Rethinking the "L" Word in Higher Education E-Book

Adrianna Kezar

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Serie: J-B ASHE-ERIC Report Series (AEHE)
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 363

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

In these times of change and challenge in higher education, pleasfor leadership have become frequent. However, the type ofleadership required within this new context (of globalization,demographic changes, technological advancement, and questioning ofsocial authority) may call for different skills, requiring are-education among campus stakeholders if they want to besuccessful leaders. In the past twenty years, there has been a revolution in the waythat leadership is conceptualized across most fields anddisciplines. Leadership has moved away from being leader-centered,individualistic, hierarchical, focused on universalcharacteristics, and emphasizing power over followers. Instead, anew vision has emerged: leadership that is process-centered,collective, context-bound, non-hierarchical, and focused on mutualpower and influence processes. This volume summarizes research and literature about newconceptualizations of leadership to inform practice. This is volume 31, number 6, of the ASHE Higher EducationReport, a bi-monthly journal published by Jossey-Bass. See our entirelist of ASHE Higher Education Report titles for a widevariety of critical issues facing Higher Education today.

Leseprobe

Contents

Executive Summary

Foreword

Preface

Acknowledgments

The Revolution in Leadership

The Continued Need for Leadership in a Changed Context

Organization of the Book

Key Terms and Theories

Challenges and Missed Opportunities in the Study of Leadership in Higher Education

New Directions in Higher Education Leadership

Contributions of This Book

A World Apart: New Paradigms of Leadership

Positivist Paradigm

Social Constructivism Paradigm

Critical Paradigm

Postmodern Paradigm

Comparing the Paradigms’ Impact

Summary

A World Anew: The Latest Theories of Leadership

Transformational Leadership

Complexity and Chaos Theory

Expanding Cognitive Theories: Mental Models and Organizational Learning

Expanding Cultural and Symbolic Theories: Social and Cultural Theories of Leadership

Rethinking Contingency Theories: Processual Leadership

Team or Relational Leadership

Summary

Revolutionary Concepts of Leadership

Ethics and Spirituality

Collaboration

Empowerment

Social Change and Social Movements

Emotions

Globalization

Entrepreneurialism

Accountability

Summary

Higher Education Leadership in the New World

Changes in the Landscape of Higher Education Leadership Research

Trait and Behavior Theories

Power and Influence Theories

Transformational Leadership

Complexity and Chaos Theory

Cognitive Theory: Cognitive Frames and Organizational Learning

Cultural and Symbolic Theories

Teams and Relational Leadership

Summary

Revolutionary Leadership Concepts in Higher Education

Ethics and Spirituality

Empowerment

Social Change

Collaboration and Partnering

Emotions

Globalization

Entrepreneurialism

Accountability

Summary

Practical Implications for the Leadership Revolution

Framing Leadership Research in a New Era

Notes

Appendix: Three Case Studies

References

Name Index

Subject Index

About the Authors

About the ASHE Higher Education Reports Series

Recent Titles

Rethinking the “L” Word in Higher Education: The Revolution in Research on Leadership

Adrianna J. Kezar, Rozana Carducci, Melissa Contreras-McGavin

ASHE Higher Education Report: Volume 31, Number 6

Kelly Ward, Lisa Wolf-Wendel, Series Editors

Copyright © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction or translation of any part of this work beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ 07030; [phone], fax [phone], www.wiley.com/go/permissions

ISSN 1551-6970 electronic ISSN 1554-6306 ISBN 0-7879-8677-1

The ASHE Higher Education Report is part of the Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published six times a year by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103-1741.

For subscription information, see the Back Issue/Subscription Order Form in the back of this volume.

CALL FOR PROPOSALS: Prospective authors are strongly encouraged to contact Kelly Ward ([email protected]) or Lisa Wolf-Wendel ([email protected]). See “About the ASHE Higher Education Report Series” in the back of this volume.

Visit the Jossey-Bass Web site at www.josseybass.com.

Advisory Board

The ASHE Higher Education Report Series is sponsored by the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), which provides an editorial advisory board of ASHE members.

Melissa Anderson

University of Minnesota

Denise Green

University of Illinois

James Fairweather

Michigan State University

Jerlando Jackson

University of Wisconsin

Kevin Kinser

University of Albany

Sara Donaho

Student Representative

J. Douglas Toma

University of Georgia

Adrianna J. Kezar

University of Southern California

Executive Summary

In these times of change and challenge in higher education, pleas for leadership have become frequent and repeated. But the type of leadership required in this new context of globalization, demographic changes, technological advancement, and questioning of social authority may require different skills and thus reeducation of campus stakeholders if they want to be successful leaders. In the past twenty years, a revolution has occurred in the way leadership is conceptualized across most fields and disciplines. Leadership has moved from being leader centered, individualistic, hierarchical, focused on universal characteristics, and emphasizing power over followers to a new vision in which leadership is process centered, collective, context bound, nonhierarchical, and focused on mutual power and influence. This book summarizes research and literature related to new concepts of leadership to inform practice.

