Katie Conboy Leading Change at Simmons C

NA0452
Katie Conboy:
Leading Change at Simmons College
Mary L. Shapiro, Simmons College
At 11:59 pm, December 12, 2014, voting would close, and Melanie Kimball, Faculty
Senate President, would be sending out the results. Faculty at Simmons College had
been asked to vote whether to accept a proposal to revise the school’s undergraduate
general education curriculum, the courses required of all students, regardless of their
chosen field of study (see Exhibit A for Definitions of Academic Terms).
One of the recipients anxiously staying up late that night was Katie Conboy, the
college’s new provost. A positive vote would signal a significant victory. Conboy had
launched and led the effort to completely revise the general education curriculum. But
her vision of a vibrant, innovative, and distinctive curriculum could only become a
reality with the approval of the full faculty, a faculty who were largely demoralized,
distrustful, and in turf-protection mode.
Approval would be momentous in three ways. One, the vote essentially asked the
faculty to take a “leap of faith.” Not only had the curriculum not been developed, with
only a skeleton upon which to give approval, but it also required the faculty to overlook
a history of ineffective provosts and a cycle of launched, unfunded, and then rescinded
initiatives. Secondly, the vote took place after only 10 months of discussion, occurring
at a rate of speed mostly unheard-of in the hallowed halls of academia (See Exhibit B:
Curriculum Approval Process).1 Third, Conboy regarded the vote as a referendum on
herself as the new provost. A few weeks earlier, in a conversation with the college
president, she had admitted as much, and with emotion that surprised both of them, she
said, “If the faculty can’t go here with me, then I’m just not sure I can be their leader.”
As Conboy waited until the polls closed, she pondered about what she would be
doing in 2015. What would she do in the face of a no vote? How would she lead the
college in the face of a positive vote? What would she do to keep the momentum and
energy going so the new curriculum was ready to launch fall 2015? And while doing
so, how could she use this initiative as a platform for furthering organizational change?
KATIE CONBOY
Conboy received a B.A. in English from the University of Kansas and a Ph.D. in English
literature from the University of Notre Dame. She began her career as Assistant
Professor of English at Stonehill College in 1987, teaching and researching British
-----------------------------
Copyright © 2016 by the Case Research Journal and by Mary L. Shapiro. This case study was
prepared as the basis for classroom discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or
ineffective leadership. The author wishes to thank Richard Voos for his assistance in preparing
this case; Katie Conboy for her candor and reflection; and Gina Grandy, Cynthia Ingols, and the
anonymous CRJ reviewers for their helpful suggestions on how to make this a more effective
case.
Katie Conboy: Leading Change at Simmons College 1
This document is authorized for use only in Jill Waymire Paine's IEBEXMBA_MAR2018_M1M2 - Leading people teams & organizations EXAM at IE Business School from May 2018 to Nov
2018.
fiction, Irish literature, and feminist theory. She emerged early as a faculty leader,
serving twice as Moderator of the faculty assembly. After serving as chair of the
English department for only 18 months, she was tapped in 2000 to serve as acting vice
president and dean. Before taking up that position, she sought advice from the executive
vice president: “What does it take to be a successful dean?” He responded, “Be a
romantic.” What does that mean? she wondered.
It took her 13 years to come up with the answer. She continued in the chief
academic officer role during that time, becoming vice president for academic affairs in
2001 and provost in 2008. As provost she was responsible for a complete revision of
the general education curriculum, the implementation of many curricular innovations,
the expansion of Stonehill’s international program, the extension of undergraduate
research opportunities, and the development of a robust career services office.
In her farewell speech to Stonehill, before heading to Simmons College, she shared
her answer:
To be a romantic in this job is to be capable of falling in love with other
people’s ideas, and then using the available resources in such a way as to
realize them. Whatever successes I’ve enjoyed in this job, they have all been
the result of shared ideas and work.
SIMMONS COLLEGE
Simmons College was established in 1899 through a bequest by John Simmons, the
Boston-based clothing entrepreneur who invented ready-to-wear men’s suits. At the
conclusion of the Civil War Simmons recognized that many of the women working in
his factories could no longer rely on husbands or fathers to support them. His estate
was set aside to provide an education, combining liberal arts and professional work
experience that would enable women to “earn an independent livelihood and lead
meaningful lives”. It was located in the heart of Boston, which at that time positioned
the college near the factory workers who would become its first students. In 1914
Simmons graduated its first African-American students, and was one of the only private
colleges that did not impose admission quotas on Jewish students.
Simmons College was surrounded by Boston’s Medical Center and over 150 other
colleges which cumulatively bought over 375,000 students annually into the city. The
College was anchored by its College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), a four-year,
undergraduate school with approximately 2000 students. In 2014, Simmons expanded
from being ‘women only’ to being ‘women centered,’ accepting students born female,
regardless of their current gender identity. Nearly 4000 students attended the four co-
ed graduate professional schools of Library and Information Science, Social Work,
Management, and Nursing and Health Studies and College of Arts and Science
Graduate Studies. About 70% of the 215 full-time faculty members were women (See
Exhibits C: Organization Chart, D: Provost Reporting Structure, and E: Faculty
Composition).
CHALLENGES FACING HIGHER EDUCATION & SIMMONS COLLEGE

At the time of Conboy’s arrival on campus, most institutions of higher education were
facing challenges driven by both changing demographics and tuition fees, the former
impacting enrollments and the latter discount rates and net tuition revenue. For
Simmons College, as a private liberal arts women-centered college, those dynamics
were amplified further (See Exhibit F: External Challenges Facing Higher Education).
2 Case Research Journal  Volume 36  Issue 4  Fall 2016
2018.
Demographics
The growth of the U.S. college-age population and their rising rates of college
enrollment began slowing by 2013, ending a decades-long surge in enrollment.2 For
Simmons, slower growth was even more problematic given its position as a private
liberal arts, women-centered college reliant on traditional full-time students. Liberal
arts students accounted for only 2% of the entire college population, making those
colleges more sensitive to declining enrollment numbers.3 Since 1990 the number of
liberal arts colleges decreased by 39%.4 Since the 1960s, the number of women-only
colleges decreased from 230 to only 44 in 2015.5 Additionally, only 2-3% of high school
women in 2011 considered attending a single-sex college.6
Simmons’s enrollment numbers for first-year students were volatile over the decade
before Conboy’s arrival. Between 2007 and 2013, enrollment numbers fluctuated from
a high of 479 to a low of 339. Conboy’s first entering class of fall 2013 came in at 339.
“I had been hired in December with enrollments at one number; then the class size
collapsed by the time I arrived in July. I thought, ‘We’re not going to survive.’” After
her first year, the entering class of fall 2014 fell to 306.
Tuition and fees

