ED 316 074

AUTHORTITLE

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 022 965

Bensimon, Estela M.; And OthersMaking Sense of Administrative Leadership: The "L"Word in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher EducationReport 1, 1989.

INSTITUTION Association for the Study of Higher Education.; ERICClearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington,D.C.

SPONS AGENCY Lilly Endowment, Inc., Indianapolis, Ind.; Office ofEducational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.; Teachers Insurance and AnnuityAssociation, New York, NY. College RetirementEquities Fund.

REPORT NO ISBN-0-9623882-0-3PUB DATE 89CONTRACT RI88062014NOTE 121p.AVAILABLE FROM ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. The George

Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630,Dept. RC, Washington, DC 20036-1183 ($15.00).

PUB TYPE Information Analyses - ERIC Information AnalysisProducts (071)

EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCOS Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Administrator Guides; *Administrators; *College

Administration; College Planning; *CollegePresidents; *Higher Education; Institutional Role;*Leadership; Leadership Qualities; LeadershipResponsibility; Politics of Education; Theories

ABSTRACTAn integration and synthesis of the theoretJcal

literature on leadership with the literature concerning highereducation as a social institution is presented. The literature on aconceptual explanation of leadership is reviewed and related directlyto higher education and its sociological and organizationaluniqueness. The first four of the report's five sections discuss thefollowing topics and subtopics: (1) the contemporary context andcalls for leadership (constraints in responding to the calls forleadership and overcoming constraints to leadership); (2) conceptualexplanations of leadership (theories and models of leadership andorganizational theory and images of leadership); (3) higher educationand leadership theory (trait theories, power and influence theories,behavioral theories, contingency theories, cultural and symbolictheories, and cognitive theories); and (4) higher education andorganizational theory (the university as bureaucracy--the structuralframe, the university as collegium--the human resource frzme, theuniversity as political system--the political frame, the Universityas organized anarchy--the symbolic frame, the university ascybernetic system, and an integrated perspective of leadership inhigher education). The fifth and final section, Overview andIntegration, discusses the effectiveness of leadership, cognitivecomplexity, transformational and transactional leadership, leadershipparadigms, thinking about leadership, and an agenda for research onleadership in higher education. The report contains approximately 250references. (SM)

1919 ARE -ERICC-TO Higher Education

IP n5

Making Sense ofAdministrative

The "E' Wordin Higher Education

Estela M. BensimonAnna Neumann

Nrnbatem.=111111111 l

Danotateirr oft EDUCATIONOboe al Eder:sexed f+ a+ and Improvement

EDUCATIOSIAL RESOURCES tteFORMATENtCENTER IERra

EioN4 decimate hes been reproduced asneereved from the panes% or orperareseeOINKT01119 stWax dews hove been matte to arnpawsreeroductron WOW/

^M,

Making Sense of Administrative Leadership:The 'V Word in Higher Education

by Estefri M.13ensimon, Anna Neumann, and Robert Birnbaum

ACHE Mk: 10her Education Rcport 1, 1989

PrEpared by

ERIC

co operation with

ASI-Wr

Clearinghouse on Higher EducationThe George Washington finirrsity

Associatkm for the Study114,,ber Education

Ackxd of Education and Human DecekpmentThe Geore Washington University

Jonathan D. Fife, .S'erie.s Editor

Cite asBensimon, Este la M., Anna Neumann, and Robert BimIraum.Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The?: Word inthgber Education ASHE ERIC Higher Education Report No.1. Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Develupment, The George Wa.shington University, 1989.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-62601ISSN 0884-0040ISBN 0- 9623882 -0 -3

Managing Editor: Christopher RikartxManuscript Editor Barbara Fisbel/EditecbCover design by Michael David Brown, Rockville, Maryland

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education invites indi-viduals to submit proposals for writing monographs for theASHE ERIC Higher Education Report series. Proposals mustinclude:1. A detailed manuscript proposal of not more than five pages.2. A chapter- by-chapter outline.3. A 75-word summary to be used by several review com-

mittees for the initial screening and rating of each proposal.4. A vita and a writing sample.

{k00.14 Clearinghouse on Higher EducationSchool of Education and Human DevelopmentThe George Washington UniversityOne Dupont Circle, Suite 630Washintron, DC 20036-1183

This publication was prepared partially -with funding fromthe Office of Educational Research and Improvement, II.S.Department of Education, under contract no. ED RI-88-062014.The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarilyreflect the positions or policies of OEM or the Derrartment.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Why Do We Need Leadership?A perception exists that higher education is experiencing a"great leadership crisis." Cabs for better, stronger, more vision-ary, and bolder leadership intensified after the publicationof several repots by blue ribbon commissions, whose runningtheme is "the decline of higher education." To Reclaim akRacy (Bennett 1984) challenges presidents to be more cou-rageous in assuming the role of leadership in curricularreform. And Integrity in the College Curriculum declares that"this generation of academic presidents and deans is requiredto lead us away from the declining and devalued bachelor'sdegree" (AAC 1985, p. 7).

The message in thew and other reports on the slate ofhigher education is that official campus leaderspresidentsand other academic officers- -need to direct and guide theircampuses if the problems of higher education are to be con-fronted and resolved. This faith in the power and wisdomof leadership and its potential to make a difference in collegesand universities underlies much of the literature of highereducation and is particularly ubiquitous in contemporary andhighly popular wcrks on leadership. Recently, however, scho-lars have posited new ideas that challenge traditional notionsthat organizations are driven by leadership or that the qualityof leadership significantly affects organizational perfr mance.

What is Leadership?Research traditions in leadership can he grouped into sixmajor categories: trait theories, which attempt to identify spe-cific personal characteristics that appear to contribute to aperson's ability to assume and successfully function in positions of leadership; power and influence theorit which con-sider leadership in terms of the source and amount of poweravailable to leaders and the manner in which leaders exercisethat power over followers through either unilateral or recipmeal interactions; behavioral theorieA which study leadershipby examining patterns of activity, managerial roles, and behav-ior categories of leaders- -that is, by considering what it isthat leaders actually do; contingency theoria, which empha-size the importance of situational factors, such as the natureof the task performed by a group or the nature of the externalenvironment to understand effective leadership; cultural and

Making Sena? 4. Administrative Leadership

symbolic theone which study the influence of leaders inmaintaining or reinterpreting the systems of shared beliefsand values that give meaning to organizational life; and cog-nitive theories, which suggest leadership is a social attributionthat permits people to make sense of an equiwx.al, fluid, andcomplex votrki.

One of the most useful organizational typologies (rum theperspective of leadership stiggests that organizations can belooked at through four different vantage points or coherentperspectives, identified as "frames" (13olman and Deal 1984).The structural frame emphasizes formal roles and relation-ships, the human resource frame focuses on the needs ofpeople, the political frame considers the conflict over scarceresources, and the symbolic frame views orromizations as cul-tures with shared values.

Is Leadership in Higher Education Different?Even thitugh the literature on leadership and organizationaltheory is rich, its many conceptual orientations and interpre-tations do not appear to be particularly influential, at leastnot explicitly, in informing the literature on administrativeleadership in higher education. Much of this work tends tobe ath,Atittic;a1, with c'onsiderable attention given to styleof leadership and personality traits.

The study of leadership in colleges and universities is pro b.lematic lwcause of the dual control systems, conflicts betweenprofessional and administrative authority, unclear goals, andother special proper. .!'s of normative, professional organ-izations. Leadership in higher education can he examinedfrom the perspective of leadership theories and organizationalframes, however, even though an explicit conceptual orien-tation is absent in many of the works.

Research and commentaries on the presidency suggest thatpresidents tend to accept a traditional and directive view whenthey define their leadership role; few appear to emphasizethe importance of two-way communication or social exchangeprocesses of mutual influence or to identify leadership asfacilitating rather than directing the work of highly educatedprofessionals. Furthermore, few works have considered thepossibility that the debate about transformational versus trans-

iv

actional may not be purely an "eitherior" and that both perspecti-res may he useful but in a more complex configuration.

How Are Our Views of Leadership Changing?Several contemporary works indicate that the understandingof leadership in academic organizations, at least among scholars, may he undergoing a paradigmatic shift, from a rationalperspective toward a cultural and symbolic perspective. Closeattention is being given to the manifestation of symbolic lead,ership, as shown by works concerning the role of collegepresidents in the management of meaning, the constructionof institutional reality, and the interpretatit in of myths, rituals,and symbols. For the most part, however, cultuntl and sym-bolic views of leadership have not been incorporated intothe practitioners' perspective of higher education administration, perhaps because it tends to present the leader in arole that is considerably more modest than seen in imagesof heroic or transtbrmational leadership associated with rational and pc rover theories.