This change in conceptualizing leadership has occurred as new paradigms and theories have been applied to the study of leadership. In particular, social constructivism, critical, and postmodern paradigms have made the context and process much more important to the study of leadership, meaning making, and power. In addition, new theories highlight new aspects that expand our view such as transformational leadership, chaos and complexity theories, social and cultural theories, contingency theories, and relational or team theories of leadership. As a result, leadership researchers and practitioners are now beginning to understand the incredible complexity of organizations and global societies where contemporary leadership takes place, underscoring the need for more adaptive, systems-oriented approaches to leadership that enhance cognitive complexity through learning and team leadership. Researchers have called attention to the significance of leaders’ being culturally intelligent and able to understand the perspective of those from different races, cultures, and ethnicity. Leaders need to hone their ability to work in groups and to become more artful at reading organizational and historical contexts.

The application of new paradigms and theories in leadership research has resulted in the emergence of new leadership concepts that are now a major focus of research—ethics or spirituality, collaboration or partnering, empowerment, social change, emotions, globalization, entrepreneurialism, and accountability. Spirituality has long helped to drive leaders and provide a foundation for understanding leadership. Emotions have also long been a part of leadership as one of the key ways to influence and connect with people as leaders. What is new is the emphasis on studying and providing empirical evidence of the importance of ethics and emotions in leadership. Conceptualizing leadership as aligned with social movements also has a long history, even if this history has not been emphasized in recent years, as it does not support the prevailing dominant ideology of the profit-making sector and industrial military complex. Leadership has always been part of the great story of social evolution, however, helping to empower individuals and create social change. Yet the emphasis on empowerment and social change in formal institutions such as organizations, colleges, and universities is a newer affiliation. Although people disagree as to whether globalization is a wholly new concept, today’s world does seem to represent some new challenges for leaders who may find themselves interacting with people from many different cultures in a world where power is distributed differently among countries. And although leaders throughout history have been entrepreneurial, taking risks, and working toward transformation, what is new is that leaders more generally are being called on to be entrepreneurial as well as accountable to a broader set of stakeholders.

Most of the theories that have emerged in the general leadership literature have been applied to the context of higher education, with the exception of chaos theory. Cognitive theories represent a rich area with a significant body of data to guide practitioners, whereas the higher education community needs significant research related to chaos theory, transformational leadership, and the link between learning and leadership. In general, higher education research and practice have indeed experienced a revolution in the way leadership is conceptualized. No longer is the college president considered the sole leader on campus or the campus hierarchy the place to look for change agents. Instead, both practitioners and researchers realize that leadership is a collective process found among many different individuals and groups on campus, usually involving the work of teams and collaboration. Moreover, leaders themselves are conceptualized quite differently. Task orientation is no longer seen as more important than developing relationships and being a strong communicator. Effective leadership is a combination of relational and task skills and involves both transformational and transactional qualities. Successful leaders need to develop cognitive complexity and become skilled in acting as symbolic leaders, become politically savvy, maintain attention to goals and objectives, and build strong relationships on campus. They must recognize that leadership takes place in a particular context that has a culture they need to learn and with which they must align their leadership practices. Leaders who foster learning can create change. Our conceptualization of leadership now embraces an understanding of the way culture affects leadership, the importance of leaders’ developing cognitive complexity, the impact of leaders’ and followers’ mental models on the leadership process, and the effect of leaders’ background and experience on their views and behavior as leaders.

Few of the new concepts have been examined, however, and reflect important areas for future research and examination by practitioners. Higher education would benefit as a field if more studies would use critical and postmodern paradigms to uncover new ways to conceptualize leadership; explore explicit examinations of power dynamics embedded in leadership processes; focus on failed examples of leadership; study the implications of globalization for leadership; focus on entrepreneurialism, accountability, and cross-cultural leadership; explore empirical studies of specific cultural phenomena that affect leadership in higher education such as symbols or story telling; develop empirical research from the perspective of social movement; study the interaction of various levels (micro, meso, macro) and aspects (different units) of the higher education context; focus on negotiating conflicts that are inevitable with collective forms of leadership; use interdisciplinary research to understand ethics, global leadership, and empowerment; and study leadership over time, as relationships take time to develop.

