1

The role of leadership in disruptive innovation in higher education

Jandris, T. P., and Bartlett, K. R.

Stream 8 - Innovative approaches to support learning and teaching in HRD.The 13th International HRD Conference 2012Universidade Lusíada de Famalicão, Portugal

Thomas P. Jandris, Ph.D.Vice President for Educational Innovation

Dean of the College of Graduate and Innovative ProgramsConcordia University Chicago

7400 Augusta StreetRiver Forest, IL 60305-1499, U.S.A.

Thomas.Jandris@CUChicago.edu

And

Kenneth R. Bartlett, Ph.D.Associate Dean of Graduate, Professional, and International Programs

Associate Professor of Human Resource DevelopmentCollege of Education and Human Development

University of Minnesota104 Burton Hall

178 Pillsbury Drive S. E.Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

bartlett@umn.edu

2

THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP IN DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Leadership plays a critical role in moving organizations to engage in essential “disruptive

innovation” (Christainsen, Horn, Caldera, & Soares, 2011). Such leadership is important both

because of the demand for and importance of higher education but also because institutions of

higher education are struggling to manage several imperatives that are new to them. Globally,

there is an increased demand for and importance of higher education to lead efforts toward

economic development and job creation (Wildavsky, Kelly, & Carey, 2011). The study of

innovation in higher education in Europe and especially in the United Kingdom is often

considered an element of a broader “new managerialist” philosophy (Trowler, 2010), while in

North America, and especially the United States, it is often a topic within higher education

administration and in the futures literature (Harkins, Tomsyck, & Kubik, 2002). Meek, Teichler,

and Kearney, (2009) recently detailed that despite widespread variation in higher education

systems around the world, the need for innovation was a truly global phenomena. However,

research exploring the role of leadership in higher education innovation is limited providing few

studies on the roles, processes, and outcomes.

The topic of leadership in innovation in higher education has significant relevance for

human resource development (HRD). However, in general, the study of innovation has been

largely overlooked in the HRD research literature. A noticeable exception is the study of

Kontoghiorghes, Awbrey, and Feurig (2005) examining the relationship between organizational

characteristics, innovation, and organizational performance. Some have urged HRD scholars and

practitioners to focus more attention on innovation and to recognize the significant role that HRD

plays in the innovation process (McLean, 2005). Within higher education, HRD is well-

positioned to make significant contributions to the study and practice of academic leadership in a

variety of ways (McDonlad, Bartlett, Roberts, & Watkins, 2012). First, HRD faculty are

uniquely suited to take on administrative roles given expertise in organization systems and

3

development, program planning and evaluation, and talent and performance management.

Second, HRD initiatives and expertise are often used to train and develop academic leaders. And

finally, HRD scholars can make unique contributions to the empirical research on academic

administration (Watkins, 2005).

Problem and Research Question

Despite increased recognition for innovation in higher education and a growing acceptance of the

opportunity for HRD to provide a leadership role in the development of theory and application of

practice for disruptive innovation there is little written research on this important issue.

Acknowledging both this need and opportunity for significant contributions from HRD we

conducted a case study research project to examine the role of leadership in disruptive innovation

in higher education. The overarching research question guiding this study was:

What is the role of leadership in disruptive innovation in higher education?

This paper provides a broad overview of existing research examining international perspectives

on higher education innovation in both European and North American settings to frame a case

study of the pivotal role of leadership in the innovation journey at Concordia University

Chicago.

Review of Literature

The increased demand for innovation in higher education, combined with a highly constrained

resource environment, has created a climate in which leadership for disruptive innovation is

essential (Wildavsky et al., 2011). There are several imperatives that complicate the demands on

leadership and create a heightened sense of urgency, including:

Decreasing governmental commitment - for example, in the US, public universities have

watched their state appropriations shrink dramatically, and private colleges and

universities have seen state commitments to student aid drop. Similar circumstances are

occurring all over Europe.

4

Globalization - to continue to attract the highest caliber students and faculty, universities

everywhere must extend their recruiting efforts far beyond their borders. Globally,

university campuses are increasingly diverse, plural, and multicultural to an extent

unimagined just two or three decades ago. The governance and service challenges this

plurality will bring will be substantial.

New cost considerations - better and new understandings of cost containment and

management will be required. It has been stated that “the cost spiral in higher education

isn't sustainable” (Ladd, 2011).

Consumer affordability - in spite of the global need for increased access, a college

education is increasingly unaffordable. For example, in the US, the annual cost of a

private college has grown from under 80% of per capita income to 112% since 1980, and

the cost of a public college has risen from less than 40% to nearly 50% during the same

period (Rickets, 2005).

