For more than a century, the community college has persisted amid profound technological, political, economic, and cultural changes. It has adjusted to shocks and transformations as dire as the Great Depression, two world wars, the Cold War, the Civil Rights movement, near hegemonic neoliberalism, increased global integration, and exponential technological change. As it contended with these developments, the community college created an institutional narrative unlike any other.[1]Likely a result of its innovating nature, the community college continues to add new chapters to its story. Cultural, political, economic, and technological revolutions will continue to disrupt organizational strategies well into the future. To ensure ongoing viability, community colleges must expand concepts of accountability and assessment and integrate these into long-term strategies.
In this blog post, we review the state of knowledge about sustaining organizations and it might apply to the community college.
Discussions of organizational strategy often center on enrollment, revenue, and programming. As important as these are, long-term strategies must account for an expanded view of resources. Writing as a professor of business management, Fogel [2] argues that an organization’s strategy must account for six types of capital:
- human (in the form of labor, intelligence, culture, and organization);
- financial (consisting of cash, investments, and monetary instruments);
- manufactured (including infrastructure, machines, tools, and factories);
- social (in the form of social networks and relationships);
- intellectual (intellectual property rights, patents, and codified knowledge);
- natural (resources, living systems, and ecosystem services).
Fogel observes that a sustainable organizational strategy requires a proper accounting of these forms of capital, but natural capital is too often overlooked. As a consequence, leaders fail to recognize environmental degradation as a risk factor a threat to long-term organizational viability.
Many of the world’s most profitable companies have built long-term strategies around capital in its various forms, and the result is a commitment to sustainability. At the top of the list of the world’s most sustainable corporations are Siemens AG (Germany), Storebrand ASA (Norway), Cicso Systems Inc. (USA), Danske Bank A/S (Denmark), and Ing Group (Netherlands) .[3] On the other hand, many corporations blatantly reject calls for increased sustainability.[4] Benn, Dunphy, and Griffiths synthesize the literature on phases through which organizations progress toward sustainability. This model includes six phases organized in three waves.
The model can help organizational leaders gauge long-term strategies in two ways.
First, it can be used “to characterize an organization’s characteristic way of treating the human and natural resources it employs.”
Second, it can be used “to trace the historical trajectory that the organization has taken in getting to where it is and to chart possible paths forward” (p. 15).[5]Benn et al. depict their model as unique in that it integrates both environmental and human sustainability. Finally, although the phases are mapped onto a continuum, Benn et al. note that organizations may progress only to regress to more primitive phases. They also contend that organizations may undergo transformative change and skip to more advanced phases of sustainability. These three waves and six phases are described below. As each wave is described, we propose analogues and examples within the community college context.
First-wave Organizations
Rejection. First wave organizations are characterized by two phases: Rejection and non-responsiveness. The theme of the rejection phase is “exploit resources for maintaining short-term financial gain.”[6] In this phase, managers exploit community resources for economic gain. This leads to abuse of employees, community infrastructure, and the ecological environment. The firm exists to maximize profit and will attempt to thwart any challenge to this end. Described as “stealthy saboteurs and freeloaders”, these organizations actively oppose sustainable practices. Corporations in this phase are externalizing machines; they push costs off to the local community or into the future.[7]Minimal resources are devoted to developing human potential. Health and safety are expenses to be avoided if possible. “Stealthy saboteurs and freeloaders” succumb to short-term myopia and ultimately destroy value.
Non-responsiveness. The theme of the non-responsiveness phase is “business as usual.” Whereas “rejection” describes deliberate antagonism toward sustainable practices, “non-responsiveness” describes organizations operating out of convention, ignorance, or lack of awareness. Their unsustainable practices are an artifact of tradition rather than active opposition. Benn and colleagues describe these organizations as bunker wombats: “they prefer to avoid the light of day and hunker down in their dark bunkers away from where the action is taking place.” [8]“Bunker wombats” disregard the corporation’s impact on both the ecological environment and the wellbeing of the community. Human resource strategies focus on developing a compliant workforce. Organizations in this phase do not destroy value, but their business-as-usual practices constrain their potential to create value.
