Distance Education Leadership in the Context of Digital Change Free

In his satire on British academia (1908), Francis Cornford noted the response of the dons to any proposal to change the traditional practices of their college was “Nothing should ever be tried for the first time.” Though said at a particular time and place, this aphorism could until very recently quite accurately characterize academe’s response to reform at any time in the past millennium. Indeed, a convincing case might be made that Internet-supported teaching and learning is the most important innovation (and one of the few) impacting education since the printing press. It seems a great irony that while it espouses to be society’s epicenter of new information and ideas, the education sector continues to represent a condition of stasis that has remained outside a long period of innovation within other sectors. Even as changes occurred in the United States that fostered new ways in which educational enterprises were conducted (e.g., the Land Grant Act, the G.I. Bill, the creation of community colleges, desegregation), how teaching and learning transpired has remained largely intact, with little evidence of any fundamental reform.

Yet, quite suddenly and somewhat miraculously, less than 3 decades ago the advent of the World Wide Web, the proliferation of desktop computers on campuses, the development of e-mail, and sophisticated computerbased searching, storing, and sharing of digital information became ubiquitous in the workplace and in learning organizations, resulting in profound organizational changes. A placid domain that had long enjoyed predictable means of conducting its activities became an environment buffeted by technology-driven transitions, seen by some stakeholders as exciting and invigorating, and by others as alarming and compromising the integrity of the academy. The prospect of the professoriate’s traditional role in the educational marketplace being threatened engendered fierce resistance that continues to prevail today at many institutions, despite significant adoption and widespread usage of technology-supported pedagogy by faculty and investments in the latest digital resources by administrators.

While previously, waves of incremental change were absorbed with little disruption, the digital era struck like a tsunami, and ushered in a confluence of forces requiring adjustment and adaptation to entirely new modes of operation, encompassing structural modifications, organization changes, pedagogical reforms, and the like. Though the academy and its professoriate had remained largely impervious to contemporary trends in other sectors, these entities eventually discovered that they could no longer ignore or circumvent the powerful transformative elements encroaching into their landscape. In response to these changes and the new expectations carried with them, higher education began to more strategically market and deliver its programs and services. Some early adopters of distance education might have previously downplayed nontraditional offerings, but as enrollments increased, and the legitimacy of these courses was recognized, more institutions emphasized their distinctiveness from rather than their similarities with their competitors.

In the digital age, higher education, willingly or unwillingly, is experiencing relatively dramatic changes, which are inherently disruptive, especially because change presents unfamiliar alternatives to the long-established status quo. In this new climate of flux, educational entities can be proactive and lead change, or be reactive and possibly be vulnerable to unwanted change. But institutions that resist innovative opportunities do so at their own peril, as their peers transform themselves to meet new demands. This trend of disruptive and continuous change creates unfamiliar challenges, as once-stable organizations are constantly being reshaped for and by the digital age and its transient nature.

This brings to the fore the conundrum of higher education, which parallels the situation of other organizations not so long ago (e.g., news media, when many print-based news giants ignored the emergence of digital resources and subsequently suffered the consequences). Clearly, the lesson for higher education is that it cannot thrive by relying on its hegemony and legacy as the exclusive purveyor of information and ideas, delivered via traditional formats and means. With few exceptions, every college and university must strategically plot its future position along the continuum between face-to-face and distance instruction, augmented by appropriate support systems, changes which will often require substantive modifications to infrastructure.

The burgeoning phenomenon of online education has enabled teachers and learners to utilize these magical means and media to interact at a distance. But these newly available opportunities also make the changing learner landscape especially challenging for all of its stakeholders. In this dynamic context, what is actually changing? Or, perhaps more precisely, what is the change that precipitates further change? Is it educational reforms that drive subsequent reactive changes in technology to accommodate new ways of teaching and learning, or is it rather technological innovation that influences new pedagogical practices? Jan Visser, in Visser and Visser-Yalfrey (2008) contends that fundamental educational reform is much needed, and if realized, then appropriate technologies will likely follow. But, it may be that this change sequence just as frequently occurs in the opposite direction. Certainly, radically new practices that have enhanced teaching and learning processes did not suddenly appear after a millennium of tradition, thus creating a demand for previously unknown tools necessary to execute such changes. And so the question persists: did the trends chronicled above emerge because instructors and their students clamored for alternative means and modes of pedagogy, or did these changes evolve because new technologies made previous practices simply another option of choice representing educational processes as they have always been accomplished?