Increased application and reach of digital technology – continued transformation of

student learning and organizational management results from new technologies and

expanded application. Selected examples include the fact that distance learning is

becoming typical rather than supplemental; cloud-based computing is becoming the norm

replacing massive institutional infrastructure investment; and course content increasingly

resides in the public domain. The examples highlight that information is ubiquitous and

barriers to access knowledge are being significantly reduced, especially with the

expanded use of mobile devices (Ladd, 2011).

The literature on innovation management frequently uses the phrase disruptive

innovation. This term was coined by Clayton Christensen and his seminal and path-breaking

works The innovators dilemma (Christensen, 2003), The innovators solution (Christensen &

5

Raynor, 2003), and Seeing what’s next (Christensen, Anthony, & Roth, 2004). In spite of the

frequency of use for the term a great deal of confusion over the definition and identifying

characteristics of disruptive innovation remains (Schmidt & Druehl, 2008). The recent

application of disruptive innovation to higher education by Christensen and Eyrinh (2011) seeks

to apply the theory of disruptive innovation to the functioning of colleges and universities. They

present an optimistic application of core concepts of disruptive innovation to allow universities

to change in response to the growing number of intense challenges that confront how they

perform their uniquely valuable functions.

There are also several key barriers to innovation in colleges and universities. Not only

are federal, regional, and local governments reducing their commitments to education,

increasingly they lack the resources to financially support it - even if they had the will.

Accreditation, compliance, and authorizing agencies have become, for the most part, bloated

bureaucracies more interested in self preservation and growth than in learning outcomes. The

traditional academic culture is marked by inertia and outdated processes that limit change

(Cummings, 2011).

The innovation literature frequently refers to the “Innovator’s Dilemma” (Birnbaum,

2005). In simple terms the innovators dilemma describes that the adoption of new innovations

can have a serious impact on the status quo and results in changes to the way people have been

doing something perhaps for decades. Leaders must have a clear, working understanding of the

implications of this dilemma in order to create the vision and develop the plans for their

organizations in the midst of these challenges. Such leadership will understand what it takes to

balance the needs of their traditional institutions with those of the necessary, innovative

structures that will need to operate outside of their normal management and value frameworks

(Birnbaum, 2011).

6

There are several organizational and operational paradigm shifts that are central to the

context and climate for disruptive innovation to occur within institutions of higher education.

These include: 1) redesigning the delivery of courses and programs; 2) redefining the

professorate. (“What appropriate structures beyond tenure might be?”); and, 3) rethinking the

organizations and structures of the institution (Cummings, 2011). The latter matters of

organization and structure require the most radical shifts in both leadership and climate as

meaningful innovations tend not to come from established structures. Well-established and or

larger organizations are too committed to existing paradigms, traditional populations, and are

usually unwilling to pursue new and/or niche markets (Birnbaum , 2003). This provides

challenges as well as opportunities for leaders in higher education to champion and implement

disruptive innovations to re-position their organizations.

Disruptive innovations, like “virtual education" take hold in traditional institutions only if

they operate outside of normal management and value frameworks with the consequent risk of

losing institutional control. Christiansen at al., (2011) and Christensen and Eyrinh (2011) have

suggested four characteristics to describe independent units within the larger organization.

These are that the independent units are:

free from the larger organization’s control

able to make their own decisions

free to create entirely new kinds of organizations

possessing characteristics that members of the parent organization may not like or want.

These independent innovating organizational units must be free to drastically change the

course by which users connect, engage, and relate with the world and transform society

(K12WIKI, 2011). These essential but radical requirements will demand leadership styles and

behaviors of the leaders of innovative organizations.

7

According to Christensen et al (2011), there are six important strategies that will be required of

leaders to successfully transform organizations. These are:

1. Eliminating barriers that block disruptive innovations and partner with the innovators to

provide better educational opportunities. It is critical to promote new, autonomous

business models that have the freedom to re-imagine higher education.

2. Reframing threats so policymakers and agents of governance cannot frame the disruptive

independent units as threats, and instead see them as opportunities to bring affordable

education to more people.

3. Change the standards by which institutions are judged to remove barriers that assess and

evaluate institutions based on inputs such as hours of instruction, credit hours, and

student faculty ratios. Too many of the disruptive innovations in higher education still

focus on inputs and/or are time-based. Policymakers should open up the policy

environment to allow more institutions to use online education to move toward next

generation learning models focused around things such as competency-based learning

with actionable assessments, not just make the traditional model of education more

convenient.

4. Modify the perspective relating to degree attainment to not solely focus on degree

attainment as the measure of success. Degrees are a signal or proxy for skill attainment

(Spence, 1973) but they are far from a perfect one, as seen in the amount of retraining

that employers do as well as the current unemployment figures. Real outcomes and real

mastery, as shown in work portfolios for example, are more important.