Foreword

In 1989, Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum published an ASHE-ERIC monograph titled Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The “L” Word in Higher Education. At that time the editor of the monograph series, Jonathan Fife, predicted that the monograph would “have a major impact in the understanding of higher education leadership for many years to come.” His prediction came true: the original work served the field well and has become one of the most widely cited references on higher education leadership. As time has passed, however, the research and our understanding about what makes an effective leader in higher education have changed. New paradigms and perspectives on leadership were not conceptualized when the original work was published. The present monograph builds on the 1989 edition by thoughtfully and carefully leading the reader through the new theories about leadership that have been proposed in light of the changing context of higher education.

A lot has been written about leadership, some of it reading like a self-help guide to becoming a “great leader.” Other works on leadership are so theoretical and abstract that their practical application is questionable. This situation creates a challenge for those seeking to understand higher education leadership: How can one sort through the array of sources and perspectives and make meaning of them? This monograph engages theoretical perspectives in a practical way, meeting that rather difficult goal of being both conceptually strong and practical. Like its predecessor, this monograph serves as a guide to those wishing to understand leadership in the context of contemporary higher education. One of the most important components of this monograph is that it views leadership not as an end but as a means to achieving the goals of higher education. It is not a book about the habits of effective presidents; rather, it is a thoughtful review of how leadership can help higher education respond to the many challenges it faces.

This work explores the new leadership perspectives brought about through the uses of postmodern, critical, and social constructivist lenses and illuminates the growing complexity of higher education leadership. It does an exceptional job of synthesizing the literature and offering insight into the application of the theories and research. One of its strengths is that it introduces readers to these new paradigms and concepts in a straightforward way, cutting through the jargon to reveal the essence of the ideas. The authors do not shy away from talking about the relationship between leadership and such topics as ethics, spirituality, and emotion and exploring more mainstream leadership concepts such as collaboration, globalization, entrepreneurialism, and accountability. The monograph stresses the collective process of leadership and the context in which leadership occurs. It presents several case studies to illustrate leadership in action and provides analytical questions attached to each case. These additions to the monograph will serve as excellent teaching cases for graduate programs but will also prove helpful for administrators and campus leaders to consider and discuss. This monograph is not just an academic review of the leadership literature: it also offers a means to understand the complex terrain of leadership research and theory and provides practical advice for leaders to consider as they seek to improve their institutions.

Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel

Series Editor

Preface

As editor of the ASHE Higher Education Report Series, I frequently received inquiries regarding the update or revision of classic texts. In recent years many individuals contacted me, hoping that the leadership book published in 1989 by Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum would be updated. I tried to find interested authors, and when no one emerged, I thought it seemed like something I should tackle. Given that I have conducted research and written on leadership, I took on the task. I had no idea what I was in for! The amount of literature written in recent years is staggering. The number of books published on leadership doubled between the 1980s and the 1990s. The result is many new ideas and concepts to absorb about leadership. Immediately, I realized the value and importance of creating this new volume, and I was lucky enough to recruit two coauthors to help make sense of this new literature base.

—Adrianna J. Kezar

Acknowledgments

Adrianna Kezar dedicates this book to future leaders like Constance Kezar, Keaton Kezar, Maxwell Kezar, and Tait Viskovich. She also thanks her father for being such a strong role model of leadership.

Rozana Carducci thanks Seth Taper, Andra Evans, Bernie Carducci, and Theda Evans for their love, laughter, support, and patience. She is a lucky woman.

Melissa Contreras-McGavin dedicates this book to her father, Omega Contreras, who provided her inspiration, spirit, and great love.

The Revolution in Leadership

Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum’s original volume (1989) had the ambitious task of noting the importance of leadership, describing how leadership is defined, and reviewing six main theories of leadership across the interdisciplinary research base. It examined leadership within the context of organizational theory and reviewed how leadership had been explored in higher education research through the lens of the six theories: trait, behavioral, power and influence, contingency, cognitive, and cultural/symbolic.

The Continued Need for Leadership in a Changed Context

In 1989, Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum noted that some policymakers and several blue ribbon commissions were calling for better, stronger, and bolder leadership. The need for leadership in higher education has only become more urgent as the fat days with regular increases from state governments are long over, and the days of accountability and assessment, globalization, and competition are here to stay, providing new pressures for colleges and universities. Policymakers regularly implore campuses to integrate technology, respond to community needs, and provide a higher quality education for less money. In these times of change and challenge, pleas for leadership have become frequent and repeated. The type of leadership required in this new context, however, may call for different skills and the reeducation of campus stakeholders if they want to be successful leaders. As Lakomski (2005) suggests, it is the end of leadership as we have known it in the past. For some the change is so dramatic they may no longer see this phenomenon as leadership.