Visser’s (Visser & Visser-Yalfrey, 2008) thought-provoking work on change in the context of learning suggests that what has changed most significantly in this digital era is change itself. He notes that previously, change was gradual enough that each generation’s circumstances largely prevailed over its full lifespan, whereas change today is so rapid that it is perceived as turbulent and unpredictable. This has lead to an increased capacity within each generation to learn and adapt to greater complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity, and potentially disruptive interventions by science and technology which challenges our perceptions and understanding of the human experience. Visser also notes that our scientific and technological capabilities are not matched by commensurate political prowess in order to create a more harmonious world. This concept has surely been exemplified in the case of online instruction as it has mightily struggled to gain a legitimate place within the higher education community.

With opportunities for new educational markets, growth, and innovation, so too has come increased competition, the need for constant vigilance, and more nimble responses to external expectations—all requiring decision makers with different skills appropriate to the changing landscape and a myriad of complex challenges unknown to the earlier generation of educational leaders. This article’s intent is to examine this reality and provide insights into what competencies (i.e., knowledge, skills, and attitudes) are critical for today’s leaders to succeed in the distance education arena, and to identify what issues may be unique to this field of practice, taking into account the added dimension of rapid changes in technology. Finally, we address how these competencies and challenges intersect to enable leaders to effect transformative change to advance the future of distance education in an evolving digital world.

What does research and writing tell us about the transitory nature of this business of online teaching and learning? There are a number of publications that address, either explicitly or implicitly, this phenomenon. Some recent entries include Learners in a Changing Learning Landscape (Visser & Visser-Valfrey, 2008), Society and Technological Change (Volti, 2005), Managing Technological Change (Bates, 2000), and Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2010). Remarkably, there is relevant material in this genre that prevails from a half-century ago that can still usefully inform our practice, including Foster’s seminal work, Traditional Cultures and the Impact of Technological Change (1962), as well as Rogers and Shoemaker’s Communication of Innovations (1962). Though written in a predigital era, these works continue to offer understanding and insight into how the diffusion of innovation is affected by the barriers and stimulants that applies no less to the introduction of online education into a campuscentric university today than it did, say, to the introduction of tractors into Turkish agrarian culture 5 decades ago.

What then are the implications for distance education systems and those orchestrating them, and how may these endeavors be effectively guided? Is some type of “dynamic” competency model possible that can be responsive to the needs created by technological transience, and thus be effective within volatile change contexts? In short, with technology changing so quickly and constantly, is it possible to develop a leadership competency framework that is sufficiently dynamic that the framework can function reliably regardless of the circumstances of the moment?

Providers of online education, whether administrators, program planners, instructional designers, teachers, student support personnel, and others in key roles are faced with formidable challenges to ensure that distance education and training remains relevant and effective in this digital age. What are some of the issues about which providers must be especially diligent? We begin this examination by identifying what is arguably the overarching challenge, one that permeates the environment in which all distance educators must function: impermanence. Buddhism identifies impermanence (i.e., change in all phenomena) as a fundamental characteristic of existence itself. Buddhists do not view this circumstance as an unsatisfactory problem to solve, but rather one that should encourage us to swim freely in a sea of change. Change itself is not seen as damaging; it is our resistance to it that causes suffering (Olendzki, 2010). If, according to this view, a changing environment fueled by technological transience is an inevitable condition of our practice, then it is incumbent upon us to see the opportunity this reality presents, rather than attempt to avoid its presumed threats.

