YOU CAN PRINT THIS ISSUE BY CLICKING HERE .
Dr. Clark
is Dean, College of Human Development and Education, North Dakota State
University.
Everybody
is a story. When I was a child, people sat around kitchen tables and told their
stories. We don’t do that so much anymore. Sitting around the table telling
stories is not just a way of passing time. It is the way wisdom gets passed
along. The stuff that helps us live a life worth remembering. Despite the
awesome powers of technology, many of us still do not live very well. We may
need to listen to each other’s stories once again.
Rachel
Naomi Remen in Kitchen Table Wisdom
Higher education
leaders, who have a background in Family and Consumer Sciences, were asked to
describe the people and events that made a difference in their professional
lives. These leaders were asked to describe their “turning points”
informally, in a few brief paragraphs. The format chosen for each response
varied from very formal (a past publication) to very informal (a quick list on
e-mail). Regardless of the format, however, responses provided some very similar
points.
Like Phyllis O.
Bonanno, President of Columbia College, all respondents indicated that “. . .
leadership was not about implementing any one theory or plan, it was about life
and the way you choose to live it. To succeed as a leader it is important to
understand first that you cannot separate your role as a leader in your place of
business from your role as a neighbor, parent, church member, or any other place
you interact outside the boundaries of your professional life” (Bonanno, 1997,
pp. 5-6). In all cases, these leaders mention people who made an important
difference in their leadership growth. It is interesting to note that situations
and circumstances lead to leadership, not a “finely tuned” plan. In
addition, all statements indicated that one of the key motivators to taking a
leadership role was the desire to “make a difference.”
Bonanno,
P. O. (1997). Empowered leadership: A kitchen table conversation. A
Leadership Journal: Women in Leadership—Sharing the Vision, 2(1), 5-9.
Remen,
R. N. (1996). Kitchen table wisdom: Stories that heal. New York:
Riverhead Books.
Dr. Clark is
Dean, College of Human Development and Education, North Dakota State University.
That’s the
risk you take if you change: that people you’ve been involved with won’t
like the new you. But other people who do will come along.
—Lisa Alther
Over the past few
years, I have had the opportunity to hire, or have a significant role in hiring,
several first-time higher education administrators. Among these have been
department chairs, Cooperative Extension and Experiment Station Administrators,
associate vice presidents, and deans. Each of these individuals has come to
their position with an excitement and enthusiasm that was contagious. However,
in a few months (maximum of a year) each has become frustrated, often to the
point of questioning why they had ever taken an administrative role. I can
understand exactly how they feel—I have been there, too!
In addition to the
frustrations mentioned above, in most cases the people, who were colleagues
prior to a move into administration/leadership, suddenly decide (as indicated in
Alther’s quote) that they are dealing with a new person and they don’t like
the change. Support groups and networks that have previously existed, sometimes
for years, are no longer available! I have actually heard faculty indicate that
an administrator is no longer loyal to their field of study if every decision
that is made does not favor that field. For example, I know many deans
(including myself) who have been accused of trying to eliminate Family and
Consumer Sciences Education because that particular major had to be moved to (or
combined with) others in a new department or school. In most cases, this change
was made to provide some strength and “protection” for the education major
because enrolment had shrunk and it had become very hard to justify the
structures of the past.
Society
as a whole seems to have a negative attitude toward people who take the
challenge to become leaders. A quick review of the treatment of politicians,
community leaders, church leaders, educational leaders, etc., will provide many
instances of public/member/faculty and staff perceptions that are inconsistent
with the leadership role that the leader has been asked to assume. It seems that
many potential leaders have taken a hard look at this reality and decided it is
not worth the “hassle.”
This
issue—the challenges and “hassles” of leadership—appears in the popular
literature, as well as in the professional. In Tom Clancy’s Executive
Orders, Jack Ryan finds himself in a leadership role he has not even
considered and is not sure he wants. At the beginning of the book he is
reflecting on his new position as President of the United States and his
previous experience and training:
I’m
a historian, Ryan told himself. I’ve written books. I’ve judged the actions
of others from a safe distance of both time and space. Why didn’t he see this?
Why didn’t he do that? Now, too late, he knew better. He was here now, and
from the inside it looked very different. From the outside you could see in,
looking around first to catch all the information and analyze it as it passed
by, stopping it when you had to, even making it go backward, the better to
understand it all, taking your time to get things exactly right.
But
from the inside it wasn’t that way at all. Here everything came directly at
you like a series of onrushing trains, from all directions at once, moving by
their own time schedules, leaving you little room to maneuver or reflect.”
(Clancy, 1997, p. 28-29)
I
can identify with Jack Ryan. I can remember looking in at many of the leaders I
worked for, and with, and wondering exactly why they had made a decision I felt
certain was wrong! Now that I am in a leadership role, I can look back and I see
that there was no way I had all of the information that was necessary—my right
solution was not based on the “big picture,” and I had time to analyze the
situation (even after the fact), a luxury that was not possible for the person
in the leadership role. By the way, although Jack Ryan questions himself many
times throughout the story, in the end he does decide that his is the right
person for this significant leadership role.
Leadership
has become an intensely personal proposition; it is not uncommon today to see
those who disagree with changes that are occurring take measures to attack and
punish the person(s) “in charge.” Leaders must have their “act together”
and feel good about themselves personally, or they will not have the stamina to
maintain their leadership role. In addition, today’s leaders must not only
take care of those who “follow,” but must also take care of themselves.
Leadership in today’s world involves a willingness to “lay yourself,” in
addition to your ideas, on the line.
Given
these circumstances, the challenge for higher education, and specifically Family
and Consumer Sciences in higher education, is to develop a contingent of future
administrative leaders, as well as to build a system of continuing support in
those leadership positions. This paper provides the rationale for that need, and
suggests some possible strategies that are necessary.
As
mentioned above, the climate is not often one that encourages new professionals
to consider building an academic record and the experiences that are needed for
administrative leadership. “A leader must endure a great deal of abuse. If the
leaders were not like water, the leader would break.” (Heider, 1988, p. 155).
Campuses can offer tough and lonely climates, and often “we” versus
“they” attitudes. Beginning administrative roles, such as serving as a
department chair, are often difficult to manage as a person can be caught in the
faculty/administrative syndrome—still a faculty member but also an
administrator. I remember two particular faculty members who had been masters of
getting everything they could from both “worlds”—taking every
administrative privilege offered while also serving in faculty leadership roles,
such as chair of the faculty senate. When these people moved to full time
faculty positions, they worked very hard to assure that people in similar
administrative roles (to the ones they had held) could not also serve in faculty
leadership roles. The climate they created (and still create to some degree) is
a very hostile one for administrators, particularly new administrators who are
still trying to be successful as both a faculty member and an administrator.
This type of climate certainly does not create incentives to enter
administration, nor does it provide support for those who are currently in those
roles.
A
quick review of Family and Consumer Sciences administrative positions across the
country is telling. For example, during 1997, the dean at Iowa State retired and
Kansas State’s dean announced her retirement; both the dean at Ohio State and
at the University of Tennessee decided to return to the faculty. In 1998 and
1999 the administrative positions at University of Nebraska, University of
Wisconsin, University of Minnesota, and University of Missouri were open.
Several searches for chairs in various departments and deans were re-opened once
and sometimes twice, because no suitable candidates were available. The jobs are
there, but often the right people to fill them are not!
Astin
and Leland (1991) concluded that building new leaders, as well as sustaining
those in leadership roles, were both important. “Once again, they (the leaders
who participated in the study) reminded us of the importance of role models and
mentors and of the personal support one leadership generation can provide to
enable its successors” (p. 160). The study also affirmed that a leader could
not survive (at least for very long) in solitude. “On the contrary, the most
experienced leaders in our sample . . . needed opportunities for colleagueship
that promote the sharing of wisdom and insight, away from the heated battles of
the activism they generated . . . . If we are to sustain leaders with their
creative energies and vision, then we should be more deliberate about it . . . .
We urge more creative and generous rethinking of the rewards, recognition, and
replenishment we offer our leaders. We would like to see opportunities for
individuals to plan for successive stages in their leadership development in
ways that will satisfy their personal interests and goals while at the same time
contributing to organizations and institutions.” (p. 161-163).
Vicki
Carr is credited with saying, “When you’re young and someone tells you what
you are and shows you how to be proud, you’ve got a head start.” Although
the research is not abundant in this area, the studies that have been done do
affirm that role models and mentors have made a significant difference in the
lives of those who have been successful leaders. Cantor and Bernay (1992) found
that consistent enabling messages from multiple sources were an important factor
in decisions made related to leadership.
Lesmeister
(1996) found that “role models were perceived as a key contributing factor to
leadership development (her study focused on female leaders in higher
education). Other factors that Lesmeister found to be important in leadership
development included mentors, early family environment, participating in
challenging experiences throughout life, and opportunities and experiences for
learning leadership.
Mentors
have been shown to be important for the leadership success of both men and
women. Edson (1988) and Irwin (1995) indicated that mentors appeared to be twice
as important to the success of women, whether in business or educational
settings.
Mentors
are leaders! According to Heider, “Good leadership consists of motivating
people to their highest levels by offering them opportunities, not obligations.
That is how things happen naturally. Life is an opportunity and not an
obligation.” (1988, p. 135). I have been fortunate enough to receive this type
of motivation and mentoring from several leaders throughout my life. I know for
a fact that without these people I would not have even considered leadership
roles; in one case this motivation helped me make the final decision to return
to graduate school and earn my doctorate. At every opportunity I have had for a
new position or taking a leadership role, I can remember someone (not always the
same person) being there to assure me that I had the abilities, and should “go
for it!” For me, and I believe for most everyone, it took more than just the
belief that I could do it—it took the encouragement and affirmation of someone
I respected and viewed as a role model. In fact, I don’t think I ever remember
asking for information and advice and being told no. I have come to believe that
most leaders are very willing to help provide information or just to listen, but
are not always asked for help. It can be affirming to have a person seek you out
because they value your ideas—everyone benefits.
I
particularly like Heider’s concept of leader as facilitator. “What we call
leadership consists mainly of knowing how to follow. The wise leader stays in
the background and facilitates other people’s process. The greatest things the
leader does go largely unnoticed” (1988, p. 131). My personal experiences have
led me, like many others, to make the time to provide encouragement, support,
and experiences for faculty, staff, and students as I work with them. In
addition, I have come to believe that we must also identify ways to provide peer
support and networks and to encourage and foster these in positive ways. For
example, we have found it tremendously helpful to provide a forum for department
chairs on our campus where they identify issues that are of concern, or that
they want to explore, and then they are given the time and resources (speakers,
etc.) to meet once a month to explore these issues. These are sessions that are
attended only by the chairs (no deans, etc.), so they can focus on their issues
and perspectives. The most recent session was structured for sharing their tools
for measuring faculty performance and determining merit—I hear it was a lively
session. Regardless of the productivity, the session provided a safe place with
colleagues/peers to share ideas and to raise questions about an administrative
responsibility that was common to all.
One
of the most recent publications by Price Pritchett is titled, Fast Growth: A
Career Acceleration Strategy (1997). As the title indicates, the text
focuses on building your career “fast,” with an emphasis on using the
present to build for the future and on focus. According to Pritchett, “The
fuel for fast growth comes when energy is contained . . . compressed . . .
channeled. It’s simply a matter of giving yourself more fully on a . . .
narrow front. Power accumulates quickly when there are fewer ways for it to
escape” (p. 14). Although I am not advocating fast growth, I use Pritchett’s
quote to emphasize the importance of focus and the need for those who are, or
have been, in leadership positions to provide information and support (based on
experience and observation) as potential leaders select their focus.