Community colleges as first-wave organizations. A community college may embody the principles of first-wave organizations in their impact on the local socioeconomic systems and ecologies. As “stealthy saboteurs and freeloaders” or “bunker wombats,” colleges may actively or passively resist attempts to promote sustainable practices relating to energy, transportation, materials. Community colleges may also collude with first-wave organizations to the extent that their programming prioritizes the interests of distant, corporate shareholders over those of employees, families, and communities.[9]Colleges may also reflect the tendencies of first-wave organizations when they exploit part-time faculty, align enrollment management strategies to game performance funding schemes,[10]or resist fair governance practices. Similar to coercive climates described byRoueche, Baker, and Rose, and Baker, these college may maintain authoritarian climates which impose expectations of compliance upon faculty, staff, and students.[11]
Second Wave Organizations: Value Conservers and Value Creators
Second-wave organizations exist in three phases—compliance, efficiency, or strategic proactivity—according to Benn et al. The more primitive second-wave organizations seek to conserve the existing value of the corporation. The more advanced adherents to this phase see sustainable practices as an opportunity to create value.
Compliance. The theme for the compliance phase is “avoid risk.”Organizations in the compliance phase seek to reduce the risk of litigation and damaging publicity. They abstain from practices that damage the environment and acknowledge minimal standards for human resource practices. Environmental and human resources practices are viewed in isolation from the organization’s mission. Although the organization may identify as a responsible corporate citizen, it merely reacts to legal requirements and societal expectations. These firms react to governmental regulation and to systems of voluntary compliance. This strategy helps the firm contend with the expectations of community groups.Benn and colleaguesrefer to organizations in the compliance phase as “reactive minimalists,” because they pursue sustainability only to the extent that it is required.[12]“Compliance adds value by providing easier access to finance, improved relationships with regulators and the basis for a positive reputation as a good corporate citizen.”[13]
Efficiency. The next phase of organizational sustainability is the efficiency phase. The theme of this phase is “do more with less.”Benn and colleaguesrefer to these firms as “industrious stewards.” These organizations avoid waste by scrutinizing their use of water, energy, heat, and materials. What may typically be regarded as waste or byproducts are viewed as potential resources for other organizations. Benn et al. offer the example of a brewery that regards spent hops not as a waste product to be discarded but a resource that can be sold as cattle feed. The brewery thus converted into revenue what was originally regarded as waste. With regard to human resources, “industrious stewards” maximize human potential by preventing absenteeism, lack of motivation, waning commitment, and the loss of skills through employee turnover. They also seek to avoid the dysfunction of internal conflict, political processes, and unintegrated work systems.[14]Dan Fogel provides advice for organizations entering this phase:
Do not expose people to conditions that systematically undermine their capacities to meet their needs. This principle addresses human-capital needs and helps firms consider waste, working conditions, pay, and all interactions between an organization and those providing supplies to the organization.[15]
As these organizations explore sustainable practices, they realize payoffs in both efficiency and reduced costs.
Strategic proactivity. The next phase of organizational sustainability is the strategic proactivity phase. The theme for the strategic proactivity phase is “lead in value-adding and innovation.” Whereas organizations in the efficiency phase regard byproducts of production as a potential resource, these “proactive strategists” also acknowledge the costs of unrealized innovations. Failure to up-skill the workforce, enter emerging markets, gain market leadership, and shed obsolescent practices are equated with loss of market share and forfeited revenue. Innovation is a priority, both in terms of environmental and the cultivation of human resources. Proactive strategists reinterpret climate change and the no-carbon economy as a business opportunity. Human resource strategies focus on becoming an employer of choice. Proactive strategists “see sustainability as integral to business strategy and actively pursue its business advantages.” [16]
Community colleges as second-wave organizations. A community college may reflect basic second-wave organizations by meeting basic regulatory requirements or accountability standards. They are concerned with accreditation requirements, but perhaps only when approaching a reaccreditation visit. Leaders are acutely concerned about public perceptions of the college, and the fear of bad publicity may cause leaders to balk at potentially advantageous projects and innovations. As “reactive minimalists,” colleges are risk averse.
