From the Desk of...

Virginia Moxley

Higher education academic alliances attract exceptionally capable and
extraordinarily busy leaders. If the alliance is to succeed, these
gifted, already fully engaged leaders will become more collaborative and
less competitive, will commit to doing the important and urgent work of
the alliance as well as that of their employing institution, and will
engage in frequent, meaningful, and sometimes messy
communication with alliance partners. Observations about the nature of
alliance leadership follow:

* It is a network, not a ladder. Alliances are built on personal relationships, not on position authority. No one individual has any particular power over any other. In such an environment, the least committed participant (not the most committed) controls the outcome of joint work.

* Be particular about partners. The culture and management practices of the partner institutions will make collective work easier or harder. Get well acquainted with the proposed partner institutions before you initiate a project.

* Generosity and Truth Telling. When alliance leaders have a tendency to act generously, alliances flourish. When alliance leaders have the willingness to speak the truth in meetings, alliances can meet the needs of all partner institutions.

* Meet and talk vs. meet and do. When higher education administrators meet, they learn a great deal of useful information by talking. Generally they leave meetings invigorated by shared information. Less frequently do they leave meetings committed to implementing a plan of action.

* Everyone has a full desk already. Participants in partnership projects generally have a full institutional workload before they take on the obligations of partnership development. While alliance leaders can depend on good will, leaders cannot depend on action. Reminders, incentives, and shared accountability can help.

* Communication hubs. Ask for information from many people and few reply. Put someone in charge of institutional communications to the alliance.

* It takes a team. Institutional representatives to inter-institutional partnerships require support from a home team of individuals representing faculty, academic administration, finance, continuing education, and data management.

* Succession plans. Alliance leaders are less enduring than alliances are. A strategy to prepare and promote alliance participants into alliance leadership assures continuity of outcomes.

* Balancing act. Alliance participants are constantly balancing institutional and alliance interests. When the scale tips, institutional interests will prevail.

* Simplify, simplify, simplify. Any plan created by higher education administrators has a tendency to become more complicated over time. Do not over-engineer solutions.

With best regards,
Virginia Moxley, Ph.D