Mordecai Ian Brownlee

Have you ever been in a job interview where the committee prompts you to share your preferred leadership style? Some of you may consider yourselves transformative leaders; others may identify as inclusive leaders or as servant leaders. However, would you ever answer that question by expressing, with excitement, that you consider yourself to be a proud status quo leader? One who, without question, will always strive to do only what is necessary—nothing more and never less? A leader who, rather than guiding the institution to ensure its market relevance, responsiveness, and financial sustainability in arguably one of the most socially disruptive eras in modern history, promises to provide comfort and complacency, and depend staunchly on the dated practices of past eras to inform the institution’s future?

While your answer is likely to be “no,” do your day-to-day actions say otherwise? If not your actions, then what about your thoughts or conversations? And if not you, then what about your community college? If we were to observe and analyze the institution’s culture, infrastructure, policies, guidelines, mission, values, decision-making processes, systems of accountability (or the lack thereof), board meetings, executive sessions, cabinet meetings, departmental meetings, and, most importantly, classrooms, what would we find? It is one thing to declare that we are serving in disruptive times; it is another thing to transform our institutions to serve in these disruptive times. One of these is simply an acknowledgement of the obvious, while the other demands institutional transformation.

There are two key words I would like you to reflect on as you read this article: intentionality and integrity. By definition, intentionality refers to having an attitude of purposefulness, with a commitment to deliberate action. Integrity is defined as the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished. As institutional leaders, we have all been entrusted with a duty to facilitate institutional success. For some, that duty is explicitly outlined in the job description. For others, while the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the position are clearly stated, one critical element is missing—mission alignment. Without this fundamental criterion, it is possible to fulfill the duties associated with a role but fail to embody the institutional mission in action. The two critical factors of intentionality and integrity contribute to mission alignment and institutional success.

Leading With Intentionality

In crafting an institutional mission, best practices emphasize the inclusion of four essential elements: (1) who is serving (the institution), (2) who the institution is serving (learners), (3) how the institution serves (inputs), and (4) desired outcomes of service (results). If we were to assess the day-to-day actions that occur within an institution through the lens of intentionality, we would be able to discern two key distinctions: mission-aligned actions and non-mission-aligned actions. Through intentionality, we clearly understand that all actions, initiatives, and efforts led by the institution and throughout the institution should be mission-aligned. Any actions, initiatives, or efforts that fail to align with the mission are, in essence, wasteful. Although we don’t tend to use the term “waste” in higher education, now more than ever is the time we should begin doing so. Waste not only leads to the mismanagement of time and resources but also opens the door to personal agendas that are not aligned with the mission, vision, or institutional strategic plan.

Leading With Integrity

The interconnected force of intentionality and integrity is the synergy that transforms them into a superpower. Through the lens of integrity, we understand our obligation to the institution to maximize service through our respective roles, advancing the mission of the institution in accordance with the college’s declared strategic plan. Through intentionality and integrity, every action should be measured by predetermined key performance indicators that denote the success of goals and objectives. This philosophical approach to aligning action with mission—for example, ensuring that values are actualized in policy and practice—is how an institution achieves wholeness. It is also important to note that within mission-aligned institutions, the mindset is less about personal agendas and more about the unified mission. It’s not about what we prefer as individuals; it’s about what our roles in service to the college require. Ultimately, each institutional role and its associated duties should be appropriately calibrated to lead the college to the achievement of its strategic plan and the realization of its mission in action.

As you navigate higher education today and into the future, understand that disruption is a necessary part of the evolution to progress. The continuous recalibration of divisions, departments, strategies, and positions is essential and requires extensive environmental scanning to guide strategy and implementation. As these recalibrations occur, some stakeholders will lean into the evolution and seek to adapt their service to the mission as the institution evolves. In contrast, others will choose a different approach. While such friction is expected and can lead to productive dialogue, it can also develop into stalemates and stagnation that are not valuable to the institution. An institution’s failure to advance leads to mission failure, and mission failure can result in institutional failure. Ultimately, as society innovates, so must its systems of teaching and learning.