The phrase “do more with less” permeates the professional literature on community colleges. As “proactive strategists,” community colleges may seek energy efficiency as a means of maximizing resources. These strategies may lead to cost saving. For example, Valencia College retrofitted and upgraded chiller plants, HVAC equipment, building automation systems, and lighting. Six of the college’s buildings were built to LEED Gold standards. The college also developed a behavioral energy efficiency program. Through these programs, the college saved $1.3 million.[17] Similarly, Southern Maine Community College reduced a facility’s heating costs by 33% and cooling costs by 27% by installing a unique sea water head exchange system. [18]
Community colleges operating as second-wave organizations also pursue sustainability through strategic human resources practices. Community colleges may seek to become an employer of choice. One example is Cuyahoga Community College, which has been named as a Northcoast 99 employer of choice. The college seeks “to attract, retain, and motivate a quality workforce in order to ensure that the overall mission of the [c]ollege…is achieved.”[19]Toward this end, the college commits to continuous learning, leadership in innovation and technology, community outreach, and wellness. Similarly, the Chronicle of Higher Education named the Community College of Baltimore County in its list of “Great Colleges to Work For.” The college’s recruitment strategies include not only good pay and benefits but also “wide-ranging learning opportunities…and an exciting work environment.” [20]
Third Wave Organizations
Sustaining organizations. The theme of the sustaining organization is “lead in creating a sustainable world.”Benn and colleaguesrefer to sustaining organizations as “transforming futurists.” The sustaining corporation seeks to provide returns to investors, but it also promotes sustainability in the industry and throughout society. Senior executives and most organizational members commit to working for a sustainable world. The organization collaborates with governments and communities to promote sustainability in public policy. It ensures sustainable practices across the entire supply chain and shares its successes with other organizations. The sustaining corporation reinterprets its existence as “an integral self-renewing element of the whole society in its ecological context.”[21] As an example, sustainability is not part of Du Point mission—it is themission.[22]Transforming futurists “are not only concerned with the ongoing transformation of their own organizations to align with the requirements of a more sustainable world, but they are also actively involved in transforming the larger economy and society in the same direction.” [23]The sustaining corporation joins international agreements, and it subjects its progress to external, independent auditors.
Community colleges as third-wave organizations. The history of the community college exemplifies an organic affinity with the values underlying sustaining organizations. As “transforming futurists,” community colleges maximize the personal, civic, and economic productivity of individuals whose talents might otherwise remain untapped. As Christopher M. Mullinexplains, “each student denied the opportunity to engage in higher education who might benefit from it constitutes an idle asset.” [24] Leaders of these community colleges take risks and are willing to defy the organization’s and the community’s status quo.
Examples might include a college that promotes diversity where xenophobia permeates local cultures. Another example might include a college that promotes renewal energy when a state legislature actively opposes it. These educators lobby community leaders and elected officials for policies that promote social and environmental justice. They also integrate an ethos of sustainability and social justice into all educational programs. “Transforming futurists” seek out sustainable businesses in purchasing, and they divest from industries that contradict college values.[25]Colleges also reflect the features of third-wave organizations when they realize the following recommendations by the American Association of Community Colleges: colleges (a) “make sustainability a guiding principle for all institutional practices, offerings, and academic programs,” (b) ”establish a variety of formal sustainability commitments such as becoming carbon neutral,” and (c) “integrate sustainability principles into campus governance structures and operations.”[26]
Conclusion
Above, we have described typical phases of progress toward sustainability. In considering how this model applies to the community college, we have offered only anecdotal reflections. Scholars and practitioners know too little about how sustainability strategy applies to the community college. Many important questions remain. Do community colleges progress through phases as described by Benn et al.? Is there a tendency for colleges to gravitate toward particular phases? If so, what accounts for progress toward sustainability? What are the lessons learned by sustaining colleges? What are the pitfalls and benefits? As researchers answer these questions, findings will be posted to this site.
