Building Programs: A Framework for Ethical Leadership in Higher Education

At community colleges, we are constantly developing and evaluating programs: new student success initiatives, faculty development workshops, instructional design frameworks, and cross-departmental partnerships like career services task forces. These programs shape the experiences of all stakeholders. Developing programs well is not just about hitting deadlines or checking boxes for compliance. It's about doing right by the people the program is meant to serve. As Director for the Center for Teaching & Learning, I've come to believe that ethical program development requires just as much intentional structure as the program design itself.

That's why I built a simple template that pairs the four standard phases of program development, Preplanning & Needs Assessment, Design, Implementation, and Evaluation, with reflective questions grounded in values-based, authentic, and ethical leadership (Bowman & Swanwick, 2017), critical systems heuristics (Gates et al., 2023), and moral leadership in the pursuit of equity and social accountability (Anawati & Verma, 2021). Each phase closes with a concrete process, procedure, and policy. This ensures ethical reflection becomes a standing practice rather than a one-and-done exercise.

Preplanning & Needs Assessment

This phase starts by asking whose needs we're actually assessing and who is affected but not yet at the table. Bowman and Swanwick (2017) reminded us that values are the touchstone leaders return to when the way forward is uncertain. The programmatic need must be grounded in explicit personal and organizational values, not just institutional data. The process here is a structured values-and-needs review with staff and community representatives before any needs statement is finalized. The procedure documents who was consulted, who was invited but unable to participate, and what data informed the need. The policy is simple: no need is final without input from those it's meant to serve.

Design

Design asks us to name our program's purpose, beneficiaries, and definition of success. We must also be honest about whose definition got left out. Gates et al. (2023) described purpose, beneficiary, and success as boundary judgments rather than neutral facts, which means leaders must name the definition they intend to use. Design also asks whether our choices are quietly drifting from our stated values for the sake of speed. The process requires a review naming purpose, beneficiaries, and decision-makers before finalizing. The procedure records the rationale behind major decisions. The policy holds that design will not proceed against stated values without documented justification.

Implementation

Implementation is where values are tested in real time. Are we modeling the behavior we're asking of others (leading by example)? Have we included our targeted audience as co-creators, or will they simply receive a top-down program? Anawati and Verma (2021) argued that meaningful engagement must move beyond simply informing people of decisions, toward genuine collaboration and shared power over the work itself. The process establishes recurring check-ins. This means staff and participants have a standing channel to raise concerns. The procedure logs those concerns and our responses. The policy clarifies that commitments made during rollout are binding.

Evaluation

Evaluation closes the loop by asking whether our definition of success captures real value or just what's easy to show on a spreadsheet. Gates et al. (2023) cautioned that legitimacy comes from centering the perspective of those most affected, not solely from the judgment of those who designed or funded the program. Evaluation also asks whether we're prepared to be honest about what didn't work. The process centers those most affected in defining evaluation criteria, not just supplying data for them. The procedure produces a written account of both successes and shortfalls. The policy requires that results be reported in full, without suppression or reframing.

Across all four phases, the throughline is the same. Ethical leadership isn't a mindset we hold quietly. It's a set of practices we build into our institutions. Values, power, and legitimacy have to be examined at every stage, not just invoked at the end when and if something goes wrong.

If you're developing or evaluating a program at your institution, I'd encourage you to borrow this template. Pair it with your existing planning documents, revisit it as your program evolves, and use it to keep your team honest about the questions that are easy to skip when timelines get tight. Programs built this way may not just work better. They may earn the trust of the people they're meant to serve.