The meteoric rise of college tuition was well documented. Since 1983, tuition rose by
almost five times the rate of inflation7 while the median family income increased by
12.8%.8 Simmons’ tuition costs rose from $23,760 in 2004 to $34,350 for fall, 2013.
In response to rising tuition costs, students took out loans and colleges extended
financial aid at an unprecedented pace. Over the previous decade, average student debt
rose at more than twice the rate of inflation.9 To make college ‘more affordable’ private
colleges and universities ‘discounted’ published tuition prices by offering prospective
students institutional aid (grants, scholarships, work-study programs). In 2014, the
average ‘discount rate’ reached 46.5% for entering first-years, which meant that out of
each dollar collected for first-year tuition and fees, 46.5 cents went back to the student
in the form of aid.10
In 2011, Simmons made several strategic decisions to address net tuition revenue
growth. An enrollment management officer was hired to bring added sophistication to
Simmons’ recruitment and retention strategies. Additionally, Simmons decided to
temporarily increase its discount rate 13 points above the national U.S. average and
expand the percent of first-year students receiving financial aid 9 points above the U.S.
average. The goal was to not only maintain class size, but to increase the diversity of
its student body and increase first years’ academic preparedness (as measured by higher
high school GPAs and SAT scores). Average institutional financial aid increased from
$16,430 in fall of 2011 to $21,744 in fall 2013.11 Over the next three years significant
progress was made in achieving those diversity and preparedness goals, but the decline
in the college’s revenues raised a red flag. In 2008 tuition and fees had contributed 88%
of Simmons’ total revenues; by 2013 those dollars contributed only 71%.12
Changing employer demands

While the rate of tuition increase slowed between 2010 and 201413, the question “Is
college worth it?” spurred a national debate. A search for the return-on-a-college-
investment ensued, and the expectation that a job offer accompanied a diploma became
widespread. The ROI of a college degree was further challenged by relatively flat
earnings growth over the past 20 years and a slow post-recession job recovery.14 A
concurrent dynamic was an emerging misalignment between college graduates and
employer needs. There was a perception that colleges were not graduating students
2018.
with the skills employers needed. Forbes reported that “employers are ... having
difficulty finding applicants with needed skills.”15
INTERNAL CHALLENGES FACING SIMMONS COLLEGE

In addition to the external factors contributing to the increased competition for a
decreasing number of students, Simmons College faced two significant internal
challenges.
A February 2013 survey revealed gaps in the experiences Simmons’ students
reported versus their counterparts at other institutions. Results from the National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)16 indicated that Simmons students reported less
demanding work than their peers, a campus environment that promoted less engagement
with intellectual content outside the classroom, and fewer opportunities to synthesize,
integrate, and apply data.17 Even though Simmons students responded positively to their
“entire educational experience,” the report identified areas for improvement that needed
to be addressed.
Regarding faculty and staff on campus, morale and engagement had significantly
declined over the decade prior to Conboy’s arrival. In 2003 Simmons was named by
The Boston Business Journal as one of the “Best Places to Work”.18 Results from a 2005
employee opinion survey described that award-winning culture. Over half of Simmons
employees said they felt respected regardless of their differences; that the institution
was well managed and moving at an adequate speed to prepare for the challenges of the
future; that senior management provided leadership by example and made a concerted
effort to get the opinions of the workers; and that the college’s vision and mission was
clearly communicated.
A 2011 survey revealed that much of that had changed. Faculty felt that their voices
were not solicited for major college decisions, and confidence in senior leadership had
plummeted. Part of this decrease in morale was attributed to a 2009 Academic Business
Review (ABR) conducted by a large global consulting company. The ABR was done
by a newly created Higher Education and Academic Restructuring Team, which some
faculty argued was inexperienced and untested. The goals of the ABR were to ‘better
leverage the college’s strengths...to...review academic resource allocation and to assess
opportunities for additional revenue generation.”19 Two aspects of the ABR created
major unrest: ABR’s primary focus to save money, and subsequent decision making
restricted to the college president, provost, and SVP of Finance. Additionally, for a
protracted period of time, people did not know whether they would have a job, and
indeed, many staff positions were cut.
Faculty unrest was exacerbated as changes were made to academic reporting lines
and course offerings. Those decisions, made by senior administrators, were viewed as
a violation of the conventional division of responsibilities on a college campus:
curriculum changes tend to the purview of the faculty (See Exhibit B: Curriculum
Approval Process).20 Secondly, the college president was viewed by many faculty as
a business person with little understanding of or appreciation for academia. She had an
MBA from Simmons’s management school and a long history in the insurance and
health care industries. Between 2012 and 2014, morale continued to fall, as finances
restricted merit increases, increased workloads, and decreased support for research and
faculty development.
Another significant negative factor was the legacy of the previous provost.
Conboy’s predecessor had served from 2009 to 2013 and had been unpopular with the
faculty. Brought in to primarily create structured systems that were lacking at the
college, she was viewed as too formal and distant. Coming from the largest public
2018.
university in the state, she was seen as out of alignment with a small college culture.
Additionally, while a provost was traditionally viewed as the champion of the faculty,
Conboy’s predecessor was seen as the president’s right-hand-person, often
implementing unpopular decisions made by senior administration.
CONBOY BUILDS HER VISION