Facilitating
the growth (mentoring) of new/developing leaders could be compared to the
Enlightened Leadership Model. In their model, Oakley and Krug (1993) identified
five essential consistent actions. These included support for understanding a
vision, providing positive discipline that brings out the best in people so they
can achieve the vision, putting people first, modeling responsibility, and
having high expectations. To put these actions into mentoring/facilitating
terms: encourage potential leaders to have focus; provide encouragement and
support; tell them what they are doing right; provide chances for experience
that builds toward the focus; remember that you may be a role model; believe
that it can happen in order to “make it so.”
In
higher education we have often made the assumption that a good faculty member
makes a good department chair, dean, provost, etc. Although it may be desirable
for an administrator to understand the role of a faculty member and to have
credibility as a teacher and researcher, these roles in no way prepare a person
for the role of administrator/leader. “There is nothing in the career of most
faculty members that explicitly prepares them for the tasks of assuming the
chair. The work of Ann Lucus underscores the need for new department chairs to
receive training in the skills necessary to fulfill the responsibilities . . .
“ (Pew Higher Education Roundtable, 1996, p. 9). The article continues, “A
very good chair can be said to possess both vertical ‘outside’ vision of the
discipline and horizontal or ‘inside’ vision of the institution” (p.
9-10). Jean Richardson takes this idea a bit further, “In my work I have
regularly recorded that when progress occurs, solutions are less frequently
provided by a specialist and more often emanate from a generalist’s comment .
. .” (1997, p. 91). She goes on to describe the interdisciplinary nature of
issues that every organization must address and the need for organizational
leaders to possess a broad, generalist point of view. John Gardner (1990)
discusses specialization as a hindrance to leadership. “Leaders have always
been generalists. Tomorrow’s leaders will, very likely, have begun life as
trained specialists, but to mature as leaders they must sooner or later climb
out of the trenches of specialization and rise above the boundaries that
separate the various segments of society. Young potential leaders must be able
to see how whole systems function, and how interactions with neighboring systems
may be constructively managed” (pp. 159-160). Therefore, as new chairs are
hired, it is important to provide time, support, and opportunities to learn as
“fast as they can,” and to temper our expectations with the reality of the
experiences they bring to the job.
In
thinking back on my experiences as a new department chair, an acting dean, and a
dean of a new college in a new location, I was lucky in almost every case to
have supervisors and colleagues who had a great deal of patience and were
willing to answer my questions and provide the support I needed. I was also
lucky enough to have mentors when I was in graduate school who taught me to ask
when I did not know and to seek out the best people to provide the
answers—that became second nature to me, but only because someone else helped
me realize that it was okay. I have learned, however, that not everyone feels
comfortable asking for information and often sees that type of request as an
imposition on someone who is already very busy. I have learned that it is my
responsibility to make myself available and to create an environment where
asking is okay.
In
addition to building new leaders, providing support and motivation for those in
leadership positions is also critical. Although there is much to read about how
to take care of yourself, how to prevent “burnout” etc., there is not a
great deal of research that talks about this aspect of leadership from a
collective point of view. However, it is critical that we take this aspect of
building leaders for Family and Consumer Sciences seriously. The climate of
higher education is often difficult, and reorganizations, cuts, and mergers may
threaten the existence of Family and Consumer Science units. Strong, creative,
“new-age” leadership is needed to position these units for the future, in
ways that we may not even have conceived but that build on our heritage and
remain true to our mission. The key question, however, is how do we provide that
support?
In
The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge (1990) talks about the learning
organization as a place where people continually expand their capacity, where
new ways of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspirations are set free,
and where people are learning to work together. Maybe Senge’s ideas provide a
base for support for current leaders. To paraphrase his ideas:
Covey
(1989, p.
) identified “synergize” as his sixth habit; “Find a better
solution together. Creative cooperation recognizes the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts,” and the process of getting to the whole can provide an
opportunity for support, renewal, and affirmation.
In
a speech to the Council of Administrators of Family and Consumer Sciences in
1997, Patrick McDonough stated, “The key factor in a university in a time of
change is the ability of its leaders.” He also said, “Leadership is like
being a trapeze artist without a net.”
In
this time of change, the key factor for Family and Consumer Sciences in Higher
Education is its leaders. Continuing to identify and provide training and
support for new and potential leaders, as well as providing support systems for
those in leadership roles are critical for viability into the next century—to
accomplish these goals is to provide the net below the trapeze.
Alther,
L. (1997). Believing in ourselves.
Astin,
H. S., & Leland, C. (1991). Women
of influence, women of vision. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cantor, D. W., and Bernay, T. (1992). Women in power:
The secrets of leadership. New York: Houghton.
Carr,
V. (1997). In L. Alther, Believing
in ourselves
Clancy,
T. (1997). Executive orders. New York: Berkley.
Covey,
S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Edson,
S. K. (1998). Pushing the limits: The female administrative aspirant.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Gardner,
J. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press.
Heider, J. (1988). The tao of leadership: Leadership
strategies for a new age. New York: Bantam Books.
Irwin,
R. L. (1995). A circle of empowerment: Women, education and leadership.
Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Lesmeister, M. (1996). Key contributors to leadership
development and personal power throughout the life course: Perspectives of
female administrators (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
McDonough,
P. (1997). Speech to Annual Meeting of Council of Administrators of Family and
Consumer Sciences, San Francisco.
Oakley,
G. L., and Krug, D. E. (1991). Enlightened leadership. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Pew Higher Education Roundtable (1996). Double agent. Policy
Perspectives, 6(3), 1-11.
Pritchett,
P. (1997). Fast growth: A career acceleration strategy. Dallas, TX:
Pritchett & Associates.
Richardson,
J. (1997). Strategic leadership: From fragmented thinking to interdisciplinary
perspectives. A Leadership Journal: Women in Leadership - Sharing the Vision,
1(2), 91-100.
Senge,
P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art of practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Dr. Andrews is Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Consumer
Sciences, University of Montevallo. Adapted from a presentation at the Kappa
Omicron Nu Conclave, Chicago, Illinois, August 1995.
The
multipolar world of the 21st century requires us and other leaders to embrace
diversity and recognize, appreciate, and value differences as strengths. This
kind of relationship with others does not come without effort on our part! The
prerequisite strategy for the development of leadership in this multicultural
society is knowledge of and understanding of ourselves as persons and as
leaders.
Self-knowledge
is the foundation of any contribution we can hope to make to other people, and
it is an essential component of our personal and professional integrity. We must
become conscious of the energy patterns rooted in our own history and in our own
culture. We must identify our own attitudes, beliefs, values, motives, actions,
skills, talents, shortcomings, and abilities. Only then can we understand how
our own prejudices and past experiences (a) influence our perceptions of
reality, (b) lead us into stereotypical thinking and behaviors, (c) and prevent
us from learning about and forming friendships with individuals who are
different, from broadening our perspectives, and from exhibiting creativity in
our personal and professional lives.
Awareness
of self or self-discovery evolves over time. It is fluid, dynamic, and
everchanging. For most of us, this process continues throughout our lives and is
furthered by numerous interactions and relationships with others. In Valuing
Diversity (1995), Griggs notes: “The degree to which we are able to form
relationships with others is a measure of our own personal growth. We can become
our fullest selves only through relationships and through reflecting on our
responses to the relationships we form” (p. 215).
Culture
is our way of knowing and doing. Our culture of origin greatly impacts the lens
through which we see the world. Each of us grew up with a set of cultural
messages we acquired from our families, our environments, our peers, and other
sources. Throughout this process, most of us did not consider questioning the
validity of the information we were absorbing and making our own. In Diversity
Issues in the Workplace (1995), Kendall states: “We simply took on the
attitudes, prejudices, and stereotypes about men and women, about people who are
culturally and racially different from ourselves, about age, about work, and
about what is and what is not considered normal” (p. 83). Many of us do not
recognize that our culturally defined ways of doing things are so deeply
embedded that we cannot imagine anyone thinking about doing anything any other
way!
Myers
and Spite, in Optimal Theory in the Psychology of Human Diversity (1994),
conclude that “ . . . exploring the roles of culture, identity, and oppression
in human diversity can help us grow toward wholeness, individually and
collectively. In this growth, we will place less emphasis on the superficial
diversity markers and focus more on the substantive aspects of humanity, having
to do with who we are in terms of our character, ethics, values, and morals
rather than on the way we appear superficially” (p. 112).
In
each of our cultures, beliefs are necessary to make our lives understandable. It
is through these beliefs that we come to know the nature of our society and the
meaning of the things that occur within it. Obviously, beliefs affect our
relationships, fuel our thinking, and direct our behavior and our emotions.
Often, beliefs that we hold are the result of our own cultural conditioning and
determine whether we will seek rapport with individuals who are different from
ourselves. Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, most of us are trapped by
our own belief systems, our own unexamined values, our past experiences, and the
emotions of fear, anger, and mistrust that have been frozen over our lifetimes.
Unless
we have a clear and accurate picture of our style of interaction, our values
about communicating, our cultural biases about openness, honesty, conflict,
language, and about how our biases affect interactions, we will not be able to
forge a meaningful relationship with others.
An
effective relationship, regardless of the culture of the individuals, has
several characteristics. These were identified by Charles Truax and Robert
Carkhuff (Louw, 1995, p. 172). An effective relationship is one in which the
individuals:
1.
Are
reasonably well integrated, non defensive, and authentic in their relationship
encounters;
2.
Provide
a nonthreatening, safe, trusting, and secure atmosphere by reason of their
mutual and unconditional regard for each other;
3.
Are
able to understand each other and their relationship on a moment-to-moment
basis.
In
the discussion of the Ubuntu philosophy in Applying African Philosophy to
Diversity Training (1995), Lente-Louise Louw indicated that “ . . . the
baggage we bring from the past, combined with the unrealistic expectations we
have for the future, are very effective in keeping us from being a fully
participating member of society. We allow our preconceptions, our past
associations, and our judgments to distort most of our present interactions”
(p. 166). The sad thing is that many of us do not even realize what is
occurring!
Knowing
as much as we can about our own ethnocentrisms helps us recognize how our
ignorance of and discomfort with differences literally prevents us from seeing
others as “fully human.” Intrapersonal and interpersonal factors and
sociocultural history influence the development of personal prejudice and
discrimination. Our attitudes and behaviors toward people are in part determined
by the historical legacy of our interactions with people who are different.
Understanding
the influence of past experiences and cultural orientation on how different
racial groups view the world helps us understand the development of our own
racial identity. From this understanding, we strive toward respect for the
racial identity processes of others. As you study the sample model of racial
identity development (Table 1), you will recognize that each of us may be in
several stages of racial identity development at the same time.
Table 1. Racial Identity Development Stages for
Minority and Majority Americans
Adapted from
Helms, J. E. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of
race on counseling: A black and white model. The Counseling
Psychologist, 12(4), 153-164. |
Critical
to our self-knowledge is an understanding of the roles relationships play in the
process. As noted earlier, relationships are fluid and ever-changing energy
patterns. They do not form overnight! Rather, they form over time and reform
constantly. With every relationship we form, there is an opportunity for each of
us to invest positively or negatively.
Various
cultures build relationships differently. Individuals who grow up in the same
environment more easily develop relationships than those who grow up in
different environments. In part, this is due to the fact that those who share
the same environment share certain cues, customs, behaviors, communication
styles, and ways of understanding that environment. Thus, they have something in
common.
