Continuing Education Leadership Matrix : A Model for Practitioners in Higher Education

Continuing education (CE) units are a diverse blend of philosophical and pedagogical approaches, personal aptitudes, and professional knowledge and skills. The Continuing Education Leadership Matrix model is presented as a conceptual framework for understanding and managing CE practice. The model is useful to leaders and managers working within CE and to those with senior-level oversight of CE units. It differentiates four domains of practice: academic, entrepreneurial, administrative, and adult education. Archetypes are used as a heuristic device for understanding the value and contributions of the respective domains as well as their dysfunctional aspects. Unique competencies and areas of innovation characterize each domain. The model has individual and organizational applications and offers insight into how CE practice can be better integrated and utilized. RÉSUMÉ Les unités d’éducation permanente (ÉP) sont un ensemble divers d’approches philosophiques et pédagogiques, d’aptitudes personnelles, et de connaissances et d’habiletés professionnelles. Le Tableau de l’Éducation permanente en leadership est présenté comme cadre conceptuel utilisé pour comprendre et gérer la pratique de l’ÉP. Pour les chefs et les gérants oeuvrant à l’intérieur de l’ÉP ainsi que pour ceux ayant un haut niveau de responsabilités dans des unités de l’ÉP, ce modèle leur est utile. Il différencie quatre domaines de pratique : l’académique, l’entreprenariat, l’administration, et l’éducation aux adultes. Des archétypes sont utilisés comme éléments heuristiques pour permettre la compréhension de la valeur et des contributions ainsi que les aspects dysfonctionnels des quatre domaines. Chaque domaine est caractérisé par ses compétences uniques et ses possibilités d’innovation. Ce modèle Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education Vol. 33, No. 1, Spring 2007 pp. 61–82 Continuing Education Leadership Matrix: A Model for Practitioners in Higher Education Peter Moroney, University of British Columbia


INTRODUCTION
Institutions of higher learning have largely come to embrace the value of continuing education.What they have not adequately understood, however, is its complexity and, specifically, the nature of its practice.In the complex world of continuing education, reductionist ideas about its role only serve to obscure the true value and dynamism of an effective continuing education unit and the diversity of roles in which continuing education practitioners serve.At the institutional level, simplistic or ideologically driven assumptions can serve to undermine the support and understanding required by institutional colleagues to maintain and enhance a vibrant unit.In the worst instances, this can lead to misunderstanding and mistrust among peers, a splintering of units, ill-advised reorganizations, closure of programs, and all manner of dysfunction.To some extent, it would be easy and justifiable to argue that continuing education practice is what a practitioner does-but the enigmatic element would remain.
Leadership and management of a continuing education organization require some sense of directed activity and a vision toward which that activity is directed.This presumes an understanding of the elements of continuing education practice and some concept of how the elements come together to achieve given ends.Yukl and Lepsinger (2004) pointed to the importance of "systems thinking" (pp. 230-231) as an essential element of good leadership.Specifically, they pointed to the need for managers at all levels to understand "how the different parts of the organization are interrelated" (p.231).
The CE Leadership Matrix model that is presented in this article offers a framework for understanding the interrelated and integrated nature of the continuing education organization.It is intended for the very practical purpose of assisting individuals and organizations to reconcile the imbalances and tensions that are inherent to such a diverse field of practice.The model can be utilized by all levels of continuing education leadership, from frontline managers to senior institutional leaders, as a tool for everyday practice, personal development, performance management, strategic management, and organizational planning.peut s'appliquer individuellement et de façon organisationnelle, et il offre des perspectives sur des moyens pour mieux intégrer et utiliser la pratique de l'ÉP.