Image credit: U.S. Navy photo by PH1 Michael Pendergrass. (RELEASED)
About the authors:
David F. Ayers is the founding director of CCCAA and associate professor of community college leadership at Old Dominion University.
Michael V. Ayers is vice president of academic affairs at Southeastern Community College in Whiteville, NC.
[1]Philo A. Hutcheson, Reconsidering the community college, 39 History of Education Quarterly(1999);G. B. Vaughan, The community college story (Community College Press. 2006).
[2]Daniel S. Fogel, Strategic sustainability: A natural environmental lens on organizations and management5 (Routledge. 2016).
[3]Corporate Knights, 2017 Global 100 results, Corporate Knights(2017), available athttp://www.corporateknights.com/reports/2017-global-100/2017-global-100-results-14846083/..
[4]Suzanne Benn, et al., Organizational change for corporate sustainability (Routledge. 2014).
[5]Id. at, 15.
[6]Id. at, 16.
[7]Kent Greenfield, The puzzle of short-termism, 46 Wake Forest Law Review627(2011).
[8]Benn, et al., 16. 2014.
[9]e.g., D. F. Ayers & D. Carlone, Manifestations of global discourses within a local job-training program: A critical discourse analysis (2006).
[10]Lyle McKinney & Linda Serra Hagedorn, Performance-based funding for community colleges: Are colleges disadvantaged by serving the most disadvantaged students?, 88 Journal of Higher Education(2017).
[11]John E. Roueche, et al., Shared vision: Transformational leadership in American community colleges (Community College Press American Association of Community and Junior Colleges : National Center for Higher Education. 1989).George A. Baker, Cultural leadership: Inside America’s community colleges (Community College Press. 1992).
[12]Benn, et al., 17. 2014.
[13]Id. at;see alsoPeter M. Senge, et al., The necessary revolution (Crown Business. 2010).
[14]Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour & Fernando César Almada Santos, The central role of human resource management in the search for sustainable organizations, 19 The International Journal of Human Resource Management(2008);Edward E. Lawler, Sustainable effectiveness and organization development, 46 OD Practitioner(2014)..
[15]Fogel, 116. 2016.
[16]18.
[17]Deborah Green, Energy efficiency at Valencia College: A case study of retrofits and building automation, green construction, and behavioral savings, AASHE(2013), available athttps://hub.aashe.org/browse/casestudy/14528/energy-efficiency-at-valencia-college-a-case-study-of-retrofits-and-building-automation-green-construction-and-behavioral-savings.
[18]Scott Beatty, et al., Harnessing seawater: An innovative thermal exchange HVAC system, AASHE(2013), available athttps://hub.aashe.org/browse/casestudy/14545/harnessing-seawater-an-innovative-thermal-exchange-hvac-system..
[19]Cuyahoga Community College, A northcoast ’99 employer, Cuyahoga Community College(n.d.), available athttp://www.tri-c.edu/administrative-departments/human-resources/.
[20]The Chronicle of Higher Education, Employer profile: Community College of Baltimore County, The Chronicle of Higher Education(n.d.), available athttp://www.chronicle.com/employer/Community-College-of-Baltimore-County/171/.
[21]Benn, et al., 22. 2014.
[22]Senge, et al. 2010.
[23]20.
[24]Doing more with less: The inequitable funding of community colleges. No. Policy Brief 2010-03PBL(2010, September).
[25]See Noel Healy & Jessica Debski, Fossil fuel divestment: Implications for the future of sustainability discourse and action within higher education, Local Environment(2016).
[26]Community colleges in the emerging green economy: Charting a course and leadership role.