Conboy arrived at Simmons very aware of the external challenges facing high education
and the increased pressure on Simmons given Stonehill’s similar size. She did not have
a preconceived idea of what her vision or work would entail and no one, not the
president, the Board, or the search committee, had given her a mandate. Instead, she
came with her own ‘job definition’ for provost that she had shared with the search
committee:
It has become clear to me that Simmons needs an engaged and energetic
provost, a person who has the intellectual, strategic, and financial skills to do
the job, and who also has the passion, vision and a genuinely open and
collaborative spirit. Without being overly self-promoting, I do think you’ll find
those in me.
She began searching for a mandate by doing what she had always done: talking to
people (See Exhibit G: Timeline of Conboy’s Change Process). Five months prior to
assuming her role officially on July 1, 2013, in what she called her ‘listening tour,’ she
talked with the five deans and found that there was no ‘one’ Simmons story. While
deans were making good things happen in their own schools, Conboy concluded that
“Simmons was a divided environment that needed some projects that would function
horizontally across the institution to strengthen both the parts and the whole.”
Once on campus, Conboy broadened her listening tour by speaking to
administrators and staff asking, What are Simmons’s biggest challenges? How did we
get here? What are the most promising opportunities for growth? What would need to
happen for us to realize these opportunities? If you were me, what would you focus on
first? As faculty returned in September, she continued her inquiries, attending school-
wide and departmental meetings, and holding open sessions for interested faculty.
Doing so enabled her to understand the organization she was expected to lead.
First, she learned that faculty knew very little of the external challenges facing the
College. She was initially surprised, given the numerous formal channels of
communication that existed, such as the president’s Friday emails and multiple college-
wide assemblies. But she recognized that, similar to her Stonehill faculty, “faculty don’t
think of higher education as an industry. It’s not their job to do so, but it is their job to
expect that their leaders will do that analyses, and then to believe what their leaders say
about the headwinds.” In their singular focus on students and teaching, faculty
remained blind to external dynamics.
Second, she found widespread disagreement between faculty and senior
administration regarding how to best move forward. As a result of the 2009 ABR
report, faculty were both cynical that senior administration understood academia, and
frustrated at the reliance on outside consultants. In late 2012 another report came out
by the consulting firm, Art & Science Group, LLC. They had been hired to research
Simmons’ pricing strategies and competitive position in the educational marketplace.
They concluded that Simmons competed for students against schools that were bigger
and higher ranked,21 and at the same time, against other private institutions. To
differentiate Simmons, one recommendation was to develop a distinctive leadership
2018.
program. While initially even the five deans pushed back on the concept of leadership,
the faculty disagreed even more stridently.
A third finding was how frustrated faculty were about Simmons’ internal
challenges: widespread low morale and mistrust; nonexistent collaboration, both cross-
functionally and vertically; and communication that neglected to include people in
decision-making or to inspire people toward a common cause. There was also wide-
spread turf protection. Conboy found, “Many people I spoke with referred to internal
faculty wars about liberal arts versus professional identity.” Faculty spoke of a
“scolding tone” from leadership; a feeling that hard work went unrecognized; and a
“scarcity mentality” that dampened enthusiasm and innovation. One faculty
additionally named the “change fatigue” and skepticism the community felt by saying,
“We do episodic reinvention versus continuous improvement.” New initiatives had
often been declared and then withered due to lack of funding.
Conboy was surprised by the candor of the faculty. She hadn’t thought about the
possible advantage that being new might have in enabling people to be open. She did
recognize that she could bring new perspectives to existing problems and would “say
things like, ‘there is nothing wrong with this....but there are other ways of doing
things.....and I have lots of information about how things are done elsewhere.’” She
also recognized, “I wouldn’t be an outsider for long.”
Faculty explained their candor another way: Conboy’s style was upbeat and
positive, and she had boundless energy. “She smiled!” an accounting professor reported
after attending one of Conboy’s early presentations. The Faculty Senate co-presidents
urged Conboy to let people know they were valued and that she wanted to work with
them. She did so, but not as part of a calculated strategy. As Conboy explained, “It’s
in my DNA to ask people, ‘Tell me what you think about this.’” One intentional
strategy she employed was learning everyone’s name, which she accomplished within
months, to the surprise, and delight, of many.
Conboy also took a visible step that powerfully separated her from the negative
legacy of her provost predecessor. Within months of arriving at Simmons, Conboy put
a “hold” on implementing one decision stemming from the ABR report. Conboy
announced that some of the departmental shifts from one school to another would be
delayed until after more discussion. This strongly signaled her willingness to act
independently of the president, and to act thoughtfully regarding the academic side of
the house.
A less visible step also enabled her to connect with faculty: negotiating with the
president regarding who and when action on the 2012 Art & Science Group LLC report
would occur. Impatient to start acting on Art & Science Group LLC’s
recommendations, the president wanted to hire a consultant to start building a leadership
platform for the college. But Conboy argued that she needed to ‘own’ that initiative.
“This is how I’ll get to know the faculty in a meaningful meaty way, not just a get-to-
know-you way.”
As Conboy started to get a sense of Simmons’ strengths and opportunities for a
brighter future, faculty offered new ideas for growth: capitalize on the urban location;
pull disparate strengths together; build on the college’s unique combination of liberal
arts and professional schools; scale up the innovative interdisciplinary work that was
already being done in pockets around the campus. Most recognized that change required
a unified strategy that everyone could buy into, a focused message that would inspire
and motivate, with opportunities to participate, and greater transparency. Repeatedly,
Conboy was urged to “build something hopeful.”
2018.
Conboy promised that she would use their responses to create a white paper that
would present her findings, and propose specific directions.
I spent the winter pulling together that white paper. I decided to include the
‘good, bad and the ugly’. I wasn’t going to sugar-coat things, but I also didn’t
want people to think, ‘OK, I’ve told Katie all the bad stuff. That’s sufficient.’
I wanted to strategically turn it around and say, ‘Hey! We’re facing a lot of
bad stuff externally but we’ll never address those challenges if we expend all
our energy pointing fingers at each other. Together we need to face those
problems.’ As I reflected, I realized that a vibrant first-year program (and
perhaps all of our general education) needed rethinking.
Her vision had begun to take shape. She determined it was time to introduce it to
the community.
CONBOY TAKES HER VISION PUBLIC