Our
personal history, childhood experiences, family and ethical backgrounds, and
work experiences are but a few of the contexts that impact the type and quality
of relationships we build with other people. Understanding and respecting the
diversity of peoples’ personal gifts in finding areas where there is
commonality of perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, values, and expectations are the
early steps in forming relationships with people who are different. The bases
for enhancing these relationships (regardless of the culture from which we come
or in which we live) are trust, respect, and shared goals.
Learning
to value diversity, to become conscious of our ways of relating to each other
and their ways of relating to us, does not come easily to most of us nor is it
something that can be imposed from the outside. In Valuing Relationship
(1995), Lewis Brown Griggs sums the value of knowing ourselves as follows:
“Knowing myself is what allows me to know, understand, and value the diversity
of others so that I can build trust with them. With more trust comes the ability
to communicate more clearly, to problem solve and network more effectively, and
to realize the value of synergistic relationships and productive
interdependency. Investing in my relationships with self and thus enhancing my
relationships with others is therefore an important insurance policy against
lost opportunities” (p. 210).
Griggs,
L. B. (1995). Valuing Diversity: Where from . . . Where to? In L. B. Griggs
& L-L. Louw (Eds.), Valuing diversity: New tools for a new reality.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Griggs,
L. B. (1995). Valuing relationship: The heart of valuing diversity. In L. B.
Griggs & L-L. Louw (Eds.), Valuing diversity: New tools for a new
reality. New York: McGraw Hill.
Helms,
J. E. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of race on
counseling: A black and white model. The Counseling Psychologist, 12(4),
153-164.
Kendall,
F. E. (1995). Diversity issues in the workplace. In L. B. Griggs & L-L. Louw
(Eds.), Valuing diversity: New tools for a new reality. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Louw,
L-L. (1995). Ubuntu: Applying African philosophy to diversity training. In L. B.
Griggs & L-L. Louw (Eds.), Valuing diversity: New tools for a new reality.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Myers,
L. J., & Spite, S. L. (1994). Optimal theory in the psychology of human
diversity. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human
diversity: Perspectives on people in context. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dr. Clayton is Vice President, Division of Student Affairs and Special Services, Texas A & M University—Kingsville.
Throughout
my career, I have had many wonderful opportunities to learn and grow
professionally. As I reflect on my career, there are several major turning
points. I was fortunate to have the chance to earn my Ph.D. at a relatively
young age. During my doctoral studies, I acquired skills in grant writing; and
those skills have served me very well, although at the time, I did not fully
appreciate how valuable those skills would be to my career.
After
finishing my Ph.D., I intended to go into public administration. But a different
opportunity presented itself, and I was offered a faculty position at a large
research institution—the University of Texas at Austin. There I had a
wonderful mentor, Dr. Wilma P. Griffin, who “socialized” me into higher
education. The demands of UT-Austin enabled me to acquire a strong record of
teaching, research, and service. This experience prepared me for my next
position—that of associate professor and department chair of Family Life
Studies and Home Economics at the University of Southern Mississippi. I was
promoted to full professor in my last year at USM.
On
returning to Texas, I took another chair position—this time in a comprehensive
department but at a smaller institution in the Texas A & M University
System. At the beginning of my third year at A & M - Kingsville, I was
appointed by the university president to be the Faculty Athletic Representative
to the NCAA and the Lone Star Conference. What a learning experience that was!
In
1993, I was selected to be an intern in the Office of the Provost/Vice President
of Academic Affairs, with the title of Assistant Vice President of Academic
Affairs. After two years in this position, the president asked me to serve as
Interim Vice President for Student Affairs. I was stunned by this request
because never in my wildest dreams had I aspired to a position in student
services! After much deliberation with the provost and my husband, I decided to
take the position. After all, it was only until the university could hire a new
vice president; and it would be a great learning experience! The president
suggested that I might want to apply for the position. My first response was
“I don’t think so.” But then I decided to take a “wait and see”
attitude.
Two
months into this new position, I decided that I really liked the challenges of
student affairs; and I felt that I was making a significant contribution to
student life on our campus—plus I was learning another aspect of higher
education! Eight months later, I applied and was selected by the search
committee as a finalist—and ultimately I was offered the position. Apparently
I have been effective; the TAMUK faculty and staff recognized me with the 1997
Leadership Award through a program sponsored by the Faculty Senate.
Looking
back, I realize how fortunate I have been. I have had some excellent mentors,
and I have learned so much from each of them. By learning from setbacks,
focusing on continuous professional development, and taking advantage of
opportunities as they came along, I have gained a broad perspective of higher
education. My actions and decisions are undergirded by the philosophy of our
profession, and every day I use the management skills I learned in home
economics/family and consumer sciences. These skills are indeed transferable,
and they have enabled me to move up the “career ladder.”
Dr
Crabtree is Professor Emerita, College of Family and Consumer Sciences, Iowa
State University, Ames.
Before
addressing turning points in my professional life, recognition must be directed
to the support I have received at every stage of my development. I have to give
credit to family members, memorable life experiences, mentors, and role models
in the profession and to the delightful stimulation and learning obtained from
the students and colleagues with whom I have had the privilege to know and work
throughout the years.
I honestly cannot say any one thing happened along the way
that helped me decide to become a leader. There is not a point in my life when I
consciously made such a decision. My mother and father assumed leadership
responsibilities in our community and country, and assuming leadership was an
expectation that I had for myself and my family and others had of me. Leadership
responsibilities were assumed in 4-H, high school, and university organizations.
After graduation from college, leadership responsibilities have continued to be
assumed in the communities in which my family and I have lived and in
professional organizations as a practicing professional in Family and Consumer
Sciences, first as a high school teacher, then as a faculty member and
administrator in higher education.
During
my professional career, I have been privileged to have numerous male and female
mentors and role models both in our profession and in higher education
administration in general. Space does not permit discussing each of these, so
only the very special mentors and role models are identified in the following
comments.
The
gentle suggestion by Alta Mater Adams, my University of Missouri-Columbia (UM-C)
undergraduate advisor and head of Home Economics Education, to consider graduate
school was the first impact on the direction of my professional career. I had
not previously considered graduate study.
While
teaching high school home economics, Dr. Pauline (Garrett) Gunn, then head of
Home Economics Education at UM-C and my advisor for the master’s program,
provided an opportunity for me to serve as a supervisor of student teachers.
This responsibility early in my career enabled me to later pursue
responsibilities as a teacher educator in higher education. Assuming a position
as a teacher educator would have been impossible in most universities without
the experiences as a supervising teacher. Dr. Garrett was the most visionary,
stimulating, courageous, and challenging teacher/mentor I have ever known; she
modeled for me the willingness to consider new options and to take chances. She
“stretched me to the limit” while serving as her graduate assistant during
my master’s program. Five years later, Dr. Garrett made the decision to move
to Colorado and encouraged me to consider the position of Head of Home Economics
Education at UM-C. By that time I had completed the Ph.D. at Iowa State
University and served three years as a member of the home economics education
faculty at Michigan State University.
For
seven years, I had the wonderful opportunity to be a professional colleague of
Dr. Margaret Mangel, Dean of the College of Home Economics at UM-C. Dr.
Mangel’s vision, courage, scholarship, humaneness, and her quiet and
substantive leadership provided tremendous learning experiences for me as a
beginning administrator. My UM-C tenure included six years as Head of Home
Economics Education and two years as Associate Dean for Home Economics
Extension. There were many times when Dr. Mangel would say, “I am in the
process of making a decision . . . . Would you be interested in what I am
thinking at this time? I would appreciate your perspective.” I would
immediately stop what I was doing and go to her office. What fantastic learning
experiences these were, and what an excellent mentor she was. Over the years, I
continued to use that same strategy to obtain perspectives from my
administrative colleagues, and a wealth of insight was shared.
Dr.
Mangel nominated me for the position of Dean of the College of Home Economics at
Oklahoma State University (OSU), a position assumed for twelve years. During
that time, much appreciated support from my family, OSU administrators,
professional colleagues, support staff, and students enabled me to assume
various leadership responsibilities in the American Home Economics Association (AHEA),
serve as President of AHEA during 1977-78, serve on a variety of U. S.
Department of Agriculture committees/councils, and assume a variety of
leadership roles at the University, in my local community, and at the state
level.
New
challenges and opportunities led me to accept the position of Dean of the
College of Family and Consumer Sciences at Iowa State University (ISU), a
position assumed for ten years (1987-97). During that time period, again with
the support of my family, professional colleagues, support staff, and students
in the College, many leadership responsibilities were assumed in the University
and community, at the state level, and in AHEA (and later the American
Association of Family and Consumer Sciences). Being the “Senior Dean” (the
one with the longest tenure as Dean at ISU) for the last six years of my tenure
involved a variety of unique responsibilities and leadership opportunities.
Throughout
the thirty years in administrative roles, I was most fortunate to have fantastic
administrative colleagues and support staff. In my absence, the understanding
was that those on location with all the facts could make the best decisions.
Thus, when absent from campus, calls were not made to me to make decisions that
had to be made prior to my return, for my colleagues knew they had the authority
to make decisions. In those thirty years, my colleagues never made a wrong
decision! My basic premise for leadership is that when administrators and
support staff have a “portfolio of delegated responsibilities,” then they
should have a “portfolio of authority” to assume those responsibilities and
to make decisions.
Lao-tzu,
poet and philosopher, eloquently stated my perspective about leadership more
than two thousand years ago (parentheses added):
Fail
to honor people and they will fail to honor you; but of a good leader who takes
little, when his (her) work is done, his (her) aim fulfilled, they will say,
“We did this ourselves.”
My
sincere hope is that, during my career, I have served as a mentor and role model
and have “sparked” the interest of and challenged students, faculty, support
staff, alumni, and administrators with whom I have worked for they have
certainly done that for me. Now in retirement, I plan to continue to be involved
in the profession and, working with others, actively involved with specific
community programs that focus on strengthening communities and enhancing the
well-being of children and families—a focus central to the family and consumer
sciences profession. There is much to be done.
Dr. Craig is Dean, College of Human Resources and Family Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Recognizing
that I had the capacity to be a leader.
Until I was a graduate student at Purdue I didn’t know that I had special
thinking and creativity skills. So the first point for me was learning that I
had the capacity to lead. Two faculty members identified me as someone who might
make a difference. “Making a difference” has driven my motivation for
leadership roles ever since.
Circumstances.
Four years into my first faculty position, the department chair resigned, and I
was asked to serve as interim chair. I realized I liked the role and applied for
the position. At that time I was a newly tenured Associate Professor. Two years
later I was accepted as an American Council on Education (ACE) Fellow. After my
year in the program I was hired to work in the Provost’s Office. I was good at
the work but did not enjoy it. So I decided to go back to a faculty role and
develop my credentials for the dean’s role. During this time I found that I
liked to provide leadership for a program, but I didn’t really like being the
point person.
Making a difference. I struggle with internal conflict constantly in leadership roles. Although I believe I have skills for dealing with problems, I don’t like the “trappings” of designated leader roles. I care a great deal about what happens to programs and people. I even like the planning and detail work of the dean’s role. I do not like the up-front activities and the networking that are believed to be essential to leadership roles.
Husband
and children.
Finally, but really first, my husband has made it possible for me to be involved
in leadership efforts. He is supportive of what I do. It has probably caused his
world to be less satisfactory because I don’t do lots of the social things he
might want to do. Nonetheless, he encourages me to do what is necessary. The
children gave their support as well. I know that I was not the nurturing mother
they might have wanted, but they seldom complained.