Within this context of impermanence, today’s online educators and decision makers face many complex challenges, many overt, others subtle, in ensuring effective and efficient design, delivery, and sustainability of distance education. But what specific challenges are most critical to address? The list is alarmingly long, but for purposes of this discussion, we briefly examine those that demand particular attention in an era when instructional technology is in its current state of constant evolution, driven by the race to offer current and prospective consumers the features providers consider essential to successful learning, as well as those that we claim to be better than what the competition has to offer. The issues are varied and complex; some, if ignored, unrecognized, or even responded to inappropriately, may have minimum consequences for institutions and individuals. But others, if not adequately addressed in a timely fashion, could compromise the organization’s immediate or longer range success and, in some cases, its very survival.

Among the most vexing challenges are:

The Chronicle of Higher Education in 2004 published its annual special issue, “Information Technology,” in which the “10 Challenges for the Next 10 Years” (Olsen, Carlson, Carnevale, & Foster, 2004, p. 36) were identified. The publication’s preface noted that the prior 10 years (i.e., 1994–2004) were about bringing technology to every corner of higher education, and that the next 10 years (2004–2014) would be about making that technology more effective. Not surprisingly, eight of the challenges identified were focused on some aspect of managing hardware, software, and data, while only two challenges predicted were related to pedagogical aspects of distance education. This preoccupation with technology rather than the application of those resources for teaching and learning highlights an occupational hazard of online educators: not recognizing that one of the most demanding roles of distance education practitioners is not so much the management of technology, but rather, it is the management of change, a reality accelerated by technological transience. Something as seemingly simple as asking the right questions can become a significant challenge, especially in the initial planning stages of a new program (e.g., “What is the appropriate software to choose?” is a critical item to carefully consider, but there may well be at least a dozen more immediate questions to address prior to any relating to technology). Those leading change initiatives involving technology-related decisions can engage the services of qualified colleagues or consultants to provide technological expertise, but if they lack leadership acumen, such qualities are not easily imported from elsewhere to compensate for a leader’s lack of focus or skill in directing change.

Facilitated by the advent of Web 2.0, the popularity of social networking tools, and the ubiquitous presence of various digital tools and toys—all inexorably invading the changing learner landscape—the auto-didactic learner has clearly emerged as a dominant presence. The confluence of these forces seems increasingly to be moving the teacher away from the epicenter of the teaching-learning dynamic, often marginalizing him/her to some ancillary position. Both the evidence and the implications of this trend are increasingly obvious and potentially significant, not only to the relationship of student to teacher, but indeed to the professoriate itself. With the prospect of a less involved, or at least, less prominent, role for instructors, is the historically central role of the professor as the lead player in the teaching-learning relationship still a vital and viable one? As new ways of designing and delivering technology-enhanced instruction create new attitudes and expectations regarding teacher-student interaction, a new balance of power is introduced into that equation.

The enthusiasm for the merits of social networks as dynamic teaching-learning environments, with their promise of seemingly limitless possibilities for learner-managed activity, causes concern by those who see this phenomenon, when carried to excess, as little more than social forums fueled by fragmented and frivolous communication. If this perspective has some validity, some might logically ask if there remains a need to invest in course development, or even to provide directed instruction, if student peer interaction and support can achieve many of these same objectives despite diminishing contributions from instructional personnel. Indeed, it seems that many academic programs are eager to demonstrate their commitment to allowing students to design and control their program of study. This posture can relegate faculty to increasingly limited roles that could compromise the integrity of a student’s academic progress and success. Some educational providers, at both the individual and institutional level, may be somewhat hesitant to dictate to their “customers” what is most advantageous for them, perhaps for fear of seeming overly autocratic, or even to lose their customers to competing institutions.

