Organization and Administration

Main

Duderstadt (2007) View from the helm

2007

reprinted in 2008, 2009. and 2010

Eckel & Kezar (2011) Presidents Leading

2011

In Altbach, Gumport, & Berdahl's American Higher Education in the 21st Century

need to know personal and professional qualities, kind of relationship with Board of Trustees

LEADERSHIP QUALITIES- Birnbaum (1992): “good leadership is what its constituents believe it to be—and they don’t always agree” (Presidents Leading Eckel & A. Kezar in Altbach et al 2011).. What it takes to be an effective leader depends on stakeholders expectations, time period, and institutional context (Eckel & A. Kezar)

  • responsive to the nature of the institution & the demands of the times. (Duderstadt)

-“vision thing”—providing strategic leadership of the university toward signi‹cant goals, envisioning the university as it should be in 10 or 20 years rather than just 5.
capable of strategic vision, who view themselves as change agents, setting bold visions for their institution and launching efforts to move toward these visions…requires personal sacrifice, as the risks associated with proposing bold visions and leading change are high (Duderstadt)

-Consensus building: subtle approach to building grassroots support for any initiative. (Duderstadt)

-capable of adapting their own leadership styles to the needs of their institution…fit into the socially constructed story of the institution.. they should pay attention to the set of unique characteristics individual institutions possess. (Presidents Leading Eckel & A. Kezar in Altbach et al 2011)

What is better: Transformational vs. transactional? Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum argue that transactional leadership may be more effective given the rel with presidency and faculty and loose coupling, as a more directive influence by a president may not be effective.. they believe that presidents should rely on exchange rather than a high calling Others studies suggest that effective presidents can be transformational by creating overarching visions for the campus …A middle ground exists—both transformational and transactional leadership…The appropriateness of certain approaches is often tied to the stage of the change efforts (Eckel & A. Kezar )

SKILLS:
-academic intuition
-financial skills
-political acumen
-public relations
-people skills
- deep understanding of the fundamental values and nature of an academic community

PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES

Crisis management

Academic leadership: most successful university presidents, regardless of institutional type, are deeply involved in academic matters,

political leadership. The management of the university’s polit- ical relationships with various constituencies—state government, fed- eral government, and various special interest groups—rests eventually with the president.

moral leadership. Universities, their communities, and their constituencies do seek guidance on such key moral issues as social diversity, civic responsibility, and social justice. Skillful presi- dents can transform crises—such as a racial incident, student misbe- havior, or an athletics scandal—into teachable moments for moral leadership.

management skills. Fortu- nately, most presidents have developed these through a sequence of earlier leadership experiences (e.g., department chair, dean, and provost).

build and work with teams of talented people

executive leadership responsibilities :
supervising the university administration;
ensuring the quality and integrity of academic programs;
managing human, financial, and capital assets;
being accountable to the governing board (and the public) for the welfare of the university. (Duderstadt)

Corporate side responsibilities: responsible for its financial operations, plant maintenance, public relations

energetic fund-raising and competent financial management

CEO: recruiting the key leadership of the university, not simply the executive officers, but also the deans and even, on occasion, key faculty members

Managing the relationship between the governing board and the university.

PERSONAL QUALITIES
personal behavior, a leader can frequently influence the values and practices of an organization. If presidents value integrity, openness, truth, and compassion in their personal activities, these characteristics are more likely to be embraced and valued by those within their universities.

pastoral role.

President and spouse are the dad and mom of the extended university family (Duderstadt)

be cheerleaders for their university, always upbeat and optimistic (Duderstadt)

learning spirit: surround self with people smarter and more talented

deep responsibility to act always in the best interests of the institution and its people,

never believe that my position was more important than my objectives.. capable of always setting institutional welfare above personal objectives, even professional survival.

what leadership philosophies and styles are most important for presidents today?
http://books.google.com/books?id=tZMzH9ALvtsC&pg=PA842&lpg=PA842&dq=leadership+philosophies+president+college&source=bl&ots=JETLOM9NLQ&sig=iu-ift-SFyoJ91r18CZWB7GKgHE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NcSmUYO9JISM9AS84IHoDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=leadership%20philosophies%20president%20college&f=false

CHALLENGES: What are the biggest challenges for presidents in the 21st century?
how can they deal with them?