Cultural and symbolic theories deserve serious attentionbecause they pr:.-sent a view of leadership that is highly corn.patible with the characteristics of academic orgmizations.The ambiguity of purpose, the diffusion of power and authority, and the absence of dear and measurable outcomes arebut a few of the constraints faced by college presidents andother administrative leaders. Viewed from a rational ixispec.live, these constraints make the presidency appear as animpassible job. Presidents who consider their role from asymbolic perspective will be less concerned alxita displayingbold leadership to leave their imprint on a campus, moreconcerned with making marginal impruvernents and helpingcampus constituents make sense of an equivocal world.

Making Sena' of Adminisiniiire Leatlersbp

ADVISORY BOARD

Roger G. BaldwinAssistant Professor of &twat ic nCollege of William and Mary

Carol 14. BoyerConsultant and Senior Academic PlannerMassachusetts Board of Regents of Higher Education

Ellen Earle ChaffeeAssociate Commissioner of Academic AffairsNorth Dakota State Board of Higher Education

Elaine H, El-KhawasVice President, Policy Analysis and ResearchAmerican Council on Education

Martin FinkelsteinAssociate Professor of Higher Education AdministrationSeton Hall University

Carol Evenly FloydAssociate ice ,Chancellor for Academic AffairsBoard of Regents of the Regency Universities SystemState of Illinois

George D. KuhProfessor of Higher Educaticw:Indiana University

Tvonna S. LincolnAssociate Professor of Higher EducationUniversity of Kansas

Richard F. WilsonAssociate ChancellorUniversity of Blink's

And ZustnanPrincirral Analyst, Ac a' AffairsI Iniversity of California

Making Sense of Administrative Leadership vii

CONSULTING EDITORS

Roberti. BarakDeputy Executive SecretaryDirector of Academic Affairs and ResearchIowa Board of Regents

Robert BerdahlProfessor of Higher Edw.-AtkinUniversity of Maryland

Kenneth A. BruffeeDirector, The Scholars ProgramBrooklyn College of the City of New York

L. Leon CampbellProve and Vice President for Academic: AffairsUniversity of Delaware

Robert Paul ChurchillChair and Associate ProfessorDepartment of PhilosophyThe Geme Washington Ilniwrsity

4318409 Si ClaxtonAssociate ProfessorCenter for the Study of I ligher EducationMemphis State University

Stern CohenAssociate, Protect for Collaborative learningLesley College

John W. CreswellProfessor and Lilly Project DirectorUniversity of Nebraska

And DeruyttereVice PresidentCatholic University at LCUWIl. Belgium

Irwin FellerDirector, Institute fiw Polity Research and EvaluationPennsylvania State I Iniversity

Zelda F. GasmanDirectorNew England Resource Center for higher Education

Making Sense of Administrative Leadership ix

Kenneth C. GreenAssociate DiredorI huller Education Research InstituteUniversity of California at Los Angeles

Milton GreenbergProvostAmerican t Iniversity

Judith Dozier HackmanAssociate DeanYak University

Brian L. HawkinsVice President tbr Computing and Infi mnat km SciencesBrown t Jniversity

Lynn G. JohnsonExecutive DirectorHudson .Mohawk Association of Colleges and I Tniversities

Carli. LangeProfessor EmeritusThe George Washington t Iniversity

Oscar T. LeaningVice President for Academic AffairsRobert Wesleyan College

Judith B. McLaughlinResearch As,siiciate c Ott Et:titanic ni and S(wioltigylarvard University

Andrew T. Maitland.Judicial /Public Safety Marko ManagerDigital Equipment Corp matisxt

Marcia Mentkowski1)itector of Research and Evaluatid.,,iProfessor of PsychologyAlvento College

Richard I. MillerProfess( ir of Iligher Editca:io)nOhio 1 Iniversity

10

James R. MingleExecutive DirectorState Higher Education Executive Officers

Elizabeth M. NunsExecutive DirectorNational Association of Student Perstinnel Administrators

Anne M. PrattDirector for Foundation Rebt ionsCollege of William and Mary

Karen T. RomerAssociate Dean for Academic AffairsBrown University

Jack E. RosmanProfessor of PsychologyMaca 'ester College

Mary Ann SheridanDirector of Sponsl wed PnigramsOhio Rate I Jniversity Research Foundations

J. Fredericks VolkwDirector of Institutional ResearchSlate I Jniversity of New York at Allxiny

William R. WhippleDirector, Honors ProgramUniversity cif Maine

Making Sense ofArtminivirtnille lead(

CONTENTS

Foreword xv

The Contemporary Context and Calls forLeadership 1

Constraints in Respcmding to the Calls fiir tradership 2Overcoming Constraints to Leadership

Conceptual Explanations of Leadership 7Theories and Models of LeadershipOrganizational Theory and Images of Leadership 26

Higher Education and Leadership Theory 35Trait Theories 35Power and Influence Theories 37Behavioral Theories 43Contingency Theories .45

Cultural and Symbolic Theories 4()

Cognitive Theories -49

Summary .49

Higher Education and Organizational Theory 51The University as Bureaucracy (The Structural Frame ) SiThe University as Collegium (The Human ResourceFrame)

The university as Political System (The PoliticalFrame) 57

Theliniversicy as Organized Anarchy (The SvmlxditFrame) 60The 1.1niversit) as Cybernetic SystemAn Integrated Perspective of Leadership in ilightlEducation 6*Summary 66

Overview and Integration 69The Effectiveness of Leadership 70Cognitive Complexity 72Transformational and Transactional Leadership 73Leadership Paradigms 76Thinking about Leadership 77An Agenda for Research on Leadership in HigherEducation 78

References 81Index 97

Makin14 ,SVItce of Aiirnirustratirr Leadership xxii

1 ')

FOREWORD

The following three statements are probably universallyaccepted as truths: There is a general consensus that highereducation has a leadership crisis. Strong, effective leadershipis necessary for a strong, effective institution. Most academicleaders are unschooled and unsure about what compriseseffective leadership.

A report that simply reviews the theoretical literature onleadership will not fill this higher education leadership vacuum: The major scholarly work on leadership has been clayducted in the area of political science and business admin-istration. There is a serious concern on the applicability ofthis literature as it relates to non-profit, professional organ-izations such as colleges and universities. What is neededis a careful integration and synthesis of this literature basewith the literature concerning higher education as a socialinstitution. This has been magnificently done by Estela BenSimon of Pennsylvania State University, Anna Neumann ofColumbia University, and Robert Birnbaum of the Universityof Maryland. In this report, the authors have reviewed theliterature that gives a "conceptual explanation" of leadership.They then relate this literature directly to higher educationand its sociological and organizational uniqueness. Their finalintegration of this literature develops a clarity concerninghigher education leadership. it will have major impact in theunderstanding of higher education leadership for many yearsto come.

Leadership is not only a process, it is a value. In organi-zations, such as higher education, that are primarily valuedriven, an understanding of leadership at all levels is crucialfor the effectiveness of the organization. It is critical to whatthe organization is. How people value leadership is very cru-cial to the make-up and dynamics of what that organizationwill become. There is no right or correct leadership process.What is wrong is for any organization to develop leadershippractices through ignorance. This report can help to enlightenthose that are willing to be helped.

Jonathan D. FifeProfessor and DirectorERIC Clearinghouse on Higher EducationSchool of Education and Human DevelopmentThe George Washington University

Afaking Sense of Adnnnictrattve Letwiersinp All

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to acknowledge several important sourcesof financial, administrative, and intellectual support in com-pleting this monograph. We arc grateful to the Office for Edu-cational Research and Improvement/Department of Education(OERI /ED), the Lilly Endowment, a_ al TIAA-CREF forsup-porting our work on institutional leadership. We are especiallygrateful to Omar Fujita, who WaS responsible for preparingthe bibliography and ensuring the accuracy of citations. With-out her initiative, creativity, and dehration our task wouldhave been infinitely more difficult and considerably less pleas-ant. We also wish to thank Jeanine L Marquart for organisingour materials on leadership into a highly professional library.We would like to thank Ellen Earle Chalice of the NorthDakota State Beard of Higher Education, and our colleaguesat the National Center for Postsecondary Governance andFinance, Richard C. Richardson and Kathryn Thetis for theircareful reading and numerous suggestions for improvement.We also wish to acknowledge the helpful comments madeby several anonymous reviewers.

14

THE CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT AND CALLS FOR LEADERSHIP

Concern with institutional leadership has increased in recentyears. This attention is in part related to a perception thathigher education is experiencing a "great leadership crisis."According to Academic Straw', one of the most widely readbooks about higher education, "one of the most significantdevelopments in postwar academic life has been the pro-gressive breakdown of governance and leadership" (Keller1983, p. 27). The author is not alone in perceiving a "crisisof leadership" in higher education.