I
believe a successful leader must seek to make a difference and be able to get
things done. Although my preference was for the behind-the-scenes work, the
public facets of the role have to be accomplished for each program. In my case,
this role was delegated. I believe it is possible, especially in the leadership
styles for the new millennium, to be successful if leaders are true to their own
internal styles and choose colleagues that can complement their qualities.
Dr. Firebaugh is
Professor Emerita, College of Human Ecology, and Director of Special Projects,
Office of the Vice Provost, Diversity and Faculty Development, Cornell
University.
The
early development of my leadership was enhanced by association with strong
leaders such as Dorothy Scott, Director of the School of Home Economics at Ohio
State University (OSU), Eva D. Wilson who was the head of research in the
School, and Ruth Deacon who chaired the Division of Management, Housing and
Equipment.
A
specific turning point came when Lois A. Lund left Ohio State to become Dean of
Human Ecology at Michigan State University. Dr. Lund had “stiffened the
resolve” of the faculty in home economics to work toward becoming a college
separate from agriculture. I was on leave in Washington at the U. S. Department
of Agriculture in the Cooperative State Research Service during the search for
her successor. The experience of being away from the university for a long time
was influential in helping me see a broader picture of home economics, the
social science aspects of agriculture, and the complexities of the federal
government. I returned to become the Director of the School of Home Economics at
OSU, and I take pride in the progression to college status. We formed
departments in the School and in the year I served as Acting Vice President for
Agriculture, I supported the actions set in place by Lena Bailey to separate
from the College of Agriculture and Home Economics.
Several
turning points in my professional career were associated with foreign
experiences. Relatively early in my career I visited universities in a number of
countries which had home economics as a field of study, with a specific emphasis
in India on Ohio State related programs. I returned to India for three months to
do research and consult on their program. My appreciation for the cultures in
India grew.
Another
turning point was a 14-month leave when my husband had an assignment in
Afghanistan. I took along materials to revise Family Resource Management with
Ruth Deacon. During the time we were there the Russians were gradually taking
over the government and we were evacuated before the invasion. I gained in inner
strength and in my ability to concentrate my energies when I could not affect a
situation. My interest was heightened in the areas of roles of women, social and
economic change, the impact of religion, education, and cultural differences.
When
I returned, opportunities arose for me to consult three separate years in Egypt,
to serve as an external examiner in Malaysia, and to serve on national
committees related to international development. The combination of experiences
eventually led to becoming Vice Provost of International Affairs at Ohio State.
Another
turning point came through the support and encouragement of President Edward H.
Hennings and Provost Ann Reynolds who asked me to be Acting Vice President of
Agriculture and to chair the search committee for the position. Becoming
involved in central administration gave me insights and experience and at the
completion of the year in agriculture, I joined the staff in the Provost’s
office.
Successful
participation in fund raising taught me to be a leader in fund raising. While
serving as Director of the School of Home Economics at OSU, Beatrice Cleveland
came to say that she thought we should raise a million dollars for the School. I
was the reluctant one, but through her leadership and perseverance, the School
was successful. I learned a lot along the way. Little did I know that I would be
Dean of the College of Human Ecology at Cornell and that one of my early
assignments would be participation in the $1.25 billion university capital
campaign to raise $17 million for Human Ecology. I am pleased that we raised $34
million in the five-year period.
A
turning point occurred when I accepted the deanship at Cornell and my husband
took early retirement to support the decision. The position had considerable
external relations responsibilities and through observation of others
(particularly Frank H. T. Rhodes, President of Cornell) who were brilliant and
some very good speakers, I grew in my ability to make presentations and to be
involved in the lobbying function in Albany (to a much lesser extent in
Washington).
Opportunities
to make changes in the structure and academic programs came during the decade of
my deanship at Cornell. I believe that the formation of the Department of Policy
Analysis and Management will be seen as an important turning point in the
history of the College.
It
seems obvious to me that circumstances often have a great deal to do with
direction of a professional career. Learning, skill development, and experience
are gained at every step. In addition, mentors and role models are essential,
and I was indeed blessed in these domains. It takes courage, a certain amount of
risk-taking, and accurate assessment of one’s own abilities to take advantage
of the opportunities that are presented.
I’m
not sure that one “decides” to be a leader. Leadership takes many forms and
is frequently situation specific. Individuals who are identified with leadership
roles are those who have a commitment to the subject or the task at hand, the
habit of being responsible, applicable resources developed in or drawn from
previous experiences, and some feel for human relationships and the ways in
which groups and individuals work toward defined objectives.
My
work in the field was administrative. I was an agriculture graduate anticipating
employment with the George A. Hormel Company. But WWII intervened. Following the
cessation of hostilities in Europe in 1945 I was a short-term student at the
University of Edinburgh where I enjoyed a course in the History and Philosophy
of Education taught by an engaging educational psychologist. Because of the
excitement generated by this experience I was motivated to accept a University
of Minnesota offer to serve in the College Office, College of Agriculture,
Forestry, and Home Economics, and to undertake a graduate program in Educational
Psychology. After a rigorous apprenticeship I spent 10 years as Director of
Resident Instruction, learning at first hand the intricacies of faculty
administration and relationships and of student progress. Developing and
administering a student placement program was a key influence in my later
philosophic position that students in home economics would be better served in
job seeking and placement if identified by specialization, rather than the more
general term, “home economics.”
During
this period I worked on common problems with other Deans and Directors of
Resident Instruction, serving at one time as Chair of the Resident Instruction
Section, Division of Agriculture, National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges. The requirements of this latter activity paralleled those
encountered at a later date as Chair of the Association of Administrators of
Home Economics and board member of the National Council of Administrators of
Home Economics.
In
the 1960s I was a member of the University’s lobbying team to the Minnesota
State Legislature. The insights gained were most helpful at later date as I
served as Vice President for Public Affairs for the American Home Economics
Association. They applied even more directly when, as Acting Dean, later Dean,
of the newly autonomous College of Home Economics we sought legislative funding
for much needed construction and renovation. The contacts established at earlier
times were most helpful as faculty, alumni, and students worked to secure
approval of funding for what resulted in a splendid physical plant for the
college.
Field
experience in World War II and subsequent extended service as training officer
of a sizeable reserve unit led me to, or forced me to, become somewhat adept at
building cooperative effort within a unit and in securing positive contributions
from unit personnel. This was quite analogous, indeed, to the work of a dean
with his/her faculty.
I
thoroughly enjoyed my 17 years with the College of Home Economics and had a
hearty respect for its programs. In addition, I was married to a most effective
home economist who was during this period President of the Minnesota and later
the American Home Economics Association. And so at the office with faculty,
students, and alumni, and in my home, the worth of the field was constantly
reinforced. Previous administrative contacts were helpful in expanding the
outreach of the College, in securing increased research support, in encouraging
program re-examination, and in strengthened business/industry cooperation in
curricular planning, in establishing internships, and in other forms of support.
Does
the above tell anything about the development of “a leader”? My experience
was touched by circumstance. Each phase rested upon and/or grew out of preceding
phases. Perhaps the most crucial element in whatever success I had was in a
fortunate ability to work harmoniously with others. This faculty quite probably
was rooted in a childhood home wherein mutual respect for its members was the
norm and where sensitivity to the needs of others, and the considerations
implied, were paramount.
Dr.
Lerner is Professor of Child Development, Tufts University.
Justin
came into my study. I was glad that he did. I was just removing the cellophane
from the “warehouse” copy of my seventeenth book, the copy the publisher
sends to the author as soon as a new book reaches the distribution center.
“Hey,
son, come here. I want to show you something.” His seven year-old eyes widened
and he rushed over to my desk. I suppose he thought it might be a new office
gadget—a “toy” he could play with.
“What
do you have, Daddy?”
“See,”
I said, proudly holding up the volume before him, my face beaming with a broad
grin of self-congratulatory accomplishment, “it’s my new book!”
“Oh.”
He breathed a deep sigh punctuated by a shrug of his shoulders and a grimace of
disappointment.
I was crushed that he took no joy in my accomplishment. A moment of resounding silence filled the room. He looked at my face, which was clearly saddened by his reaction. He seemed to grasp the meaning of my changed expression.
Then,
more as an explanation of his response than as a question, he asked, “Why do
you write those things, anyway? Do they ever help anybody?”
His
questions led to an epiphany. In the moment that his words pierced the silence,
an image, a glimpse of a possible future, burst before me.
I
saw a young man—my son years in the future—kneeling with a woman I imagined
was his wife, in a dark attic, a tiny space illuminated by a single hanging
light bulb. He had just opened a carton. He was, with his wife peering over his
shoulder, staring at its contents.
“Wait,
I know what these are,” he said, reaching inside the box. He pulled out a book
covered in dust, and blew in its side and cover. “These are copies of the
books my dad used to write.” He paused, then breathed the same sort of sigh I
had heard in my study. Then, aloud, but more to himself than to her, he said,
“I remember all the time he spent doing these . . . squirreled away on
weekends and almost every night. I never got to spend as much time with him when
I was growing up as I would have liked . . . .” His voice halted and choked a
bit. “He chose to do these instead.”
I
saw that this was what my work would come to, what it would mean to my son:
Missed opportunities to have spent time with his dad for the sake of books that
would gather dust in an unknown carton in a dark attic. And all for what? My son
would believe that I had helped no one, that all my time had been wasted. The
result of all that I gave up to produce these books was dust and sad memories of
missed opportunities.
I
guess that as a result of this vision I could have had a Scrooge-like
conversion, repudiated of my “workaholic” ethic and adopted a life focused
solely on spending time with my son, his younger sister, and infant brother. But
that is not the resolution I made at that moment.
I
decided that, in some way, I would make my work of value to my son, to his
siblings, to my family. I resolved to find a way, although exactly how would not
become clear to me for several months, to recast my work so that my son could
say that his dad mattered, that he had done more than produce the useless and
pointless knowledge that Bob Dylan described in Ballad of a Thin Man,
that because of his work, life had become better.
But
better for whom? I was a scholar of child and adolescent development, an expert
in the study of youth and families. Clearly, it seemed, I should contribute not
only to better knowledge about youth development but, as well, to using that
knowledge to make development better for young people.
“Okay,
then,” I thought. “This is what I’ll do.” This goal seemed certain. But
how I would reach it did not.
The
path this question took me on over the next two years was one that first
involved coming to appreciate the implications of my own scholarship for
application. I had been developing a theory that stressed that human development
occurs through the bi-directional relationships individuals have with their
physical and social world. One could test this theory by introducing changes
into the contexts within which young people interacted; one could then evaluate
whether these changes resulted in predicted developmental outcomes. I began to
realize, then, that in the real ecology of human development these changes in
person-context relations could be represented by programs or policies. These
interventions into the course of life could be aimed at altering
individual-context relations, at improving the quality and outcomes of
individuals’ development. By using my ideas to design and assess the
effectiveness of programs and policies, I could—at the same time—learn
something about the adequacy of these interventions and the theory of
development from which such community-based actions derived. Simply, if I was to
use my scholarship to do more than generate dust-producing volumes of theory and
research, I had to work to have my ideas inform the program and policy
development, implementation, and evaluation process. I had to become an applied
developmental scientist.