Is the inability or unwillingness of some faculty to engage in a more prominent role in facilitating their students’ academic work reflective of a gradual lessening of a meaningful role on the part of many teachers? However competent, committed, or conscientious faculty may be, this does not always translate into a visible presence in courses for which they are responsible. Rather than actually instructing, many function more as coaches than as mentors, praising students’ efforts and awarding overly generous grades, rather than providing critical feedback. Thus, instructors who willingly or unwittingly exercise a reductionist role as educators, compromise not only their own value, but in the process, shortchange those students most in need of academic mentoring. Exacerbating this tendency is the ongoing incursion of new technology-assisted teaching and assessment tools that may tempt instructors to further diminish their social and cognitive presence in online environments. Those responsible for recruiting, training, and evaluating faculty cannot afford to ignore this trend.

Clayton Christensen, in his important work on innovation and change (Christensen & Eyring, 2011) advances the notion of disruptive technology within the context of the education as compared to other sectors. He argues that as educational institutions have incorporated web-based resources to enable teaching and learning at anytime and anyplace, this process has fostered disruption. Online education, enabled by innovative technologies, represents a fundamental change from the long-established practice of classroom-based instruction. Those leading or aspiring to lead such transitions would do well to understand the dynamics of disruption, especially in an era when technological enhancements are continuously introduced into the workplace, as in today’s technology transient setting.

Christensen makes the distinction between disruptive innovation and sustaining innovation. Introducing nearly any innovation into an established environment is a potentially disruptive act, and it is a leader’s challenge to “institutionalize” innovations with a minimum of disorder for such innovations to be accepted and sustained. Even leading organizations are vulnerable to some risk when confronted with changes they perceive by the status quo to be potentially disruptive. A carefully considered strategic decision can suddenly result in unanticipated circumstances that demand new and sudden tactical responses.This is a challenge that Christensen refers to as the “innovator’s dilemma” (2000, p. xiii). Sustainable technologies can ultimately foster improved performance, but if an organization no sooner acclimates itself to an initially disruptive innovation only to then be faced with yet more difficult choices, potentially equally disruptive, decision makers may find themselves in a chronic state of disruption due to the transient nature of technology.

Most innovative elements can ultimately be stabilized and sustained, but managers implementing them must recognize what practices are effective in which situations and under what conditions. Christensen argues that creating a different organization may be the most viable means to achieve profit and success if innovative technology is potentially so highly disruptive to an established entity that it could likely unravel. Organizations and their leaders who are successful with the systems and protocols that are in place have little tolerance for failure, and so the prospective risk is unacceptable. For this reason, many education providers forsake opportunities to implement distance education initiatives or enhancements. This stasis can contribute to inertia, including the perpetuation of archaic systems that may no longer be effective in serving emerging educational clienteles. And should institutions eventually decide at a later time to launch distance education initiatives, even relatively modest goals may be unachievable because of lack of prior experience, the fact that markets are already being adequately met by existing providers, and reduced credibility in entering the arena as a latecomer. Such are the complex conundrums that distance education leaders must weigh and resolve before executing viable and sustainable plans for educational change.

Converting a disruptive innovation to a sustaining one entails significant adaptation, and leadership is the crucial ingredient in doing so. Managing an innovation that the system has become acclimated to is relatively easy, compared to initiating, or even exploring, alluring alternatives. Because disruptive technologies typically require time between investment and realization of profit, aside from the distinct possibility that success may never be realized, conventional leaders can easily conjure up numerous arguments for maintaining the status quo. The conflicting demands of disruptive and sustaining technologies requires leaders with the capacity to resolve those tensions and create a context and culture in which, and by which, the differing challenges faced by innovators become less of a dilemma, and more of an opportunity to transform the environment to achieve productive and meaningful change.

One of the greatest challenges in distance education’s burgeoning worldwide arena is reducing the digital divide which many believe is expanding between developing and rich countries. This is an especially complex dilemma with concomitant ethical conundrums, as the digital divide can result in an inequitable distribution of resources and perpetuate glaring disparities in social, educational, and economic opportunity. And yet, at the same time, the notion persists that the diffusion of e-learning to underserved regions will “democratize” education as it becomes available to all individuals, irrespective of socioeconomic status. On the surface, this prospect may seem as a great equalizer, enabled by the availability and use of technology by greater numbers of learners. But technology inequality remains a persistent reality, and so must be seen as a key responsibility of online providers to minimize the adverse impact of this discrepancy if it prevails in the settings in which they function. This urgent agenda is manifested most dramatically in Africa, for example, which makes up 19% of the world’s population, yet is home to only an estimated 1% of all Internet users (Beaudoin, 2007).