In the past twenty years, a revolution has occurred in the way leadership is conceptualized across most fields and disciplines. Many ask what we mean by revolution. Leadership has been studied and written about for more than 2000 years (perhaps longer), and much of its history is hierarchical in nature and emphasizes social control. In the last twenty years, however, nonhierarchical and increasingly democratic forms of leadership have been conceptualized. We believe that both leadership research and the practice of leadership have changed and that these two processes are often linked (that is, leadership research changes as leadership practices change; and leadership practice changes as research conceptualizations change). This revolution in leadership research is visually represented in Figure 1. Moving away from static, highly structured, and value-neutral leadership frameworks, contemporary scholars have embraced dynamic, globalized, and processed-oriented perspectives of leadership that emphasize cross-cultural understanding, collaboration, and social responsibility for others.

FIGURE 1 The Revolution in Leadership Research

The heroic leaders were often the focus, but now teams and collectives are emphasized and studied. In addition, scientific views of leadership that have held sway for most of the last century have been challenged and tempered by other views of leadership as an art, craft, or spiritual practice. Further, the positivist approach to studying leadership has given way to studies from social constructivist, postmodern, and critical paradigms. Revolution also refers to the way that some long-forgotten topics have become important again within leadership. In other words concepts such as spirituality are “revolving” back into fashion. Throughout this manuscript, we refer to the ways that leadership has changed in ways that we consider revolutionary from its past as well as the way that older concepts are revolving back into importance.

Many hypothesized reasons for the change in leadership scholarship are described more thoroughly in the volume but are briefly mentioned in this introduction. The two major reasons suggested are that the context in which leadership takes place has changed and that new perspectives and ideas about leadership have been introduced from scholars and practitioners. These two forces are interdependent and are hard to separate. The radical social and political changes of the 1960s and 1970s opened the door for people to think about leadership in new ways from the past. Feminism and Marxism provided the foundation for different views of leadership. Many of the democratic, collaborative, and nonhierarchical trends in leadership are associated with the challenges to authority that took place during this time. Many of the trends reviewed in this book—collaboration, empowerment, multiculturalism, and leadership as a collective process—are related to these historical changes. In the 1980s and 1990s, the world economy shifted, creating a more interdependent system that has been called a global economy. The emphasis on interdependence reinforces the importance of collaboration and working in teams for enacting leadership. As people throughout the world connect and work together in greater frequency, cultural and social differences have become recognized and have been studied in relation to leadership. Various forms of technology have sped up decision time, connected people across the globe, and made more local forms of leadership possible (Lipman-Blumen, 1996, 2000), leading to the democratization of leadership as well as to a more complex and diffuse process. Interdependence is a central concept of the leadership revolution and will be found throughout the book as we review paradigms, theories, and concepts.

The revolution in leadership, however, has not gone unchallenged. Two main countermovements—academic capitalism and managerialism—adopt hierarchical leadership with centralized forms of power. These movements will be described throughout the text but are mentioned here to demonstrate that it is not entirely a linear progression from hierarchical, individualistic forms of leadership to more collaborative, collective, and nonhierarchical forms. New views are emerging from traditional, functionalist circles of leadership, competing as countertendencies that draw individuals back to top-down, command, and control leadership.

Organization of the Book

Given the major changes that have occurred, it is important to examine the state of leadership research in higher education. This volume updates the 1989 Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum volume. Rather than rewrite a book that nicely summarized research on leadership until the late 1980s, this book focuses on reviewing advances in paradigms, theories, concepts, and research concerns and agendas. The next chapter, “A World Apart,” reviews the new paradigms—social constructivism, postmodernism, and critical theory—that have been applied to the study of leadership and revolutionized how we think about leadership. Love and Estanek (2004) define a paradigm “as a system of assumptions about the nature of reality that is integrated, pervasive, holistic, and internally consistent. . . . It is from within a paradigm that human beings understand what is real, what is false, what is possible, and to what they should pay attention” (p. 1). This book examines how the underlying assumptions, beliefs, and values of the social constructivist, postmodern, and critical theory paradigms have shaped the way leadership research is conducted. We choose these three paradigms, as they are the most cited new paradigms to be applied to leadership. The following chapter, “A World Anew,” updates several schools of thought presented in the original volume of this book—contingency theory, cultural theories, and cognitive theories—and describes new theories that have emerged such as complexity theory, organizational learning, processual theories, and team approach. Theories are complex explanations of social phenomena. When a variety of related theories emerge and are followed up by many different researchers, they form a school of thought. Because schools of thought represent what scholars believe are promising areas of study, they are emphasized and reviewed in the text. Theories and paradigms differ in important ways. Theories offer complex explanations for why and how a phenomenon (for example, leadership) occurs and are supported by empirical evidence, whereas paradigms are underlying assumptions that generally have no empirical grounding. Paradigms focus on macrolevel assumptions examining issues such as ontology (the nature of reality) or epistemology (the nature of knowledge).