On February 10, 2014, Conboy introduced her nascent vision with the entire community
in her white paper, entitled Leading with Distinction and Innovation: A White Paper for
Simmons College. She began the nine-page document with a recap of how she had
connected with people across the campus, and summarized what she had heard as six
problem statements leading to four themes for action. She articulated her vision: a
redesign of Simmons’ first-year experience and the creation of a four-year leadership
development program. She concluded with the benefits of taking action and an
invitation to be part of the effort:
Work on these two initiatives will enable us to confront some of the biggest
challenges we have. First....we can get something done together and begin to
build the trust and morale necessary for our long-term success. I believe our
collaboration can create a shared sense of our institutional identity—an
overarching focus that also informs the work of each of the five schools and
all the [support] offices.....And we can construct channels of communication
that will serve us well in the succeeding projects we take on. I am ready to
begin the work, and I invite you to join me.
In the following weeks, while seeking faculty responses to her paper, Conboy
reiterated two messages. One: “If we cannot join together and focus our competitive
spirit on the external world, instead of on each other, we will squander this opportunity.”
And the second was a warning of the urgency to act. “I told the faculty that I had spent
significant time listening and reflecting but that once I started moving, I intended to
move fast. There was real urgency for Simmons to make some bold moves, and that
while academia prizes process, we will need to streamline our processes.”
Conboy was true to her word. She began a campaign to build support for her vision,
starting with pulling together a small group of like-minded innovators. In late February,
2014 a nine-person “Discovery Team,” representing faculty from across the campus,
attended a conference in Portland, Oregon to learn what kinds of exciting general
education work was happening on other campuses. Ryan Rafferty, faculty from the
School of Management (SOM), expressed surprise at being tapped to be on the
Discovery Team:
I’d only been at Simmons for a couple of months when Katie asked me to go
to Portland. I’d met her earlier at the September (2013) convocation
ceremony. She’s a Notre Dame fan, and I’m an Oklahoma fan; we talked about
the upcoming game. Maybe that’s why she remembered me. At any rate, I
2018.
was the new guy, but maybe that’s what she wanted. Maybe she recognized
that I had no biases; I came totally new to the table; I had no preconceptions
of what could or could not be done.
Once in Portland, Rafferty noted, “We were uber-focused, but we had great
cohesion and fun, too.”
Gathering input and support

Back on campus, opportunities to be part of the discussion were offered to an ever-
expanding number of faculty. In April, a professor from another college was invited to
speak about her institution’s recent revision of their general education curriculum, the
challenges they faced, and the beneficial outcomes. In May all faculty were invited to
a full day retreat. The goal was to build the case for change by reviewing the external
and internal challenges that supported the need to build a new curriculum and to gather
ideas for what that curriculum might look like. About 90 faculty members attended,
with one remarking how “we had remarkable agreement on what should be done.”
During the first five days of June 2014, Conboy brought the Discovery Team
together again, along with nine more people from additional constituent groups, to
create a “Design Team.” By intentionally pulling in additional representatives from
across the campus, Conboy was developing conduits who would both bring their areas’
ideas into the design process and then take the energy and vision back to their areas.
The design team’s goal was to use the ideas generated in May and begin crafting a new
general education curriculum. The outcome was a list of six essential capabilities that
would be the “distinguishing values of a Simmons education” and a general “roadmap”
of what might occur in each of a student’s four years.
With those in hand, once again Conboy opened the conversation up to the full
faculty, inviting them to meetings in August, and then other venues throughout the
upcoming fall semester. Her momentum and the inevitability towards change were
unmistakable. In her invitation she emailed her intentions: “The next step is to share
(the ideas generated by the Design Team) with more of you, to give you a chance to
weigh in--and, hopefully, to buy in!” She recommitted to having a curriculum proposal
ready for the curriculum committee vote by October.
Late summer a subset of the design team took over to reach out to multiple
constituents to collect feedback and answer questions, consolidate all commentary, and
make decisions about what could be changed to the proposal to better meet faculty
expectations. Conboy primarily took on the role of communicating the progress to the
full community and being the ‘face’ and ‘voice’ of the proposal. The college president
had been diagnosed with cancer and was unable to travel and conduct many of her
outward-facing duties. Conboy took on many of those responsibilities, forcing her to be
more judicious in her involvement with the initiative. While stepping away was not
what Conboy wanted, it had to be done, and she was confident that the design team
would keep things moving.
Input was solicited through multiple channels. Besides face to face, feedback could
also be given through an email address that went to every core team member to view
and respond, as well as a physical box for hard-copy and anonymous feedback.
Responses to the feedback were posted for the community to read on a folder on the
provost office’s website. All the feedback culminated in a document which Conboy
sent out to the Simmons community on September 24, 2014. Her Position Paper on
General Education Reform addressed the three fundamental questions faculty asked
repeatedly: Why revise general education now? What was the process in getting to this
point? And, how do we get there by September 2015?
2018.
The challenges described in the ‘why now’ section created undisputable urgency:
demographic trends that would diminish the pipeline of liberal arts applicants; research
about the small number of high school females that even consider a single-sex college;
shifting employer priorities that indicated a need for curricular innovation; Simmons’
own volatile and shrinking admissions data; and survey data that revealed Simmons
students’ belief that their college experience was less rigorous than students in their
peer schools.
Yet Conboy also included the opportunities that positively addressed why now.
Those included Simmons’s unique combination of liberal arts and professional
programs; a reminder of the many (but often small and isolated) transformative success
stories that could be scaled up; Simmons’s location in Boston; the school’s 100 year
mission; and from faculty’s own desires: “I heard faculty speak about the need to break
down the silos across campus. Working together on creating, and then teaching in, this
new general education curriculum provides exactly the opportunity for faculty to work
with colleagues from other schools and disciplines.”
Building consensus
Throughout September and October 2014, the design team met with students, staff, key
faculty opinion leaders, and alumnae to gather feedback on the proposal. Across the
multiple constituencies, there was agreement that the current general education
curriculum needed to be radically revised, and many liked the overall design. But
several strong issues emerged. One concern was the speed of both getting to a vote and
then changing the curriculum in only nine months. Another was about the commitment
of resources over time. Faculty pointed out numerous past initiatives that “died from
starvation” as resources were either never sufficiently allocated, or were withdrawn
after a limited time. And third, there was a big fear of what would happen if the new
curriculum did not prove successful. How would senior administration treat the faculty
who participated in this big experiment? Many faculty named a “culture of fear” of
repercussions that dampened their willingness to risk being involved.
Negotiating resistance
The CAS Faculty Council (CAS), a powerful group of senior tenured faculty
representing the faculty members in CAS, submitted an alternative proposal to the
Position Paper. This represented the largest and most organized challenge to Conboy’s
proposal. One Economics faculty who was the key architect of the alternative proposal
said their goal was to “further discussion and development of the proposal....While I
can get excited about [many] elements of the proposal; I have significant concerns about
the proposal’s feasibility and implementation. The vision suggested is quite ambitious.”
The Council’s document outlined areas of agreement, and then five concerns,
included losing Simmons’s commitment to the liberal arts; the possible negative impact
on majors and departments as faculty teaching loads shift from teaching upper-level
major courses to teaching general education courses; and the apparent lack of alignment
between current faculty expertise (i.e., not in leadership) and the expertise required to
teach the first-year general education courses. Finally, for each concern, the Council
proposed an alternative plan, including resequencing the original plan’s required annual
elements.
Multiple members of the design team met with members of the Council to clarify
points of concern and identify elements that could be changed. Concurrently, Conboy
began emailing weekly detailed “General Education Updates” to the community that
2018.
addressed the feedback and the evolving decisions in response to it. In a November 4th
email, she responded to the Faculty Council’s alternative proposal by stating, “I want
to be clear about what is absolutely required in a new general education program” and
reiterated the six essential capabilities that had not changed since the design team’s
work in June. She then publically committed to three changes to her original proposal.
Finally, she again stressed the need to act:
The urgency I noted in my white paper has not abated. If anything it continues
to build.....we can’t wait until 2016 to address these issues. We can’t wait to
have a perfect understanding of our environment, options, and ‘the best way’
forward. The best way will be to move forward with our minds open to--and
explicit plans for--continuous improvement in our curricula, new and old.
In her final email update, sent one week prior to distributing the revised proposal
upon which faculty would vote, Conboy addressed two concerns. First, by positioning
general education as a “continuous improvement process” she tried to distance this
initiative from others that had been shot down quickly: rather than terminating it, “we
need to be prepared to do regular ‘tune-ups’”. Secondly, she addressed the “what’s
next” concern by broadly recognizing the steps to hire, to place, and to train key
personnel. She ended the email with an explicit ‘ask’ for their vote: “I am asking you
to trust me—and your colleagues who have worked tirelessly on this project. I can’t
make this happen without the faculty, but I do want to say: I promise that I will
accompany you every step of the way to get it right.”
THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