Technology transience can be a particularly vexing issue for providers introducing learning resources supported by digital devices and other alternative modes of delivery within cross-cultural, developing regions limited to archaic educational tools and technologies. In such settings, it is not simply a matter of determining which upgrades are needed to effect improved educational access and delivery, as decisions to be made may include the introduction of radically new approaches requiring a change of “hearts and minds” by prospective users, implementation of essential infrastructure, and a myriad of other preconditions to be satisfied. This can turn into a long-term process, and critical decisions, if made precipitously (e.g., selection of technology appropriate to the situation), could be compromised before all the requisite pieces are finally put into place.

Universal access to education is considered by many as an ethical priority, and instructional technology is recognized as a means to facilitate this goal. But launching and sustaining distance education projects, especially when attempted by institutions that aspire to offer programs and services across cultural boundaries, is a complex enterprise, especially for those with little or no prior experience in this arena. Many institutions experiment with online courses with some success, but as institutions engage in more ambitious efforts to bring academic programs to distant and unfamiliar settings, these well-intentioned efforts too often result in disappointment for both providers and consumers. Those who plan and manage distance education activities sometimes give little focused attention to effective practice in this milieu. Those who facilitate others’ learning, especially in cross-cultural settings, must be guided by moral values and ethical practices. Personal, professional, and institutional principles to guide day-to-day practice may be evident and enforced in familiar surroundings, but ultimately distance educators must adhere to attitudes and behaviors that reflect appropriate “best practices” in dealing with new populations to be served, and new technologies becoming available that may or may not be compatible with users’ needs. Ethical dilemmas faced by those engaged in designing and delivering online education across cultural boundaries cannot be compromised, as even relatively minor misunderstandings have the potential to result in unintended consequences that leave the situation in far worse circumstances than those initially addressed.

What then are the characteristics and skills that are especially critical to those responsible for advancing and sustaining distance education initiatives? And are there certain qualities that distance education practitioners should possess to be most effective in settings characterized by chronic change? Ideally, leaders ought to possess a strong portfolio of abilities suitable for use in varied situations, but we limit our consideration here to a select few that are essential ingredients within a broader repertoire desirable for effective leadership practice. For purposes of this discussion, we refer to these assets as competencies.

The concept of competence is widely applied in many disciplines and contexts, and thus can have varied meanings and interpretations. A useful introduction to competencies can be derived from the work of Franz Weinert. He defines competence as a specialized system of abilities, proficiencies, or skills necessary to reach a specific goal, applied to individual dispositions or to dispositions within a social group or institution (Weinert, 2001). He further articulated his concept of competence as the ability to handle challenges that occur in a specific situation in an appropriate way. Competencies are demonstrated in the performance of actions, and are usually related to a specific context. Van der Blij (Boon, Van Lieshout, Schafer, & Schrijen, 2002) similarly captures the essence of competence with a focus on performance, emphasizing that it reflects the ability to act within a given context in a responsible and adequate way, while integrating complex knowledge, skills and attitudes. Schneckenberg and Wildt (2006) narrow their focus to online education, with their notion of e-Competence being the ability to use information and communication technology resources in teaching and learning in a meaningful way. They further emphasize that e-Competence can only be developed and applied meaningfully if it is situationally specific, once the most relevant contextual variables are identified.