5. Drive disruptive innovation - some institutions have this opportunity, but to do so, they

need to set up an autonomous business model unencumbered by their existing processes

and priorities. They can leverage their existing fixed resources in this autonomous model

8

to give themselves a cost advantage over what to this point have been the low-cost

disruptive innovators.

6. Reframe/frame the approach to online learning to make this an accepted core delivery

system for learning rather than a substitute for traditional face-to-face instruction.

Having reviewed the literature to identify factors driving change in higher education as well

as existing literature on disruptive innovation and the role of leadership needed in response

we now provide an overview of the case study.

Method

The selection of a case study research method for this study was appropriate given what is

known on disruptive innovation in higher education (Christensen & Eyring, 2011) and yet, the

substantial lack of existing research on the role of leadership. In describing the application of

case study research to HRD Dooley (2002) noted that this method excels at creating

understanding of a complex issue and can add strength to what is already known through

previous research. He went further to describe case study research as emphasizing “detailed

contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships” (p. 335).

Yin (1994) defined case study as “scholarly inquiry that investigates a contemporary

phenomenon within its real-life context, when the boundaries between phenomenon and context

are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (p. 33).

This case study provides a description of Concordia University Chicago (CUC), which is

the second fastest growing private graduate school in America (Chronicle of Higher Education,

2011), and its journey out of insolvency and collapse to recognition as a leading example of the

application of innovation in higher education. Concordia University Chicago is a private, faith-

based comprehensive university established in 1864. In the last six years Concordia University

Chicago has achieved over 800% growth in students enrolled. This case study explores the role

of leadership in the conception and development of the College of Graduate and Innovative

9

Programs. Data were collected from document analysis and key informant interviews. The

lessons learned from the case study highlight the role of leadership in the adoption of a broad

range of innovations.

Results

In 2003/04, Concordia University Chicago was within 36 hours of losing a $49 million line of

credit as a consequence of tuition revenue shortfalls leading to the serious violation of its

lender’s covenants. As a last ditch, but successful, effort to buy time, the university's governing

board made several commitments to its creditors, including:

A new, courageous, and innovative president/CEO would assume control of the

institution immediately.

A bold, new set of strategic and operating plans would be developed within three months.

New, innovative, and autonomous structures would be established with a mission for

growth and excellence.

A new senior management team would be recruited and retained.

Profitability would be achieved within one year and total debt would be reduced by 10%

or greater each year for 10 years.

Each of these commitments has been met.

In 2005 a new president for Concordia University Chicago was hired. He was a known

and proven leader to the governing board. They also knew him to be a bold innovator. Upon his

arrival he established a new position, Senior Vice President for Research and Planning, and

recruited a private sector, proven business leader to assume that responsibility. The senior vice

president's initial task was to work with the board, faculty, staff and academic leadership, and

constituents to rapidly develop new strategic and operating plans for the University. Within

three months those plans were approved and put in place. The potential for organizational failure

10

and need to fulfill the commitments made to the creditors proved to be a powerful motivator and

support factor for the innovations and resulting changes.

Perhaps the most controversial and significant component of the plans was the creation of

a new college within the University, the College of Graduate and Innovative Programs. This

new unit initially organized all post-baccalaureate programs; all graduate and undergraduate

adult and degree completion programs; all distance learning initiatives; all international

programs; and all external partnerships. In addition, the College of Graduate and Innovative

Programs served as the incubator for other innovations in the university including the creation of

a new academic department called the Department of Innovation, which serves as the faculty

governance and review body to fast-track academic initiatives within the College.

In early 2006, a new “founding dean” was recruited and hired to lead the new college.

He was a professional with long and broad education experience; including federal and state

policy background; but who also importantly was a private sector business person and

entrepreneur with considerable experience in HRD and organization development. The new

Dean was given several important freedoms and responsibilities:

He reported only to the president.

He was authorized to establish new departments, assign faculty, and appoint leadership.

He was given the freedom to approach new markets with new programs using new

delivery systems.

He was given the authority to change systems and structures as frequently as needed to

enhance success and promote innovation.

He was allowed to recruit and hire his own management team. He was held accountable

to providing the resources to meet the commitments to the creditors.

The result has been very rapid and substantial growth. The College of Graduate and Innovative

Programs now generates over 60% of the gross revenue of the University and 127% of its net

11

profitability. Overall, it has grown at a rate of over 800% during the pasted six years, with

terminal degree programs growing during the same period at a remarkable 2500%. The college

now serves students in 37 states in the US and in 18 countries. It has just established a campus

in China.

Beyond its growth and return to financial stability, the College of Graduate and

Innovative Programs has also received several important and prestigious recognitions from

accreditors for the nationally acclaimed excellence of several of its programs. The alignment of

the strategies identified in the case study seem to confirm and align with existing change

management, organization development, and HRD literature, especially with regard to matters of

organizational autonomy and leadership.

