Richard Farson points out in his delightful book, Management of the Absurd: Paradoxes in Leadership, that top-level executives have been slow to embrace computers personally because, in his word, “Absurdly, we have management information systems that do not serve management.” If we look at the job requirements of community college presidents, we can see that is true. While presidents are educators, most are not themselves teaching classes, and so all the fabulous educational software that has been developed is not directly relevant to their jobs. Nor are they the ones directly staying on top of all the data necessary to run a college--the dean, department directors, and vice presidents are the ones that monitor “the numbers” in student enrollment, access to student service, the budget and the like, on a daily or weekly basis.  

When you get right down to it, what presidents mostly do in their day-to-day lives is to deal with people. I believe they are using personal computers now primarily because, since the widespread adoption of the Internet by community colleges over the past few years, computers help them do what they do most, which is to communicate with others. The League's survey confirmed their intuitive assessment that it worth their while to invest in learning computer skills because most of their peers and others they need to stay in touch with are using computers, and so the computer is becoming as much of a communications necessity as the phone and the fax machine already are. Increasingly, presidents who aren't using computers will be out of the loop--something that no president can afford to do. 

And while I think this is a good thing--I have personally been advocating presidential usage of computers for years, because I believe hands-on experience is useful in developing optimal information technology policy--I do feel compelled to raise a few questions about the implications of electronic communications for community college leadership. Because as Farson reminds us, all communications have “metamessages” in addition to the content they convey, and electronic or e-mail IS NOT THE SAME as either traditional written or spoken communiqués. 

E-mail is a distinct communication medium, complete with its own rules, vocabulary (better read the FAQ to develop good NETIQUETTE or you'll get FLAMED), and level of expectations (typically, typos or “informal” grammar that would stick out in written memos are disregarded in e-mail). There are even conventions to introduce an emotional element to e-mail, such as using capitalization to replicate SHOUTING or “smilies” to indicate humor ( :-) ) or displeasure ( :-( ). What “weight” will people assign to presidential e-mails? Will they be considered to be informal communications, or will they be official statements that are legally binding? E-mail has generally been considered to be fairly intimate communication; will it be handled like mail, which is routinely screened by assistants, or considered to be like phone calls, in which it is impermissible for others to listen in without informing the person on the other end? We currently receive impersonal memos from “the president,” recognizing that they have actually been written by others and disseminated under that name; will the same sort of thing be acceptable under e-mail? Should presidents attach the institutional mission statement to their e-mail signatures, or can they select some quote or statement that they find personally inspiring? 

Electronic communications also raise organizational development issues. Much of current leadership theory, such as Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization or Reinventing Leadership: Strategies to Empower the Organization by Warren Bennis and Robert Townsend, advocates flattening organizational hierarchy to enhance dialogue throughout the institution. Well, widespread e-mail access virtually annihilates organizational hierarchy. It's as easy to send an e-mail message to a thousand people (at least once the list has been compiled) as it is to send it to one person, and teachers with experience in this field will tell you that e-mail encourages people who will never contribute in a traditional classroom to “speak up” over the `Net. I suspect that presidents will find that, despite whatever “open doors” policies they had in the past, email-ability will increase substantially the direct feedback they get from faculty, students, community members, and others they have not typically heard from in their previous hierarchical structure. Again, leadership literature generally seems to think that is a good thing; however, Farson argues that most organizations actually over communicate, which leads to paralysis. It certainly has implications for institutional culture, structure and supervision, and due process. I know of at least one community college that removed e-mail access to its Board of Trustees when members started getting notices about matters for they might have been legally liable if, once informed, they did not pursue, but which would have invited trustees to disrupt the college's mandatory investigation process.