MISMATCH BETWEEN AUTHORITY & RESPONSIBILITY/
LIMITED AUTHORITY Duderstadt: although the responsibility for everything involving the university usually floats up to the president’s desk, direct authority for uni versity activities almost invariably rests elsewhere. This mismatch between responsibility and authority is unparalleled in other social institutions. As one colleague put it, universities may have shared gov- ernance, but nobody wants to share power with the president...Limited authority: Duderstadt: university presidents have executive responsibilities for all of these activities and purposes, the position has surprisingly little authority...Loose coupling-makes central coordination and oversight and the role of the president difficult...drawback: presidents cannot easily create organizational efficiency because of weak central coordination

Eckel & Kezar: Much of campus leadership is now delegated to CAO (p.282); Cohen and March: “president has modest control over the events of college life”

SCALE & DIVERSITY of the contemporary university, comparable to that of major global corporations or govt agencies. .. major universities are in real- ity very complex multibillion-dollar enterprises, with all of the accountability and demands of a modern business.

SHORT TERM IN OFFICE: The average tenure for the presidents of major public universities is about five years, too brief to provide the stability in leadership necessary for achieving effective change. While some of these changes in university leadership are the result of natural processes, such as retire- ment, others re›ect the serious challenges and stresses faced by uni- versities, which all too frequently destabilize their leadership. ...The average tenure for the presidents of major public universities is about five years, too brief to provide the stability in leadership necessary for achieving effective change.

POLITICS & PRESSURE: The politics of college campuses (from students to faculty to governing boards), coupled with external pressures (exerted by state and federal governments, alumni, sports fans, the media, and the public at large), make the presidency of a public university a very hazardous profession these days...Political environment: presidents may find themselves becoming like middle managers in public agencies rather than campus leaders

TRAINING LACKING:Challenge of next generation of presidents: Few CAO (chief administrative officer) want the job or are trained for the job; traditional pipeline to presidency isnt sufficient (Eckel & Kezar)

COMPLEX WEB, NO LONE RANGERS: Presidents of early colleges could be and were successful as the THE leader but now the effectiveness of the presidency depends on strong a complex web of leadership involving cabinet, external stakeholders, faculty staff and students is created

COMPETITION: Competitive market forces-Winner take all market: Competitive systems in which those at the top get a disproportionate share of the rewards..Institutions end up outspending one another, canceling another investments.. they invest to keep up but they don’t significantly improve their lot..they mimick them from an inferior positions..Fullman and Scott (2009) detect the new type of competition higher education institutions will soon face if they haven’t already in the rise in non-profits, virtual, and influx of private local institutions.

DIVERSE NEEDS: 1st GEN: Fullman and Scott (2009) maintain that a great challenge lies in managing the transition of first-generation students.

FUNDING: Fullman and Scott (2009) who identified funding and the pressure to generate monies as significant change forces in higher education.

Birnbaum: “the college presidency may still be an impossible job

Frames

Mintzberg (1979) Basic structural configurations

1979
  1. Simple structure-strategic apex & core (family business, box starting in a garage)

  2. Machine bureaucracy-McDonald's, standardized procedures, consistency, uniformity, large support staff, sizable technostructure; tension between local managers and headquarters

  3. Professional bureaucracy-Harvard: few managerial levels exist between the strategic apex and the professors, creating a flat and decentralized profile. Here the struggles between strategic apex and operating core are often won by the professionals who are more tightly bonded to their field than to any specific institution

  4. Divisionalized form-offers economies of scale and responsiveness while controlling risk but create tensions (cat and mouse game between headquarters and divisions) risk: headquarters may lose touch with operations

  5. Adhocracy-loose, flexible,self-renewing organic form,tied together mostly through lateral means, ambiguous authority structures; examples are advertising agencies, think-tank consulting firms, recording industry--adhocracy often found in conditions of turbulence and rapid change

Birnbaum (1988) How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Orgs & Leadership

1988

why is org theory important in the study of HE?

In the world of higher education, organizational theory can be used by universities to improve the effectiveness of their departments. ..authors Bolman and Deal discuss how the research in this field can be consolidated into four perspectives: the structural, human resource, political, and cultural frames (p. 15). These frames are windows through which leaders in higher education can view and evaluate their universities and departments. While each frame is important, it is the holistic implementation of all four frames that optimizes success.