The next chapter, “Revolutionary Concepts of Leadership,” reviews some of the main concepts that have emerged in the leadership research and literature such as ethics, empowerment, collaboration, and networks. Concepts are important ideas that are combined to develop theories but on their own represent important areas for people to consider as they examine the phenomenon. “Higher Education Leadership in the New World” presents the research specifically in higher education that has been conducted since 1989, focusing on developments that advance our thinking such as cognitive and cultural theories of leadership. “Revolutionary Leadership Concepts in Higher Education” reviews the degree to which the new concepts that have emerged in that general leadership literature have been pursued by higher education researchers. In the last two chapters, the implications of this vast body of new research are reviewed and directions for future research provided. Throughout the text, vignettes and summaries are presented to help bring the main concepts presented in this book to life and made more concrete. An appendix includes case studies designed to provide readers with opportunities to apply the theories and concepts reviewed in the book. We want to introduce one major assumption here that will be reinforced throughout the text: we do not believe there is any best way to lead. Instead, we believe that by understanding a variety of paradigms, theories, and concepts leaders can learn tools to approach various leadership situations that fit in particular contexts. In addition, leaders have varied strengths and weaknesses, and they can use these tools to complement and build on their personal styles.

Key Terms and Theories

Because this volume builds on the earlier ASHE-ERIC volume, Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The “L” Word in Higher Education (Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum, 1989), it is important to briefly note and define the theories that were central to the earlier volume—trait, behavioral, power and influence, contingency, cognitive, and cultural/symbolic. Although we direct readers to the original volume for lengthy discussions of these various theories, the following definitions will help when these concepts are brought up in this volume. In addition, Table 1 summarizes the major assumptions, key findings, and criticisms of each of these six theories, facilitating comparisons across conceptual approaches. Moreover, a distinction is made in these various schools of thought related to leader and leadership. In trait and behavioral theories, leadership is synonymous with leader. Later theories of culture and power and influence examine leadership as a process, and leader is no longer synonymous with leadership.

Table 1 Six Leadership Theories Reviewed in Making Sense of Administrative Leadership

Trait theories identify specific personal characteristics that contribute to a person’s ability to assume and successfully function in positions of leadership (Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum, 1989). An example of a study from a trait perspective is a survey of leaders that examines the top five traits they feel make them effective. The traits reviewed might include integrity, competence, intelligence, or experience. Researchers using this theory tend to identify identical traits for all leaders, transcending all contexts, and thus focus their efforts on developing a definitive list of leadership traits. Further, trait theorists assume the existence of objective trait definitions and thus assert that people perceive traits similarly.

Behavioral theories study leadership by examining the roles, categories of behavior, and tasks associated with leadership (Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum, 1989). Behavioral studies identify tasks such as planning, fundraising, or mentoring as key to understanding leadership. These studies also examine leader orientation to tasks versus relationships, attempting to identify whether one or the other orientation is more effective. Behaviors tend to be generic ones, applicable to all types of leaders and organizations. Similar to trait theories, behavioral theories rely solely on leaders for understanding leadership.

Power and influence theories consider leadership in terms of the source and amount of power available to leaders and the manner in which the leaders exercise that power. Reciprocal approaches to studying leadership focus on the process as relational and emphasize followership as critical to success (Komives, Lucas, and McMahon, 1998). A researcher using power and influence theories might study the ability of leaders to use persuasion to achieve desired organizational outcomes.

Contingency theories emphasize the way situational factors such as the groups (for example, followers) involved or the external environment affect leadership (Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum, 1989). The followers, however, are seen mostly as having limited human agency and as reactive to the leader. Contingency theorists in higher education explore different organizational subsystems, including the bureaucratic, collegial, political, and symbolic subsystems. Leadership becomes more closely related to perspective or vantage point through contingency theory.

Cognitive theories focus on the influence of cognitive processes (such as perception) to develop an understanding of leadership. These theories frequently inform the development of leadership research that is centered on understanding how followers make leadership attributions. For example, attribution studies have examined the degree to which followers attribute change to leaders, compared with the actual work leaders do to enact change.

Finally, cultural theories explore the importance of context for understanding leadership, emphasize interaction, and explore the symbolic functions of leadership. A study of leadership through a cultural lens might examine a leader’s use of rituals and traditions to inspire people toward change.