But
this recognition led to a second realization. I could not do this work alone. To
apply my ideas in real-world settings—in the communities where youth and
families actually lived (as compared to an artificial “laboratory”
setting)—I had to engage the cooperation of colleagues from a myriad of
disciplines and professions. Their expertise in research and intervention was
vital for understanding the system of interrelated issues faced by, and the
numerous assets and capacities of, the people and communities with which I would
have to work. And I had to engage members of the community as well—they were
the experts about life in their families and neighborhoods. I had to embark on a
co-learning collaboration with them if I was to help couple their ecology into
high quality research and successful programs. In fact, if my scholarship was
going to enhance the life chances of youth, if it was to make an effective and
sustained difference in individuals’ lives, then both my research and the
applications associated with it had to be valued and meaningful to the
community. It had to be co-owned with them.
The
task that I now had before me was finally clear. I had to induce in others—in
academic colleagues and community partners—the enthusiasm I had for my vision
of applied developmental science. I had to organize a “platform,” or an
institutional context—for instance, a university center or institute devoted
to linking outreach and scholarship in the service of youth and families—to
coalesce others around my vision, to communicate and advance the idea of
applying developmental science to promote positive outcomes to the lives of
people of our communities. It was a short step, then, from this insight into
making a commitment to pursue career opportunities involving developing and
sustaining university units devoted to outreach scholarship.
This
account may be nothing more than an academic odyssey motivated by a perhaps
offhand or over interpreted remark by a very young boy to his father. However,
if this history is an account of the genesis of leadership, then it is one that
was born from the love of a father for his son, and of that father’s resulting
hope that his son would remember him as having lived a life that mattered—to
his own family and the families of countless others. To matter to my son I set
out on a path committed to helping others matter to the children and families
across our nation and world.
Dr.
Meeks is Dean, College of Family and Consumer Sciences, Iowa State University,
Ames.
I
think most of the inspiration for me to become a leader came from people who
touched my life. I will highlight a few of these below. I have selected one or
two individuals from each institution in which I have been employed.
Carolyn
Ater, a fellow graduate student, inspired me in graduate school at The Ohio
State University to complete a Ph.D.
Marjorie
Merchant at the University of Massachusetts proved to be a role model of
professionalism. Marjorie was always on the forefront of consumer issues. She
integrated the real world and the academic world.
Dr.
Gwen Bymers at Cornell University helped me see beyond work activities to the
importance of politics and networks in getting one’s job accomplished. Dr.
Jennifer Gerner, also at Cornell, proved to be the sounding board for many ideas
and thoughts related to research, outreach, and university issues.
Dr.
Thomas Hady at the U. S. Department of Agriculture taught me to seek solutions
outside the box. I learned that most rules could be overcome if one was creative
enough.
Dr.
Roger Swagler and Dr. Sharon Nickols at the University of Georgia helped me
become more interested in administration and provided insights into approaches
to use in addressing issues.
In
sum, the contacts throughout life can all make a contribution to the person we
become if we learn from and value those inputs. Each of these people helped me
reach beyond what I thought I could do. They also taught me to expand my views
of my job and my life.
Leadership
in higher education has been an endless journey for me, a journey that has
included myriad developmental stages and contexts from childhood to adulthood.
Along this highway, there have been road signs and compasses that were
fundamental in mapping, directing, and pointing out the way in an evolutionary
process. As I continue on this path, it has been important for me to reflect on
Abraham Maslow’s differentiation of those individuals who are “actualized”
from those who are “actualizing.”
The latter, active participants in their evolving world, are building and
transforming themselves to reach their maximum potential. Indeed, this
distinction characterizes my development as a leader.
Important
to this analysis of personal leadership is a position offered by Robert Terry in
Authentic Leadership: Courage in
Action
(1993). Terry stresses the integrative nature of traditional—personal, team,
and positional/functional—and provocative—political, visionary, and
ethical—views of leadership. An integrative leadership approach prevents
isolation and limitation to one or more paradigms because it goes beyond any one
school of thought to newer dimensions of the human condition. When I reflect
upon Terry’s position in light of my own journey to
actualize
leadership potential, the major road signs and most powerful compasses directing
me have been family and community interactions, informal and formal networks,
and workplace environments.
Family
and Community Interactions.
There is universal agreement that family is one of the oldest forces and
strongest influences in forming an individual’s development. Certainly, the
impact of family and community were instrumental in my development. The
contextual dynamics of these two powerful influences were interwoven with
education, religion, culture, racial identity, rituals, beliefs, and values
(Miller & Vaughn, 1997).
These
forces—social, cultural, environmental—were invaluable in establishing and
maintaining my motivation, pride, determination, and the self-assurance that
success was achievable. Family and community members were partners in
development. Role models existed in both contexts, where the prevailing
philosophy affirmed that acceptance of duty could make a difference in life for
oneself and others. From these foundations, I could build and cultivate a
commitment to action—a drive that is fundamental to leadership.
Informal
and Formal Networks.
Support networks and mentors have served vital roles for me as I made both
personal and professional decisions in the workplace. Often, formal networks
were not readily accessible and supportive of my development. In those cases,
working in partnership with colleagues, new networks were organized and
expanded. This strategy has also been effective in the organization of civic
groups to support community efforts.
This
creation of informal networks does not imply that more formal avenues, when open
to me, were not important. It has been critical to network through professional
meetings, conferences, and symposia. These platforms have provided “reality
checks” for state-of-the-art issues and direction for exercising leadership.
One such platform, a postdoctoral program in educational management at Harvard
University, was one of the most significant “points of distinction” in my
professional career and offered a most valuable administrative framework. That
framework focuses on organizational analysis with four lenses—structural,
human relations, political, and symbolic (Bolman and Deal, 1991).
Mentors,
both individuals within our profession and friends, have provided invaluable
support and wisdom, nurturance, protective and productive strategies, grounding,
and priceless experiences. In essence, the people who form these formal and
informal networks have served as navigators and a collegial “crew” in
charting the course for effective leadership.
Workplace
Environments.
Overwhelmingly, employment opportunities, regardless of the position, sustained
and increased my interest in leadership. In many former positions of employment,
I found a nurturing and caring culture and environment. Colleagues embraced and
shared ideas and ideals as partners in the development of self, the
organization, and the community. Rewards, both tangible and intangible, were
inspirational and positive forces that helped cement my leadership potential.
My
appointment to the position of leadership that I currently hold was considered
to be pioneering. I entered uncharted territory as the first African American
female Dean in our profession at a major university with one of the nation’s
largest enrollments. I assumed these duties confidently, with pride and
self-assurance, because of the past experiences and educational achievements.
This position continues to be rewarding and growth-producing, offering a
multitude of personal and professional challenges and opportunities.
Today, I look forward to this endless journey of growth and development in leadership as I have in the past, with optimism, courage, adventure, and inspiration—for if one is committed to making a difference in life, the journey will be nothing less than transformative and transcendent.
Terry,
R. W. (1993). Authentic leadership: Courage in action. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Miller,
J. R., & Vaughn, G. G. (1997). African American women executives: Themes
that bind. In L. Benjamin (Ed.), Black women in the academy: Promises and
Perils. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Bolman,
Lee G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice,
and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dr.
Nickols is Dean, College of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Georgia,
Athens.
Rather
than “turning points” in my professional life, the analogy I believe is most
appropriate for the development of my role as a leader and administrator is that
of a “flowing river.” The symphonic composition, “The Moldau,” by
Bedrich Smetana provides a sound poem for how I conceptualize the way my
leadership role has developed. Smetana’s music describes the river Moldau as
starting as a quiet rivulet, gathering strength as water is added to it,
cascading and rushing through some of its course, and as a mature body of water
traversing its way through the countryside and into the future. The river is a
life force, sustaining others, helping to shape its environment, and also being
replenished itself.
My
role as a leader seems to be a course that was pre-ordained for me. Perhaps it
is because I am a first-born child, perhaps it is because my first grade teacher
let me keep my left-hand preference even though it made me different from all my
classmates, or perhaps it is because my mother encouraged me to be confident and
helped me develop skills through 4-H to become a leader. Whatever early
experience or combination of experiences was the rivulet that commenced my
journey with leadership, I can’t remember a time during my childhood and
adolescence when I was not a leader. That doesn’t mean I was always in charge.
I also learned to work as a member of a team.
Two
significant leaders in family and consumer sciences who were Deans of Colleges
of Home Economics can be viewed as “tributaries” to my “river” of
leadership development. Dean Doretta Hoffman at Kansas State University
influenced my aspirations for graduate school and provided a role model for
women in higher education administration. Dean Hoffman had a program for
identifying the outstanding undergraduate students, inviting us to a luncheon
with our mothers, and challenging us to go to graduate school. I view this as a
“bend in the river,” a course I had not previously planned to take. With
Dean Hoffman’s inspiration and the support of my husband Sam, I completed a
M.A. degree in Family Life Education at Teachers College, Columbia University
during the two years following the completion of my B.S. degree.
Dean
Beverly Crabtree at Oklahoma State University (OSU) where I was on faculty from
1976 to 1986 was also a role model. In addition, she invested resources in the
leadership development of many faculty members at OSU. By supporting my
attendance at the Emerging Administrators Workshop in 1982, she contributed to
my preparation for administrative roles. I began to give my leadership river a
name, such as “head,” “director,” or “dean,” as my career path
emerged. Dean Crabtree believed in me, as she did in many others whose careers
she helped to foster. In effect, she said through her words and deeds, “Become
what you already are.” For me, that meant following the leadership river on
its course into new territory and adventures.
Like
most of us who are in administrative positions, I experienced some boulders and
rapids. I interviewed for administrative positions that weren’t the right fit,
and although it felt at the time like the bottom was falling out because of the
disappointment, I can look back now and realize that going through those
experiences contributed strength, resiliency, and compassion, all of which were
useful characteristics as my leadership flowed into the future.
My
leadership river is still flowing. From the feedback I receive, it is nurturing
the development of students, faculty, and staff. It is also nurturing other
emerging administrators. To continue the river analogy, I think my leadership
role may be transformed from a river into a lake. I do not plan to travel any
further along the journey through higher education administrative ranks and
roles. Rather, my goal is to provide superior leadership to the College of
Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Georgia and to let my
leadership abilities ripple into the Athens community. To this end, I serve as a
Commissioner on the Athens Housing Authority Board and give my time to other
community endeavors such as Child Watch. In the larger professional community I
have committed time and energy to the development of future leaders through my
participation in developing the 1994 and 2001 Emerging Administrators Workshops,
sponsored by the Family and Consumer Sciences~Administrative Leadership Council.
I am more conscious now of how I can facilitate the turning points for others in
their leadership quests.
Adapted
and reprinted by permission of the Pacific Sociological Association (Sociological
Perspectives, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 295-300).
I’ll
be honest. The principal reason I became an administrator is because I grew
increasingly frustrated spending endless hours, days, weeks, and months of my
life on committees that were supposed to recommend choices, solutions, and
directions to other people who either didn’t listen to what the committee had
to say, in some cases never intended to listen to what the committee had to say,
or did listen to the committee but made a different decision. Most readers
don’t have to imagine the frustration of a young assistant professor investing
his or her life in all this wasted effort; we’ve all been there. I suppose,
too, that I’ve always had a lot of social worker in me; the opportunity to
serve has always had appeal.
I
developed an idea early on that I could make a contribution, that some of my
ideas might work out better than what some other folks might be proposing, and
that there was a lot of bad management around—lots of people wasting lots of
other people’s time.
This
is the kind of thinking that draws attention and often results in yet further
invitations to get involved. I had no idea whatsoever, though, that I would at
some juncture, after some intermediate steps, find myself in the position of
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs [or University President].