Calls for better, stronger, and bolder leadership have beenechoed simultaneously in several reports by blue ribbon com-missions, decrying the decline of higher education. In ToReclaim a Legacy (Bennett 1984), former Secretary of Edu-cation William Bennett challenges college presidents to bemore courageous in assuming a leadership role in curricularreform, suggesting that the revitalization of colleges and uni-versities depends on presidents who are willing to assumea strong role in the academic affairs of their institutions, justas effectiveness in elementary and secondary schools dependsupon strong school principals. In a similar but stronger tone,Inttgriv in We Code e Curriculum (AAC 1985) blames thedisintegration of the curriculum on Faculty, declaring that thecrisis will only grow unless presidents reassert their leadershipfor the curriculum and shape a strategy to mc,:e their facultiesto responsible action. The mandate being handed to officialcampus leaders contains no hint ofambivalence:

This generation of academic praidents and deans isrequired to lead us away from the declining and devaluedbachelor's dEgree. *Their visions must be bolder, theirinitiatives more enemetic and it and the greatpotential for academic leadership that r latent in theauthority of their positions must be asserted forcefully andskitifuNy(p. 7).

Thus, as the 1980s have become the era of criticism, !cadet-ship correspondingly has been touted as the cure for highereducation's ills. The message resounds that campus leaders- -presidents and other academic officers- -sht Id take actionto resolve problems contributing to higher education'sdemise. This faith in the power and wisdom of leadershipand in its potential to make a difference in colleges and uni,versifies underlies much of the literature of higher education.

As the 19EWshaw becomethe era ofcdssn,kadersh#1corresjlond-low& ints beentouted as the

'e forhighereducation's

Making Se nSe of Administrative Leadership

15

It is particularly ubiquitous in contemporary and highly pop-ular works on !cadetship. Some suggest, for example, thatevery organization "must have a single authority, someoneor some body of people authorized to initiate, plan, decide,manage, monitor, and punish its members" and that "lead-ership is imperative" to accomplish this end (Keller 1983,p. 35). Another observer calls for "strong, assertive, andenlightened presidents who will lead us to a new and higherlevel of contribution" (Fisher 1984, p. 11), while yet anotherassets that leadership is both necessary and importantbecause people instinctively want to have leaders, becausegroups need leaders to perform functions that groups cannotperform for themselves, and because leaders can provide aneffective check on "unseen players" who might manipulatepower to the detriment of the group (Gardner 1986b, p. 19).And the national bestseller, In Sean th of Excellence: Lessonsfrom America's Best-Run Companie4 stresses the centralimportance of the leader, who is "the value shaper, the exem-plar, the maker of meanings" in converting average companiesand average employees into excellent organizations (Petersand Waterman 1982, p. 82).

Constraints in Responding to the Calls for LeadershipAlthough calls for leadership abound and although optimismruns high at the thought of finding new, vigorous, decisive,transforming, and inspirational leaders, few are consistentwith normative statements describing how college and uni-versity leadership and governance should ideally function.Governance is not solely an administrative prerogative butproperly is a shared responsibility and joint effort involvingall important campus constituencies, particularly the faculty.

The influential "Joint Statement on Government of Collegesand Universities," for example, bestows on the faculty theprimary responsibility for "curriculum, subject matter andmethods of instruction, research, faculty status, and thoseaspects of student life [that] relate to the educational process"(American Association of University Professors 1984, p. 109).In such matters, the president is expected to "concur withthe faculty judgment except in rare instances and for com-pelling rmsons, which should be stated in derail" (p. 109).in sum, the Joint Statement reserves for faculty authority overthe central functkm of colleges and universities. Thus, reform-ist reports of the 1980s calling forstrong and courageous

16

leadership may be dysfunctional by AAUP standards, if notimpossible. The norms of the profession may militate againstthe kinds of assertive leadership that has been called forbecause change would require faculty, administrators, andtrustees to actand to allow each other to actin ways thatradically depart from strongly ingrained beliefs as to theproper role of the administration and the faculty.

Although presidents and administrators may do all the"tight things" as prescribed in the calls for leadership, theymay still fail in the end if their initiatives do not coincide withdesires of faculties, trustees, or other key constituencies. Whilepresidents are being counseled to "turn their institutionsaround," evidence suggests that acting too fast and too aggres-sively may cause contentious relationships between facultyand administration, which in some cases could result in dis-missal or premature departure from the presidency (Biemiller1986; Mooney 1988). Faculty expectations for involvementin decision making may represent the single greatest obstacleto directive leadership.

Reports and commentaries in 71,e Chronicle of Higher /Edu-cation have addressed pressures on college leaders, especiallyon presidents, in attending simultaneously to external audien-ces to raise funds and friends and in responding to calls foraccountability (Evangelauf 1984); in sk4Ping trustees' leader-ship so that it avoids extremss of nonparticipation and over-participation (Jacobson 1985); in attending simultaneouslyto boards that want a role in internal college managementand faculties that want to be consulted on personnel appoint-ments and financial decisions (McMillen 1986); and in usingthe thinking of the marketplace, without sounding like "headsof automobile dealerships" or without forgetting education'sfundamental mission (Plante 1985). The professional mediaare rife with pictures of college presidentscaught among theconflicting ideals, standards, expectations, and demands offaculty, trustees, students, community, Rate agencies, andinterest groups.

Furthermore, several external and internal constraints andpressures have been identified that reduce the degrees offreedom within which college presidents exercise leadership,including reduced confidence in leadership and respect forauthority; reduced institutirmal growth resulting from demo.graphic changes in the student body and declining maxim-es;intrusion of external groups, such as the media and govern

Making Sense ofAdministrative Leaden* 3

meet (e.g., sunshine laws, legal action); e e need to contendwith system bureaucracies, faculty unions, and intrusiveboards of trustees; and the presence of friends, colleagues,and associates who car. turn as easily into fatal opponents(Kerr and Grade 1986).

One of the dilemmas faced by college presidents is thatsoon after assuming office, they learn it is very difficult toleave their mark on the institution (Kauffman 1980). Campusexpectations strongly influence what the president can realis-tically accomplish. Often presidents become caught up incounteracting their predecessors' actions, ministering to adivided campus or correcting budgetary deficiencies. Theextent to which presidents can lead vigorously may beseverely limited by institutional history as well as by an estab-lished constituency that can as easily welcome as reject boldattempts at reform. Given these realities, most presidentsaccept that their impact may be equivocal.

Overcoming Constraints to LeadershipCritics of higher education leadership seem to assume thattoday's presidents do not have the courage and decisivenessof vast presidents. An obvious solution would be for presi-dential search committees to seek stronger and more decisivecandidates. Alternatively, the presidency could be srength-ened by increasing the legal authorityof the position andcurtailing the influence of other groups. A former president(Fisher 1984) proposed that trustees should consider sus-pending all existing college policies regarding shared authority and grant exclusive authority to the president kar the con-duct of all campus affairs. The president could then give othercampus groups, as a privilege, the opportunity to participatein governance at the president's discretion. A less radical pro-posal would give presidents greater discretion to act withoutthe full panoply of consultation and consensus building, whilerequiring accountability through periodic reviews of theirperformance (Brewster 1976; Mortimer and McConnell 1978).

Presidents have resources at their disposal with which theycan exercise their influence, including substantial controlover the budget, extensive staffs, and presidential authorityto appoint key personnel and to set institutional priorities(C,orson 1960; Trow 1984). Nevertheless, these resources maybe illusory (Cohen and March 1974). For example, accountingprocedures may constrain how much influence presidents

have on budgetary decision making, decisions about the cur-riculum and academic appointments are delegated to theflKulty, and planning activities have greater symbolic thaninstrumental value.

One special resourcethe governing hoard's support.has been given extensive attention. It has been said that theability of today's college president to lead in the face of seem-ingly overwhelming constraints requires, first and foremast,the board's commitment to create an effective presidency(Kerr 1984), which requires the board to review the presi-dency regularly (for example, as part of a regular governancereview), include the president as a board member (or accordmembership when full membership is prohibited by law),provide for an adequate presidential staff and a top leadershipteam, uphold the president's role as the institution's chiefacademic officer, approve union contracts as advised by thepresident and avoid pitting the president directly againstunion officials during negotiations, provide the presidentwith discretionary resources to initiate innovative programs,and build a board of devoted trustees whose terms are longenough to permit good working relationships to be estab-lished and substantive projects to be accomplished. Thus,it is possible for boards to ease constraints on presidentialleadership.

The realization that leadership must be practiced in atroubled, complex, and crisis ridden context has also led toa stream of advice that focuses on the very makeup of theleadership role. Some sources (Eaton 11 ; Green 1988a;Kerr 1984; Mayhew 1979) suggest specific principles, styles,and orientations to guide the activities of academic leaders.For example, presidents have been advised to choose theirpriorities judiciously, to develop a good working relationshipwith the governing board, to ensure campuswide consultationbut to prevent the disruption of vetoes by special interests,to provide full information to important community membersbut to avoid the interference of those groups, to create aninstitutional vision and to speak out on important socialissues, and, quite simply, to be lucky. On a more personallevel, they have been advised to be risk takers and to showa preference for individualism rather than affiliation. Presidents have also been advised to select and appoint othercompetent leaders, to develop solid understandings of howtheir institutions work, to study their budgets in search of

Making Sense of Administrative Leadership 5

hidden flexibility, to establish and attend to their own agen-das, and to exercise good judgment about what can and can-not work. Leaders need to become skilled at symbolic lead-ership to bridge campus fragmentation, build coalitions toresolve conflicts and find common ground, and build teamsto broaden administrative vision.

