C&RL News May 2020 232

Acommon challenge for administrative leaders in academic libraries is that we 
often have few peers within our organizations, 
and those that we do have may not be able to 
provide the dispassionate, unbiased feedback 
we need. The authors of this article, library 
leaders from across the United States and 
Canada, formed a virtual cohort for peer leader 
support and have found it to be transformative 
in approaching leadership challenges at our 
home institutions. 

Our group met at the Harvard Leadership 
Institute for Academic Librarians (LIAL) in 
summer 2018. The LIAL program uses small 
group activities to help participants solve sig-
nificant challenges using the four frames of 
higher education leadership identified in Lee 
G. Bolman and Joan V. Gallos’s Reframing 
Academic Leadership.1 Following the program, 
our group formed virtually, through video 
calls, with the goal of continuing the process 
of sharing case studies for feedback. In this 
article, we share our experience so that other 
library leaders may form their own virtual 
peer groups.

A model for long-distance support and 
collaboration 
To meet our groups’ objectives we met five 
times, roughly every six weeks, from Novem-
ber 2018 to May 2019. Prior to each meeting, 
group members wrote a case study about an 
issue or problem they were having at work. 
Case studies were usually one-to-two pages 
and focused primarily on middle manage-
ment issues, such as personnel, organization-

al change, reorganization, strategic planning, 
space renovation, and project management. 
Cases were emailed to the group and read 
prior to the meeting. In addition to reading 
other members’ case studies through the lens 
of our own experience, we also incorporated 
the knowledge of the four frames of lead-
ership we learned while at LIAL to help us 
comment and aid our colleagues. 

The four frames of leadership include the 
structural frame, which emphasizes formal 
roles, relationships, and hierarchies; the po-
litical frame, which focuses on power and 
resource allocation; the human resource 
frame, which focuses on people and their 
satisfaction, motivation, etc.; and the sym-
bolic frame, which builds shared meaning, 
rituals, values, and vision.2 Each member of 
the cohort had a particular strength in one 

Amy Tureen, Erick Lemon, Joyce Martin, Starr Hoffman, Mindy Thuna, and Willie Miller

Virtual cohorts 
Peer support and problem-solving at a distance 

Amy Tureen is head of the Library Liaison Program at 
the University of Nevada Las Vegas University Libraries, 
email: amy.tureen@unlv.edu, Erick Lemon is director 
of Digital Strategies and Innovation at the Medical 
University of South Carolina Libraries, email: lemone@
musc.edu, Joyce Martin is social science division head 
at the Arizona State University Library, email: joyce.
martin@asu.edu, Starr Hoffman is director of planning 
and assessment at the University of Nevada Las Vegas 
University Libraries, email: starr.hoffman@unlv.edu, 
Mindy Thuna is interim associate chief librarian for 
science and research information and head of the 
Engineering and Computer Science Library at the 
University of Toronto Libraries, email: mindy.thuna@
utoronto.ca, and Willie Miller is associate dean for 
communication and technology at IUPUI University 
Library, email: wmmiller@iupui.edu

© 2020 Amy Tureen, Erick Lemon, Joyce Martin, Starr Hoffman,  
Mindy Thuna, and  Willie Miller

mailto:amy.tureen%40unlv.edu?subject=
mailto:lemone%40musc.edu?subject=
mailto:lemone%40musc.edu?subject=
mailto:joyce.martin%40asu.edu?subject=
mailto:joyce.martin%40asu.edu?subject=
mailto:starr.hoffman%40unlv.edu?subject=
mailto:mindy.thuna%40utoronto.ca?subject=
mailto:mindy.thuna%40utoronto.ca?subject=
mailto:wmmiller%40iupui.edu?subject=


May 2020 233 C&RL News

or two of these leadership frames, but none 
of the cohort members were experts in all 
four frames. Looking at an issue through a 
nondominant frame often provided additional 
potential solutions or positive ways forward 
that we might not have thought of on our 
own, leading to an enhanced appreciation of 
different perspectives. 

During our meetings each group member 
would briefly present a summary of their case 
study and then open the floor for discussion. A 
moderator ensured all who wanted to partici-
pate in the discussion could do so. Our group 
members wrote and discussed approximately 
30 case studies, allowing us to gain a stronger 
understanding of the four frames of leader-
ship, get a chance to know each other better 
professionally and personally, and benefit 
from each other’s professional experience. 

