*3.6.4 Impact of the pandemic*

Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 at the mid-point of the spring 2020 semester, the College closed its doors, students returned home, and faculty pivoted to zoomdelivered online education. Those developments were emotionally and physically draining for all. Among other adjustments, including zoom-based administrative meetings, the author altered requirements for the students in the senior seminar.

As the Board and the Administration scrambled to develop new arrangements for events, including graduation, they wisely decided to extend the due dates for Challenge-related implementation plans until October 2020. From the author's perspective, the five-month extension on due dates for the Challenge turned out to be a good news/bad news development. It provided much needed time to further shape ideas; but it also implied that efforts would continue under less-than-ideal conditions. That is, COVID continued its grip throughout the summer; but that was not the end of the story. The College did not attempt to reopen for the 2020–2021 academic year.

#### *3.6.5 Mixed messages*

As the end of the spring semester drew near, the Panel asked internal coordinators to submit drafts of their respective plans. In mid-June, the Panel held individual sessions to provide feedback to each of the four teams. In each session, one Panel member asked attendees high-level questions that focused on both instrumental and intrinsic concerns, with an emphasis on the former. "Does this plan fill a societal need?" "How does this initiative help with recruitment and retention of students?" "What are the current strengths of the College, and does it build on those?" "How might *we* make this plan distinctive relative to those offered by rival colleges?" (Italics in the last question added by author.) The phrasing of the questions reminded the author of the Board's sense of purpose and ownership of the Challenge.

During the session dedicated to the Leadership Plan, the author took handwritten notes. Some opinions were consistent with the original Proposal; but were then countered by other voices. For example, "The plan should be relevant to all students." versus "It should target a particular segment of students."; or "A common language is important." versus "A common language should not be imposed."

Others present offered a range of assertions or questions. "The Plan cannot stand alone—it must explicitly focus on diversity and inclusivity, and on ethics." "The Plan must draw upon the resources of the College's existing Centers".2 "The Plan must include the opportunity for more senior students to serve as mentors to other

<sup>2</sup> In addition the Center for Global Study and Engagement, the College also has a Center for Sustainability Education and a Center for Community Engagement.

### *The Imperative—and the Challenges—of Introducing a Citizen-Leader Development Program… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100002*

students or must include opportunities by alumni to mentor current students." "Will this Plan include a statement about leadership for a particular purpose such as global engagement?" "Will it emphasize experiential learning and reflection?" The follow-on questions and opposing positions were not debated—they remained hanging in the air for the author to take back to the Implementation Team to resolve.

### *3.6.6 Additional signals*

Shortly after the June 15 meeting, the author sensed concerns about the Plan were emerging, when one of the early advocates of the Proposal seemed to lose interest.

To complicate matters, along with the other boundaries included in the call for proposals and the comments from the June 15 meeting, the author heard additional opinions about what the plan should/could not or should/could be. To illustrate one line of conversation, the Plan should not be the central topic in multiple First-Year Seminars offered in autumn of each year. The Plan should reflect degrees of accomplishment over four years but should not call for either a new Major or a new Certificate Program at the College. The Plan could result in a Transcript Notation.

During the summer months, mindful of the mixed messages, the author did his best to reconcile differences as he drafted iterations of the Plan, and shared each draft with the co-originators, mentors, and other members of the Implementation Team.

In the late summer of 2020, during an interview with a representative of the College's daily on-line forum, the author explained that the Proposal included an invitation to members of the community to meet and talk about projects they assigned or monitored in hope of creating a shared leadership vocabulary. Shortly thereafter, the Provost informed the author some senior faculty had told him they rejected that idea.

Later that summer, matters became worse. Another initially strong supporter asked to meet the author in person and appeared to represent the consensus of the Panel when he suggested the author follow one of two pathways: Cease effort and try again, perhaps in a year; or turn over all material to the Team working on the Foresight Thinking Plan.

The author rejected both recommendations for a few reasons: much effort had been invested; the author was agent of the co-originators; handing over intellectual property created to date was an unfair request; completing the Plan might change minds; and reaching the finish line, even in a dead-last position, was better than quitting, as lessons might be learned.

#### *3.6.7 The plan receives qualified acceptance*

In autumn semester 2020, the author remained in contact with co-originators and members of the Team; took input; and continued to shape the final, comprehensive written Plan. Drafts during the autumn included ideas for organizational structure, timelines, and budgets. The final Plan called for a core group from the Implementation Team to create the content for a two-day workshop for "Ambassadors", who would share ideas about their projects. As well, they would learn to facilitate similar workshops for "Participants". Participants would share insights with department or office colleagues and begin to use common vocabulary with students. The start-up process would unfold over two years and would call for substantial fees to provide stipends for all parties.

The author received coaching about developing a "pitch" from a member of the consulting firm hired by the College to help manage the Challenge. In his November 2020, zoom-based, six-minute presentation, despite the warning from the Provost, the author summarized the idea of an invitation—not a mandate—to members of the community to shape a common vocabulary. He emphasized the words "encourage", "empower", and "enable" to describe each students' leadership development process.

Nearly forty of the people who tuned-in to the event submitted opinions about the Leadership Plan. Some reactions consisted of a single phrase or sentence, others a lengthy paragraph. Content wise, they covered a broad spectrum, as indicated by excerpts. "I still don't really understand what this is." "This seems overly focused on the issue of language." "This proposal was the most amorphous, the least well defined." "I think this is really the only one of the options that's worth doing for a liberal arts college." "I think this is the clearly best choice."

In a subsequent formal meeting, the Panel, the Board of Trustees, and College Administrators, including the President, voted to approve the Plan for a new major and the Plan for a new facility. Donors had stepped forward to fund both. Meanwhile, the Leadership Plan and the Foresight Thinking Plan both received qualified approval. Essentially, that meant that both efforts needed more work, and neither could receive full approval and funding without addressing some key issues.

As stated by different parties at the meeting, the Leadership Plan was not conceptually convincing, did not properly establish ownership or organizational structure, and did not fully satisfy the concerns of various stakeholders.