White advice for leaders is not lacking, such advice is oftencontradictory and ccmfusing for two reasons. First, observersoften use different conceptual orientations to guide theirunderstandings of leadership and organizational behavior.Second, while all the advice appears sensible, much of it iscontradictory. Scholars, observers of leadershir and formerand present academic leaders disagree atxt ether suc-cessful leadership requires remaining distant of being inti-mately involved with constituents, whether it should empha-size the acquisition of resources or focus on academic matters,whether it involves accountability or fostering creativity, orwhether it requires setting goals or helping others to achievetheir own goals.

6

CONCEPTUAL EXPLANATIONS OF LEADERSHIP

This section summarizes and critiques some of the majorapproaches to the study of leadership. The first part considerstheories and models of leadership itself; the second viewsleadership within the context of theories of organization.Leadership has been studied in business organizations, themilitary, and governmental agencies, but little attention hasbeen given to leadership in higher education (Vroom 1983).At the same time, the study of leadership in colleges and uni-versities may be mote problematic than in other settingsbecause of the dual control systems, conflicts between pro-fessional and administrative authority, unclear goals, and otherspecial properties of normative, professional organization:;(Baldridge et al. 1978; Birnbaum 1988; Perkins 1973).

Theories and Models of LeadershipResearch traditions in leadership can be grouped into sixmajor categories. The boundaries of these categories are fluid,and they are neither mutually exclusive nor consistent. Theydo, however, provide a convenient way of organizing an oth-erwise overwhelming array of materials. The categoriesinclude trait theories, which attempt to identify specific per-sonal characteristics that contribute to a person's ability toassume and successfully function in positions of leackiship,power and influence theorit6, which consider leadership interms of the source and amount of power availabh to leadersand the manner in which leaders exercise that power overfollowers through either unilateral or reciprocal nteractions;hehaviond theories, which study leadership by examiningleaders' patterns of activity, managerial roles, and categoriesof behaviorthat is, by considering what it is that leadersactually do; contingency theories, which emphasize the impor-tance of situational factors, such as the nature of the task per-formed by a group or the nature of the external environmentto understand effective leadership; cultural and vfinholic theorie4 which study the influence of leaders in maintainingor reinterpreting the system of shared beliefs and values thatgive meaning to organizational life; and awnitive theories,which suggest leadership is a social attribution that permitspeople to make sense of an equivocal, fluid, and complexwait'. (See, e.g., Gibb [1968], Hollander [1985], House andBaetz 119791, Vroom 119761, and Yuld 119811 for major summanes of research findings in these various traditions andBass 11981) for an exhaustive and definitive survey of lead-

1111.11111.1AnalysmMem*/hundreds ofstuditsperformedover decadesindicate tbatno traits haveprcwen to beessential forsuccessisdleadership.

Making Sense of Administratim teadensfrip

ership theaty and research that cites and summarizes over4,500 studies.)

Trait theoriesThis approach proposes that leaders are persons endowedwith specific traits related to their effectiveness that differ-entiate them from followers. Traits may include physical char-acteristics (height, appearance, age, energy level), personality(self deem, dominance, emotional stability, initiative, per-sistence), social background (education, socioeconomic sta-tus), and ability (general intelligence, verbal fluency, knowl-edge, originality, social insight, cognitive complexity). It issometimes assumed that these traits are innate, sometimesthat they can he developed. Although some traits (such asassertiveness, decisiveness, dependability, persistence, self-confidence) and some skills (such as verbal fluency, creativity,persuasiveness, tact) appear to he characteristic of successfulleaders (Bass 1981), possession of the traits does not guar-antee effectiveness, nor does their absence proscribe it. Othersituational factors seem to be more critical. Motecwer, causeand-effect relationships are questionable, and measurementis difficult. For example, while self-confident people maybecome leaders, it is equally plausible that becoming leadersmay make people self confident. Similarly, no valid and reli-able "units" exist by which the level of self confidence canbe assessed, and it is not possible to determine how muchself confidence is desirable or the point at which others seeit as arrogance. Analyses of literally hundreds of studies per-formed over decades indicate that no traits have proven tobe essential for successful leadership (Bass 1981; GM 1968),and trait theixies are no longer a major focus of organizationalresearch. A fitting epitaph to this tradition is that "personalitytraits do not contribute highly to effective leadership per-formance" (Fiedler and Garcia 1987, p. 21).

Power and influence theoriesA second research tradition focuses on how effective leadersuse power. Two themes have emerged. The first, identifiedhere as the social power apparach, considers how leadersinfluence followers. The second, the social =changeapproach, emphasizes the reciprocal relationship betweenleaders and followers through which leaders arc themselvesinfluenced as they try to influence others.

8r.

Leaders who rely on social power to influence followersby virtue of their offices can be identified as officials. Leaderswho influence others solely because of their personalitiesare called informal leaders, and those who influence throughboth office and personal;ty con be considered formal leaders.In normative organizations like colleges and universities thatrely primarily on symbols rather than coercion or financialremuneration to motivate and coordinate participants, organi-zational control is usually exercised by formal leaders ratherthan by officials or informal leaders (Etzioni 1961, 1964). Fivebases of social power have been suggested (French and Raven1968). Leaders can influence others through their officesbecause of the legitimacy provided by our social and legalsystems (legitimate power) and through the ability of leadersto provide rewards (reward pouwr) and to threaten punish-ments (rive power) Leaders can also influence othersthrough their own personalities in two waystheir perceivedexpertise (cwt power') and the extent to which others perscatally identify with and like them (referent power). Summales of research (Yukl 1981) suggest that the use of personal forms of power such as ("pert power and referentpower should lead to greater satisfaction and performanceof followers (and presumably to increased organizationaleffectiveness as well). legitimate power appears to beuncorrelated with performance, coercive power is negativelycorrelated, and the findings on reward power are inconsistent.The research has been Wuxi primarily on hierarchical groups,however, and causal relationships are not clear. For example,while it may be that less use of legitimate power and legalauthority may increase performance, it may aLso be true thatleaders rely less on legitimate power when groups are per-forming well.

While social power theories emphasize one-way influence,social exchange theories emphasize two-way mutual influenceand reciprocal relationships between leaders who provic!:.needed services to a group in exchange for the group's ap-proval and compliance with the leader's demands (Blau 1964;Homans 1958). Leadership thus is not a unilateral and directive process but a cyclic and "dynamic two-way process inwhich superiors and subordinates repeatedly interact to build,reaffirm, or alter their relationship" (Zahn and Wolf 1981,p. 26). Leaders accumulate power through their positionsand their perslatalities, but their authority is constrained by

Making Sense of Admin4ctratil /Awful-ship 9

followers' opectations (Hollander 1985). In essence, thegroup agrees to collectively reduce its own autonomy andto accept the authority of the leader in exchange for therewards and benefits (social approval, financial benefits, com-petitive advantage) the leader can bring them. Doing so doesnot mean that followers agree to cede all their potential powerand influence, and indeed several models of exchange theorysuggest that leaders can increase their own power by empow-ering their subordinates (Kanter 1983). Evidence suggests,for example, that members of a working group who see them-selves as influencing their superior are more likely in turnto perceive their superior as influential (that is, as havingmore power) than are groups whose members feel they havelittle influence on their superiors (Likert 1961),

leaders also accumulate power by virtue of their expertiseand as they produce and fairly distribute rewards expectedby the group, leadership therefore is related to the expec-tations of followers. To be successful, leaders must eitherfulfill these expectations or change them (Blau 1964; Hol-lander 1964; Price and Garland 1981). The difference betweenfulfilling or changing expectations is at the heart of the disUnction between transactional and transformational leadership( Itts.s 1985; Bennis and Nanus 1985; Bums 1978).

Bums views transactional leadership as a relationshipbetween leaders and followers based on an exchange ofvalued things, which could be economic, political, or psy-chological in nature. From this perspective, leaders and fol-lowers are seen as involved in a trargaining process ratherthan in a relationship with an enduring purpose. The monitorsof transactional leadership are modal values like honesty,fairness, and honoring commitments.