Challenges, barriers, and virtual 
cohorts
By far the most challenging aspect of both 
managing and participating in the cohort was 
time. Identifying an available time quickly 
became a process of schedule-by-winnowing 
as facilitated by the free Doodle polling prod-
uct. Using a custom Doodle poll, users indi-
cated which date and time blocks matched 
their availability. A single group member was 
then tasked with identifying the meeting time 
most suitable to the majority of the cohort 
and sending calendar invitations. 

Time limitations also proved challenging 
for individual cohort members in advance of 
each virtual meetup. In addition to carving out 
time for the meeting itself, all six participants 
had to dedicate time to both writing their 
own case study and reading the case studies 
of others. Anecdotal evidence indicated that 
while increased confidence in both writing 
case studies and applying the frames led, 
generally, to shorter writing periods, early 
case study writing periods took a significant 
and unexpected amount of time to complete. 
Individuals starting a cohort that includes a 
prewriting component would do well to be 
as honest and transparent as possible about 
the likely time commitment. 

During our one-year process review, these 
time concerns resulted in some significant 
changes to the meeting structure and schedule 
for 2019-20. Meetings were reduced from 90 
minutes to 60 minutes, and the group transi-
tioned to a standing monthly meeting. The 
same review determined that requiring all 
members to submit a case a week in advance 
sometimes caused frustration as members 
might not have a pressing issue to present, 
their pressing issue might have been resolved 
in the week between submitting their case and 
the group meeting, or a more pressing issue 
not captured in a case study might arise dur-
ing the same interim week. To address these 
issues, our group shifted to a model where 
only one-to-two case studies were presented 
each week, and more space was made avail-
able for members to discuss issues that had 
recently arisen. 

Successes and reflections 
The cohort members took a pre- and post-
year survey to determine our goals for the 
group and judge our achievement of them. 
The two goals most commonly selected as 
the top two priorities were “enhance re-
lationships with my colleagues in the LIAL 
program to broaden my peer network” and 
“broaden my knowledge of common lead-
ership experiences and problems and how 
to approach them.”3 After the first year of 
the cohort, three participants indicated that 
these goals were fully realized, and three in-
dicated that they were mostly realized. There 
is further evidence of fulfilling the peer rela-
tionships goal, as nearly all participants re-
ported increasing their familiarity with nearly 
all other participants by at least a factor of 
one, and that at the conclusion of the study 
there was at least one other participant who 
they did not know previously but to whom 
they would now reach out to with a prob-
lem or concern. Participants indicated that 
this process was most successful at achieving 
the objectives of “exploring different types 
of problem-solving choices” and “identifying 
partners for future scholarship projects.” The 
data also shows that all participants increased 



C&RL News May 2020 234

their comfort level using at least one of the 
leadership frames, and most participants (60%) 
increased their skills in at least two frames. 

Qualitative data in the form of individual 
personal reflections also indicated partici-
pants regarded their time within the cohort as 
both beneficial and valuable. Each member 
of the cohort provided a summary statement 
of their experiences:

This experience has been so valuable 
as a sounding board that provides 
multiple perspectives and potential 
solutions, as well as validation that 
leadership is tough! It’s helpful to 
reach out to people at similar levels 
with similar problems, but at different 
institutions--it’s not only validating, 
but I feel I can speak more freely 
about my situation than I can with 
others at my own institution.

I am now a true believer in the value 
of virtual cohorts! Not only did partici-
pating in the cohort help me establish 
a collection of trusted colleagues, 
friends, and “sounding boards,” it also 
provided me with far more opportu-
nities to use both the four frames and 
the case study model than I suspect 
I otherwise would have. Now when 
I’m facing a thorny situation, I auto-
matically begin to write a case study 
about it for my own review. The pro-
cess helps me ensure I am reacting to 
what the situation is, rather than what 
the situation feels like to me given 
my own biases of perspective and 
dominant frames.

The knowledge that there are people 
who will listen and offer sound ad-
vice but are removed from the day-to-
day environment has been invaluable. 
It also makes management a little 
less lonely because there are a group 
of like-minded people to commiser-

ate with me and offer advice (or just 
listen—always a wonderful thing).

Hearing fresh perspectives from 
amazing professionals has been so 
valuable to me, and I feel honored 
to be included in this group. Our 
virtual cohort has been an important 
source of professional support for me 
this year, and our case study model 
has helped me internalize the four 
frames of leadership as a method of 
problem-solving.

