A Chronology and Data Summary:

Ridgewater College President Doug Allens Leadership

Executive Summary
The data and information outlined below demonstrate a clear pattern of unresponsiveness
by President Allen to faculty concerns. Beginning with the first faculty survey conducted
in 2007 to the layoff of six faculty colleagues this past fall, faculty leaders for the past eight
years have attempted without success to identify and address faculty concerns regarding
President Allens leadership. The data and reports, both internally generated (i.e., from
faculty surveys) as well as from external agencies (e.g., PACE, AQIP, and Harley process)
consistently reveal dissatisfaction with President Allens leadership. The extended time
frame from which the data is drawn further establishes that no appreciable change has
occurred to ameliorate those concerns.
The persistent issues and concerns about President Allens leadership include the
following:
1. An unwillingness to engage in true shared governance.
2. A reactive instead of proactive approach to College challenges
3. A lack of planning and foresight
4. A limited, unproductive communication style
5. A failure to close the loop on consultative input from faculty
6. A penchant for paying lip service to the need for change, but not embracing it
7. A command rather than collaborative or consensus decision making style
Chronology
(Parenthetical numbers refer to the numbered addenda on the following pages.)
2007-08: MSCF Campus Climate Survey (1)
2008-09: MSCF Campus Climate Survey (1)
October 2008: Faculty meeting with then Chancellor McCormick (4)
2009-10: PACE Survey (2)
2011: AQIP Systems Appraisal Feedback Report (3)
2011-12: MSCF Campus Climate Survey (1)
2012-13: Bill Harley Process/Report (5)
November 2013: Faculty leadership letter to Chancellor Rosenstone (4)
November 2014: Layoffs (6)
NOTE: The information outlined on the following pages represents a distillation of
approximately 250 pages of related documents. A brief summary is found at the end of
each addendum.

1. MSCF Campus Climate Surveys

Three surveys on administrative leadership and campus climate were conducted by faculty
leadership in 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2011-12, respectively. Survey questions on President
Allen were identical for each of the three surveys. Results are expressed as the mean.
Likert scale (key): 5 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Agree; 3 = Neutral; 2 = Disagree;1 = Strongly
Disagree (NO = No Opinionthese were not included in the averages)
1. President Allen demonstrates respect for faculty.
2007-08 = 2.22
2008-09 = 2.067
2011-12 = 2.38
2. President Allen demonstrates a commitment to teaching and learning as the core
mission of Ridgewater College.
2007-08 = 2.60
2008-09 = 2.351
2011-12 = 2.31
3. President Allen demonstrates that he places appropriate value on the input of faculty in
addressing college issues.
2007-08 = 1.98
2008-09 = 1.623
2011-12 = 1.86
4. President Allen demonstrates a commitment to creating a level of morale on campus
that encourages faculty in their work.
2007-08 = 1.82
2008-09 = 1.597
2011-12 = 1.93
5. President Allen demonstrates a commitment to engaging in sincere efforts to reach
agreement with the faculty on college issues.
2007-08 = 2.02
2008-09 = 1.653
2011-12 = 2.0
Summary: In no area did the survey results approach the mid-level, neutral (3) data
point. All results fell within the disagree (2) to strongly disagree (1) range for all three
surveys spanning a 5-year time period. In short, there was no statistically significant
change in the areas surveyed.

2. Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE) Survey

The National Initiative for Leadership and Institutional Structure conducted two PACE
surveys in collaboration with the Ridgewater College administration, one in 2009-10 and
one in 2012-13. Owing to the limited participation of faculty in the 2012-13 survey (15.2%),
faculty deemed the results invalid and they are consequently not reported below.
The nationally normed surveys included responses from administration, faculty, and staff.
Unfortunately, the survey questions related to administration (or supervision) did not
differentiate among the various hierarchies of administration, so the results are obfuscated
by this missing level of detail. (Faculty requested targeted supervisor questions, but the
request was denied.) Despite this limitation, however, there was a clear perception gap
between administration (n=10) and faculty (n=92) about a range of issues that fell within
the Institutional Structure category, the survey area most relevant to the facultyadministration relationship. In fact, the bottom ten mean scores on a composite basis (i.e., all
three personnel groups included) all fell within the Institutional Structure category of
statements.
Key (satisfaction): 1 = Low to 5 = High
The perception gap is strikingly revealedand statistically significantwhen the
responses are broken down by personnel classification.
1. The extent to which information is shared within this institution.
Administration = 3.80
Faculty = 2.29
(Staff = 2.50)
2. The extent to which a spirit of cooperation exists at this institution.
Administration = 4.20
Faculty = 2.13
(Staff = 2.73)
3. The extent to which open and ethical communication is practiced at this institution.
Administration = 4.20
Faculty = 2.27
(Staff = 2.71)
Of the limited number of customized statements included in the survey (the above are
standard PACE survey statements), one stood out for reaffirming the aforementioned
perception gap:
The extent to which there is a positive relationship between faculty/staff/administration.
Administration = 3.40
Faculty = 2.19
(Staff = 2.56)