AN UNEASY MARRIAGE
The literature is replete with attempts to articulate a central vision of continuing education to guide its leaders and practitioners and to define the nature of its practice.Some of these urge more scholarship (Thompson, 1996;Thompson & Wagner, 1994), some urge greater innovation (Archer, Garrison, & Anderson, 1999), and some call for better management and administration (Shoemaker, 1998;Simerly, 1987;Stern, 1992).Yet another large component of that literature reads as advocacy for the humanistic impetus of continuing education (Cram & Morrison, 2005;Cruikshank, 1994;Cunningham, 1988Cunningham, , 1992;;Selman, 1985;Wilson & Cervero, 2001).In reality, as much as social development is a compelling virtue, it has not been embraced as a sufficient rationale by institutions of higher learning.Continuing education units are subject to the same economic realities of their parent institutions and are sometimes-mistakenly, as many practitioners argue-conceived of as a partial remedy to those problems (Brooke & Waldron, 1994;Cruikshank, 1994).This is the context in which continuing higher education has evolved; it is no surprise that continuing education practice has evolved in response.Elias and Merriam (1980) succeeded in establishing the most definitive categorization of the philosophical approaches to adult and continuing education.The idea that continuing education practice can be differentiated on the basis of philosophical and pedagogical approaches is very helpful at the highest level but difficult to relate to everyday leadership and management practices.Almost 15 years later, Waldron (1994) wrote that "as a subset of a larger management system, continuing education units have seemed to develop in a random fashion with a variety of organizational structures, a wide spectrum of roles and a general feeling of unfocused bureaucracy" (p.85).Waldron went on to propose a "matrix of models" (p.92), which is useful in categorizing and differentiating continuing education organizations based on a number of criteria.This classification of models looks at more than just philosophical differences: it looks at differences in the way units operate.What it lacks is a principle by which aspects of the models can be integrated and, more importantly, a principle for change management.In a sense, each model affirms its own pre-established values and systems in contrast to the other models, and Waldron himself commented on the likelihood that models might "collide" (p.95) with one another.It is a credit to Waldron's classification scheme that it does seem to reflect the reality in many continuing education units and in the world of continuing education in general.Interestingly, Waldron concluded by alluding to the ultimate goal of having one model that would apply across all of continuing education-"one great model" (p.95), as he called it.
The idea that there are different ways of conceiving the mission and purpose of continuing education serves to remind us that each model has ideological biases.The leadership model presented in this article is no exception.It is grounded in a specific understanding of the challenges that have been faced by continuing education units within higher education over the past 20 to 25 years: that is, continuing education, for better or for worse, has been, and is, operating within an environment that demands increasing operational efficiencies, employer-driven curricula, client-oriented policies, competitive strategies, and, sometimes, profit maximization.It does not have to be this way, but for the most part, it is.As Garrison (2001) warned, "If they are to survive, [continuing studies] units must attend to institutional goals, serve community needs, and at the same time be entrepreneurial and adopt sound business principles" (p.80).This view is consistent with McNay's (1995) description of an emerging "enterprise culture" within academia.In this context, it is essential that practitioners and those with senior-level oversight of continuing education units do not lose sight of the important traditions and past and current innovations that have arisen from the social and community activists within the continuing education ranks.These colleagues are the collective conscience of the profession, reminding others that a profitmaximization model will leave it bereft of the integrity and values that its constituencies have come to expect of it.
The CE Leadership Matrix is based on the premise that continuing education units in higher education are uneasy marriages of different philosophies, different aptitudes, and different knowledge and skills, and it attempts to find a place for each of them.At the core of this model is a respect for the diversity of skills, knowledge, and aptitudes needed for a successful and vibrant continuing education unit.