On November 21, Conboy sent to the community her proposal for the Revised Model
for New General Education Program. In her email accompanying the document, she
acknowledged how responsive the revised model was to the feedback that had been
received:
It would be difficult to enumerate the many sources of input that have
improved the proposal, but please know that the design team took seriously
every response we received, whether from an individual or a group, whether a
single comment or a full counter-proposal.
Indeed, the proposal’s Appendix B included three single-spaced pages of bulleted
points specifying all the revisions to the original proposal. She again addressed the
financial concern by assuring that “it will be my responsibility to ensure that the
resources are in place.” She directly addressed the Faculty Council’s concern about
Simmons losing its commitment to the liberal arts by providing the historical
perspective that a true liberal arts core was not established until the mid-1960s, and that
Simmons had always been committed to emphasizing the preparation of “women for
independent livelihoods.”
She concluded with a reiteration of the components upon which the proposal was
based:
This new proposal has been generated with respectful consideration of the
principles, values, and history of Simmons College; the requirements for
accreditation of undergraduate education; the highly effective practices for
undergraduate programs, as regards both effective learning and successful
retention; the landscape of employer needs and desires; and the resources,
skills, and passions of the faculty and students of the College.
2018.
She ended with the statement: “And while I am not a politician, I ask faculty members
for an affirmative vote on December 12th.”
As she awaited the vote, she pondered what she would do in response to either
outcome. If the vote was no, could she stay at Simmons? Could she recover from such
a visible rejection of her vision? She had expended immense amounts of social capital
in cajoling the faculty to “come with me.” Could that social capital be rebuilt so she
could lead future initiatives?
If the vote was positive, the future was equally daunting. Operationally, there was
an immense amount of work to be done: an innovative curriculum needed to be
developed; faculty needed to be recruited from across the campus to teach; and all the
supporting services (such as advising and student life) needed to be resourced and
aligned with this new effort. While she knew she had the talented staff and faculty to
get that work done, she was less clear about her own leadership going forward. How
would she keep up the momentum and the sense of urgency that she built leading up to
the vote? She was committed that the curriculum would be up and running by the start
of the next academic cycle, fall 2015. Plunging admissions numbers did not permit the
process to follow a more leisurely (and conventional) timeline. How would she keep
all constituents energized and moving forward?
She also wondered how she could continue growing the nascent organizational
culture of collaboration and trust. A yes vote would strongly indicate that a small shift
had taken place. How would she go about furthering and then institutionalizing this
cultural change?
2018.
EXHIBIT A: ACADEMIC VOCABULARY
(Source. summarized from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1859/Colleges-
Universities-Organizational-Structure.html )
Higher education: Any post-high school education, usually at the collegiate level.
General education: The curriculum of courses a college or university requires beyond courses
specific to a particular degree. At most schools, students select from a menu of possible courses
across a list of disciplines, such as science, math, social sciences, and the humanities. There are
many possible goals that general education is intended to meet: ensuring that every student has
a basic skill set (i.e., critical thinking, writing); a broader understanding of the world around
them; an opportunity to be exposed to fields of study that may spark an interest.
Liberal arts: The academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, humanities
(the study of the human condition) and social and physical sciences as distinct from professional
and technical subjects. Some of the more common liberal arts majors includes: anthropology,
communication, English, history, language and linguistics, philosophy, political science, math,
psychology and sociology.
Liberal arts colleges: Usually small and residential, this model of undergraduate education aims
to impart broad general knowledge and develop general intellectual capacities (i.e. critical
thinking, analyses, writing). Students study multiple disciplines through inquiry, dialogue and
analyses. Liberal arts colleges are fundamentally different from vocational/professional schools
focused on preparing graduates for particular professions. Many liberal arts graduates go on to
pursue masters or Ph.D degrees.
Organizational structures of higher education institutions: Both public and private
institutions have some type of board that provides oversight. For private institutions, this may
be a board of trustees, often populated with alumna and significant supporters. For public
universities, this may be a state-wide governing board populated by political appointees. In both
cases, these governing bodies are responsible for institutional performance evaluations, budget
approval, oversight of investment strategies, and most critically, hiring and evaluating the
institution’s president. In addition to some governing board, all institutions have a president or
chancellor, a hierarchy of academic leaders, a hierarchy of administrative staff, and a faculty
senate.
The president or chancellor serves as the chief executive officer, responsible for oversight of
the academic and financial administration of the institution. The president generally works
closely with a provost, who is responsible for academic affairs, and a chief financial officer, who
oversees the institution's fiduciary operations. The president serves as the lead fundraiser, and
as an important representative of the institution in the larger community.
The provost is the chief academic officer and provides leadership and advocacy for the
institution’s academic programs and is responsible for maintaining academic quality. The
provost’s areas of responsibility include supervision and oversight of all educational affairs and
activities, including curricular, instructional, and research affairs and personnel.
Additional academic leadership is provided by:
 Deans, who lead each school or college within the larger university, and are responsible
for broad strategic planning, including financial management, enrollment management,
curriculum development, accreditation, and staffing.
 Chairs or department heads supervise individual departments, such as Philosophy or
Gender Studies.
 A faculty senate is a representative body of faculty members from across the institution
which has been voted to serve as the “voice” of the faculty. A senate’s power varies
considerably institution to institution, ranging from a limited role to one that includes input
into budgeting, senior leadership recruitment, and strategic planning. Other names for a
senate governing body include Faculty Assembly. The faculty senate is often organized
with a leadership team, usually voted by the faculty members, and standing and ad-hoc
committees. The senate may be led by a President of the Senate or other titles such as
Moderator of the Faculty Assembly.
2018.
2018.
EXHIBIT C: SIMMONS COLLEGE ORGANIZATION CHART
(Source: Assistant Provost for Planning, Assessment and Accreditation. Provost’s
Office, Simmons College)
EXHIBIT D: PROVOST REPORTING STRUCTURE