Competency development requires a sophisticated and systematic process in order to arrive at valid and reliable performance statements that reflect the most critical attitudes, skills, and knowledge essential for effective practice. One of the most ambitious efforts at competency development is the work of the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (www. ibstpi.org), which has articulated and disseminated several sets of competencies in diverse professional fields over the past 3 decades. Its most recent competency development project identified those that are most critical for learners to succeed in online education (Beaudoin, Jung, Grabowski, Kurtz, & Suzuki, 2013). Since the early 1980s, ibstpi has sought to understand how performance of individuals and organizations through training, instruction, and learning has evolved and how it can be improved. It does this by identifying, defining, and internationally validating competencies and statements of performance for various jobs and general learning skills. Competence relates to how qualified individuals are in the performance of their job, occupation, or as a learner. Specifically, Klein, Spector, Grabowski, and de la Teja (2004) define competencies as

Each competency is further specified by performance statements, and clustered in related domains. Each set of competencies is grounded through reviews of literature, focus groups, and validation studies of current practice, combined with a vision by the international board about where the field may be going.

What characteristics and qualities are especially critical to those responsible for advancing and sustaining distance education and training, while at the same time also maneuvering the gauntlet of challenges? There is not, of course, any definitive list of knowledge and skills, or formulaic recommendations of how best to ensure success in addressing every potential challenge, but those discussed below merit careful consideration. Whether we label these as competencies or otherwise, and whether already held or aspired to, they constitute a useful “tool box” with some applicability in most settings, while also recognizing that each situation demands the ability to identify and apply the particular combination of competencies deemed most relevant at that time and place with the stakeholders involved. They are intended to convey a sense of qualities a leader is likely to need to succeed and, in some instances, perhaps even to survive.

These attributes may be acquired, achieved, enhanced, and otherwise gradually evolved by an individual over time (and also potentially weakened if usage of any is limited). If actively and appropriately applied to deal with specific challenges, they are likely to be retained and refined as needed over time. Challenges, on the other hand, are typically more fluid, subject to the contextual conditions in any particular setting and moment, influenced by the life cycle of that environment. And the technological transience we have noted exacerbates this changing nature of such challenges. This flux demands a situational leadership style, and a more frequent realignment of attributes to match the circumstance, much more so than is required in a more stable state. Confounding this process is the not infrequent necessity of having to cultivate and incorporate new competencies into one’s repertoire as experience informs the practitioner of weaknesses or lacunae in his/her current skill set.

Specific competencies include the following:

Some change theorists and practitioners argue that an accurate diagnosis of the environment is not only a prerequisite for successful change, but is indeed the most critical skill that a leader applies to the process. Without a proper assessment, a leader cannot craft an intervention appropriate to the situation. Thus, the prevailing argument goes: whatever strategy a change agent utilizes is ultimately contingent upon a style compatible with the situation at hand, hence the criticality of the concept and application of “situational leadership.” This, of course, requires that the leader possesses a sufficient repertoire of skills that can be brought to bear on the conditions of the moment. It also demands patience and flexibility to recognize that any intervention (either internally introduced, or externally driven) is likely to generate changes that will likely require new ways of interacting within that evolving environment. Thus, the value of the situational leadership style. The work of Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (2001) is useful in understanding the power and potential of this approach.

Distance education leadership can be defined as creating the conditions for innovative change. As noted, the primary task is not, as many aspiring decision makers may assume, one of managing technology, but rather managing change. In this context, leading is an inherently transformative process and demands that anyone assuming such a role, whether in a fledgling project, or a more established program, understands and executes the principles and practices of transformative leadership. This approach is generally distinct and more complex than the transitional process of effectively managing the functions that sustain daily operations and optimize their efficiency. The truly transformative distance educator engages other key stakeholders in all phases of a systematic change process, fostering a culture of sustained innovative and continuous growth with the least amount of disruption at all levels of the enterprise.

If we accept the premise that distance education is having an increasingly transformative impact on higher education as it has evolved from a medieval model to what Peters (2000) refers to as an industrial model (i.e., a division of labor in course development, production, and delivery), then we can make the case that distance education’s decision makers and their allies have been responsible for a series of cumulative changes that have had a quite dramatic impact on this historically placid environment. This has certainly not occurred by chance, but rather by deliberate and dedicated efforts of practitioners, both pioneers and early adopters, possessing the attitudes and attributes that enabled them to effectively address the many challenges confronting them as they transformed their conventional institutions to function in a rapidly changing digital age.