THE CONCEPT OF THE CONTINUING EDUCATION PRACTITIONER
Even after so many earnest attempts to define the purpose, mission, and value of continuing education within higher learning, its body of practice remains largely an enigma to those within and outside the field.To better appreciate the need for a model that helps define and unify the roles of those who work in continuing education units, it is useful to understand the eclectic nature of continuing education staffing.There is no clearly identifiable career track.It is common practice in continuing higher education to hire individuals with academic or professional qualifications in the program area, with only secondary consideration given to other qualifications for adult and continuing education (Thompson & Wagner, 1994).As a result, most continuing education programmers enter the field "via assorted and roundabout routes" (Percival, 1993, p. 1).
If this is true of those involved in programming roles, it is even truer of those with other roles in continuing education.Whether working as a program coordinator, an instructor, a marketer, an office manager, or a systems administrator, little overlap in terms of aptitude, experience, and training is likely.This echoes Boshier's (1988) finding that for those in leadership and management positions within the field, continuing education was often secondary to their main professional interests.
Most contemporary literature on continuing higher education either makes the assumption that the work of continuing education is really synonymous with that of the educational programmer (Boshier, 1988;Offerman, 1987;Percival, 1993) or makes the further assumption that the role of the educational programmer is synonymous with that of "adult educator" (Boshier, 1988;Mael, 2000;Percival, 1993;Thompson & Wagner, 1994).There are also ample references to a myriad of competencies that are expected of these people.Many of these references cite knowledge and skills that cannot be considered exclusive to the domain of the educational programmer or adult educator, for example, marketing, finance and budgeting, strategic planning, and public relations, among many others.In a very exhaustive inventory of knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected of educational programmers, the Province of British Columbia, through its Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, commissioned a manual entitled Handbook for Continuing Education Programmers (Chan, 1994).The handbook identified the broad "content" areas of community relations, management skills, communication skills, program planning and development, and leadership and development.A combined 36 "indicators of competence" were identified within these content areas, in addition to literally hundreds of required knowledge, skills, and attitudes, ranging from managing advisory committees to facility planning, budgeting, curriculum development, marketing, entrepreneurship, and advocacy.If not exhaustive, the handbook certainly depicted a role that is potentially exhausting, but surprisingly, this inventory did not include the scholarship competencies often associated with university-level educational programmers.Although the handbook remains a well-recommended resource, its attempt to stretch the role of the educational programmer into an all-encompassing role only serves to obscure the reality that it is not practical to expect an individual to possess all of these competencies.Moreover, it belies the fact that many of these functions are actually performed by those in a continuing education unit who do not fit neatly into the conventional definition of "educational programmer."It creates unrealistic expectations whereby the role of the programmer becomes the catchall for those functions that do not simply go away when continuing education operations are decentralized or when positions are eliminated.In short, this "one-size-fitsall" concept of the programmer undermines any rationale for the existence of a well-integrated, multifunctional continuing education unit.
The CE Leadership Matrix model challenges the traditional notion that the practice of an adult educator is synonymous with that of a continuing education programmer (Percival, 1993).As used here, the term "continuing education practitioner" is a deliberate attempt to break away from the conventional definition of educational programmer.The practitioner's role is divided into its constituent parts and is expanded to better encompass the full range of professionals who work within the continuing education enterprise.

LEADERSHIP AND EXCELLENCE
The concept of "leadership" is an essential underpinning of the CE Leadership Matrix, as its name indicates, and the model encompasses both individual and collective notions of leadership.Just as any one individual may be a leader and demonstrate leadership, so, too, may a project team, a department, a faculty, or an entire university.In contemporary usage, "to be a leader" and "to show leadership" are synonymous with positive and admirable traits and skills.This is because the concept of leadership has developed a useful ambiguity: we now distinguish "leadership" not only as personal qualities or organizational and business strategies but also as achievement, advancement, or innovation.Thus, for an accomplished medical researcher, we might say, "She's a real leader in her field," and for a continuing education unit championing programs for the poor, "Their unit is the leader in socially relevant programming."To pursue and/or achieve excellence in any component of practice can be thought of as a form of leadership, whether undertaken by an individual or by a group of individuals.This is consistent with Yukl's (1994) view of effective leadership as "a group or organizational process that contributes to the overall effectiveness of a group or organization" (p.8).
According to Shoemaker (1998), "leadership includes creating a vision and developing strategies to accomplish the vision, in addition to the management tasks of planning, implementing, operating, and evaluating" (p.25).Although there are valid reasons for maintaining a distinction between the respective concepts of "leadership" and "management," the CE Leadership Matrix blends the distinctions while supporting the necessity of both (Apps, 1994;Bennis, 2003).As such, the model should be useful for dealing not only with traditional management issues of means and implementation but also with traditional leadership issues of vision and purpose (Covey, 1989).

Purpose
The model is intended to be both explanatory and transformative.As an explanatory model, it serves as an overall frame of reference and provides common language and terminology.Although it helps us move beyond simplistic dichotomies, it does not reject them altogether.Rather, it attempts to place the dichotomies and archetypes within a more complex understanding of how continuing education units operate, and it differentiates the essential roles of continuing education practitioners.As a heuristic model, it is not intended to be static and rigorously quantifiable.
In its transformative capacity, the model is intended to encourage discussion and debate on virtually every aspect of continuing education practice.For example, it might cause continuing education units or individual practitioners to ask questions such as, What specific core skills are required by continuing educators?Is my unit involved in innovative practices?What is the philosophical orientation of our leadership?In this capacity, the model also serves as a guide to growth and development, both at the individual and organizational levels.
The model introduces a number of archetypes, even though a certain level of discomfort is found in using archetypes that could be viewed as stereotypes-and harmful ones at that.However, the model addresses this issue directly by exposing some of these stereotypical traits as deliberate caricatures.There are two other reasons for this approach: first, to help continuing education practitioners reflect on their personal and organizational shortcomings in a less threatening way; second, to help them appreciate the inadequacy of their current one-dimensional characterizations of colleagues, departments, or entire units.
The model should not be construed as being overtly prescriptive; it has no inherent imperatives.Continuing education organizations are simply too diverse in their mandates and personnel profiles for a generic solution that purports to create the optimal continuing education unit.However, any astute practitioner will immediately recognize that the everyday work of a continuing education unit is dependent on significant contributions from each of the domains.Beginning with that assumption is more than enough to make the model immediately useful.For example, individual practitioners might reflect on their personal strengths and where they could bring innovation to their organization, while continuing education organizations might ponder in which areas they lack sufficient expertise and how they might reorganize accordingly.