Challenges and Missed Opportunities in the Study of Leadership in Higher Education

Many of the struggles and tensions described in the earlier volume still hold true and will be reinforced in this volume. The difficulty in precisely defining leadership continues to remain a challenge. Various theories provide additional lenses, but there continues to be no agreed-upon definition of leadership. The application of new theories and concepts from the general leadership literature to the higher education literature also remains incomplete. For example, the importance of the leadership process in producing learning so that people can be more successful in creating change, providing organizational direction, and supporting organizational effectiveness is not emphasized in the higher education literature and is critical in the leadership literature or business. The lack of these important ideas represents missed opportunities to more fully understand leadership in the higher education setting. For example, the importance of examining leadership in the organizational context remains important today. Many studies have reinforced that leadership is affected by the organizational context and that leadership is perceived in an institutional context (Birnbaum, 1992). As Birnbaum has quipped in various articles, good leadership depends on the perspectives of the individuals in an organization whose opinions are shaped by the institutional history and culture. We would add that not only the organizational context affects perceptions but also the societal influences and previous experiences of individuals. Context needs to be thought of much more broadly than the organization, but many studies examine leadership without grounding it in any context. In addition, practitioners’ embracing a more complex representation of leadership continues to be of importance. The continued popularity of and interest in books that promise leaders that they will have a recipe for success by following ten simple steps demonstrate that complex and holistic views are still not favored.

New Directions in Higher Education Leadership

Even though higher education researchers have missed some important opportunities for exploring leadership, the literature has changed markedly in the last fifteen years. For example, the earlier volume focused primarily on research about college presidents, but the leadership literature has broadened and now examines deans, department chairs, and professional staff across the university, students, and nonpositional change agents. Leadership is studied as a phenomenon that can be found throughout the institution. Another major change is that the controversy about whether leaders must exert direct authority and control to be considered leaders has been resolved. No longer is the literature concerned with the perception that presidents and other leaders are weak if they do not mandate change or exert power. Instead, models of servant leaders and collective leadership have replaced the command-and-control leader reflective of much of the writings on leadership in the 1970s and 1980s. This change will be demonstrated through a variety of leadership theories, including team leadership, organizational learning, and cultural and symbolic use of leadership. In addition, the main concepts described in leadership also reflect this change from command and control to power sharing such as the emphasis on collaboration and leadership as a social movement. During this period of change, Birnbaum (1992) noted that people questioned whether leadership mattered. It was a timely question when authoritative forms of leadership were falling out of favor. People found themselves confused about whether leadership existed or was important outside the authoritative, directive forms of leadership described throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This skepticism and concern about leadership, however, have passed away as new forms of leadership have emerged and become institutionalized, embracing a more collective and empowering view of leadership. Birnbaum (1992) describes some of these fallacies of leadership that were generally embraced in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, for many years it was assumed that the vision of the institution must be developed by the president. That view has been replaced by a belief that a shared vision developed by constituents is a more effective form of leadership. Many other myths have been challenged in the leadership literature over the past fifteen years such as the importance of charisma to successful leadership, the myth that leaders should be distant from followers, or that some definable traits or styles that make leaders effective can be used in all situations (see Woodard, Love, and Komives, 2000, for more details of myths). It is hard to know whether they were myths or whether views of effective leadership have merely changed. Regardless, the picture of leadership today is vastly different from fifteen years ago. In fact one might say that we have had a revolution in our views of leadership. It is this revolution that is the underlying theme of this volume.

Contributions of This Book

This volume complements and is different from other recent leadership texts. Most textbooks such as Northouse’s Leadership: Theory and Practice (2004) review the classic theories and empirical research on leadership and provide readers with little if any information about the new trends and approaches for studying leadership. Northouse’s work examines trait, style, exchanges between leaders and members, and situational and transformational leadership theories, for example. Other texts tend to focus on one of the new theories of leadership such as complexity (Heifetz’s Leadership Without Easy Answers, 1994), learning (Senge’s The Fifth Discipline, 1990a), or relational (Lipman-Blumen’s The Connective Edge, 1996). This volume is one of the first to summarize and review the newer theories and concepts of leadership. It can be used in leadership courses to complement classic texts or to introduce the revolution and leadership literature.

This volume is also novel in that it presents a thorough discussion of the influential role paradigms play in framing contemporary studies of leadership. Few books mention research paradigms and how they affect the study of leadership. Some journal articles reference paradigms but usually focus on one particular paradigm in which the author’s study was conducted. Comparing and contrasting paradigms and examining each one’s strengths and weaknesses relative to the study of leadership are important contributions of this book.

