College students as catalysts for social change: a case study

Core Model

The Core Model also allows for Kotter’s (1995) presupposition that the number of leaders needs to expand exponentially for something worthwhile to happen. This model expands the number of student leadership positions. Mackenzie stated in most typical organizations there is only one President; however SLP has at least three to five positions of leadership in each of the various cores.

Additionally students are encouraged to take new leadership responsibilities, typically moving from a bus core, to a chapter core, to the Celebration City Core. The Core Model is a replication of the working relationship the four founders utilized in establishing the organization. From my observations the four founders are highly admired by the other students and the working relationship they have with each other is emulated by students within the cores.

SLP also strategically creates opportunities such as the “Core Quest” to further strengthen these relationships. Mackenzie explained, “The strength of the chapter will depend on the strength of the Core.” Another comment was made at the summer leadership retreat by Mackenzie that SLP is “building a chapter, just not a tour.” The Core sustains the college chapters and allows them to do numerous other events and activities after the tour is over.

SLP utilizes Greenleaf’s (1991) servant leadership language through their reentry model of leadership. What a better way to practice servant leadership than having the most experienced leaders within the group become the servants to others, supporting inexperienced leaders from behind the scenes. This appears to be a new leadership trend that I did not find in my literature review.

Feedback

I don’t know that I like to think our model has a weakness. It just, well it may be different from one another, you know, I don’t know if it is a bad thing. But um, I like to think that most of the things about the organization are differences rather than weaknesses. 

In terms of not providing feedback to the Core leaders, this fits Buckingham and Coffman’s (1999) philosophies of focusing on each person’s strengths and managing around weaknesses (p. 141). I question whether this might be a disservice to those students in leadership with SLP that get out into the workforce in the future, not being aware of their limitations. Growth can come from constructive feedback of behavior or leadership skills. By not providing feedback, the person’s ability to change may be limited. This does, however, match a culture of students who have always been told they are special. It may also be indicative of another millennial characteristic of being sheltered (Howe & Strauss, 2000).

Sustainability

The future of SLP is one of great promise. There are also concerns. Antony, one of SLP’s former advisors made the following comment:

I’m taking a class in formal organizations and we were talking about leadership structures and I said I work with this group that has a very interesting one, you know, the core model and the professor said it will be interesting to see if it’s sustainable.

There was also concern from the SLP board about the growth of the program and if they can maintain quality. A committee member said: “I think the challenge for them is going to be how to maintain the quality and yet grow it.” Mackenzie talked about that possible fear for the future of SLP in an analogy of the movie Forrest Gump (Zemeckis, 1994). The film tells the story of Forrest a man with low IQ and his epic journey through life, meeting historical figures, influencing popular culture and experiencing first-hand historic events while being largely unaware of their significance. Forrest decides to run across the country several times, over some three and a half years, becoming famous in the process.

You know when he [Forrest] is running back and forth, I mean he stops running and they are like, now what? We have frikkin’ given up our lives for you and he’s like “I’m going home.” So like I fear that moment, if and when it comes, and I don’t know in what regard but if it comes in the form, like that where I’m just like I’m done as a person. Whatever, oh man that would just break my heart. Because there’s a lot of people that I know personally, and a lot of people that I don’t know, that they’re given up a lot, they’ve put SLP on the forefront you know?  

The group is very personality driven and even though they have training in place, removing the major players will be interesting to see the impact on the overall structure. How the founders do succession planning will be very crucial for the future. How sustainable is it over time, especially if/when the national core breaks apart? How are they going to test a change in national leadership? 

When discussing how long they believe they can be effective in working with college and high school students Roy said they would be putting in other college leaders within the next two years and then went on to say:

Which is going to suck, but it is for the best interest of the organization and if we did it as 21 year olds so can other 21 year olds. Like we’re not special, you know, we just have to put other people in the positions to do well.

In our first interview Mackenzie speaks about this:

I think the longer that I stay, the more detrimental it will be for the organization ‘cause the harder it will be to replace me like I said before, the whole…the who you hear something from, and what you hear and etc. and I don’t want it to always be from me. If it’s from me for the next three years then I'm a crutch. I don’t want to be a crutch; I want SLP to be around for a long time.

Mackenzie goes on to talk about her sorority celebrating its 100^th year of being a chapter and how she wants that for SLP.

I'm going to be obscenely involved, you couldn’t pry me away from this organization if you tried, but involved in the national core role is that really the best? So I don’t know how much I feel about founders syndrome, and this and that…but I do believe that there is a level of control that I, health wise, personally should probably let go of. As an organization to be healthy, should probably let go of, again with being really involved, but what is the best?

She goes on to say: “we are building an organization not that we can exist in, but that an outside person can exist in.” The real question will be how does that “outside” person get into this tight “not quite family, not quite friends” group? Because the founder’s personal values are so intertwined with the organization will another person fully embrace what has been created? Antony, their advisor, had this to contribute to the transition conversation.

I’ve talked to them about that, as well, because you know it’s hard to hire a friend meaning they know each other. So if Roy decides he wants to do something else how do you hire somebody with what Roy brought to the table? Not just skill wise, but relationship wise? You can’t hire unless it is just going to be, you know, they’ll only hire from within and so it would have to be someone who is part of that, this mix. So down the road that will be interesting particularly, you know, if there are still challenges as it relates to the groups funding and how they are compensated and you know they can only work for so little for so long, you know. But, and I know it’s their passion, you know, and I said ethically I have a hard time paying you this low amount of money. You graduated from this prestigious business school (laugh), you know! 