(Source: Assistant Provost for Planning, Assessment and Accreditation. Provost’s
Office, Simmons College)
2018.
EXHIBIT E: FACULTY COMPOSITION FALL, 2014
Source: Assistant Provost for Planning, Assessment, and Accreditation, Provost’s
Office, Simmons College.
CAS SHS GSLIS SOM SSW Ed

Full time faculty
FT Tenured 56 10 12 10 8 3
FT On Track 10 6 10 5 8
FT Contract 18 20 2 9 13 6
Part time faculty
PT Tenured 1 1
PT On Track 1
PT Contract 3 5 2 1 1 4
Total Faculty 89 41 26 25 31 13
EXHIBIT F: EXTERNAL CHALLENGES FACING SIMMONS
Demographics: Between 2000 and 2013, the size of the U.S. college-age population
grew from approximately 27.3 million to 31.5 million. The percentage of 18- to 24-
year olds enrolled in college also grew from 35.5% in 2000 to 39.9% in the same
period.24 But by 2013 post-secondary enrollment had slowed: both total undergraduate
enrollment and full-time enrollment were lower (3% and 5% respectively) than in
2010.25
Table 1. Enrollment growth history and projections
1997-2011 2011-2022
For all post-secondary institutions 45% 13%
For full-time students (“traditional” student) 54% 12%
For 18-24 year olds (“traditional” student) 49% 9%
For 25-34 year olds 51% 20%
For private institutions 78% 14%
For women’s enrollment in all post-secondary 48% 18%
institutions
Projection of Education Statistics to 2022. (2014) 41st edition. National Center for Education
Statistics. Figures 17,18,19,20. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014051.pdf
2018.
Tuition and fees. The pressure to increase tuitions was coming from many sources:
technology investments, keeping competitive with infrastructure and amenities
(upgrading dorms, sports centers, library facilities), and faculty and staff salaries.
Tuition hikes were needed to fill the gap between those rising costs, and both the
diminishing funds from endowments hard hit during the Great Recession and ensuing
state and federal funding reductions.26
Table 2: Tuition and fees in 2015 Dollars
Private Five- Public Five-