Because it is one of the few to synthesize the literature on higher education research and compare it with the general leadership literature, this work provides an opportunity to establish a research agenda for the field of higher education for the coming years. It will be particularly helpful for graduate students and new scholars attempting to familiarize themselves with this vast literature base. And the book provides an introduction to a set of concepts, theories, and paradigms that can inform leadership practitioners’ thinking about leadership in complex and multifaceted ways, bringing together various works that they have read.

A World Apart: New Paradigms of Leadership

In 1989, Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum noted that most research on leadership had been conducted using traditional, empirical scientific methods and assumptions (positivist or functionalist paradigms). The word paradigm refers to a worldview and in the context of this book relates to the main assumptions brought to the study of leadership. The rise of cultural theories of leadership in the 1980s provided the foundation and opened the door to the use of other paradigms in examining leadership because it focused on meaning-making processes, symbolic elements, and the role of values. For example, the examination of values identified varying perspectives of leadership based on interpretation (Schein, 1992).

A major change in the leadership literature in the past decade is the rise in use of alternative paradigms to examine leadership. Social constructivism, postmodernism, and critical theory are now applied in studies of leadership, providing new insights (see Table 2). Although we describe these three approaches separately, they share many similar assumptions. In addition, we review the major tenets of each paradigm. Given that any given paradigm includes multiple strands of researchers (for example, critical race theory and critical cultural studies are both encompassed under the paradigm of critical theory), a static description of core assumptions is unable to capture the complexity inherent in the study of paradigms. These descriptions are meant only to provide an introduction for further reading (Alston, 2002; Anderson, 1999; Barker, 2002; Blackmore, 1999; Grint, 1997; Hunt, 1991; Kezar, 2000; Palestini, 1999; Pettigrew, 1997; Rost, 1991).

Table 2 Leadership Paradigms

Positivist Paradigm

It might help to understand the positivist research assumptions that affected the early studies of leadership (Crotty, 1998). Positivism maintains a realist ontological view—a researcher can come to know a singular, objective, shared reality. Knowledge is grounded in facts that are conceptualized as objective statements of truth. Universal truths can be discovered, and knowledge is generalizable. Researchers strive to identify generalizable principles to guide leaders and to predict how they will affect outcomes. Researchers acknowledge that we can only probabilistically and imperfectly apprehend the singular reality. When thinking about the extant leadership research, for example, we can see that positivist assumptions underlie trait theories, behavioral theories, power and influence theories, and contingency theories. Traits and behaviors are seen as transcending all contexts, and it is assumed that all people perceive traits and behaviors similarly. The emphasis in these theories has been universal traits or power and influence processes as well as universal perceptions of these traits or power and influence processes. Even contingency theory, which appears to examine context and emphasizes situational and organizational variables, still sees these contexts as perceived identically by individuals within the context and representing a singular reality. Another important assumption in positivism is that a phenomenon can be separated from its context and isolated for study. Therefore, leadership could be studied in a laboratory and involve scenarios rather than real leadership situations. Positivists believe that they must (and can) design research that guards against the impact of their beliefs and normative values on the conceptualization of leadership research. Therefore, a male or female researcher would perceive leadership in a context in similar ways, for example. The goal of research is to develop predictions about behavior so that human situations can be controlled. This perspective on studying leadership resulted in universal, context-free, value-free representations and theories of leadership. These positivist assumptions began to be challenged in the 1980s through cognitive and cultural theories that focused on interpretation and context, but their full impact was not realized until the 1990s as the new paradigms of social constructivism, critical theory, and postmodernism were applied to the study of leadership.

Social Constructivism Paradigm

Social constructivism is the belief that reality is developed through one’s interpretation of the world and a denial of essences or universal qualities. Reality is a social and cultural construction. By examining multiple interpretations, we can detect a shared sense of reality, yet our understanding of reality is always partial and imperfect. Because perception and interpretation are so significant, these scholars reshape the approach to understanding leadership. In applying social constructivism to leadership, these scholars focus on ways that leadership itself is a social construct developed through interaction and that the way people define leadership differs based on their experience and background (Grint, 1997; Kezar, 2002b; Parry, 1998; Rhoads and Tierney, 1992; Tierney, 1988; Weick, 1995). The way people interpret leaders’ behaviors is also important to understand (Birnbaum, 1992). There is no single reality of how followers or others interpret leadership, and these perceptions affect notions of effectiveness and quality (Birnbaum, 1992; Grint, 1997). In addition, when and if a situation requires leadership is determined through analysis of individual perspectives. Because social interaction is so important in the constructivist framework, research focuses on the interactions between leaders and followers and on the social environment and culture itself. Thus, understanding leadership requires studying the various perceptions and interpretations of people throughout the leadership setting. Grint (1997) notes that rhetoric may be a key skill for leadership as it focuses on persuasion, networking, and negotiation—three behaviors that are critical to an understanding of leadership as a socially constructed phenomenon.

