handled a bit differently. I ‘m sure the actual presentation will be similar an the team dynamics will still be key. But we heard about the team topics last night – we had to pick two, and therefore had no idea what we’d get. And for me, this is especially harrowing because I don’t know if I’d end up doing a potentially big topic – but one that interests me – with really big institutions that just won’t speak on the same terms as me.
Because this is a group that are aspiring CIOs, we did spend a big section yesterday talking about the changing role. On the one hand, this is a critically important topic and discussion (one might think differently based on my recent post about an article in Educauseu Review, but that’s because I felt that was intended for other CIOs, not aspiring ones). On the other, I felt that we jumped a bit too far into the changing role. We discussed the changed role – what it is now, under the presumption that we had preconceived notions. Maybe we did. Just an observation.
Overall, while I had a pretty full afternoon, it was not as intense as the first day of the LTL. But I am perhaps more excited overall, and look forward to the week.
The last week of June, I attended the Educause Institue Learning Technology Leadership program. This is an intensive, week-long workshop (that’s the best term I can think of it – it’s not a conference, it’s not training, and I don’t really think it’s a workshop, per se, either) on how to be an effective leader at one’s institution. It is aimed at those working in educational technology (instructional technology, teaching and learning, lots of other names), but it goes way out to how one might do presentations for new programs to executive officers, handling 6 or 7 figure budgets, and a number of other high level topics.
Overall, it was a very positive experience. But the real “meat” of this post is a bit more nuanced than simply whether I learned a lot or not. For instance, in terms of just leadership skills ranging from one’s team to one’s institution, there was lots to learn. But that’s not entirely why I attended.
As a CIO, I must admit I felt a bit out of place. But we don’t have an educational technology program so it’s not like there was someone else to send. And we want to start one up, so we did want to send someone. But, while I did have these very relevant reasons for being there, I definitely had a different perspective than most. To be honest, I think this caused a bit of…disconnection and possibly abrasion with my teammates. I am sure they are all gracious enough to disagree with me, but if I’m being truthful, I think at times my tendency to think about issues such as liability and institutional fit instead of creativity and pedagogical impact was a hindrance to overall productivity. I apologize to a great overall team for that.
When I signed up for the workshop, though, my key question was “is there something about leadership in learning/educational/instructional technology that is different than leadership in general?” (more…)
Educause Review Review – “A Transformative Period: Is Higher Education IT Having an Identity Crisis?”
Disclaimer: I realize my comments might be taken as criticism of other CIOs or of the intent of the writers of Educause Review. First, that’s not at all my goal. My goal is to say that perhaps the time for us to discuss the “still changing” role of the CIO is past. And should be past. But saying this doesn’t mean that I necessarily think that I don’t fall victim to some of these thoughts and even practices now and then. In other words, I’m saying that my house might be made of glass…but I don’t think I’m throwing stones. At the very least, in terms of career accomplishments, I have no right to make these comments. But if I always thought that way I would rarely write anything. This is a general commentary, and is not about myself at any rate.
Also, note that while I am highlighting an Educause Review article in this particular post, it’s mostly because it’s the most recent one on this topic. I’m certainly not criticizing the publication nor its various editors and staff (many of whom I know personally). If this is still an important question, then ER should be covering it. However, I am not sure it is an important question.
In early June, Educause Review posted an article titled A Transformative Period: Is Higher Education IT Having an Identity Crisis? The question being posed is whether, in light of all the changes in higher ed in general, IT is facing a set of changes so dramatic that the entire role of an IT organization must be reconsidered? It asserts that “the IT organization must be prepared to engage with its institution in a number of ways in a fast-paced environment” and that this is an “issue of transformation.”
Several interviewees give a variety of answers, but I must admit that I am having trouble with the question, and the premise itself. I don’t think there should be any transformation going on at all, at least not now. More broadly, I don’t see why we are still having this conversation. Shouldn’t we already be what this article is asserting we should be…changing into? If we aren’t already there, then the problem isn’t about adjusting to change tomorrow, but about whether we can be effective leaders today. So why the ongoing discussion?
On the one hand, if one looks at the field of IT unto itself, without the context of managers and leaders, then yes, there is a major shift occurring. One can either acknowledge this change and take advantage of it to grow an organization, or ignore it and become irrelevant. Essentially, in a time when many IT services are becoming commodities and students (and faculty and staff) are bringing in personal devices that are sometimes far more powerful and certainly more mobile than what departments have been able to offer in the past (BYOD), if an IT organization doesn’t think about change, then its role as a vital part of the institution will be greatly jeopardized. But I think looking at just the entity, the set of services that make up IT, is a completely useless perspective. What matters are the people and the leaders that are in place.