Summary: The top ten areas in need of improvement found at the conclusion of the
survey were all drawn from the Institutional Structure climate area. Thus, an outside
survey instrument that did not afford any level of specificity to Ridgewaters structure,
confirmed the broad conclusions reached by faculty surveys and was further corroborated
by staff survey results.
3. Ridgewater College AQIP Systems Appraisal Feedback Report
This 2011 report conducted under the auspices of the Higher Learning Commission, our
institutional accrediting body, drew several conclusions that we believe substantiate the
patterns heretofore identified. The first quote is drawn from the Executive Summary
section of the report.
Category 5: Leading and Communicating
The Ridgewater College President functions as the ultimate decision maker, but a wide
variety of constituent groups within the College structure bring valuable perspectives
enlightened by data analysis. Recent administration of the PACE survey has exposed
communications improvement opportunities and prescribed an agenda for continued
development in this area. However, Ridgewater College has not provided detailed
information concerning specific processes and instead relied on brief statements which may
name a process, but not describe that process. It also seems to lack an active closure to the
loop through communication of results and a formal plan for analyzing data to determine
areas and means of improvement. (2)
The quotes below are drawn from the category feedback section of the report. That is, they
illuminate within each of the nine AQIP categories a more defined strengths and
opportunities analysis. A OO designator indicates a pressing or outstanding
opportunity for improvement while an O designator indicates an opportunity for
improvement.
Category 1: Helping Students Learn
OO The portfolio does not address how the culture of the institution helps to select
processes to improve. It is not clear how the College evaluates its processes to determine
areas for needed improvement. Although the College infers that they look for
opportunities for improvement, it remains unclear what results are being evaluated and
which areas have been determined as a priority. (20)
Category 2: Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives
O While Ridgewater College notes that it gathers data from any and all of the
constituents, it is not clear how the constituents are systematically involved in setting the
goals. (22)

O it appears that Ridgewater College operates from an outcome or compliance

perspective rather than from a process-oriented approach. Such a cultural bias may
impede the Colleges ability to engage in continuous improvement cycles. (24)
Category 3: Understanding Students and other Stakeholders Needs
O Ridgewater College has presented little evidence that attempts are made to collect
satisfaction data for any additional stakeholder groups other than students. The College
will benefit its operations by seeking to understand the needs of all stakeholders in a
systematic and programmatic fashion. (27)
Category 4: Valuing People
OO no information is provided to suggest that strategies, processes or mechanisms are
in place to plan proactively for changes when creating new positions or reconfiguring
existing personnel vacancies. Furthermore, the information presented in the document
does not account for changes in faculty positions, only non-faculty positions. Ridgewater
College may benefit from developing process that seek to manage personnel changes in a
proactive manner. (31-32)
Category 6: Supporting Institutional Operations
O the College does not provide detailed information that demonstrates how the twoway communication enables them to identify that needs are being met as intended. (41)
Category 7: Measuring Effectiveness
O Ridgewater College has provided little evidence of any systematic process to analyze
data to meet specific local needs or to make micro-data analysis available to key
stakeholders. (46)
Category 8: Planning Continuous Improvement
OO Ridgewater College has not presented evidence of a systematic and comprehensive
approach to planning continuous improvement. (52)
Note: This category had the most OOs (i.e., pressing or outstanding opportunity for
improvement).
Summary: The above quotes are representative of a pattern in which stakeholders are
provided opportunities to provide feedback, but which is in turn either rejected or ignored.
Moreover, there is scant evidence of proactive planning to address College challenges.
Finally, a penchant for command decision making (see 5. Bill Harley Process/Report
below) is intimated throughout the report.