       McNamara has researched founders of organizations and coined the phrase “founder’s syndrome.” McNamara (2004) discusses common traits among founders. He states they are dynamic, driven, and decisive.  They also carry a clear vision of what their organization can be.  He posits that most founders end up becoming the executive director of the organization and that in this role they attend mostly to fundraising and generating new ideas for service. He also indicates that they hand-pick their Board members.  Another area that can be problematic is that they have a very difficult time letting go of the strategies that worked to grow the organization, despite confirmation that the organization can no longer continue growth without major changes (McNamara, 2004). The SLP founders started as the “original bus core.” They next created a chapter core and transitioned into that role training others to conduct the tours. The chapter core became well established and SLP grew so they created the National Core. In each of the cases the founders have transitioned from one role to another always providing a role for them to be involved with SLP. Mirroring what McNamara found in his research the founders are now in the co-executive director roles and have turned their attention to fundraising and the new ideas phase of the organization. The first SLP board members were also hand-picked by the founders. The strategies that they incorporated in creating the MAD tour and the SLP organization have not been challenged, but the resistance to change with the tour has already been evidenced. Based on McNamara’s research this is a common occurrence due to the enmeshment of the founders with “their” organization.

The next stages of life for the organization will be critical for its continued growth. The founders believe that they can be replaced in three to five years and that they must be, so that young people continue to run the organization. Proving their legitimacy as young professionals while maintaining the integrity of the organization in a hierarchical world may be a struggle.

Recommendations for Higher Education

The following are some recommendations and implications for how some of the SLP lessons might be applied to higher education.

In the future there may be more interest for students to self-design majors. Like Pete, who worked to create the non-profit major, other students may come to colleges with similar desires and expectations. How responsive our institutions may be in terms of allowing this customizing of education I believe will be a tension in the future.

The Core Model with its non-hierarchical structure and focus on consensus is a contrast with the norm for organizations. After Nickers made the transition into corporate America he shared an example of the difference between the SLP model and the corporate decision making model.

I was at a meeting one day and I presented, you know, a situation to the group in the audit area and it was just shocking how quickly that decision was made. You know it was like, ‘What does everybody think? Yeah, no?’ And one person said ‘No’, and ‘Yeah, that is ok’, and I mean it was kind of, I mean a bigger thing, and it just seemed like, I mean they had a little dialogue, but like 10 minutes it was done and I was like you guys are seriously done here? I mean it had been different on that side, that is one of the things with the core model, you definitely it does take time and, you know, you have to have the time to do it and make sure everybody’s on that same page.

This was a direct contrast to the model he was accustomed to in SLP where decisions are thoroughly discussed and input sought from anyone that wished to have a say. It is expedient to make decisions quickly, but the SLP founders would say this is not the best decision. Corporations committed to efficiency do not take the time to dialogue. While consensus models take more time they engage people in the process and create ownership. Shared governance is promoted within faculty but not at the same level of intentionality that was present in SLP. Is Higher Education willing to be open to this more time consuming model of decision making and shared power?

SLP is also very intentional about follower development providing training through the various retreats. The CCC serves as the trainers for these retreats, sharing successful strategies. Having leadership training on campuses that is more organic, allowing students to set the agenda and presenting the content rather than the “experts” would model what SLP does successfully. This could work especially well with student government, residence life and within clubs and organizations.

The reentry model of leadership used by SLP is intriguing. In my experience it is common for students to become officers and then leave the organization because they have reached the highest level of involvement. The SLP reentry model has the most experienced students maintain their involvement from behind the scenes supporting the new leaders and helping them develop (or in SLP terms “reveal” their leadership). Higher education could use this concept to more deeply engage students in organizations beyond the traditional leadership roles. From my observations the founders and the older student leaders (CCC) involved in the reentry model practiced Zohar’s (2005) SQ principles which, “include an ability to think out of the box, humility, and an access to energies that come from something beyond the ego” (p. 48). This sense of humility and low ego involvement was especially significant and seemed to be present with this group of students and could be a trait that is developed by this reentry model. It could also be that those that are predisposed to reenter already have this proclivity.

In this litigious era how does higher education support the dreams and desires of students balanced against possible institutional concerns? This is a challenging dilemma because more training in the area of risk management often leads to additional concerns and rules. The founders over and over said they just wanted to have someone listen to them and believe in them as they shared their dreams. So action is not always as necessary as just providing an open door and listening ear. My daughters often talk about people in their lives that are “dream crushers.” The lesson may be to guide students without crushing their dreams.

How can higher education adopt SLP concepts into the curriculum? Recognizing that these students come with a “make a difference” mentality higher education can utilize this commitment. We can reach out in ever broadening ways to our local communities through service-learning while at the same time applying classroom concepts. Having students choose their own projects would support the concept that SLP uses in students finding their passion and giving ownership.

Higher education has chosen to deny multi-tasking of students by requiring them to remove earphones, turn off cell phones and not “chat” on the computer during class. This is clearly a response by Digital Immigrants as our preferred style is to minimize interference with presentations, but how does this affect digitally hardwired students? How does higher education find that balance or utilize technology that is such part of the Digital Native’s lives. What about using the SLP technique of engaging students in shaping their learning environment? The rules are changing, and it seems there has been an underestimation of this “plugged” in world and what they bring. We need to adjust and find a balance of utilizing technology. As educators having the Digital Natives teach us could fully engage them in the process of learning, providing ownership, another SLP technique.

The whole approach that SLP has in constantly seeking input from their chapters allows them the opportunity to engage others and adapt their program (with the exception of the MAD tour). Could this tactic be one that higher education adopts? By co-opting some of the processes that SLP uses, such as mass customization, can higher education create classroom assignments that allow more choice by the students within a curricular framework?