Any and all leaders in IT today must be looking at the landscape far beyond the technology. Business processes, enabling innovation, supporting mobility, accepting BYOD, and pushing forward new and creative initiatives. If a CIO isn’t already instinctively thinking about these matters, about the role of IT as part of a key, strategic and programmatic component of a rapidly changing landscape, rather than just a service provider, then there is a serious issue. Again, the true, underlying question for me is why are we still discussing this? Maybe we need a note on the side saying “hey! make sure you’re thinking this way!” with each issue but surely Educause Review with all its great content can devote some pages to other topics.
The identity crisis is not about IT from the perspective of the IT leadership. It’s one created entirely by the institution itself, if and only if it is not putting enough thought into the role of IT or ignoring the hopefully-forward thinking minds that lead such organization. Of course, this is in fact often the case – the institution is lagging behind the existing change in leadership styles in IT. Even if there is a really creative IT leader that understands these dynamics, it’s certainly possible that other executives at the institution will disagree. They will be the ones that relegate IT to simply a service provider, rather than an enabler or a creative entity that adds value. This is certainly a big challenge.
But the article implies that the identity crisis is located in the IT organization, or is at least partly so. This discussion therefore still doesn’t make sense to me. A leader in IT, today, should be considering the department’s role in the institution’s long-term strategic planning all the time. Let’s look a bit closer at some of the comments, and I will take another probably-too-bold step in offering my own thoughts and responses.
I didn’t get to write a post yesterday because I was exhausted. Our teams do presentations on the 4th day, yesterday, that is meant to “make the case” for some proposal for a fictional institution. We worked late into Wednesday night, I was rehearsing my section of the presentation even later than that (into Thursday morning), and then the presentation itself certainly was a high pressure situation. We were all just very, very tired.
I’ll have a recap post at some point of the entire experience but, as was the case the first couple of days, a quick reflection is still important.
With all the work done to find our strengths so that we can apply them effectively, I have come to appreciate that strengths can actually be weaknesses themselves. It’s all about context. When working in a team where everyone is a highly-motivated, potential formal or informal leader, strengths such as being an Achiever (wanting to accomplish things), an Arranger (always understanding how things work together), and Input (wanting know more and more) can be a problem. They can make me inpatient, they can make me potentially disruptive. Considering the effort put in by my fellow teammates, I can only hope that I did a mildly effective job of keeping myself in check. Perhaps most of the time.
This means that there is even greater nuance to dealing with strengths and weaknesses than I had realized. Before, it was know your strengths, which helps you understand your weaknesses, then either address the weaknesses head on (out of your comfort zone) or find a complement. But strengths themselves can be weaknesses. My, this can get complicated.
One thing I saw during the building of our presentation was that all of us having to just buckle down and get the thing done allowed our “executor” strengths to come through, and then our other strengths could rise above that. It was almost like a base or “safe space” for us to start opening up. I felt a lot more comfortable knowing we all had this common goal that included a timeline, where we really knew we had to just get down to it. But even so, no one stopped indicating those existing strengths. I found this fascinating and I truly enjoyed just turning to others and saying “I’m not good at this, someone please help me.” Others rose up, gave me ideas, and things came together.
Considering that “leading from where you are” is a fundamental part of leadership in general but also key for those of us that are parts of larger organizations, this was pretty cool to watch.
I want to thank all of those at LTL 13, and to my teammates on team 5 in particular for an amazing experience.
So..I’m really tired, and this is going to be short, to be honest.
Last night my team worked on finishing the presentation we will make today to the “senior administrative leaders” that the LTL faculty will be “playing.” We are to pitch a specific idea, with implementation, budget, etc., that will address a strategic concern of a college.
Until last night, I have to admit that I haven’t felt completely at ease with our group. This is not a statement about the people, much less about any one person in particular. It’s about trying to form a team made up of people that have all come to a workshop designed to build leadership. This is a group here to become better leaders. Putting us in groups is going to cause some unease.
But there is nothing like a project, trying to make something concrete, to bring people together. As we worked together, our skills and strengths emerged naturally. Even more impressively, the way we offered to help just flowed. Someone would ask for help (I know I did several times) and others would start working on solutions. One person made headway, and ideas were thrown about, and we ended up with a great product. When we did a run-through, we all gave feedback equitably and fairly, and we have, I think, a solid product.
I don’t know what today’s reflection piece will be, but I know that last night’s collaborative experience will be the sticking point for me for the day.