Using virtual cohorts has been a valu-
able method of self-reflection. The 
objective opinions and feedback of-
fered allow participants’ constructive 
evaluation from other leaders with 
invaluable perspectives. This offering 
of solutions from individuals versed 
in the four frames has helped me to 
consider solutions I may have not 
considered with my leadership style. 
This has also helped me to consider 
new solutions when approaching 
new challenges that arise.

The virtual cohort has given me the 
space to ask questions that I would 
feel uncomfortable asking in my 
organization. Even though I work in 
a very supportive library, I appreci-
ate the ability to be vulnerable with 
colleagues that I do not work with 
every day.

Tips for developing a virtual cohort 
When developing a virtual cohort, there are 
four broad categories of consideration: co-
hort membership, intent of cohort, meeting 
structure, and technology.

Cohort membership
Most cohorts can be managed by a single 



May 2020 235 C&RL News

organizer, although a co-organizer becomes 
invaluable in times of illness or extended 
absence. The most effective virtual cohort 
groups are small, between five-and-eight 
people. It is beneficial to ensure that group 
members share a similar experience (such 
as attending the same themed conference or 
training), have a similar scope of responsi-
bility (such as “supervisors” or “department 
heads”), or hold a common professional role 
(such as professional in an academic library). 
Shared values or broadly defined common 
experiences help discussions remain relevant 
and helpful. If you are organizing your cohort 
around a multipronged competency, such as 
Bolman and Galloss frames, you might wish 
to ensure your group membership is bal-
anced. Do this by selecting members who do 
not have all of the same strengths and weak-
nesses to avoid both an echo chamber effect 
and to ensure that all members can coach 
and be coached by other members.

Intent of cohort
Establishing a mutually agreed upon inten-
tion for the cohort is vital to avoid focus drift, 
particularly over long periods of time. Con-
sider grounding sessions in a common theo-
ry, philosophical approach, or other shared 
readings. If you have several goals, it might 
be helpful to prioritize which goals matter 
the most. 

Meeting structure 
Meeting structures can vary widely, and the 
structure should be reviewed regularly. When 
deciding your meeting structure, consider 
which matters more: depth of discussion or 
speaking time equity. If prioritizing depth of 
discussion, you may wish to consider reduc-
ing the number of presenters or discussion 
leaders per session. When prioritizing speak-
ing time equity, it is recommended that you 
establish a designated amount of time for 
each member to speak and make use of a 
timer to ensure time quotas are met. Both 
prioritization schemes benefit significantly 
from scheduling all meetings, discussion due 
dates, and order of speakers well in advance.

Technology
Advances in technology have made estab-
lishing and maintaining a virtual cohort 
very easy, largely due to the wide variety 
of platform agnostic no-cost video chat 
options available, such as Google Hang-
outs, Skype, ooVoo, Viber, and Facebook. 
The increasing number of higher educa-
tion institutions adopting campus licenses 
of video chat software further expands 
the options for virtual cohorts, as most 
enterprise-level video chat products (such 
as AdobeConnect, Zoom, or WebEx) re-
quire only the host to hold a current li-
cense. 

Conclusion
As our reflections indicate, this group 
found value in the virtual cohort both for 
gaining multiple perspectives on issues, 
and for a safe, confidential space outside 
our own organizations. This was a par-
ticularly helpful experience for growing 
relationships formed during LIAL, prac-
ticing the case study method, and gain-
ing more experience using the leadership 
frames. All six authors strongly advocate 
for the development and proliferation of 
virtual cohorts for leaders as an opportu-
nity to grow and develop within the con-
fines of a supportive and informed peer 
group. We further recommend the use of 
virtual cohorts as a way to extend the im-
pact of transformational training and de-
velopment opportunities.

Notes
1. Lee G. Bolman and Joan V. Gallos, 

Reframing Academic Leadership, The Jossey-
Bass Higher and Adult Education Series (San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011).

2. Ibid.
3. Amy E. Tureen, Erick Lemon, Joyce Mar-

tin, Starr Hoffman, Mindy Thuna, and Willie 
Miller, Virtual Cohorts as a Team Building and 
Problem-Solving Tool (poster), Scholarship@
UNLV, https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/
libfacpresentation/187/ (accessed October 1, 
2019). 

https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/libfacpresentation/187/
https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/libfacpresentation/187/