Collaborative Leadership Observation

Ka’rin Thornburg
SW n393T19-Summer 2016: Dr. Cal Streeter
Strategic Partnership Through Collaborative Leadership
Observation Paper For my observation paper, I was approved to attend the Greater Austin Black Chamber of Commerce’s (GABC) Town Hall meeting. The meeting, scheduled for 6:30pm on Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at the Historic Dedrick-Hamilton House – located in a concentrated African American residential area of East Austin, was set to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the Chamber from a community perspective. As described on the GABC website, the meeting was an opportunity for chamber leadership to “hear and understand valuable feedback, which will help to build a stronger chamber”. The ultimate objective
of the meeting was to develop strategies and services to accommodate citizen requests that align with the mission, vision, and values of the chamber. Unfortunately, for unspecified reasons, the town hall was postponed indefinitely. I was not aware of its postponement until returning to the website to confirm logistic information a couple hours prior to the announced start time. It was then that I contacted the chamber by phone because the listing had been removed from its upcoming events advertised online. Upon speaking with the chamber, I learned the decision was made a couple days prior to postpone the meeting for a later undetermined date, when there could be a “focused discussion” and more members of the community present. The gentleman I spoke to on the phone seemed surprised that I was aware an original meeting even existed and asked if it was still displayed on the website. I told him no, but that I had make notes and copied the page into my personal calendar. I mentioned I was surprised to see it was cancelled since no notice was posted on their social media platforms or on the website itself regarding the cancellation. I then asked how were they informing the public of the postponement so they didn’t show up to the location as I was in the process of doing? I was simply encouraged to check back to the website for a new date and time for the town hall for some time in the next couple months. Given I was unable to attend the GABC meeting, my remaining option for this assignment was to attend a non-Austin focused meeting in the city of New Orleans as I was set to travel on business the afternoon of July 20 through the evening of July 24.
New Orleans served as the host city for the 2016 leadership development institute (LDI) and committee chair training for the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC). NACAC, founded in 1937, is an organization of more than 15,000 professionals – both in the US and overseas – who serve students seeking post-secondary education. NACAC’s membership is comprised of professionals on the secondary side, namely high school college counselors as well as community-based organizations and private consultants that serve high school students in the college search process, and those on the post-secondary side, namely admissions counselors, directors of admission, and those in related roles in enrollment management at colleges and universities. NACAC’s 2016 LDI and chair training would bring together the president’s council (president, president-elect, and past president) for 23 national affiliates that represent 50 states and overseas, returning chairs and/or outgoing and rising chairs for 10 standing committees, roughly 15 NACAC Board of Directors, and more than 20 NACAC staff. My role at the meeting is my service as returning chair of the NACAC Inclusion, Access, and Success Committee – of which there are eight
appointed members and roughly 19 related committees across our 23 affiliates. Below are my general observations of the meeting. In order to maximize time at the NACAC LDI and chair training, many activities occur simultaneously over the three-day gathering. There are a few opportunities, however, when all participants are gathered. Outside of meals, these opportunities include a two-hour NACAC Update and Assembly Preview on day two regarding issues that will be discussed with the larger membership at the annual conference in September, and the Committee Showcase on day three. During the showcase, new and returning chairs give a brief presentation on the work of their committees followed by a 90-minute round table session with members of the president’s council and board of directors. At the roundtable, four 20-minute rotations allow the board and president’s council to engage the national standing committee chairs in discussions about issues of mutual interest that can be leveraged in partnership to strengthen all associations. Overall, both group sessions differed drastically in format and outcome.
Though this was primarily by design, I found myself somewhat taken aback by the lack of engagement with participants and the way NACAC staff and leadership presented information during the update and assembly preview. For a period of two hours, approximately 9 individuals addressed the audience, during what was largely a massive unload of information, decisions – some of which had only been previously discussed amongst the board, others of which were discussed solely among a few high ranking NACAC leadership staff with little to no input from the greater leadership. One of these decisions was notification to all present that, beginning in 2017, future “collaborative and partnership” meetings such as this one would separate the board, president’s council, and committee chairs. They informed those in attendance that, not only would there not be time to collaborate, but the meetings would not be scheduled in the same month or in the same city because it was too expensive for the association to bring all parties and staff together for a single meeting. Instead, the NACAC leadership staff proposed future planning and collaboration could be done remotely. This top down decision not only failed to take into account the purpose behind the opportunity to collaborate in person with individuals across the country, but also proposed moving one of the meetings from July to the month of November – one of the busiest
times of the year for college counseling on both the secondary and post-secondary side as many high school seniors scramble to take last minute college entrance exams and submit applications. In addition, on more than one occasion, NACAC staff learned of developments and/or protocol changes for the first time along with elected and appointed leaders – displaying a significant disconnect in getting information out to their own employees. Many decisions were presented as fact with no invitation for discussion from the attendees. In the one instance where an individual did pause the meeting to express his disagreement and inform of his intent to challenge the decision publicly at the full membership assembly meeting at national conference in September, the individual was pretty much shamed and advised publicly that unity was most important and that opportunities would be made available to influence outcomes that did not involve staging formal opposition.
Over the course of the two hours, it became clear that some if not most of the information shared was the result of top down decisions made by a relatively small group of individuals as the result of convenience and/or perceived necessity. As we feasted on multi-course meal options at every organized dining experience, including this session, we were repeatedly told that budget concerns, prolonged dip into the organizations reserves, and the financial well-being of NACAC were the driving forces behind the decisions that attendees grumbled about including that this gathering may well be our last together as appointed and elected leaders in the organization. I spoke quite candidly with my NACAC staff liaison about these frustrations and found she not only agreed, but also confirmed many issues shared publicly at the meeting, only scratched the surface of the organization’s larger issues and potential mismanagement.
At the round table discussions at the committee showcase, I engaged with members of the board and president’s council from 12 different affiliates. These elected leaders sought to better understand my platform and annual plan as the appointed chair of the Inclusion, Access, and Success (IAS) committee. During our conversations, I exchanged ideas on programming to support professionals who work with students from underrepresented and underserved backgrounds. Many president leaders discussed the challenges they face in their affiliate and asked the role their local IAS committee to align with the national platform. Some president leaders questioned the role refugee students would play and how they would be supported in inclusive efforts – an audience I admittedly acknowledged that I had not individually considered outside of race, first gen, low socioeconomic status. The raising of the special needs refugee’s students faced is quite relevant and something I pledged to consider going forward. I also negotiated with members of the board and the president’s council for their support in expanding the IAS video scholarship, a competition run by my committee that awards students in the conference host city. I successfully transitioned the scholarship contest from a written to video essay, but have not gotten support from NACAC CEO and executive staff to include community college students applying to four-year institutions in addition to the high school juniors and seniors already considered.
Though most attendees did not publicly disrupt the update and preview session, the discontent they shared privately over the course of three days was ultimately addressed by NACAC leadership. Attendees utilized breaks, meals, and informal discussions to individually and directly share their thoughts and concerns with NACAC staff and/or members of board. So many frustrations were shared that the leadership acknowledged them publicly in order to mitigate the continued chatter that began to detract for the meeting itself. From this, I made a few important observations: NACAC operates in hierarchical fashion with many decisions perceived to be made without thought to how those decisions impact the larger group; attendees found respectful opportunities to raise concerns in a fashion that did not necessarily publicly denounce the decisions of NACAC staff yet still forced a response; when the organization is willing to consider feedback and input of its LDI and committee chair attendees, they are able to see beyond the simplest paths and consider compromises that benefit all including alleviation of NACAC’s concerns and financial burdens.