Adult Education
Learning process and community

Administrative
Organization and systems In presenting the model to colleagues, the question of "lopsidedness" has come up consistently.For example, they have asked, "Is it true that some CE units will overemphasize some domains?"The answer is yes, but one does not need the model to make that point-it is just common sense.
The model is helpful, however, in framing a discussion about where emphasis should be placed and then determining just where a unit is putting too much, or too little, emphasis.In some cases, applying metrics to the model may be useful, but this should be done with great care.For example, using staffing counts as a measure of domain expertise may not make sense since some important functions may be served without ongoing staff positions.As another example, a continuing education unit that makes extensive use of academic advisory committees and contract instructors may function well in the academic quadrant despite a relatively high proportion of staff in the administrative quadrant.

Domains of Practice and Their Archetypes
The CE Leadership Matrix model is represented by four separate quadrants, organized around two separate axes (Figure 1).Each quadrant represents a domain of practice within continuing education.The domains of practice are organized around four broad, overlapping leadership orientations (Figure 2).Each domain of practice is correlated with one of four archetypes: the academic, the entrepreneur, the administrator, or the adult educator.These archetypes are probably the most readily identifiable aspects of the model, and the inherent risk is that they will become one-dimensional stereotypes and, worse yet, definitive labels to be applied to continuing education practitioners.It cannot be stressed enough that, although these archetypes fulfill a very helpful role as a heuristic device, they should not be mistaken as categorical absolutes.Just as all organizations can be viewed as a blend of the domains of practice, so, too, will individuals resemble a blend of the archetypes-more like some than others but never one dimensional.
An overview of the archetypes provides a clearer distinction of how the terms are being used in the context of the model: • The Academic is characterized by an interest and expertise in the subject matter, undertakes research and writing, provides instruction, develops program content, oversees the curriculum and academic standards, and offers academic counselling.
• The Entrepreneur is characterized by an interest and expertise in developing and promoting products for the marketplace, proposes program concepts, determines market suitability, generates revenue, develops communications strategies, and runs promotional campaigns.
• The Administrator is characterized by an interest and expertise in developing and maintaining systems and workflow processes to support the delivery of programs, implements policies and procedures, streamlines information flow, and maintains cost controls.
• The Adult Educator is characterized by an interest and expertise in the process of teaching and learning for adults, structures the curriculum to optimize learning, works with instructors to improve teaching, builds linkages with external communities, and focuses on the quality of the learning experience.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for practitioners comes with the concept that the adult educator archetype can be clearly separated from the other archetypes.As stated earlier, this model departs from the traditional notion that the practice of an adult educator is synonymous with that of a continuing education programmer.For advocates of good adult education practice, this should be a welcome step.By stripping away elements of practice from the continuing education programmer that more rightly belong in other domains, it becomes much easier to see the core value of the adult educator.That said, what has been missing is a common conceptual framework that brings these domains of practice together in a way that reflects the realworld experience of continuing education practitioners.
Table 1 identifies the primary processes and key activities that correspond to each of the domains.The primary process offers a high-level perspective on the practice orientation of each domain, while the key activities are the main modus operandi of the respective domains.Note that "learning facilitation" as the primary process for the adult educator is not to be confused with the facilitation of classroom learning.It implies a higher level of facilitation between the learning providers (e.g., instructors), curriculum or learning content, and students or participants.It may even imply a form of facilitation between the various domains that is focused on advancing learning opportunities or the learning process itself.