I a still at the Learning Technology Leadership program from the Educause Institute, and the latest reflection piece we’ve had is on leadership. Unlike the first assignment, this one was done in the morning, before getting on with the day. So it’s shorter.
We were asked to discuss how the first day’s discussion may have changed our views on leadership. My response follows, and additional commentary past the jump.
While the concept of leading from within a group (rather than at the forefront) is nothing new, the discussion that stemmed from the governance committee model at Northwestern still struck a chord. Even at a small institution such as mine, where working with anyone means working with everyone, maintaining a steady focus on communications and sharing the ownership of knowledge and understanding is a powerful tool.
Unfortunately, this also takes a lot of energy. I am inspired by the prospects of what such shared communication can provide. Yet I am also concerned about the sheer amount of effort required to sustain such a program. At a larger institution, you not only have more resources in terms of number of people from your own organization to attend these meetings, but just more people in general. At a small institution, at some point, these committees are all the same people, and you have to watch for burn-out, disillusionment, and perhaps even annoyance with the process. That is completely counterproductive.
It will be a delicate balance and I will be adding “informal” to many of the names of these governance/communication groups, but it certainly has great impact, regardless of institution size. And that means it’s worth the effort, in almost any case.
Day 1 of the Educause Institute for Learning Technology Leadership came to a close last night. For just a half-day session, I am truly exhausted. I am also excited that such a dynamic experience will span the next 3.5 days. I’m sure I’ll get a lot out of it.
We are asked to reflect upon a specific topic each day. Last night, we focused on the results of our StrengthsFinders surveys. This tool, which I’ve used a few times now and find quite useful, tries to identify 5 strengths based on a big, long series of survey questions. They are actually statements, and you have to choose which one better describes you. For the most part, they are not opposed, which means it’s not easy to decide which one fits you best. So you make a decision that is a combination of logic, thoughtfulness, and gut.
Below is a slightly-edited (just tightened up) version of what I wrote in our internal Yammer group.
As I was working on my post about my adoption of the “VDI Lifestyle” I started thinking about the role and viability of virtual desktops in higher education in general. It’s great that I’ve adopted it and use it the way I do, personally. And I do think that the reasons why I’ve taken to it so thoroughly are important for many users to consider. But from a strategic planning perspective, how do virtual desktops it fit into higher ed?
Operationally, a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) is a pretty complex setup. It has a lot of moving parts, and it relies on all of the moving parts all the time to be successful. For us, that means VMWare View as the backbone, Unidesk for management of the desktops, Active Directory for access, and all kinds of hardware connected as thin clients, converted retired desktops, all-in-one clients with built-in monitors, and then many staff using full-function desktops with the VDI software. There are servers (7 of them serving 300 desktops – imagine if you were a much larger institution), a fast storage array (running solid state drives), network switches and lots of blinking lights. We’ve had hundreds of hours of configurations and many lessons learned the hard way.
So on the one hand, it’s a tough proposition for a small IT shop. Even a medium sized one, if you don’t have dedicated folks, it’s not going to be easy. There is more than enough specialized, proprietary knowledge to require quite a bit of staff time. This is a key part of making a strategic decision to move forward.
There are significant benefits, though. Centralized management, a clearly-defined budgeting plan (either servers or perhaps Desktop as a Service), addressing server and desktop needs all at once (a big issue for us when we started), and quick response to user requests (need SAS on your desktop? Just give me 10 minutes, reconnect and it’ll be there) are just a few. When the moving parts are in sync, it’s quite beautiful. So for the administrator, it is a powerful tool, and for support staff, a way to ease the load. And if we can ease the the administrative overhead, then we can allocate resources to other needs, such as in-person desktop support or personal consultation.
But making strategic decisions isn’t just about internal operations or ease of administration. That’s all about the department. What truly matters is what we can deliver to the end user. Desktops for work productivity is a Business Service Catalog component, and we must never forget that we are trying to meet customer needs here, not our own.
The first question I ask myself when making strategic decisions is “how will this improve productivity for the staff, faculty, or students?” Yes, sometimes these discussions are quite short – without an ERP, we don’t get much done at all, so we need to have one. Upgrades to networking, wireless connectivity, and other factors are all in the same ball park. But there are lots of other services that do require some more thought, and something as fundamental as one’s computer certainly does (or should) fall into that category. Most of the time the average computer will meet all needs. But one size does not fit all – will the standard desktop handle the work of a statistics researcher? What about laptop users? Ultrabooks vs. desktop replacement?
And if virtual desktops are under consideration, will what we can provide centrally meet the productivity needs of others? (more…)