Transformational leadership on the other hand goes beyondmeeting the basic needs of subordinates. It engages followersin such a way as to raise them to new levels of morality andmotivation. Leaders' and followers' purposes bmome fusedtinder transformational leadership rather than separate butrelated, as under transactional leadership. 'Transforming lead-ers are concerned with end values such as liberty, justice,or equality. Neither transactional nor transformational lead-ership, says Bums, should be confused with what commonlypasses for leadership"acts of oratory, manipulation, sheerself-advancement. brute coercion...conspicuous positiontaking without folbwers or follow-through, ilostiving om var

JO

sous stages...authoritarianism" (p. 427).Another view of transformational leadership was developed

from interviews held with 90 top leaders, including corporateexecutives, elected government officials, orchestra conductors,and college presidents (Bennis and Nanus 1985). These lead-ers employed four strategies: (1) attention through vision(having a clear agenda and being oriented toward result.$);(2) achieving meaning through communication (interpretingreality to enable coordinated action, with the use of meta.plan, images, and models as particularly effective in con-veying meaning and explanations); (3) gaining tnig throughpositioning (acquired by demonstrating accountability, pre-.dktability, reliability, constancy); and (4) gaining recognitionor attention through positive selfregard (with the leaderemphasizing his or her own strengths and minimizingweaknesses).

One way to differentiate transactional from transformationalleadership is that while the transactional leader accepts theorganizational culture as it exists, the transformational leaderinvents, introduces, and advances new milord forms (Bass1985). Three factors associated with transformational lead-ership are charismatic leadership (see, e.g., House and Baem1979, pp. 399-401), individual consideration, and intellectualstimulation. To be a charismatic leader, one must possesscertain traits, including self-confidence, self-esteem, and selfdetermination. Individualized consideration refers to aspectsof consultation and participative decision making. In Bass'smodel, leaders demonstrate this characteristic by being con-cerned with the development of their subordinates, by dele.gating challenging work, by maintaining contact with sub.ordinates, by maintaining informal communication charm iels,by keeping subordinates informed, and by providing men-toting. Intellectual stimulation from the perspective of transformational leadership is seen as the leader's ability to changethe way followers perceive, conceptualize, and solve prth.lems. The ability to use images and symbols to project ideasis one way in which leaders provide intellectual stimulation.

Transformational leadership creates "performance beyondexpectation" and "induces additional effort by sharply increas-ing subordinate confidence and by elevating the value of out-comes for the subordinate. This is done by expanding thesubordinate's needs, by focusing on transcendental interests,and/or by altering or widening the subordinate's level of

Making Sense of Administrative Leadership 111 --4

t

needs on Maslow 's hierarchy" (Bass 1985, p. 22). Such lead-ership is more likely LI emerge in times of rapid change anddistress and in organizations that have unclear galls and struc-ture, well-educated members, and a high level of trust.

Even though transfomutional leadership may be madepassible only in rare circumstances by even rarer individuals,it has captured the interest of organizational scholars. Yet anunderstanding of transformational leadership is unclearbecause it has been defined from at least two different per-spectives. The classic use of transformational leadership, asproposed by Bums (1978), had "powerful moral connota-tions" (Gardner 1986a, p. 22). As the term gained in pop-ularity, however, it evolved into a code word for innovativeor motivational leadership, and the moral connotation hasbeen lost.

Behavioral theoriesThe third approach to leadership considers neither leaders'characteristics nor the sources of their power, but rather whatleaders actually do (Mintzherg 1973; Say les 1979). Data areoften collected about leaders 0,1.010 use of diaries, obser-vation, activity sampling, self, reporting, questionnaires, oranalysis of critical incidents. Early studies analyzed the effectson the group's performance of the leader's behavior asso-ciated with different styles of leadership. The concepts ofauthoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership (Lippettand White 1958) differentiated leaders bated on whether theywere directive or crarticiraory, emphasized accomplishingtasks or individual satisfaction, and encouraged or discouragedinterpersonal contact. Groups headed by authoritarian leadersproduced more work, but they also had lower morale andless satisfaction and were more vulnerable to external dis-ruption and to diminished performance when the leader wasremoved. The authoritarian-democratic dimension of lead-ership has four types of relationships in organizations, rangingfrom exploitative autocratic (called System 1), to benevolentautocratic (System 2), consultative (System 3), and democratic(System 4) (Liken 1S'67). Productivitywas presumed toincrease as organizations moved away from Systems I and2 (with top-down communication, centralized control, andlack of influence by subordinates over plans or goals) andtoward Systems 3 and 4 (bottom,up communication, decen-tralized control, high influence by subordinates over plans

12

or goals).The most influential research in the behavioral tradition

was conducted as part of ;he Ohi :Axe leadership studies.It identified two essential aspects of leadership behavior:"initiating structure" (task oriented) and "consideration"(relationship oriented) (Stogdill and Coons 1957). Taskoriented leaders arm such activities as directing, coordi-nating, planning, and problem solving. Leaders emphasizingconsideration behave in a friendly, considerate, supportive,consultative, and open manner. This research approach sug-gests that leaders should emphasize accomplishing tasks onlyin certain circumstance; under different conditions, devel-cgsing and maintaining the group should he stressed. Theproblem is finding the right combination of the two, and herethe literature on the effect cif the leader's behavior on thegroup's performance or satisfaction is contradictory.

One influential application of this approach is the Managerial Grid, a two-dimensional array with two scaled axes(Blake and Mouton 1964). A person's leadership style canbe located on the grid by identifying the degree of concernfor production (task oriented) on a nine-point scale on oneaxis and concern for people (relationship oriented) on a ninepoint scale on the other axis. Leaders with low scores on bothscales, identified on Blake and Mouton's scoring system as(0,0), are completely ineffective and demonstrate no concerneither for tasks or relationships; their leadership orientationis considered to be pathological. Those high on one scalebut low on the other, for example (9,0) or (0,9), are less effec-tive than they could be because they ignore either importantrelational or task aspects of organizational functioning. Otherleaders Mance the two scales by compromising the appar-ently conflicting demands of relationships and tasks, but thecompromise results in outcomes (5,5)- -that merely supportthe group's satisfactory performance. The most effective anddesirable style of leadership is one with high scores on bothscales (9,9) that emphasizes both productivity and people.The grid has often been criticized for asserting that one "bestway" exists of providing leadership without concern for theparticular task, the nature of the environment, or the qualitiesof the participants.

In addition to studying leaders' initiating or considerationactivities, it is possible to identify their behaviors as they playa number of car,anizational roles. An observation of managers

Making Sense of Administrative Letniership 13

tpdvgr.;

at work, for example, resulted in 10 basic managerial rolescategorized in three groups: interpersonal behavior (the rolesof figurehead, liaison, leader), information-processing behav-ior (the roles of monitor, disseminator, spokesman), anddecision making behavior (the roles of entrepreneur, dis-..urbance handler, resource allocator, negotiator) (Mintzberg1973). Another list of 17 comparable "behavior categories"includes, in addition to those cited by the Ohio State studiesand by A4intzberg, such activities as inspiring, setting goals,and clarify'ng roles (Bass 1981). Another series of essays hascontinued this tradition by describing leaders' attributes andtheir uses of power as they perform such tasks of leadershipas renewing the organization, motivating others, envisioninggoals, affirming values, managing, and representing the group(Gardner I986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1986d, 1986e, 1987a, 1987b,1987c, 1988a, 1988b, 1988c).

The usefulness of these theories in helping to define behav-ior leading to effective leadership is problematic, at least Inpart because no agreement exists on categories among themany classification systems that have been proposed. All ofthem assume that leaders are effective when they engage inthose activities that are most important for the specificuation, so that effective and ineffective leadership chzuas the situation changes. But research on the relationship fthe leader's behavior to the group's performance or its sat-isfaction often gives equivocal results (Korman 1966). Amongother things, subordinates' performance may influence theleader's behavior as much as the reverse (Crowe, Bochner,and Clark 1972; Greene 1975, 1979), so that the directionof causality is questionable and the presumed relationshipbetween behavior and effectiveness almost tautological. Itis relatively easy to call certain behaviors of leaders "effective"once the desired outcomes are observed but much more difficult to stipulate in advance the behaviors of leaders that willhave the desired outcomes.

Contingen4-y theoriesThe fourth perspective on leadership emphasizes the /11-KW-lance of situational factors, such as the nature of the task per-formed by a group and the nature of the external environ-ment. The theories assume that different situations requiredifferent patterns of traits and behavior for a leader to be effec-tive. Became effective behavior is contingent on the situation,

14

theI are collectively referred to as "contingency theories."Behavioral theories and contingency theories overlap con-

siderably. Both concur that effective behavior depends onthe nature of the situation, with contingency theories tendingto emphasize the importance of factors outside the organi..ration, while behavioral theories more frequently focus oninternal variables. Different ttxxiels have proposed that effec-tive leadership depends on factors like the nature of the exter-nal environment, the type of task, the personal qualities ofthe leader, leader-follower relations, maturity of followers,followers' expectations, presence or absence of a crisis, avail-ability of reward systems, clarification of role, or any one ofdozens of other factots, depending upon the specific theory(Bass 1981; Yukl 1981). These theories essentially say thatno single approach to leadership is the best but at the sametime that not all approaches are equally effective. The answerto the question "what is effective leadership?" is "it alldepends."