It is important for those involved in or aspiring to roles fostering change, whether launching new enterprises or advancing existing operations, to recognize that most change is typically incremental, and can be barely perceptible at some stages. This is especially so when innovative initiatives are introduced into traditional settings that are inherently resistant to any alteration of the prevailing ethos and dominant practices, and so progress can be frustratingly slow, maybe even imperceptible. Yet, if one could take a “snapshot” of a particular organizational setting at the very inception of a distance education program, and then another, say, 20 years hence, the evolution and outcomes of that work in progress might be surprisingly evident, even if vestiges of the past stubbornly remain.

Permit this author to briefly chronicle such a transformation. When I began my tenure at my home institution as founding dean of a new college nearly 25 years ago, and introduced the notion of distance education to my colleagues, they truly had no idea what I was talking about. The ensuing years were arduous, requiring tenacity and resilience to move both individual and institutional beliefs and attitudes closer to a climate more conducive for change, and for them to tolerate, if not fully embrace, the presence of distance education as a legitimate enterprise. Today, this institution has several successful online graduate degree programs, offers one third of its courses online, has an associate provost heading a unit entitled Online Worldwide Learning, and recently made US News & World Report’s “Top 100” list of online graduate programs in the US! To that new dean who arrived on the scene 20+ years ago, this indeed represents a remarkable transformation, and it occurred within an initially inhospitable environment that might have just as likely remained unchanged to this day.

There is an opportunity, indeed an obligation, for today’s experienced distance education professionals to actively engage in the important work of preparing the next generation to move into the field. Many who have successfully developed and “institutionalized” distance education gravitated to this arena, whether by design or default, via other roles in higher education, such as continuing education. This transition has not been especially easy for many, and has often required a prolonged effort to arrive at a rewarding place, sometimes not until their academic careers are waning. At this juncture, as the field has gained legitimacy and widespread adoption, it is crucial that the next generation of teachers, administrators, instructional designers, scholars, and others aspiring to have an impact begin this work early in their academic careers. Through exposure to seasoned practitioners at conferences and other venues, such as formal programs of study leading to degrees that provide formal preparation to enter the field, as well as tutelage in research and writing, mature mentors are able to attract and guide energetic new candidates to gain exposure to sound theory and best practices, with an appreciation for the transient nature of the field and how best to respond to it. In this way, there is an exciting opportunity to advance distance education to the next stage of its development and accomplishment, led by the next generation of new leaders.

Although we have identified a valid and reliable competency development model developed by ibstpi that has resulted in several competency sets in active use by various professions (evaluators, training managers, instructors), we still cannot claim to have in place a widely accepted competency model for distance education leaders working in highly transient settings driven by technology. In this work, we have offered options to consider: Among these are: (1) Use of ibstpi’s online learner competency set that provides useful insights not only into how learners can be successful, but also how instructors, administrators and other providers can apply these competencies to achieve their own goals (e.g., a critical learner competency is: “Manage time effectively;” this competency is equally critical and applicable to instructors as to learners) [There is a software app developed by ibstpi that provides a self-assessment tool to gauge one’s level of proficiency in each of the 14 designated competencies. See the ibstpi website for details.] (2) Adoption of the situational leadership model that enables its users to adapt their leadership style to be compatible with the dynamics of a particular setting at the point of intervention, and to make further modifications as changing conditions may warrant.

Hopefully this work makes a useful contribution to the continued advancement of worthwhile research and effective leadership practice, and generates further insight and action appropriate to the constantly changing circumstances surrounding technology transience. This ongoing phenomenon cannot be adequately addressed unless we understand the issues, engage in competent practice, and benefit from strong leadership in the field. The work we are engaged in is too important not to rise to these challenges and the opportunities they present to the next generation of providers and users.