Within
four years after my initial faculty appointment at Penn State I was asked to
serve in two administrative positions simultaneously, as Professor-in-charge of
a 700-student undergraduate program in Individual and Family Studies, and as
Divisional Professor-in-charge of this large interdisciplinary academic unit of
40 faculty members and 100 graduate students within the College of Human
development at Penn State. I still considered myself very much a faculty member
in these roles.
Unlike
the orderly progression that typically characterizes one’s career in the
professorial ranks, there is often nothing predictable or rational about
progression in administration. Witness my case. Penn State hired a new dean for
my college against the advice of the search committee and the faculty. Disaster
struck. The dean was fired nine months later, after doing some serious damage.
During those nine months, many of the top scholars in the college, having heard
the rumors that our jobs were in jeopardy, began interviewing elsewhere. When I
returned from an interview with my second job offer, a representative of the
university administration asked if I would accept the position of Associate Dean
for Resident Instruction to help put the house back in order. I had wanted to
stay in the first place, so I accepted, thus launching a more clearly identified
administrative career that would involve me more fully in university-wide
administration. I subsequently served for four years as Vice Provost for
Undergraduate Studies at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, before
moving to Oregon State University, . . . [to the University of Nebraska and to
Penn State University].
Although
no sociologists have ever asked me the question, perhaps because they know the
answer, many other kinds of scholars have: “Does your training in sociology
help make you a better administrator?” I don’t think so. Sociologists are
considered experts on human interaction, organizational dynamics, power and
authority, social stratification, and status attainment, among other things.
These are many of the variables that operate day by day to influence the course
of the administration of higher education. Yet I must confess at the outset to
doubting that my background as a sociologist has much to do with whatever
success I might have enjoyed in higher education administration. In this respect
my contribution to this collection of essays may introduce a dissenting view.
It
is probably true that the personal inclinations that interested me in sociology
in the first place also helped stimulate an interest in administration—an
intense curiosity about people, human relationships, the dynamics of social
organization, and dysfunction. But from the first moment I caught myself
starting to think like an administrator—or stated differently, taking the
administrator’s perspective—I can’t honestly recall making very direct
connections between the arenas of sociology and higher education, either by
design or by accident.
I
have been in . . . progressively more responsible administrative positions in .
. . universities. I have developed a great deal of admiration and respect for
exceptionally talented administrators from other disciplines who seem to
discharge their responsibilities superbly without any hint of training in the
formal aspects of human or organizational relations. I have seen chemists and
physicists who score an “A+” on human relations, oceanographers who have
mastered concepts of organizational management, home economists who are skilled
strategic planners, engineers who can charm big money from a donor, and
philosophers who are amazingly deft with budgets.
I
do find that my areas of greatest strength in sociology—family sociology,
research methods, and demography—serve me well. My training in marriage and
family relations, including some clinical training, often helps guide me through
occasionally delicate personnel discussions. My strength in methods and
statistics often is helpful in issues of institutional research, planning, and
budgeting. And while all senior officials in higher education have had to take
crash courses in demography because of the influence of that powerful force on
our enrollments, tuition, budgets, and curricula, that part of my job comes much
easier to me as a result of my background. But for every advantage I derive from
my discipline, my colleagues from other disciplines bring something of equal
value from theirs.
Some
of the luckiest administrators . . . will be those who are quickest to grasp
topics such as biotechnology, computing, economic development, technology
transfer, material sciences, international relations, natural resources, and
health and human development. Having a keen grasp of legal issues will also help
in our increasingly litigious society. The critical point, then, is that there
is no one appropriate academic route to academic administration. I truly believe
that it is something like an athletic accomplishment. To be really good you must
want to do it, be willing to make the sacrifice, put in the hours of
preparation, and stick with it against sometimes great odds. But apart from such
commitment, only some will move to positions at the highest level, because some
basic personal characteristics must be there to begin with and they are not
easily learned. The most dedicated athlete may simply not make the cut.
Similarly, some faculty just aren’t cut out for administration, despite a keen
interest in it.
The
best training ground for administration, then, is the academic department. All
faculty members must take seriously their role as departmental citizens:
committee service, involvement in promotion and tenure reviews, graduate and
undergraduate student advising, and the like. Those who might like to consider
administration, however, can and should do more, and most universities provide
ample opportunity for such involvement. I have . . .
started “faculty associate” programs designed to bring faculty
members into the administration on a half-time basis for a year to work on
special projects, learn more about administration, and assess whether this is a
route they might like to pursue in the future. I strongly recommend such
opportunities because they can expose one to the options without forcing an
irrevocable career change. The American Council on Education operates such a
fellowship program on a national basis.
Many discussions about the transition from faculty member to administrator inevitable imply that they are not only two distinct roles and two distinct jobs, but that there is an implied career change, moving from one phase of professional life to another. I have personally rejected this distinction, although I must acknowledge that it has been at some price.
I
received my doctorate when I was 24 years old; by 25 I was already well absorbed
into the administrative life of my college, albeit as an assistant professor. I
was elected chairman of the College Faculty Organization at 26 (this undoubtedly
said something about the marginal importance of the position at the time). I was
drawn into committees, odd jobs, and more committees. I also had a very active
research program, taught a full load of two course per quarter, one each term
with 200 students, advised my assigned quota of 35 advisees, and participated in
the usual range of activities in my field. Although my interest in
administration emerged early, that was not what I had come to Penn State to do,
and I was not about to let these administrative opportunities sidetrack me from
my true mission to teach, do research, and write. The inevitable consequence for
me was that almost from the beginning I was doing both—the faculty role and
the administrative role. This continues to be a personal commitment for me.
With
each increasingly responsible and demanding administrative assignment I did a
little less teaching and research and a little more administration. However, my
commitment always to do some of both never wavered. I almost certainly do each
job a little less well that I would if I concentrated on only one. But I carry
around inside me an unshakable belief that academic administrators must find a
way to continue with their professions. To stop doing so is to stop being an
academic administrator and to start being a corporate manager. If we want
corporate managers, maybe we should hire such types in the first place.
Continued
involvement in the profession doesn’t have to focus on the collection of
original data. It can entail involvement in association leadership positions, an
occasional book review, an essay of the sort that an “elder statesman” might
write, and teaching a course from time to time.
Such
involvement is also good insurance. Administrative positions have always been
vulnerable, and are increasingly so. Academics must preserve the opportunity to
return to a productive role as a faculty member, not just the right to return to
a tenured position.
A sociologist interested in administration can get as many opinions about higher education administration as he or she has colleagues. My perspective is of one who mostly believes in the system (I’m a part of it, aren’t I?), someone who likes being an administrator (I could have opted out at most any time), and someone who does not believe that horns immediately grow on anyone who moves from the faculty ranks to the administrative ranks (I’m sometimes amused, more often frustrated, when I detect that I am being defined as the enemy, since I prefer to think of myself as helping the faculty guard against the enemy). With that background, . . . [here’s] my advice:
Dr. Proehl is Associate Professor and Chair of the Management Program and Dr. Taylor is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Portfolio Development, School of Extended Education, Saint Mary’s College of California, Morago.
Reprinted
by permission of A Leadership Journal: Women in Leadership – Sharing the
Vision, Volume 1, Number 2, Spring 1997.
This paper uses two theories of adult development to frame an exploration of gender and leadership. In the last decade, the definition of an effective leader has shifted from charismatic decision maker to steward, designer, and builder of learning organizations. During the same period, some researchers have suggested that women are inherently more suited to these new leadership approaches. Drawing on Kegan’s (1982, 1994) theory of development, we propose that the qualities that make for effective new-style leadership are a function not of gender, but of complexity of mind. However, we also draw on the model of Women’s Ways of Knowing (1986) to suggest that, assuming the requisite cognitive complexity, women’s greater capacity for relational-based approach to knowing and learning may make them more effective in the new leadership roles.
The
debates over what is a successful leader and how leaders are developed are as
old as the written word. A new wrinkle in this old polemic, however, centers
around the role of women in leadership positions. Just a short decade ago, in
their ground breaking book, Women’s Ways of Knowing, Belenky, Clinchy,
Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) wrote, “It is likely that the commonly accepted
stereotypes of women’s thinking as emotional, intuitive and personalized has
contributed to the devaluation of women’s minds and contributions,
particularly in Western technologically-oriented cultures, which value
rationalism and objectivity” (p. 6). Given that successful leaders have
historically been characterized as decisive, analytical, individualistic,
powerful, and willing to make the hard decisions, it has also been a given that
women’s ways of leading have been devalued.
However,
in the past decade, influential thinkers have pointed to the need for a new
style of leadership to meet the complex demands of the workforce and the
organizations of the future—a style that defies the old stereotypes of
leadership (Bennis & Goldsmith, 1994; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block, 1993;
DePree, 1989; Senge, 1990; Wheatley, 1992). Instead of being devalued, it has
been suggested that women are ideally suited to the new style of leadership and,
in fact, are better leaders than men are in today’s workplace (Applebaum &
Shapiro, 1993; Smith & Smits, 1994). What is this new and increasingly
prevalent leadership paradigm? What factors contribute to successful leadership?
And how do women leaders fare in today’s vertiginous times? These questions
will serve as the focus for this article.
In
separate works, Senge and Block have described facets of leadership needs for
the future. According to Peter Senge (1990), the era of the leader as
charismatic decision maker is over; future leaders will have to build learning
organizations wherein people can expand their “capabilities to shape their
future” (p. 8). Such leaders will be designers and teachers,
helping organizational members identify and deal with underlying causes of
problems. They will empower their employees to look at the world in new ways
rather than simply adapting to external forces and events.
Peter
Block (1993) also describes a new approach to leadership. He suggests that
leaders adopt the principles of stewardship, which he defines as
“holding something in trust for another” (p. xx). Rather than acting from
self-interest, leaders as stewards would act out of service and would
choose responsibility over entitlement. Instead of attempting to control, they
would create partnerships and would hold themselves accountable to those over
whom they hold power. Furthermore, stewards would act out their spiritual and
ethical values while still contributing to the financial viability of their
organizations.
Other
well-known authors suggest that old forms of leadership styles must be
transformed. Stephen Covey outlines a model known as principle-centered
leadership; Caela Farren and Beverly Kay suggest that leaders must be
facilitators, appraisers, and forecasters; Marshall Goldsmith proposes that
leaders are most effective when they communicate, learn, follow up, and grow;
and Charles Handy discusses the need for distributed leadership (Hesselbein,
Goldsmith, & Beckard, 1996).
Some
organizations have successfully undertaken these new challenges and are often
touted in the literature. Senge (1990) finds, however, that in most
organizations, the old leadership still prevails with its focus on controlling
and directing employees. This is underscored by our discussions over the last 15
years with hundreds of adult students who represent scores of private, public,
governmental, non-profit, “mom-and-pop,” midsized, and multinational
organizations. For the most part, a substantive shift in how leaders think and
behave has not yet occurred. Some would-be leaders may articulate the
concepts of steward, coach, and teacher, but many do not seem to act in
accordance with them.
A
controversy in the literature of leadership (as well as in the classroom)
focuses on whether women may be better able to meet these new definitions of
leadership than are men. Judy Rosenar (1990) was one of the first researchers to
suggest that resolving conflict, building networks, listening to customers and
employees, and sharing power and information—skills identified as contributing
to effectiveness in the modern workplace—are relationship-building skills into
which women have historically been socialized. From a historical perspective,
women have been relegated to positions in organizations where these
skills—which were not always associated with leadership qualities—were
useful and further developed.
