|
Management
/ Leadership
Educational
Leadership
It has been both my experience and observation that educational
leadership has gone relatively unrecognized and it is underrated
as a principal factor influencing educational quality. The
emphasis at most educational institutions today is on managership
rather than leadership.
Managers
maintain, oversee and follow policies set by others; leaders
by example induce others to follow, they set goals and often
are the catalysts for change. Managers are most comfortable
when adhering to policy, leaders want to be unfettered by
policies. Managers are more likely to look for pragmatic solutions
to problems while leaders favor the ideal. Administrators
value a smooth managerial operation and efficiency when leaders
seek that which is most effective.
Leaders
and managers represent two different functions, and in most
instances, two equally distinct types of personalities. Boards
and administrators like to believe they appoint leaders who
are good managers. In my experience, this rarely happens as
there are such fundamental conflicts between leading
and managing. The very qualities that make good leaders
are the same ones that often are disruptive to the managerial
process.
A
rather generic description of institutional organization from
around or before the 1950s would be: A governing Board of
Trustees or Regents; a President and Administrative staff
to carry out academic, business, service and maintenance functions;
a Provost to oversee academic affairs and faculty. At one
time, there was a Dean of Faculty but this position has been
eliminated or combined with the Provost's office at most universities;
Deans to supervise College operations and Department Heads;
Department Heads to assume responsibility for individual programs
of study and faculty members. Educational degrees were offered
on three levels of undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate
studies. Ivy League universities have always adhered most
faithfully to academic tradition and organization. Many of
the smaller private universities have modified as dictated
by pressures to survive. Independent Schools of Art forewent
their traditional organization as part of becoming accredited
during the late 1950s and 1960s.
Changing
Role of President
Within academic organization, there are several levels where
at different times leadership has strongly impacted. There
was a period in the history of American education when the
President was expected to exhibit educational as well as institutional
leadership. Presidents were chosen for exceptional academic
credentials and they were to guide programs of study toward
excellence. Leadership was broad, often visionary in nature,
but Presidents also were directly involved with academic programs
and faculty affairs. Trustees began to reduce their role in
institutional operations and policies. As they did so, more
responsibility for operation of the institution and the attendant
authority were assigned to Presidents. Trustees, regents and
legislators now place a higher value on managership, fundraising
and a good public image rather than leadership in academic
affairs. As the role of the President changed, so have the
qualifications and type of personality selected for the position.
An
active relationship between President and faculty continued
at independent schools of art for a number of years after
it ceased to be a factor at academic institutions. The Department
Heads served as the primary advisory group to the President
in educational matters, but the President was available to
individual faculty members on request.
During
a period of thirty-six years and five institutions, I worked
for only two presidents whom I respected, Wilhelmus Bryan
at the Minneapolis School of Art and Andrew Morgan at the
Kansas City Art Institute. It is interesting to note that
both men were driven from their positions, one through action
by the trustees and the other by fundraising demands. The
basis for my respect was that throughout most of their tenure
as presidents, both individuals strove for educational quality,
and their administrative decisions were always consistent
with that goal. Near the end of their presidencies, each was
under enormous pressure and their decisions or actions became
less true to educational values.
Role
of Provost
A significant part of the traditional definition for Provost
related to responsibility for academic affairs and as the
representative of faculty members and interests. In many respects,
that role has changed dramatically since 1960. The managerial
duties of the Provost have greatly multiplied, responsibility
for academic affairs has perhaps changed less, but most faculty
members today do not see the Provost as representing them
or their interests. The Provost is currently viewed as an
administrator and less as an academic leader. The more cynical
faculty might see the Provost's position as mainly being the
last step on the ladder to becoming a university president.
It is not uncommon today for Provosts at numerous institutions
to stay in position only two to five years.
Role
of Dean
I think there has always been a managerial role for Deans
but today,in the colleges committed to research, administration
is beginning to look for #leadership rather than managerial
qualities. What appears to have changed the most is the relationship
between the Dean, faculty within the college and upper administration.
My observation is that today Deans are to be more identified
with institutional than college interests. This occurs because
of recent moves toward closer working relationships between
Deans and Provost. Traditionally, Deans were the principal
advisory group to the President. Now the Vice-presidents are
most associated with the President and Deans are the advisory
body to the Provost.
|