In addition to the importance of individual perception and interaction, context is particularly important for interpreting and understanding the perceptions and subjective experiences of people in relationship to leadership. Thus, leadership must be studied in a particular context, looking at the interaction between how the context shapes perspective as well and how perspectives shape the leadership context. An example of this process is how leadership differs between secondary schools and higher education based on the varying structures and cultures of these environments and experiences of individuals in these environments.

Some social constructivist scholars view leadership itself as an attempt by certain individuals to frame and define reality, which can become a form of social control (Chemers, 1997). These researchers examine how leaders, through their positions of authority, create social reality by managing and interpreting meaning (Bolman and Deal, 2003). For example, a leader may be told by his or her board of directors that layoffs are necessary to improve profits. The leader realizes that this action could affect the morale of people in the organization and lower productivity, so instead of presenting the layoffs as necessary to improve profits (which only focuses on shareholders’ interests, not workers’), the leader describes layoffs as necessary for the survival of the company and says that a few must be sacrificed to save the many.

Scholars operating from the social constructivist paradigm focus attention on understanding various interpretations of leadership situations to paint more complex pictures than we have had in the past—for example, how may normative beliefs of a culture or organization shape the expected qualities of the leader and create an environment in which only certain individuals are considered leaders? From this perspective, agency lies in the group or its dominant members, and social norms establish the conditions in which a leader can operate. Here the focus is not so much on an individual’s subjective experience but on examining how individual perspectives work together to shape norms.

Several strands of research such as attribution theory suggest that leadership itself is not real in an empirical sense but that individuals attribute certain processes and actions to leaders. Studies have found that more outcomes are attributed to leaders than they are actually responsible for and that people are biased to exaggerate the importance of leadership as a cause of organizational performance (Yukl, 1998). In this line of research, leaders are largely illusory except insofar as leadership positions provide a place for people to attribute organizational actions and processes. In a confusing and ambiguous world where people are trying to construct meaning, leaders serve as a visible place for understanding why things happen as well as a scapegoat for problems.

Common among researchers in the social constructivist paradigm is an emphasis on interpretation, multiple realities, meaning making, perception, and subjective experience as they are important to understanding leadership (Grint, 1997). To understand leadership, language and discourse become primary sites for examining perceptions and views. Earlier research from a behavioral or trait perspective often focused on observation for understanding leadership. Researchers from a social constructivist perspective shift their methodological emphasis to the words of leaders and followers as well as observe the interaction between individuals in leadership contexts.

Critical Paradigm

Critical theory evolved from scholarship by Karl Marx and focuses on how economics, capital, and the market drive social progress and processes. This paradigm critiques and questions the class-based society that currently exists. Many different schools of thought have evolved from Marx, including the Frankfurt school. Feminism and other radical traditions such as critical race theory that challenge traditional societal norms are also often considered part of critical theory, as they also question the ways social processes privilege certain groups in society. Although many different traditions exist, certain characteristics underlie each strand: (1) an examination of power dynamics; (2) the importance of acknowledging that research is not neutral or value free; (3) the need to develop new constructs; and (4) seeing research as political and a form of activism.

Critical theorists who study leadership question the value-free representation of leadership and focus primarily on power dynamics that are hidden in the phenomenon of leadership, particularly oppression and abuses of power (Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin, 1995; Blackmore, 1999; Calas and Smircich, 1992; Chliwniak, 1997; Grint, 1997; Kezar, 2000, 2002b, 2002c; Kezar and Moriarty, 2000; Palestini, 1999; Popper, 2001; Rhode, 2003; Skrla, 2000; Tierney, 1993a; Young and Skrla, 2003). These scholars work to unearth and deconstruct hidden assumptions involved in the process of leadership. For example, are hierarchical arrangements between leader and follower merely socially constructed and not natural or inherent? And are they used to disempower and privilege certain groups? Is the language of followership and leadership used to subordinate certain groups? How do leaders use power or persuasion to keep certain groups or individuals marginalized? Why are the traits and behaviors associated with leadership such as masculinity and dominance gendered? How does representation of leadership ignore race? Popper (2001), in Hypnotic Leadership: Leaders, Followers, and the Loss of Self, describes the dangers of the distinction between leader and follower prevalent in most leadership literature as a problematic power relationship that ends up erasing followers in the leadership process. Jean Lipman-Blumen (2004) describes how people are often attracted to toxic leaders.