Adult Educator learning facilitation program planning and facilitation
Each domain is also characterized by a primary orientation, primary measures, and a primary stakeholder orientation (Table 2).The primary orientation identifies the fundamental subject of focus for each domain-its "core business," so to speak.The primary measures distinguish between each domain's highest-level valuation criteria and reveal some striking differences.The primary stakeholder orientation identifies the groups that each domain is most compelled and qualified to serve.

Contributions to the CE Enterprise
The model also helps conceptualize the primary and secondary contributions that each domain of practice makes to the continuing education unit (Table 3).Consistent with the overlapping leadership orientations of Figure 2, each domain shares two overlapping areas of contribution, as illustrated by Figure 3.It is important to remember that each domain also has multiple areas of overlap with bodies of practice outside of continuing higher education, for example, with academic specializations, accounting, mediated learning, project management, and marketing and sales.Linkages with external bodies of practice are beneficial in facilitating the integration of best practices from other professional disciplines into the management of continuing education.However, these same linkages may hinder the ability of continuing education practitioners to understand the relationship of their domains of practice to that of their immediate colleagues in the continuing education enterprise.Worse yet, it may cause them to become dismissive of other domains of continuing education practice; for example, the accountant who has nothing but scorn for his colleagues who continually run deficits on community service programs would probably be more at home in an accounting firm than in a continuing education unit.

Figure 3: Overlapping areas of contribution
The model provides a surprising perspective on the curriculum design process, normally thought to be the exclusive domain of adult educators and academics.It clearly reveals that each domain has a unique curriculum design orientation, the "filter" through which curriculum design issues are vetted in their domain.Consequently, each domain has unique curriculum end goals, which can be thought of as the ultimate outcome toward which a curriculum is directed.It is easy to see that without an understanding or appreciation of the domains of practice and their contributions, continuing education program development can be a turbulent affair.The CE Leadership Matrix offers a framework for managing the curriculum design process and other processes within continuing education in a way that incorporates the expectations and contributions of each domain of practice (Table 4).

Function and Dysfunction
In the context of previous disclaimers regarding the use of archetypes, archetypes can be particularly helpful in understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective domains of practice.Tables 5 and 6 illustrate this by offering a correlation between the domains of practice, their corresponding archetypes, and commonly perceived caricatures.
One of the model's more intriguing implications is its usefulness for assessing and managing organizational dysfunction.In the model, dysfunction exists when negative aspects of the domains of practice are present to such an extent that they are perceived to undermine the overall organization or any of its subunits.Dysfunction can exist within an organization or its subunits due to (1) deficiencies in one or more of the domains, (2) excesses in one or more of the domains, (3) negative contributions from one or more of the domains, or (4) failure to value and incorporate contributions from one or more of the domains.
Although the model also provides an objective backdrop for uncovering and resolving dysfunction coming from specific individuals, this must be done with care.By their nature, interpretations of what constitutes organizational dysfunction are rarely arrived at by consensus.Individuals who contribute to the dysfunction do not see it as such-the overzealous administrator never sees himself as an "inflexible bureaucrat"; the aggressive salesperson never sees herself as a "huckster"; the perpetually quibbling academic never sees himself as an "impractical ideologue"; the adult educator who gives passing grades to all students regardless of competency never sees herself as an "indulgent flake."In this context, it would be prudent to restrict the use of the model to that of a discussion guide.Applying a model that has not yet been widely validated to individual employment situations may have potentially serious implications.

Leadership and Management Competencies
Perhaps the model's most important and useful aspect is as a tool for helping to conceptualize, organize, and prioritize leadership and management competencies.The model assumes that any continuing education organization has basic competency requirements-the foundational skill sets normally required of any professional worker in any organization.Among others, they include written and oral communication skills, knowledge of office computer technologies, basic research skills, report-writing skills, knowledge of basic budgeting, tact and diplomacy, basic supervisory skills, customer/client service skills, basic project management skills, problem-solving skills, and negotiation abilities.The model assigns very specific continuing education management and leadership competencies to each domain of practice (see Figure 4 and Table 7), competencies that are expected of practitioners who work in those domains.However, they are also part of the full range of competencies normally expected of a continuing education organization and as such can be considered "core competencies."The model helps us understand that the