In
Ways Women Lead, Rosenar (1990) observed that a growing number of women
succeed in leadership positions precisely because they have learned to use these
supposedly feminine skills and approaches. Rosenar’s controversial claim was
that women leaders are generally more willing than men to share information and
power, to encourage employee participation in problem solving and decision
making, and to be comfortable in sharing credit and recognition. This claim was
in part substantiated by an extensive meta-analysis review conducted by Eagly
and Johnson (1990). After reviewing 162 studies comparing male and female styles
of leadership, they found that women were more likely to adopt a participative
or democratic style of leadership, while men assumed autocratic or directive
styles.
Using
data from her study on women-run organizations, Belenky (1996) continues this
discussion by identifying ways in which female leaders perform their leadership
role differently than men. She suggests that women as leaders are centered on
promoting human development, and they have “developed themselves as public
leaders by extending and elaborating women’s traditional roles and women’s
ways to an extraordinary degree” (p. 412).
Those
who disagree with the contention that women are more effective leaders in
today’s workplace suggest that this line of thinking is contributing to false
stereotypes about men and women, the same stereotypes that formerly kept women
out of leadership positions, and, furthermore, that neither the practice nor the
theory of leadership is served by focusing on gender-based dichotomies. Schein
as early as 1984 persuasively argued this point:
At first glance, the new priority given to femininity and a feminine leadership style would seem to be a boon for women [in] leadership positions. In my opinion, however, this entire line of reasoning is both a foolhardy and dangerous one to pursue. It will not add to our understanding of leadership effectiveness, for it takes a narrow and simplistic approach to what is a broad and complex set of issues and activities. (p. 155)
Nearly
a decade later (1991), in an article where readers responded to Rosenar’s
article, others echoed similar sentiments:
I believe it is time to reconsider the excessive and inappropriate sex typing that takes place, whether offered in the service of improving women’s situations or restricting them. Women ought to be in management because they are intelligent, adaptable, practical and efficient—and because they are capable of compassion, as are other human beings. The category is “people,” not “men and women.” (Debate, p. 151)
We
hope to transcend this debate by suggesting that trying to identify as
inherently more masculine or more feminine the capacities, attributes, or skills
that make a good leader is beside the point. Rather, we propose that effective
leadership—the kind which leads to stewardship and the creation of learning
environments—is a function not of gender but of epistemology and the level of
cognitive complexity, by which we mean the sophistication and depth of one’s
perceptions as well as how one understands, evaluates, and makes meaning of what
is perceived. Specifically, we will describe a theory that relates the
development of “higher orders of consciousness”—that is, more evolved
meaning making—to the capacities, attributes, and skills associated with the
new leadership (Kegan, 1994).
That
said, however, we will also suggest that some ways of knowing (epistemological
preferences or “styles”) in which women predominate (Belenky, Clinchy,
Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986) may, in fact, make them more effective leaders
of the kind described by Senge, Block, and others. We do not intend to imply,
however, that women make the best leaders because they are women. The
abilities, traits, and accomplishments associated with women’s ways of leading
are not gender specific. Rather, we suggest that they derive from a way of
knowing that is observed more frequently in women than in men, but which can be
learned by people of both genders.
According
to Kegan’s model (1982, 1994), our order of consciousness (or stage of
development) determines our relationship to the world we live and work in. What
we perceive as reality—”how things are” or “how I am”—is largely our
own construction based on our interpretation of perception. However, as we grow
from childhood to adulthood, and continuing through the life span, our rules of
interpretation change. We perceive and understand in increasingly complex ways;
we also become more tolerant of ambiguity and more willing to recognize that we
participate in the construction of our beliefs.
Kegan
identifies five orders of consciousness throughout the life span. Each is
associated with its own organizing principle: a set of rules that governs the
way meaning is made. And each order of consciousness expands on and is more
complex than the one that preceded it. But we only become aware of the rules
that govern and limit our understanding when we have transcended them; that is,
only when we have available the next, more complex perspective as a tool of
analysis.
First-order
consciousness is transcended in childhood and will not be examined here.
Second-order consciousness is usually transcended by late adolescence; we will
examine it only insofar as it illuminates the construction of the third order.
Empirical evidence suggests most adults in Western society are engaged in the
transition from third- to fourth-order consciousness; therefore, this will be
our focus (1994). Though in Kegan’s model age has not been shown to determine
order of consciousness in adults, development of third-order consciousness is
generally associated with the movement from adolescence to young adulthood.
Since fewer than 5% of adults achieve the fifth order of consciousness, it also
will not be discussed here.
Many
of the most frustrating characteristics of teenagers, such as their endless
self-absorption, are manifestations of Kegan’s second stage of development.
Though adolescents may accede to the demands of the adults around them,
especially if there are consequences for not doing so, their own needs and
desires are usually paramount. Eventually, however, most young people develop a
new way of perceiving that we recognize (thankfully) as more adult. This is the
more complex perspective that characterizes the third stage. This expanded
consciousness allows them simultaneously to identify with both their own
perspective and desires and someone else’s. Their concept of who they are vis-á-vis
another transforms. Table 1 outlines some major shifts from the second to the
third stages of this model.
___________________________________________________________
Has
relationship to others who are seen and valued in terms of what they can
provide.
Social
contract based on self-interest; maintains own point of view; unempathetic.
Moral/ethical
code: “My needs are primary. If I concern myself with your needs, it is only
to the extent that they don’t conflict with mine; I have no guilt about
meeting my needs at your expense.”
Descriptive
identity, e.g., name, gender, perhaps family association; the adult concept of
identity is meaningless.
Is in
relationship with others who are seen and valued in terms of the connection they
represent.
Social
contract based on mutuality; internalizes others’ points of view; empathetic.
Moral/ethical
code includes guilt and hyper-awareness of others’ needs, even those unstated
or imagined: “I am responsible for your feelings; you are responsible for
mine.”
Identifies
(not necessarily consciously) as member of group, family, culture, race,
religion; also identified by job, relationships, affiliations.
(Adapted from
Kegan, 1994).
___________________________________________________________
Such
major transformation takes place over several years, as the parents of any
teenager will attest. Finally, however, the young adults who make this
transition no longer think only instrumentally—that is, primarily in terms of
how to accomplish their own desires. Instead, they negotiate among the
internalized voices of others that have become their own. Self-interest
gives way to a new capacity for mutuality. In place of a somewhat begrudging
acknowledgment of others’ feelings (especially if these conflicted with the
adolescent’s desires), there is now distinct discomfort at the thought that
others might disapprove. Instead of being fundamentally self-absorbed, the
person at the third stage has absorbed others in the self. In other
words, the person internalizes the voices of others and looks to others to
define the self.
While
this more complex construction is, in a late adolescent, an important
achievement—and results in more societally-approved behaviors—it will
eventually prove a significant limitation to the maturing adult. For example,
consider how third-order consciousness is likely to play out in the workplace.
These workers and managers would probably avoid taking actions that others
disapprove of. They would also find it difficult to examine with any objectivity
their organization’s existing assumptions, norms, and practices, even when
specifically invited to do so. Though this may describe many workers and
managers, particularly in traditional, hierarchical organizations, these are not
potentially leaders as defined by Senge and Block. They are unlikely to
contribute effectively to such increasingly commonplace change efforts as
“total quality management,” and even less likely to changes that might lead
to “learning organizations” or “stewardship.”
Just
as the shift from the second- to the third-order of consciousness requires a
transformation in one’s way of knowing, so too does the shift from the third
to the fourth. As in all transformations in this model, developmental growth
depends on, grows out of, and requires the capacity to take perspective on the
former way of viewing the world. Those at the third stage of development have
internalized the voices, opinions, and beliefs of others, but have no awareness
of having done so. These become their “shoulds” and unexamined imperatives
of their lives. But when one has achieved the next (fourth) level of
consciousness, one can look objectively at the sources of one’s ideas.
Certainty—about self, others, management, corporation, government, and so
on—gives way to the realization that one’s own perspective is but one of
many and deserves to be explored, evaluated, and expanded: one’s beliefs are a
reality, not the reality.
Persons
at this fourth stage still hear and respond to others’ voices; however, by
choice rather than through anxiety or guilt. They also have moral and ethical
choices unavailable to the person at the third stage who cannot question the
norms, values, and assumptions he or she has internalized—or even recognize
them as such. Fourth-stage persons recognize that value systems—including
their own—are created and can be evaluated as appropriate or inappropriate
within a particular context. They can also engage in critical self-reflection,
which surfaces the third-stage assumptions that were previously invisible. Table
2 outlines major shifts from the third to the fourth stages of Kegan’s model
(1994).
___________________________________________________________
TABLE 2.
Characteristics of Third-Order and Fourth-Order Consciousness
Third-Order
Consciousness
In
relationship with others; the level of mutuality and empathy approaches fusion;
differences are perceived as threatening.
Values,
morals, and ethics based on group, family, and cultural imperatives; these norms
and assumptions are invisible and therefore cannot be questioned.
Sources of ideas:
[Early] “I know what I’ve heard” (knowledge comes from others—Received
Knowing*).
[Late] “I know what I know” (knowledge comes from the self—Subjective
Knowing*).
Identity
constructed by and through others; others are responsible for own feelings; self
is responsible for others’ feelings and states of mind.
Looks
out (perceives self) through others’ eyes**.
__________
*These
epistemological positions are further described by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger,
and Tarule (1986) in their model of Women’s Ways of Knowing.
**As
described by Koller (1983) in An Unknown Woman: A Journey to Self Discovery.
In
relationship to relationships: can set limits and boundaries; differences
are respected and can be enjoyed and valued.
Has
values about values: they are perceived as contextual, situational, and
constructed; former assumptions can be surfaced, examined, accepted, or
rejected.
Has
ideas about ideas: explores where knowledge comes from, who is
responsible for it, how and by whom it is constructed; “authorizes”
knowledge, establishes criteria for judgment, critically evaluates own and
others’ ideas.
Identity
self-constructed; aware of and sensitive to others, but not responsible for
others’ states of mind or feelings; others are not responsible for own.
Sees
self through own eyes; dialogic relationship to the self***.
__________
***As
described by Basseches (1984) in Dialectical Thinking and Adult Development.
___________________________________________________________
Many
organizations still operate successfully with a large complement of
employees—workers and executives—who are comfortable within the perceived
consistency of third-stage limitations. However, the descriptions of the new
leadership, as articulated by Senge, Block, and others, underscore Kegan’s
assertion that the modern workplace increasingly demands fourth-stage thinking.
In the following excerpt, we have italicized the perceptual limitations
of the third stage. To be leaders of the future (Kegan, 1994), we will need to:
Be
the inventor or owner of our work (rather than see it
as owned and created by the employer) . . .
Be
self-initiating, self-correcting, self-evaluating (rather
than dependent on others to frame the problems, initiate adjustments, or
determine whether things are going acceptably well)
Be
guided by our own visions at work (rather than be
without a vision or a captive of the authority’s agenda)
Take
responsibility for what happens to us at work externally and internally (rather
than see our . . . circumstances . . . as caused by someone else) . . .
Conceive
of the organization from the “outside in,” as a whole; see our relation to
the whole . . . (rather than see . . . the organization and its parts only
from the perspective of our own part, from the “inside out”) (p. 302).