Contingency theories attempt to indicate how the leaders'behavior is shaped and thus constrained by situational factorsand unfolding events, including pressures to conform to othas' expectations, institutional regulations and routines, ordersby superiors, nature of the task, perception of the externalenvircatment, feedback about organizational effectiveness,erwitonmental complexity and stability, organisational struc-ture, interdependence of subunits, complexity of tasks, andsubordinates' orientation toward goals. Some observers sug-gest that leaders' behavior may he shaped by their level inthe hierarchy (leaders at lower levels have less discretion),the nature of the functions of the organizational unit (pro-duction leaders can be more directive than research loaders),characteristics of the task and the technology (leaders of low-complexity tasks can be more authoritarian), sire of the orp-nizational unit (leaders of larger units engage in less summtbehavior), lateral interdependence (leaders of interdependentgroups are less responsive to their subordinates), subordi-nates' competence (effective leaders emphasize performancewith weaker subordinates), and presence of a crisis (leadersare expected to act more decisively in crises) (see, e.g., Bass1985; Mintzberg 1973; Sayles 1979; Yukl 1981).

Several contingency models have become well known.Fsedler's contingency model (Fiedler 1967, 1971) suggeststhat leaders are primarily motivated to he either task tx- rela-

Making Sense of Administrative Letalership 15

4.

tions oriented. The effectiveness of either orientation dependson the nature of relations between leader and members (slip-portive or nonsupportive), structure of the task (clear orambiguous), and positional power (high or low) in specificsituations. These three Factors combine in various ways toproduce situations ranging from those in which leaders havehigh control (good relations, structured task, and high power)to those of low control (nonsupportive relations, ambiguoustask, and low power). Task-motivated leaders will be mosteffective in situations in which they have either high or lowcontrol; relationship-oriented leaders will be most effectivewhen their situational control is moderate. it is therefore mis-leading to speak of a person as a "good" or "bad" leader,as effectiveness differs between situations depending on theleader's personality and degree of situational control. Thistheory suggests that the most effective way of improving lead-ership is not to change a person's .style of leadership but toplace leaders into positions suitable to their leadership ori-entation or to have them alter their situations to be consistentwith their strengths.

More recently, Fiedler has further developed the contin-gency model by incorporating into it two factors that havelargely been ignored or found to be unrelated to a leader'sperformance--the leader's intelligence and the leader's com-petence and experience (Fiedler and Garcia 1987). The newapproach, called cognitim resource theory, assumes that intel-ligent and competent leaders make more effective plans anddecisions than others and that intelligent and directive leadersshould therefore be more effective undo low stress than lessintelligent ones. If the leader is under high stress, however,the leader's intelligence will be divested from the problemto the source of the stress, and performance will then berelated to the leader's job-relevant experience rather thanto intelligence. The relationship of intelligence and expe-rience to the leader's effectiveness therefore depends on sev-eral factors, including the level of stress, the degree of groupsupport, the directive or nondirective orientation of the leader,and the leader's emphasis upon task or relationship moti-vation. Cognitive resource theory also suggests that the relativeintellectual abilities of groups and leaders may affect thewoup's performance. In activities in which the group's abil-ities are correlated negatively with performance, high-abilityleaders may be effective. When both the leader's and the

16

3

group's abilities are high, however, competition and rivalrybetween them may inhibit the group's performance.

While Fiedler's contingency model is probably the bestknown, it is by no means the only contingency approach.The situational leadership tbecoy, for example, relates appro-priate behavior of leaders to the maturity (motivation toachieve, willingness to take responsibility, and education and/or experience) of followers (Hersey and Blanchard 1977).When subordinates are very immature in relation to the task,the leader should be directive and autocratic in defining subordinates' roles and establishing objectives, standards, andprocedures. When subordinates have a moderate amountof maturity, the leader should engage in considerablerelationship-oriented behavior and a moderate degree ofdirecting and organizing work. When subordinates are verymature, the leader should delegate responsibility for decidinghow the work is done to subordinates and allow them con-siderable autonomy.

The path-goal theory suggests that effective leaders are thc)sewho clarify the paths to attaining waLs and help subordinatesovercome problems, thereby increasing subordinates' sarisfaction and productivity (House 1971). Leaders should em-phasize initiating or consideration behavior depending ondifferences in the task, work environment, and characteristicsof subordinates. For erample, when tasks are ambiguous,leaders should help structure them; when tasks are not ambig.uous but are structured, leaders should he considerate andsupportive.

The modal of decision participation relates the leader'seffectiveness to the degree to which subordinates are per-mitted to participate in making decisions (Vroom and Yetton1973). The model is based on an analysis of how a leader'sdecision making behavior affects the quality of the decisionand the subordinates' acceptance of the decision. Acceptanceof decision is the degree of commitment by subordinatesto implement a decision effectively. Quality of decision refersto the objective aspects of a decision that affect the group'sperformance. Five procedures can he used to make decisionsin ways that involve none, some, or all of the leader's immediate subordinates: two varieties of autocratic decision mak.Mg, two varieties of consultation, and a joint decision- makingproem by !trader and subrdinates. The effectiveness of adecisionmaking procedure depends upon a number of

Making Sense of Administrative tradership

Mil.11111Sediondinates'performancemay influerscethe leader'sbehavkir asmuch as the'wove, sothat thedirection ofantsaiity isquestionable.

17

-'spec ts of the situation: the importance of the decision's qual-ity and subordinates' acceptance of it, the amount of relevantinformation possessed by the leader and by subordinates,the likelihood that subordinates will accept an autocratic deci-sion, the likelihood that subordinates will cooperate in tryingto make a good decision if allowed to participate, and theamount of disagreement among subordinates on their pre-ferred alternatives.

Depending on the situation, the model provides a set ofrules for determining what decision-making procedures theleader should avoid in a given situation because quality ofdecisions or acceptance of them would be risked. Effectiveleadership requires determining the appropriate involvementof subordinates in each decision, which depends not onlyupon the characteristics of the subordinates but also onaspects of the decision-making process itself, such as thedegree to which a solution must be acceptable to others, theavailability of data, and the sharing of organizational goals.Leaders can learn to recognize the .e characteristics and toadjust their styles accordingly (Vroom 1976).

The multiple linkage model of leader effectivenesssuggeststhat any short-term effect of the leader's behavior on thegroup's performance is mediated by intervening variables(Yukl 1971, 1981). The variables include characteristics ofthe group, such as resources and support services, task-roleorganization, cohesiveness of the group and teamwork, andrelations between leader and subordinates, and individualcharacteristics of subordinates, such as their effort, clarity ofroles, and skills. A leader's effectiveness depends on the abilityto correct any deficiencies in the intervening variables forthe work unit. The extent to which certain intervening var-iables are important and need improvement and the stepsthat the leader can take are determined by the situation."When there are no serious deficiencies in any interveningvariables, or leaders cannot correct deficiencies because ofsituational constraints, short-term leadership behavior willhave little impact on subordinate performance" (Yukl 1981,p, 160). The model presumes, however, that over time leaderscan act to change some of the situational variables and createa more favorable situation through strategic planning, for-mation of policy, program development, organizationalchange, and political activities outside the work of the waitunit.

.18

While most contingency theories attempt to describe situatiers under which task or relationship leadership mayimprove the group's performance, Kerr and Jermier's sub-stitutes for hierarchical leadership examines the nature ofsituations in which neither tisk nor consideration leadershipmay have any effect on subordinates' satisfaction, motivation,or performance (Howell, Dorfman, and Kerr 1986; Kerr andjermier 1978). Some organizations have elements withinthemselves that substitute for or neutralize le adership. Theiemodel distinguishes between two kinds of situational vari-ables: "substitutes" and "neutralizers." Substitutes that makebehavior of the leader unnet-essary and redundant includecharacteristics of the subordinates, the task, or the organi-zation that ensure subordinates will clearly understand theirroles, know how to do their work, be highly motivated toperform effectively, and be satisfied with their jobs. Neutral-izers include characteristics of the task or the organizationthat prevent the leader from acting in a specified way or thatcounteract the effects of leadership.

For example, lack of control over rewards can prevent theleader from using rewards as incentives for orceptional per-formance, and disinterest on the part of the subordinate forthe rewards controlled by the leader counterxts the potentialfor motivation. Characteristics of subordinates such as trainingand experience can serve as substitutes and/or neutralizersfor instrumental leadership and supportive leadership if sub..ordinates look primarily to similar professionals for approval,recognition, and standards of performance. Various attributesof tasks may serve as substitutes for instrumental leadership(for example, if a task is simple and repetitive or providesinternal feedback), and can be substitutes for supportive lead-ership if the task is interesting and enjoyable.