In her textbook on organization theory, Hatch (1997) described organization theories as frames through which we can view organizations and the aspects and cultures within them. She argued that theories allow practitioners to abstract the events occurring around them in order to evaluate those events. Armed with the results of the theoretical evaluation, practitioners can then return to their concrete organizations with a clearer understanding of the conflicts and with possible ways of responding to them

In How Colleges Work, Birnbaum (1988) began his discussion with the provocative paradox that "American colleges and universities are poorly run but highly effective" (p. 3). The areas or problems of organization that create the unique culture of higher education, according to Birnbaum (1988), include the system of dual control where both administration and faculty govern the university; the multiple missions of the university -- teaching, research, and service; constraints of resources as more and more funding sources are external to the university; and the confusion over types of leadership and power sources that are effective in such an environment.

teaching/learning goals
major topics
themes, concepts, sequencing
core texts and resources of org theory

Birnbaum (1992) How Academic Leadership Works

1992

Bureaucratic frame-lens of structure and organization, pay attention to goals and priorities, an invoke authority and control
Collegial frame-focus on people, relationships, team building, consensus, loyalty
Political frame-inherent politics of orgs, build agendas, mobilize coalitions, focus on negotiation and conflict
Symbolic frame-focus on mission, vision, values, symbols, stories, history of the institution

Bolman & Deal (2008) Reframing Organizations

2008

How does each frame approach decision making?

Structural: rational
Human relations: open process to produce commitment
Political: opportunity to gain or exercise power
Symbolic: ritual to provide comfort and support until decisions made

what are the four frames? political, structural, symbolic, human resources

what assumptions of each frame?
POLITICAL
1. Departments and organizations are coalitions of individuals and groups.
2. There are enduring differences among coalition members in values, beliefs,
information, interests, and perceptions of reality.
3. Most important decisions involve the allocation of scarce resources—who gets what.
4. This gives rise to conflict, making power the most important resource.
5. Thus, goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for
position amongst the various individuals and groups.

STRUCTURAL
1. Orgs exist to achieve established goals and objectives
2. Orgs work best when rationality prevails over personal preferences and external pressures
3. Structures must be designed to fit an organizations circumstances (goals, technology, and environment)
4. Orgs increase efficiency and enhance performance through specialization and division of labor
5. Coordination and control are essential to ensure individuals and units work together in service of org'l goals
6. Problems and performance gaps arise from structural deficiencies

HUMAN RESOURCE
1. Orgs exist to serve human needs
2. Orgs and humans needs each other
3. When there is poor fit between orgs and individual, one or both will suffer. Individuals will exploit or seek to exploit the org.
4. A good fit between an individual and org benefits both. Individuals get satisfying work and orgs get human talent and energy.

SYMBOLIC
1. what happens is not most important but what it means
2. activity and meaning are loosely coupled//events and actions had multiple meanings
3. people create symbols to resolve confusion and so find direction and hope
4. culture forms superglue that bonds an organization
5. events and processes most important for what they expressed than what was produced

what are the metaphors for each frame?
political-jungle, contest, arena
structural-factory (understanding social architecture of work)
ritual-theatre, temple, carnival
human resources-family

Choosing a frame:
• If commitment and motivation are important: human resources and symbolic
• If there is ambiguity and uncertainty: Structural
• If resources are scarce: structural, political, symbolic
• If there is conflict and diversity: political and symbolic
• If there is a top down approach: structural and human resources

how can frames be used to explain org and admin of HE?

Tierney (2008)Four models of org development

2008

collegial, bureacratic, political, and cybernetic.. see http://hiad8401.wikia.com/wiki/Tierney_Chapter_9

https://www.unf.edu/~djaffee/Org%20Theory/chap5.pdf talks about the bureaucratic model

Leadership

Birnbaum (1989) How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Orgs & Leadership

1989

Davis (2003) Learning to Lead

2003

Kezar (2006) Rethinking the L word in HE

2006

Fullan & Scott (2009) Turnaround Leadership for HE

2009

http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Journal/Current-Past-Book-Reviews/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/423/Turnaround-leadership-for-higher-education.aspx

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-009-9272-3#page-1

broad influencing factors at work which Fullman and Scott (2009) have identified as globalization, the emergence of important, new players such as India and China, the exit of baby boomers from the workforce, and the IT revolution

Fullman and Scott (2009) pinpoint the following forces: the opening and access of post-secondary education to more diverse groups of people, the increase in competition, including the immense growth in for-profit institutes, funding pressures, shrinking budgets, the stress on maintaining high standards, the ever-changing expectations of the new generation of students, and the chronic divisiveness among administrators, professors, staff, departments and faculties

Fullman and Scott (2009) maintain that a great challenge lies in managing the transition of first-generation students.