Academic Nonprofit Year % Four- Year %
Year Four-Year Change Year Change
1985-86 $13,551 30% $2,918 26%
1990-91 $17,094 26% $3,492 20%
1995-96 $19,117 12% $4,399 26%
2000-01 $22,197 16% $4,845 10%
2005-06 $25,624 15% $6,708 38%
2010-11 $29,300 14% $8,351 24%
2015-16 $32,405 11% $9,410 13%
College Board, Trends in College Pricing, Table 2A: Tuition and Fees and Room and Board
over time, 1975-76 to 2015-16, Selected Years. Retrieved from:
http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-and-fees-and-room-and-
board-over-time-1975-76-2015-16-selected-years
To meet tuition increases, the average per student debt increased from $24,000 in 2004
to $30,000 in 2012; the percent of students borrowing moved from 30% in the mid-
1990s to around 50% in 2013; and the total for all outstanding student loan debt
surpassed $1 trillion by 2014.27 On the institution side, the discount rates to offset those
same tuition increases have increasingly been recognized as unsustainable. The rise of
discount rates largely flattened net tuition revenue gains, which remained flat for the
last 13 years.28 As a result, many colleges have sought other strategies to raise net tuition
revenue while countering enrollment declines. One study identified that 27.7% of
institutions surveyed were focusing on student recruitment and retention strategies.29
Others are considering freezing tuition, expanding marketing efforts, increasing
selectivity or cutting costs.30
Changing employer demands: In answer to the question “Is college worth it?” the Pew
Research Center found that college graduates working full-time do earn $17,500 more
annually than their non-graduate peers. However, another study recognized that not all
degrees resulted in a positive return-on-investment. A PayScale study found that many
arts and humanities graduates might actually earn less working over a 20 year period
rather than investing those same tuition dollars into a 20-year treasury bill.31 To analyze
what employers were seeking from college graduates, the Association of American
Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) surveyed 400 employers in 2014. Ninety-six
percent of those employers stated that graduates needed to not only have field/degree
specific knowledge but also a broad range of skills (capacity to think critically,
communicate clearly, work in teams, and solve problems in a diverse setting) to be
successful employees in their organizations.32
2018.
EXHIBIT G: TIMELINE OF CONBOY’S CHANGE PROCESS
November Conboy accepts offer to become Simmons’s third provost
2012
Spring Listening tour begins with Deans
2013
July 1, Conboy officially starts as provost. Her listening tour continues with staff throughout
2013 the summer, and with faculty throughout the fall. To “listen” she attended multiple
school-wide meetings, departmental meetings by invitation, and held open sessions.
February Conboy distributes her white paper: Leading with Distinction and Innovation. In it
10, 2014 she summarizes the challenges she heard during her listening tour and laid out six
problem statements gleaned from the tour and multiple data sources. She then laid
out four “Future Directions” and named her two-part vision: a redesign of Simmons’
first-year experience and the creation of a four-year leadership development program.
Late A selected group of faculty attends the AAC&U General Education and Assessment
February, Conference in Portland Oregon. The team, publicly labeled the “Discovery Team”
2014 (and privately calling themselves “The Portland 9”), consists of one faculty
representative from SNHS and SOM, three from CAS, the associate dean of CAS, the
associate dean from SNHS, and the VP for student affairs. The goal is to learn about
innovations to general education work occurring on other college campuses.
April 14, Professor Lori Carrell, from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, speaks on campus
2014 about her college’s general education reform process. Over 100 faculty attend.
May 16, All faculty are invited to a day-long retreat to discuss the need for change by reviewing
2014 data on both the external and internal threats facing the college, and then envisioning
a response. Over 90 faculty attend.
May, Conboy assembles a “Design team” which includes the “Discovery Team”, plus the
2014 CAS dean, an assistant provost, one additional faculty representatives from SNHS and
SLIS, and five from CAS.
1st week The Design team spends 5 days to come up with the key elements of new general
in June, education curriculum, identifying six essential capabilities and a ‘roadmap’ of the
2014 annual requirements across students’ four years.
August 4 All faculty are invited to discuss the design team’s ideas. Over 50 faculty attend. This
and 13, was faculty’s first exposure to the proposed curriculum and the reception was
2014 generally positive.
Late A subset of the design team begins planning for the December vote. The college
August, president gets cancer and Conboy assumes her travel and outward facing duties,
2014 leaving the operational work up to the design team. Conboy’s primary role going
forward would be to be the ‘face’ (and ‘voice’) of the change.
September Conboy distributes her Position Paper on General Education Reform to the full
24, 2014 community. In it she summarizes the external and internal forces driving the need for
a new curriculum, including URLs for fuller reading and analyses; an overview of the
inclusive process she engaged in to collect faculty input; and a reminder of the need
to act quickly.
Fall, 2014 The design team held multiple meetings with faculty, students, staff; gathering
feedback; working to hear alternative ideas. Additionally, multiple feedback vehicles
are provided including an email address to the design team, and a physical box for
anonymous feedback.
Oct 27, Conboy sends college-wide emails in which she responds to questions and shares
Nov 4 & information and developments.
14, 2014
November Conboy sends her Revised Model for New General education Program to the all-
21, 2014 college curriculum committee for approval.
Dec 5, The curriculum committee approves the proposal and sends it to all faculty along with
2014 a FAQs sheet specifying what a yes, no, and abstention vote means.
Dec 8-14, Voting is open online
2014
2018.
NOTES
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Previous curriculum changes at Simmons had taken up to two years to reach final
approval. Typically the process involved someone submitting a change proposal to the
college’s curriculum committee, a representative body of faculty tasked with
curricular oversight. The proposal needed to have sufficient details about what the
new curriculum would look like; how it related to current offerings; how it would be
evaluated; and what resources were needed. There are usually set timelines for when a
proposal needs to be submitted to the committee to provide adequate time for review,
discussion, and voting on the proposal.
2. National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Facts: Back to School Statistics, 2015.
Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
3. Projection of Education Statistics to 2022. (2014) 41st edition. National Center for
Education Statistics. Table 20. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014051.pdf
4. Jasick, S. (2012, Oct 11). Study finds that liberal arts colleges are disappearing.
Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/11/study-finds-liberal-arts-colleges-
are-disappearing?width=775&height=500&iframe=true
5. Garsd, J. (2015, March 26). Are Women's Colleges Doomed? What Sweet Briar's
Demise Tells Us. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from:
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/03/26/395120853/are-womens-colleges-
doomed-what-sweet-briars-demise-tells-us
6. Art & Science (2011). Research conducted for Simmons College.
7. (2014, April 5). Is college worth it? The Economist. Retrieved from:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21600131-too-many-degrees-are-
waste-money-return-higher-education-would-be-much-better
8. Manuel, D. (2016). Median Household Income. Retrieved from:
http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php
9. Institute for College Access and Success (2014). Student debt and the class of 2014.
Retrieved from: http://ticas.org/posd/home
10. Seltzer, R. (May 16, 2016). Discount rates rise yet again in private colleges and
universities. Insight Higher Ed, Retrieved from:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/16/discount-rates-rise-yet-again-
private-colleges-and-universities?width=775&height=500&iframe=true
11. IPEDS Student Financial Aid Reports.
12. IPEDS Finance Reports.
13. College Board, Trends in College Pricing, Table 2A: Tuition and Fees and Room and
Board over time, 1975-76 to 2015-16, Selected Years. Retrieved from:
http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-and-fees-and-
room-and-board-over-time-1975-76-2015-16-selected-years
14. Pew Research Institute (2014, February 11). The rising cost of not going to college,
Retrieved from: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of-not-
going-to-college/
15. Ebersole, J. (2014, Jan. 13). Top issues facing higher education in 2014. Forbes
Magazine. Retrieved from:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnebersole/2014/01/13/top-issues-facing-higher-
education-in-2014/#64e0328c1024
2018.
16. NSSE is a standardized survey administered by Indiana University. NSSE seeks to
measure student engagement by asking first years and seniors how often and how
much time they spent on academic and co-curricular activities, and to what degree the
institution has helped them develop their knowledge, skills and abilities. Colleges
choose to participate and receive results comparing them to multiple cohorts.
Simmons chose to be benchmarked against 7 peer schools, 13 women’s colleges, and
the 621 national participating institutions. For information about NSSE go to:
http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/about.cfm
17. National Survey of Student Engagement (2013). Women’s Colleges Consortium
Report.
18. Hallmer, M. (2003, June 9). Best Places to Work. Pittsburgh Business Journal.
Retrieved from:
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2003/06/09/story1.html
19. ABR (2009). Academic Business Review Fact Sheet. Retrieved from:
www2.Simmons.edu/enews/alumnet/harris/ABRfactsheet2009.pdf
20. Curriculum oversight is often conducted by a standing subcommittee of the faculty
senate, the body that is responsible for faculty participation in the institute’s planning
and governance. The primary responsibilities of the curriculum committee are to
regularly review programs and courses; and to review and approval all proposals for
adding, expanding, deleting or modifying programs and courses.
21. Colleges and universities are ranked by numerous agencies on multiple aspects (i.e.,
reputation; graduation and retention rates); faculty resources (i.e., class size); student
selectivity (i.e., average admissions test scores of incoming students); financial
resources. One of the most powerful in terms of influencing prospective students is
the U.S. World News College Rankings. In 2014 that agency ranked Simmons #16 in
“Regional Universities North”.
22. The six essential capabilities: critical thinking and creative problem solving; written
and oral communication; analysis and interpretation of data; ethical leadership;
navigation of cultural differences; and integrative learning. The ‘roadmap’ outlined
what courses would be required in each of the four years of the curriculum: in year
one, a 4-credit Boston course (writing intensive and field work in Boston), a 2-credit
Simmons course (supporting the transition to college life), and a 4 –credit Leadership
course; in year two an 8-credit Learning Community (integrating two different
disciplines) and a 1-credit Simmons course (advising students as they made plans for
their remaining two years); in years two-four, a ‘cluster’ of three courses (with a paper
synthesizing cross-course learning), a last Simmons course (preparing for post-
graduation employment or graduate work), and a capstone course in their major.
23. Because of the magnitude of the curricular change, particularly its impact across all
five schools, the proposal had to be first be voted upon and approved by an all-college
curriculum committee. A subsequent and additional vote of the full faculty would be
taken as a way of determining and confirming a college-wide commitment to the
curricular changes.
24. National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Facts: Back to School Statistics, 2015.
Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
25. The Condition of Education 2015, National Center for Education Statistics,
Undergraduate Enrollment, retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/Indicator_CHA/coe_cha_2015_09.pdf
26. AAC&U (2015). Falling short? College learning and career success. American
Association of Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from:
http://www.aacu.org/leap/public-opinion-research/2015-survey-falling-short
2018.
27. Council of Economic Advisors (2014, October). 15 Economic Facts about
Millennials: Report to the White House. Retrieved from:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/millennials_report.pdf
28. Woodhouse, K. (2015, August 25). Tuition discounting grows at private colleges and
universities. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/25/tuition-discounting-grows-private-
colleges-and-universities?width=775&height=500&iframe=true
29. Seltzer, R. (May 16, 2016). Discount rates rise yet again in private colleges and
universities. Insight Higher Ed, Retrieved
from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/16/discount-rates-rise-yet-
again-private-colleges-and-universities?width=775&height=500&iframe=true
30. Woodhouse, K. (2015, August 25). Tuition discounting grows at private colleges and
universities. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/25/tuition-discounting-grows-private-
colleges-and-universities?width=775&height=500&iframe=true
31. (2014, April 5). Is college worth it? The Economist. Retrieved from:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21600131-too-many-degrees-are-
waste-money-return-higher-education-would-be-much-better
32. AAC&U (2015). Employer Survey and Economic Trends. Overview retrieved from:
http://www.aacu.org/leap/public-opinion-research/2015-employer-priorities Full
report available from:
http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015employerstudentsurvey.pdf
2018.