Areas of Innovation
The leadership matrix model adopts the assumption, shared with Offerman (1987), that innovation is an essential aspect of continuing education.Unlike Waldron's (1994) application of Mintzberg's concept of the "innovative" organization to continuing education, this model incorporates innovation less as an organizing principle and more as an essential practice required by all levels of an organization.Innovation is not part of an optional or alternative model; it is inherent to any viable model of continuing education.As Garrison (2001) aptly wrote: The process of incubating new technologies and programs and of manifesting transformational leadership will ensure the relevance and viability of [continuing studies] in the future, but doing so does not mean abandoning core values and sustaining activities.Rather it involves strategically identifying new needs and markets relevant to the community as a whole.(p.84) The model identifies areas of current innovation that are specific to each domain of practice (Figure 5).However, this is not to be considered a complete or definitive list of innovative practices, but rather an illustration of the wide range of possibilities across the domains of practice.For the purposes of this model, the term "innovation" carries several meanings.In one sense, it describes practices that are widely championed by leading continuing education practitioners and institutions and are viewed to be part of the specialized domain of continuing education; these include on-line learning technologies, learner-centred curricula, and workplace learning.In another sense, the term describes progressive practices that are taking place in other industries or domains and their application to continuing education practice; examples of these are Total Quality Management, eBusiness, and Balanced Scorecard.In a third sense, innovation describes any area in which the continuing education organization or practitioner has an ongoing role in generating new ideas, expanding areas of practice, or developing new professional practices; this can include such activities as academic research and publishing and creative business development.

Areas of Innovation
Although the model proposes areas of innovation in the context of current continuing education practices, by definition, individuals should continu-ously reassess what constitutes innovation within their own practice and organizations should constantly define their collective goals and expectations in terms of innovative practices.At a minimum, the CE Leadership Matrix model provides a framework for that process.

Applications of the Model
Early versions of the leadership matrix model have been applied in professional development workshops to help participants identify organizational strengths and weaknesses, as well as areas of potential personal and organizational growth.Table 8 shows some of the possible ways in which the model might be applied in any continuing education organization.Perhaps the model's most interesting application lies in reconciling the roles of those within the field whose contributions are considered to be extraneous to the continuing education unit.This can include staff in accounting and finance, marketing, IT support, office administration, and any other services that are not unique to continuing education.The model provides a great level of parity to those in a continuing education organization whose roles have not been viewed as "essential."However, along with this comes an implicit understanding that these professionals may be called upon not only to better understand or support other domains of practice but also to contribute to them.There is no reason why an accounting professional in a continuing education unit cannot assist in the development of accounting-related programs; that an IT support person cannot help implement new learning technologies; that a human resources instructor cannot contribute to improving a unit's hiring processes.Likewise, the model implies that those practitioners who have been comfortable with their role as "educational programmer" or "adult educator" may need to consider expanding their domain of practice or pursuing new areas of innovation.In this regard, there is no reason why a program developer cannot undertake academic research or become proficient at Internet marketing.Again, the model is not prescriptive in this regard, but it does reveal opportunities for individual and organizational growth and development-whether in terms of core competencies, areas of innovation, or expanded domains of practice.

CONCLUSION
The CE Leadership Matrix is the first conceptual framework of its kind that attempts to make sense of the complex world of continuing education in higher education.By demarcating the domains of continuing education practice and their respective archetypes, the model serves as a foundation to better understand and improve upon the nature of practice.Implicit in the model is the recognition of the diversity of skills, knowledge, and aptitudes that contribute to a vibrant continuing education unit.Moreover, at both the personal and the organizational levels, the model serves as a guide to development and innovation and should be useful to new and long-time practitioners, as well as to senior leadership from outside the profession who find themselves overseeing a continuing education unit.Opportunities exist to refine and expand the model and to formalize its application in some of the areas suggested.
Perhaps the most radical implication of the model concerns the relative role of those whose work has not traditionally been seen as essential to continuing education practice: this includes administrative, marketing, finance, and IT staff, among others.The model reveals opportunities for leaders and managers in these areas to assert themselves in new ways throughout the organization.Significant professional growth and development on their part will be required to understand how their practices merge and blend with other domains and to establish their credibility in those domains.For senior leadership, the model serves as a guide to integrating continuing education's diverse domains of practice, developing untapped potential, and promoting innovative practices.

Figure 5 :
Figure 5: Areas of innovation

Table 2 :
Primary Orientation, Measures, and Stakeholders

Table 3 :
Primary and Secondary Contributions to the CE Unit

Table 4 :
Orientation to Curriculum

Table 7 :
CE-specific Leadership and Management Competencies

Table 8 :
Potential Applications for the Model