Fullman and Scott (2009) who identified funding and the pressure to generate monies as significant change forces in higher education.

Fullman and Scott (2009) detect the new type of competition higher education institutions will soon face if they haven’t already in the rise in non-profits, virtual, and influx of private local institutions.

Bolman & Gallos (2011) Reframing Academic Leadership

2011

Governance

Weick (1976) Educational orgs as LOOSELY COUPLED SYSTEMS

1976

NOTES from "Presidents Leading" (Eckel & Kezar, 2011):

Loose coupling-makes central coordination and oversight and the role of the president difficult

Loose coupling describes weak connections between organizational units
..info travels slowly

Hutchins: “the university is a collection of departments tied together by a common steam plant”
These weak relationships give some advantages:
-Loosely coupled systems are able to respond more sensitively to environmental changes.
- Loosely coupled orgs promote and encourage localized innovations
-they prevent poor adaptations from spreading to other parts of the og
-they benefit from localized enterprise
-have few coordination and centralization costs

drawback: presidents cannot easily create organizational efficiency because of weak central coordination

Ehrenberg (2004) Governing Academia

2004

Cohen, March & Olsen (2010).GARBAGE CAN MODEL of organizational choice

2010

Organized anarchies are organizations characterized b y problematic preferences, unclear technology, and fluid participation.

When the setting is dynamic, the technology is changing, demands are conflicting or the goals are unclear, things can get mixed up. More action than thinking can take place. Solutions emerge as “potential capabilities”—capabilities independent of problems or opportunities.

Organized anarchy is a firm or division in a firm in a transition characterized by very rapid change and lack of a legitimate hierarchy.

According to this GC model, many decision processes within orga- nizations do not operate according to rationalchoice models.

Garbage can model views the main components of the choice process—problems, solutions, participants, and choice situations—as all mixed up together in the garbage can of the organization.

In this model, many problems go unsolved. That is, all organizations have chronic, persistent deficiencies that never seem to get much better. In a garbage can view, this is because decision makers cannot agree to match these problems with solutions, make a choice, and implement it on a timely and consistent basis; nor do they know how to resolve chronic problems.

NOTES from Presidents Leading (Eckel & Kezar):

Garbage-can decision making
Decisions that are rendered often seem only peripherally related to the problem that leaders thought they were attempting to solve

1.Colleges pursue a set of inconsistent , ambiguous, and uncertain goals, and these goals may conflict
2. how academia conduct core functions is complex
3. time and attention are limited participation is fluid as faculty and adminstrators choose competing opportunities based on own preferences..

all these three things lead to ‘organized anarchies” (Cohen & March (Leadership and Ambuiguity)
decision making in garbage can model:
• resolution
• flight (problems become attached to other unintended solutions)
• oversight

The Garbage Can Decision-Making approach is unlike other classical decision making models because solutions are developed before problems are determined (Kingdon, 2003).
Instead of awaiting a problem to respond to, decision makers may be waiting for an opportunity to implement the decisions that already have been determined
Limitations:
Decisions often lack consideration of unique circumstances surrounding each situation.
This approach relies on the chance that a certain problem will occur
Most likely to occur in organizations that experience extremely high uncertainty without established board policies and administrator procedures

Streams of loosely coupled problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities flow into the organization at different rates and connect or decouple elements according to a temporal rather than a causal logic. Garbage can processes "depend on a rel- atively complex intermeshing of elements, [including]the mix of problems that have access to the organization, the mix of solutions looking for problems, and the outside demands on the decision makers" (Cohen, March, and Olsen, 1972: 16). Thus, solutions may seek problems, both problems and solu- tions may await opportunities for decisions, and participant energy is likely to be distributed according to the overall load and arrivaltime of the various streams rather than by any "objective" criteria determining the relative importance of a particularissue. Ingarbage can systems, decisions are often made by flight or oversight rather than by calculation.

Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, Riley (2010) Alternatives models of governance

2010