These
distinctions—which are about complexity of mind, and not about
gender—clearly describe the leadership needs of organizations, which are
becoming increasingly less hierarchical, where employees are being asked to
assume more control over their work, and where, as Charles Hampden-Turner (1992)
notes,
The whole notion of leaders and followers is increasingly out of date . . . . Followers “lead” in a variety of ways, using judgment, knowledge, skills, and self-management. Leaders may have to spend large amounts of their time “following” what skilled subordinates are trying to tell them (p. 8).
Yet
in this environment, women leaders may, in fact, have an edge. We draw on a
second model of adult development to explain why this may be so.
Belenky,
Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) describe how women perceive and construct
truth, knowledge, and authority. Women in the first two stages, “silence”
and “received knowing,” would be unlikely to display leadership qualities as
we have discussed leadership. Silent women have no voice, and are passive and
dependent. They have not cultivated a mind of their own, or if they have, they
are afraid to express that mind. A silent woman fears retaliation by others
around her who believe and act on the belief that she is dumb (without voice as
well as without mind) and should do what she is told. They are often socially,
economically, and educationally disadvantaged.
A
received knower constructs knowledge as something obtained from experts, family,
and friends—almost everyone is perceived as more “in the know” than
herself. They tend to see knowledge in terms of right/wrong, black/white,
good/bad and to subordinate their own perceptions to those of others. In this
they are similar to those newly arrived at Kegan’s third order of
consciousness.
As
this perspective transforms, however, “subjective knowers” come to see
themselves as the source of knowledge. Truth is experienced rather than thought
out and felt rather than constructed. This stage is most closely associated with
stereotypical images of women and women leaders as emotional, irrational,
willful, and unpredictable. Women at this third stage may be extremely critical
of experts and authorities (as if, having transcended their earlier dependence,
they now deeply mistrust those in whom they formerly believed). They also
distrust logic and analysis, which are tools of the fourth stage of development
but which to these subjectivists seem inappropriately cool and objective. On the
other hand, women leaders who know in this way are likely to be both highly
committed to causes that touch their hearts and intuitive and creative in their
problem-solving processes. Though they have developed in their way of knowing
compared with received knowers, they are still operating primarily from
Kegan’s third order of consciousness.
In
the fourth stage, “procedural knowing,” the knower discovers that her
intuition is not infallible and that acting on her gut feelings can be
irresponsible. She has learned to value and respect expertise, careful
observation, and systematic analysis. Procedural knowers can comfortably
acknowledge their capacity to think critically; they also experience an
increased sense of control and mastery. The person who experiences knowing in
this way is also capable, at least minimally, of operating from Kegan’s fourth
order of consciousness.
Belenky
and her colleagues further identified two kinds of procedural knowing, however,
“separate” and “connected,” and it is here we find support for the
reports that women seem to have superior new-leadership skills. Separate and
connected are not, themselves, stages but rather styles (Kegan, 1994). They are
two different ways of expressing the same capacity of mind. Neither is better,
more advanced, or more gender-appropriate than the other, though women tend more
frequently toward connected knowing and men toward separate knowing.
Separate
knowers gravitate toward the devil’s-advocate position, they value seeing
things objectively, and they engage in what Peter Elbow calls the “doubting
game” (in Clinchy, 1996). Connected knowers, by contrast, gravitate toward
identifying with another’s position or ideas; they value seeing from
another’s perspective and engage in the “believing game.” Whether they
prefer a separate or connected style of knowing, however, women who develop as
procedural knowers value and can use their capacities to think objectively,
analytically, and logically. This latter point is emphasized because the concept
of connected knowing has often been misinterpreted as an extension of the
subjectivist stage of knowing rather than the procedural stage it is. Clinchy
(1996) further clarifies that these two styles are ideal types, and it is
possible to have a “polygamous epistemology,” where the two styles stabilize
and complement each other.
Constructed
knowers, the fifth and final stage of the model, have “integrated the
voices” as well as developed their own. They combine intuitive knowledge with
knowledge learned from objective procedures. With the merger of the rational and
emotional comes a strong sense of personal authority—a hallmark of full
engagement with Kegan’s fourth-order consciousness. Women at this stage of
cognitive complexity are most in tune with the new-leadership demands because
they are challenged, rather than constrained, by ambiguity, uncertainty, and
conflict. In addition, effective leaders are passionately committed to a cause
and are driven to channel their commitment into action (Bennis & Goldsmith,
1994; Block, 1993)—a hallmark of the constructivist women.
More than any other group, they are seriously preoccupied with the moral and spiritual dimension of their lives. Further, they strive to translate their moral commitments into action, both out of a conviction that one must act out of a feeling of responsibility to the larger community in which they live. (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986, p. 150).
But
where older models of leadership may have drawn primarily on separate styles of
knowing, the modern workplace requires integration of objective and subjective
perspectives, of analytical and intuitive approaches, and of decisive and
collaborative style. Research has shown (Gilligan, 1982) that more than half of
the women studied favored connected styles, and nearly all the men favored
separate styles. More significantly, however, women have demonstrated a superior
ability to “be polygamous;” they can synthesize and move between connected
and separate approaches.
We
have interpreted two models of adult development to suggest that as women and
men transform the way they create reality and develop their capacities as
knowers they are also developing the capacities of the “new leadership.” To
return to the debate about whether men or women best exemplify these new
definitions, we suggest that both can be successful leaders in today’s
workplace. (Clearly, both are). Echoing Kegan (1994), we propose that a primary
basis for effective leadership may be the fourth order of consciousness—the
level of cognitive complexity at which one constructs one’s own value system,
moves into relationship with (rather than being defined by) one’s
relationships, and recognizes one’s capacity to authorize knowledge and ideas.
Even after reaching that order of consciousness, however, separate knowers (men
more often than women) may need to work on those perspectives which Belenky and
her colleagues identified as connected knowing (1986). It seems likely that this
combination—fourth-order consciousness and connection—will enable both men
and women to shift from a controlling orientation to an empowering orientation,
and to be persuasive, cooperative, and supportive—in other words, to create
the workplace environments that will be critical factors in the success of the
workforce and organizations of the future.
What
we have not yet examined, however, is how one accomplishes such transformation.
Many workplace environments attempt to teach leadership through training in the
associated skills such as communication, delegation, decision making, problem
solving, and, more recently, managing diversity. But if cognitive complexity is,
in fact, the critical issue in leadership, is training the most effective way to
develop new leaders? Kegan suggests that an emphasis on skill building is in all
likelihood misdirected. Fourth-order consciousness is not a constellation of
behaviors but a transformation of awareness. It is ineffective to try to teach
(or train) the fourth-order behaviors in the absence of the capacities of mind
that it entails, such as the ability to recognize that we author our own values,
that we own our jobs, that we, ultimately, determine what should be our
relationship to our work and our fellow workers. Without this capacity to view
oneself and one’s multiple relationships with the work environment
objectively, skills and behaviors are not likely to transfer from the training
session to the workplace.
Though
a discussion of education for development is beyond the scope of this paper, we
do suggest that preparing effective leaders may require a different approach
than skills training—one which will enable people to change how they know, how
they think, and how they construct reality (Daloz, 1987; Taylor, 1994; Taylor
& Marienau, 1995).
Applebaum,
S., & Shapiro, B. (1993). Why can’t men lead like women? Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 14(7), 28.
Basseches,
M. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Belenky,
M. (1996). Public homeplaces: Nurturing the development of people, families, and
communities. In N. Goldberger, J. Tarule, B. Clinchy,
M. Belenky (Eds.). Knowledge difference and power: Essays inspired by
women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.
Belenky,
M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of
knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. Boston: Basic Books.
Bennis,
W., & Goldsmith, J. (1994). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a
leader. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Bennis,
W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New
York: Harper and Row.
Block,
P. (1993). Stewardship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Clinchy,
B. (1996). Connected and separate knowing: Toward a marriage of two minds. In N.
Goldberger, J. Tarule, B. Clinchy, & M. Belenky (Eds.). Knowledge
difference and power: Essays inspired by Women’s ways of knowing. New
York: BasicBooks.
Daloz,
L. (1987). Effective teaching and mentoring: Recognizing the transformative
potential of adult learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Debate:
Ways men and women lead. (1991, Nov.-Dec.). Harvard Business Review, 69,
150-160.
DePree,
M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Droegkamp,
J., & Taylor, K. (1995). Prior learning assessment, critical
self-reflection, and reentry women’s development. In K. Taylor & C.
Marienau (Eds.). Learning environments and women’s adult development:
Bridges toward growth. New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education, No.
65. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eagly,
A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.
Eagly,
A. H., Makhijonai, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation
of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.
Gilligan,
C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hampden-Turner,
C. (1992). Creating corporate culture: From discord to harmony. New York:
Addison Wesley.
Helgesen,
S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York:
Doubleday/Currency.
Hesselbein,
F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckard, R. (1996). The leader of the future: New
visions, strategies, and practices for the next era. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kegan,
R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Kegan,
R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Koller,
A. (1983). An unknown woman: A journey to self discovery. New York:
Bantam Books.
Nelton,
S. (1991). Men, women and leadership. Nation’s Business, 16-22.
Rosenar,
J. (1990, Nov.-Dec.). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68,
119-125.
Schein,
V. (1984). Would women lead differently. In B. Kellerman, (Ed.). Leadership:
Multidisciplinary perspectives. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Senge,
P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Smith,
P., & Smits, S. (1994). The feminization of leadership. Training and
Development, 48(2), 43.
Taylor,
K. (1994). Teaching to support women’s adult development. Thought &
Action, 10(1), 57-72.
Taylor,
K., & Marienau, C. (Eds.). (1995). Learning environments and women’s adult
development: Bridges toward growth. New Directions in Adult and Continuing
Education, No. 65. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Walden,
P. (1995). Journal writing: A tool for women developing as knowers. In K. Taylor
and C. Marienau (Eds.). Learning environments and women’s adult development:
Bridges toward growth. New Directions in Adult and Continuing
Education, No. 65. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wheatley,
M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from
an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
It
is with great pride that Kappa Omicron Nu publishes insights about the turning
points in leadership development. These personal stories create a resource for
new generations of leaders—a glimpse into the world of administration. As a
text, this issue serves current and emerging administrators as a professional
development tool and focuses on some fundamental standards for performance.
The
pool of available talent for administrative positions appears to be small at the
present time, but it is the obligation of a profession to grow its future
leaders. The Family and Consumer Sciences~Administrative Leadership Council (FCS~ALC)
is a collaborative organization chartered to accomplish that goal. Although the
theme of this issue was envisioned as an effort to extend the Kappa Omicron Nu
focus on leadership, this is a timely resource for the FCS~ALC Leading
By Design: Family and Consumer Sciences Emerging Administrators Workshop,
Georgia Center of Continuing Education, The University of Georgia, Athens, July
22-27, 2001.
Leading
by Design is planned to enhance the future viability of family and
consumer sciences by preparing leaders for positions in higher education
administration for the next decade and beyond. Focusing on emerging
administrators, this workshop will address competencies needed for assessing
one’s attributes and skills for successfully administering higher education
family and consumer sciences programs.
Kappa
Omicron Nu applauds these authors for telling their stories—for passing on
their wisdom. “Stories are important . . . for in the great tales lies the
syntax of our lives, the form by which we make meaning of life’s changes. A
good story transforms our vision of the possible and provides us with a map for
the journey ahead” (Daloz, 1999, p. 23). It is our hope that this issue of FORUM
excites the imagination of a new generation of administrators and serves the
professional development needs of administrative leaders.
DM
Reference:
Daloz, L. A. (1999). Mentor: Guiding the journey of adult learners. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.