Katie Conboy Leading Change at Simmons C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Katie Conboy Leading Change at Simmons C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NA0452

Katie Conboy: Leading Change at Simmons College 1

CHALLENGES FACING HIGHER EDUCATION & SIMMONS COLLEGE

2 Case Research Journal  Volume 36  Issue 4  Fall 2016

Tuition and fees

Changing employer demands

Katie Conboy: Leading Change at Simmons College 3

INTERNAL CHALLENGES FACING SIMMONS COLLEGE

4 Case Research Journal  Volume 36  Issue 4  Fall 2016

CONBOY BUILDS HER VISION

Katie Conboy: Leading Change at Simmons College 5

6 Case Research Journal  Volume 36  Issue 4  Fall 2016

CONBOY TAKES HER VISION PUBLIC

Katie Conboy: Leading Change at Simmons College 7

Gathering input and support

8 Case Research Journal  Volume 36  Issue 4  Fall 2016

Katie Conboy: Leading Change at Simmons College 9

THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

10 Case Research Journal  Volume 36  Issue 4  Fall 2016

Katie Conboy: Leading Change at Simmons College 11

12 Case Research Journal  Volume 36  Issue 4  Fall 2016

EXHIBIT D: PROVOST REPORTING STRUCTURE

14 Case Research Journal  Volume 36  Issue 4  Fall 2016

CAS SHS GSLIS SOM SSW Ed

EXHIBIT F: EXTERNAL CHALLENGES FACING SIMMONS

Table 1. Enrollment growth history and projections

Katie Conboy: Leading Change at Simmons College 15

Table 2: Tuition and fees in 2015 Dollars

Private Five- Public Five-

16 Case Research Journal  Volume 36  Issue 4  Fall 2016

Katie Conboy: Leading Change at Simmons College 17

18 Case Research Journal  Volume 36  Issue 4  Fall 2016

Katie Conboy: Leading Change at Simmons College 19

20 Case Research Journal  Volume 36  Issue 4  Fall 2016

You might also like