Organizational characteristics can also serve as substitutesfor leadership. Organizational formalization can serve as asubstitute for directive behavior. Rules and policies can serveas a neutralizer as well as a substitute if they are so inflexiblethat the leader cannot make changes to facilitate subordinates'efforts. Cohesion in the work group and limited contactbetween the leader and stub ordinatai tan also act as suhsti-tums or neutralizers.

These elements may "render relationship- and/or task-oriented leadership not tally impossible but also unnecessary"(Kerr and Jermier 1978, p. 396). For example, relationship-

Making Serm of Administrative leadership 19

r-1 (-1

oriented leaders will find it more difficult to exert influencewhen organizational participants need independence, havea professional orientation, or are indifferent to organizationalrewards; when the task is intrinsically satisfying; when theorganization includes closely knit and cohesive work grourcs;when rewards are outside the leader's control; or when spatialdistance exists between the leader and those the leaderwishes to influence. Some of these same factors also inhibitthe influence of task oriented leadership over performance.In addition, task-oriented leadership is less effective whenparticipants have special ability, knowledge, experience, ortraining and when tasks provide their own feedback concern-ing accomplishment.

While organizational leadership is important, it may bea mistake to believe that all leadership must come from "lead-ers." In many organizationsand it would seem particularlytrue in professional organizations-- much of the guidanceand support may be provided by the participants, the natureof the task, or the characteristics of the organization itself."To the extent that other potential sources are deficient, thehierarchical superior is clearly in a position to play a dominantrole.. .and formal leadership ought to be important. To theextent that other sources provide structure and stroking inabundance, the hierarchical leader will have little chance toexert downward influence" (Kerr and jefIlliCT 1978, p. 400).Tests (k the "substitutes for leadership" model (Nowell andDorfman 1981) have pnwided mixed support for theconstruct,

Oakuml and symbolic theoriesThe models described previously all presume to a greateror lesser degree that leaders exist in a world that is essentiallycertain, rational, and linear. They assume that organizationsconsist of people, processes, and structures that can be de-scribed, analyzed, and made more efficient and effective. Lead-

ers are a central focus of organizational life. Empirical, quan-titative research and rational analyses arc considered potenttools through which the essential nature of organizationalfunctions can be discovered and organizations therebyimproved.

In contrast, cultural perspectives and symbolic approachescrepresent a garadigmatk. shift (Kuhn 1970; Lincoln 1985)in thinking alxrut organizations and leadership. They assume

CAI

that organizational stmctures and processes are invented, notdiscovered. Organizations themselves represent an attemptby humans with limited rational capacities to collectivelyImpose meaning upon an equivocal, fluid, and complexworld. The importance of facts, descriptions of events, orcause -and -effect relationships is not their "existence" but theirinterpretation. These theories propose that leadership func-tions within complex social systems whose participantsattempt to find meaningful patterns in the behaviors of othersso that they can develop common understandings alxna thenature of reality. Within this context, it is as important to studyhow leaders think and process organizational data (Srivastraand Associates 1983) as it is to look at their trthavior.

Cultural and symbolic views of leadership suggest thatorganizational participants come over time through their inter-actions to develop and to re-create shared meanings that influ-ence their perceptions and their activities. These shared mean-ings can be thought of as defining an organization's "culture,"that is, the dominant values, norms, philosophy, rules, andclimate that reflect basic, unquestioned assumptions thatorganizational participants have of themselves and of theirenvironment. Culture can be seen in the way language is Ivied,in the way power is distributed and decisions made, and par-ticularly in the symbols, stories, myths, and legends that infusespecific organigations with meaning (Deal and Kennedy 1982;Martin 1982; Selz.nick 1957; Tierney 1985). Culture can bethought of as the "social or normative glue that holds theorganization together. It expresses the values or social idealsand beliefs that organizational members come to share"(Smircich 1983, p. 344).

Some scholars and analysts propose that a major factor inthe success of leaders is the degree to which they are ableto articulate and influence cultural norms and values. Leadersare expected to mold culture by creating new symbols andmyths, developing organizational sagas (Clark 1972; Martinet al. 1983), establishing and reinforcing consistent values,and in other ways transforming the culture of the organization(Deal and Kennedy 1982; Peters and Waterman 1982; Schein1985), which is believed to lead to increased commitmentto the organization, motivation by participants, and organi-zational excellence. The leader manages culture to suit thestrategic ends of the organization Leadership of this kindcan be thought of as 'The management of meaning"; people

Making Sense ufAdministrative Leadershp 21

emerge as leaders

. by virtue of the part they Nay in the definition of thesituation... their role in framing twperience in a way thatpivvidttc the basic for action, e.g., by mobili2-ing meaning,by articukaing and defining what has previously remainedimplicit or unsvaid, by inivrating inuwes and meanings thatpwide a focus for new attention, and by consolidatingconfronting, or changing prevailing wisdom. ... /Lead-ership' ineohts a complicity or process of rugotiationthrough ulrich certain indiMluaLs implicitly or explicitly;surrender their pouer to define the nature of the e.r4rerienceto others (Smircich and Morgan 1982, p. 258).

While leaders can influence culture, however, no consensusexists that culture can in fact he "managed." Rather than beingsomething subject to the leader's manipulation, culture maybe thought of ass a powerful constraint upon the individualleader's discretion. Meaning does not normally develop outof extraordinary or heroic leadership but rather through theconstant activities and interactions of everyday organizationallife. Leaders who do not appreciate and operate within thecultural expectations of an mganization may lose their influ-ence and authority.

Leaders may be able to affect the sentiments and commit-ments of organizational participants, but they may have littleeffect over the tangible outcomes of organizational behavior(Pfeffer 1981). A longitudinal study of leadership in large corporations found that chief executive officers had little effecton most performance variables compared to the effects oftime, the nature of the industry, and the characteristics of thespecific company (Liebe sun and O'Connor 1972). Similarly,data analyzing the budgets of large cities over a 17-year periodindicate that most of the yearly variance was accounted forby the characteristics of the city itself rather than by the mayor(Salancik and Pfeffer 1977). Analysis of data collected fromcolleges and universities over a 10-year period does not reveala relationship between changes in presidential leadershipand measures of institutional functioning (Bimtraum 19890.

Several reasons have been suggested for findings that ques-tion the instrumental effectiveness of leaders. For example,leaders are likely to have been filtered and socialized bycareers that have made them conservative and homogeneous

3V

and to have their discretion restricted by internal constraintsand external forces outside their control (Cohen and March1974; March 1984; Pfeffer 1977, 1981). The meaning of lead-ership in such situations is unclear. Leaders spend comic!.enable time in ceremonial and symbolic activities that mayhave little objective relationship to organizational gads (Feld-man and March 1981; March 1984; Meyer and Rowan 1983)but that are still important because they symbolically signalthat the Organization is functioning as its sponsors and supporters believe it should.

Cognitive theoriesCognitive theories of leadership (Cohen and March 1974;McCall and Lombardo 1978; Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich1985; Sergiovanni and Corbally 1984; Sims, Gioia, and Asso-dates 1986) are closely related to symbolic approaches inthat they emphasize leadership as arising from the social cog-nition of organimions. in many ways, leadership is a serialattributionan explanation used by ohservers to help themfind meanings in unusual orgcnizational occurrences. Thisexplanation is commonly directed toward persons filling rolesidentified as positions of leadership. "leaders" may be perceived as causative factors in ownizatkins because of theexpectations of followers, because of leaders' salience andprominence, because of the human need to impose orderand seek causes for cithowise inexplicable events and outcomes, or because leaders conform to prototypical modelsof what followers expect leaders to be (Calder 1977; Cron.shaw and Lord 1987; Green and Mitchell 1979; McElroy 1982;Phillips and Lord 1981; Weiner 1985).

Leadership is associated with a set of myths reinforcingorganizational constructions of meanings that helps panic'pants to believe in the effectiveness of individual control.These myths influence the perceptions of leaders as well asof followers, so that leaders are likely to have exaggeratedbeliefs in their own efficacy. For example, the confidencethat has been found to be a characteristic of leaders may bemore perceptual than instrumental. "Experience does seemto result in a feeling of having more control over the situationand probaNy increases the individual's confidence inapproaching Ethel task" (Fiedler and Garcia 1987, p. 41).

Cognitive processes of selective attention and judgmentalbias enable leaders to take credit for successes and attribute

Making Sense of Adminigrative Lc hp 23

24

them to internal causes like their ability and effort, while theyshift the blame for failures, which they attribute to externalcauses like luck and difficulty of the task (Bradley 1978; Friezeand Weiner 1971; Salancik and Meindl 1984; Weiner andKukla 1970).