Discussion

The data collected from the case study highlight the role of leadership in driving disruptive

innovation in higher education. The confluence of a series of macro-level changes occurring in

higher education and a financial crisis event enabled Concordia University Chicago to embark on

a series of significant innovations. The role of leadership at both the University and College of

Graduate and Innovative Programs appears to have been a key factor to frame-breaking

approaches to program development, growth, and delivery. Perhaps the combination of crisis

and leadership provided the necessary impetus to break from long held traditions that often block

will limit innovation in higher education.

As supported by Christensen and Eyring (2011), the establishment of a new independent

unit (the College of Graduate and Innovative Programs) appears to have provided the necessary

organizational structure and works to execute highly innovative strategies. Even the name of the

College appears somewhat unique in the US higher education context. The selection of

leadership with a strong business orientation with extensive experience in organizational change

and entrepreneurship generated ideas for innovation. The development and execution of

12

strategic plans to rapidly implement innovation also relied on top management support and direct

reporting line to the President. Rather than develop evaluation frameworks to measure progress

a system of accountability was established with resources provided so long as agreed

commitments were met.

It is important to note that there is great variation among types of higher education

institutions. The mission, programs, and context of Concordia University Chicago and its

application of disruptive innovation may not apply to all types of higher education institutions.

However, this case does highlight the key role of leadership to the application of disruptive

innovation in higher education.

Future Research

Even though some remarkably good research and theory have been developed recently on the

role of disruptive innovation in higher education (Christensen & Eyring, 2011), there is a great

need for further study. The need for future research is especially important to further understand

the role of HRD in innovation in higher education. Future research should examine different

types of higher education institutions including large public-supported universities, liberal arts

colleges, and technical and community colleges. Furthermore, future research studies should

also examine differences between higher education institutions in the United States, Europe, and

other nations as research continues to highlight commonalities in the challenges confronting

colleges and universities around the world. HRD scholars and professionals are in position to

help study the roles, processes, and outcomes relating to innovation in higher education. The

study of the roles of organizational development, program planning and evaluation, and talent

and performance management in successful innovation has much merit. In general, the study of

innovation in the context of HRD will yield great benefit.

13

REFERENCES

Birnbaum, R. (2005). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to

fail/The innovator's solution: creating and sustaining successful growth. Academe, 91(1),

80-84.

Center for American Progress. (2011). Disrupting college. (Executive Summary). February

Christensen, C. M. (2003). The innovator's dilemma. New York: Harper-Colins.

Christensen, C. M., & Anthony, S. D., & Roth, E. A. (2004). Seeing what’s next. Boston:

Harvard Business School Press.

Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of

higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting college: How

disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education.

Available December 17, 2011 from

Http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/pdf/disrupting_college_execsumm.pdf

Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. (2003). The innovator’s solution. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press.

Cummings, J. (2011). Reinventing higher education. EDUCAUSE.

Dooley, L. M. (2002). Case study research and theory building. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 4(3), 335-354.

Harkins, A., Tomsyck, J., & Kubik, G. (2002). Prospective education for an innovation

economy. On The Horizon 10(1), 17-22).

K12WIKI (2011). Disruptive Technology/Innovation. Available from: K12WIKIspces.com.

Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S. M., & Feurig, P. L. (2005). The relationship between learning

organizational characteristics and change adaptation, innovation, and organizational

performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 185-211.

14

Ladd, L. (2011). Top 10 imperatives facing higher education institutions in 2012. On Course:

Business insights and trends for trustees and higher education administrators, 12, 1-5.

McDonald, K. S., Bartlett, K. R., Roberts, P. B., & Watkins, K. E. (2012). Going to the dark

side: Moving to academic administration. In J. Storberg-Walker, & & C. M. Graham

(Eds.), Proceedings Academy of Human Resource Development 2012 International

Conference (CD ROM), St. Paul, MN.

McLean, L. D. (2005). Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: A

review of the literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 226-246.

Meek, V. L., Teichler, U. & Kearney, M. L. (Editors). Higher education, research and

innovation: Changing dynamics. Report on the UNESCO forum on higher education,

research and knowledge 2001-2009. Available October 31, 2011 from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001830/183071e.pdf

Schmidt, G. M., & Druehl, C. T. (2008). When is our disruptive innovation disruptive? The

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 347-369.

Spence, A. M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374.

Trowler, P. (2010). UK higher education: Captured by new managerialist ideology? In V.

Meek, L., Goedegebuure, R. Santiago, & T Carvalho. The changing dynamics of higher

education middle management. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 197-211.

Watkins, K. (2005). What would be different if higher educational institutions were learning

organizations? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(3), 414-421.

Wildavsky, B., Kelly, A. P., & Carey, K. (2011). Reinventing higher education: The promise of

innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Yin, K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.