4. MnSCU Chancellor Communications

a. In September of 2008, a delegation of faculty met with then Chancellor McCormick to
discuss concerns emanating from the consecutively unsatisfactory faculty surveys
regarding President Allens leadership. Faculty were not informed of any communications
between Chancellor McCormick and President Allen nor were there any changes manifest
in President Allens leadership behavior following the meeting.
b. In November of 2013, in the wake of President Allens unilateral decision to end the
second phase of the Harley process (see 5. below), a letter signed by each member of the
faculty leadership was sent to current Chancellor Rosenstone outlining again the facultys
frustration with President Allens leadership. Included among the points raised in the
three-page, single-spaced letter were the following:
President Allens unwillingness to engage in true shared governance
the lack of trust in this administration and its decision making process
the consequent disengagement and isolation of faculty in their respective areas
Summary: Attempts to address concerns about President Allens leadership through direct
communication with two different chancellors have failed to result in anything that could
be remotely considered significant change. In fact, current Chancellor Rosenstones refusal
to meet with faculty following President Allens termination of the Harley process was a
slap in the face to those faculty who had engaged in this year long, good faith effort to
resolve faculty-administration differences.
5. Bill Harley Process/Report
By mutual agreement between then MSCF President Greg Mulcahy and Chancellor
Rosenstone, an external third party consultant was hired in July 2012 to oversee a process
aimed at improving Ridgewaters workplace culture and environment by identifying key
areas of employee discontent and corresponding potential policy and process
improvements to address them.
[Joint e-mail to faculty, staff, and administrators dated April 20, 2012 from President Allen
and then faculty president Shawn Mueske]
In a letter dated December 30, 2012 addressed to President Allen and Shawn Mueske, Mr.
Harley summarized the general picture revealed by the assessment interviews. His
primary conclusion follows below:
The central area of dissatisfaction and dissonance revealed by the interviews relates
toan over reliance on command decision-making. [T]he over-use of command
decision-making hampers the development of open communication and trusting
relationships; treating each other with respect, dignity and civility; a more collegial and less

adversarial environment at the College; greater clarity and commitment in all employees to
the College mission, vision, values and plans; and dedication to the continuous
improvement of the College and to the measures by which progress is assessed.
Moreover, the over-use of command decision-making was also noted to have deleterious
effects on the College as a whole: While the dissatisfaction and dissonance arising from
the overuse of command decision-making manifest themselves most strongly with
facultypatterns of under-functioning, hesitancy to innovate and under-utilization of
human and other resources resulting from the over-use of this decision-making type were
apparent during the interviews in numerous functions and at all levels of the College.
Summary: An external evaluator with expertise in organizational consulting and coaching,
following a wide ranging, time consuming, and in-depth interview and data collection
process, drew the same conclusions as the internal faculty surveys and the external AQIP
report and PACE survey. In many ways, the Harley process put an exclamation point on
all of the issues faculty had raised during the previous five years. Regrettably, and much to
the dismay of faculty leadership who during the 2012-13 academic year devoted
considerable time and energy to the process, President Allen expressed no desire to
continue with the next phase; that of working through the eight consensus barriers
identified during the process. Thus, ironically and in yet another example of command
decision-making, President Allen ended what faculty believed was a healthy, enlightening
process in the fall of 2013.
6. Faculty Layoffs
On November 1, 2014, six faculty colleagues were laid off. When faculty leadership sought
specific information to justify each of the layoffs (President Allen had only provided
general exculpatory data), we received no response until the January 27, 2015 Faculty
Shared Governance Council (FSGC) meeting, information that should have been readily
available at the time of the layoffs three months earlier. President Allen further
exacerbated the situation by asserting in his general explanation that during FY2014 and
FY 2015 eight new UFT faculty positions have been added, clearly implying that these
UFTs were additional faculty hires that somehow counterbalanced the six layoffs. Not only
was this statement not germane to the layoffs at hand and patently insensitive, it was
blatantly inaccurate. Only one of the eight positions was truly new or added; the other
seven were replacements for retirements and/or faculty departures.