Cognitive biases (Kahneman, Movie, and Tversky 1942;Nishett and Russ 1980) allow followers to "see" evidenceof the effects of leadership even when it does no exist. Forexample, when groups are arbitrarily told that they have beensuccessful at a task, they are more likely to perceive that theyhave had good leadership than groups arbitrarily told thatthey have failed, and extreme (good or frad) performancecrf an organization is likely to lead to a preference to use lead -ership as an explanation even in the absence of supportingdata ( Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich 1985; Mitchell, Larson,and Green 1977; Raw 1975). One reason may be that merelyfocusing someone's attention on a person as the potentialMSC' of an equivocal event will affect the extent to whichthat person is judged to be the cause (Nisbet and Ross 1980).By creating roles in which leadership is expected, followersconstruct an attribution that organizational effects are theresult of the leader's behavior. Leaders, then, are peoplebelieved to have caused events. "Successful leaders...arethose who can .separate themselves from organizational W-ives and associate themselves with organizational successes"( Pfeffer 1977, p. 110). Assessments by (*hers of a leader'seffectiveness may be related less to the instrumental behaviorof the leader and nitre to perceptions of followers of thedegree to which the leader appears to do leaderlike things.

SummaryTrait theories are the mast primitive of the theories of lead-ership in that they reduce the explanation of leadership toindividual characteristics. Although scholars of leadershipelf it it discount that many leaders may have cenat. traits incommon, they suggest that a model emphasizing traits is toosimple to explain a pi imem in as complex as leadership.iknver and influence thel wies are somewhat related to traittheories in that individual characteristics like charisma, Intel,lect expertise, and interpersonal skills are seen as ex naribut.ing to the leader's ability to influence., followers. Within thisgroup of theories, the transactional and transformational mod-els have received the greatest attention. The IT imuy

tion between these two approaches is that transactional theoryperceives the relationship between leader and followers asone of reciprocity and mutual influence and transformationaltheory perceives the relationship as initiated and directedby the leader. Additionally, while transactional leaders areseen as maintaining the culture of an organization, transfig-mational leaders are seen as changing it. The transformationalmodel is considerably more appealing than the transactionalmodel because within the latter model the leader's role isseen as managerial and oriented toward maintemrice, whilein the former it is seen as an agent of change. Transforma-tional leadership in the real world, however, is probably arelatively infrequent occurrence.

Behavioral and contingecy theories are closely related. Boththeories suggest that leaders may be either task oriemecl oxrelationship oriented, depending on the circumstances underwhich leadership is being exercised. The main distinctionis that behavioral theories emphasize the influence of internalvariables (e.g., personal qualities of the leader) and contin-gency theories emphasize the influence of external vitriables(e.g., the nature of the task). Within contingency theories,the substitutes for hierarchical leadership appear to he themust nontraditional approach, suggesting that characteristicsof followers (e.g., professional autonomy) or the organization

standard operating procedures) substitute for or lieutralize the exercise of fOrmal leadership. This appnrach isparticularly relevant to the understanding of leadership inprofessional oiganintions because it allows for the possibilityof leadership to emerge from among followers.

While trait, lxthavioral, and contingency the-toles describefor the most part leadership under conditions in which rulesof leader and follower are clearly distinguished and assumeclarity in organizational purpose, cultural arai symbolic theories represent a significant departure from traditionalappnraches. Instead of viewing leadership as an objectiveact in which leaders influence the activities of followersthrough the display of specific traits, or power, or behaviors.cultural and symbolic theories view leadership as a subjectiveact in which leaders elicit followers' commitment by con-structing a reality that is congruent with followers' bdiefsand that reflects desired ends. These theories place cc amiderable emphasis c in the means used by leaders, includingcommunication, the manipulation of symbols and myths, and

Making &vise of Adminisiratiiv Lt.aderthip

Leakm/pipmists to theextent thatpeople believeit does, andthat belief&petals inpart on luneparticOants. .construct therealitks oforgankalionallife and definethe nrle ofleaders withinthem

25

the use of language. While cultural and symbolic theoriesview the leader as inventing reality for his followers, cognitivetheories regard leaders as an invention of followers. Whatmatters is perception: If leaders are seen as doing the desiredleaderlike things, they will he regarded as effective leaders.

Organizational Theory and Images of LeadershipOur beliefs about leadership have disparate sources, includingindividual biographies, social histories, works of fiction, polit-ical analyses, small-group observations, and the laboratoryexperiments of social psychologists. Often these conceptsare presented without consideration for the differences thatenvironmental, swial, and contextual factm may play indefining and understanding leadership; behavior consideredto he good leadership in one setting may be seen as disrup-tive in another. Because no objective criteria exist for assess-ing the presence, absence. or degree of leadership, leadershipis to a great extent in the eye of the beholder. In organiza-tic am, too, leadership exists to the extent that people believeit does, and that belief depends in part on how participants,through their interactions, construct the realities of owani-zatit alai life and define the role of leaders within them.

No right or wrong ways exist to view organizatiorK A num-if different models have been suggested, and each model

,ies different images of what leadership is and how it mayhe appropriately manifested. In the study of organisations,laNsical management the my was succeeded in turn by We-

berian bureaucracy, human relations models, neo-Weberianmodels emphasizing decision making and conflict, the insti-tutional school focusing on the structure, history, and valuesof organizatims, and contingency models emphasizing eithertechnology or the environment (Kass and Rosenzweig 1973;Pen( iw 1979). Organizations can be studied as rational, nat-ural, or open systems (Katz and Kahn 1978; Scutt 1981) orthought of metaphorically as machines, organisms, brains,cultures, political systems, psychic prisons, processes of fluxand transformation, or instruments of domination (Morgan1986). Others have described them as systems of interpre-tation that create a shared reality through the continued inter-actions of participants (Daft and Weick 1984; Weick 1979),as groups molded by environments (Pfeffer and Salancik1978), and as complex, adaptive, and evolutionary nonlinearsystems (De Greene 1982 ). Each of these models illuminates

4u

certain aspects of leadership while ignoring other equallyvalid aspects. Using any one of these models or metaphorsexclusively can lead to eitherAw thinking, which is a limitedand ineffective way of conceptualizing either organizationsor leadership. In contrast, views about leadership that incor-porate many dimensions of leadership take a both /aridapproach. By confronting the paradoxes of leadership, theycreate conflict that allows us to see the phenomenon in newways. Ineffective leaders focus on only one model; more effecLive leaders balance two or more (if them (Quinn 1988).

One of the mast useful organizational typologies from theperspective of leadership is that of Holman and Deal (1984),who suggest that organizations can he looked at through fourdifferent vantage points, or coherent perspectives, which theyidentify as "frames." The structural frame emphasizes formalroles and relationships, the human resource frame focuseson the needs of people, the political frame considers the conRio over scarce resources, and the symbolic frame viewsorganizations as cultures with shared values.

Frames are flint/ores on the uurld Frames filter out somethings ubile allowing others to pass through easily l)-emu'shelp us to order the world and decide what action to takeEvery manager uses a pcirsonal frame, or image, of organi-zations to Rather information, make judgments, and getthings done (Holman and Deal 1984, p. 4).

This perspective of the frame is useful for several reasons.It suggests that both leaders and followers with different per-spectives will interpret the meaning of leadership differently.And it is consistent with evolving ideas about higher edu-cation organizations as they have been portrayed as bureau-cracies, collegiums, political systems, and organized anarchies.Examining the organizational theories that lead to differentframes and their application to the study of higher edu.7ationindicates how changing perceptions of organization lead todifferent expectations of leadership. And finally, it suggeststhe desirability of developing cognitive complexity amongleaders who will have to contend with uncertainty and incrmsingly turbulent environments:

Managers uho understand and use only one' or two of theframes an like a highly specialized pecie*: My may ix'

Making .911.54' ofAdministrant x, leadership 27

well (Adapted to a very narrow erwimnment but exiremelyrubwrable to chant m in climate or competition. ... Theturbulent managerial world of the next few decades willbelong to the manages and the organizations with a morecomprehensive understanding of the phenomena of eachof the four frames (Raman and Deal 1984, pp. 278-79).

Sltractural frameThe structural frame, as exemplified by the work of MaxWeber (1947), considers organizations as hierarchical systemsof roles with fixed divisions of labor characterized by writtenrules and promotion based on merit (Erzioni 1964). Differentorganizational structures are assumed to be most suitableto support different activities, and designing an appropriatestructure is seen as essential to maximizing organizationaleffrctivenem. Although the word "bureaucracy" has cometo have negative connotations over time, it refers merely to"the type of organization designed to accomplish large-scaleadministrative tasks by systematically coordinating the workof many people" (Blau 1956, p. 14). Bureaucracies are closedsystems pursuing explicit goals (Bolman and Deal 1984),and when tasks to be performed are "well understood, pre-dictable, routine, and repetitive, a bureaucratic structure isthe most effective" (Perrow 1979, p. 162). The essence ofa structural or bureaucratic view of organizations is rationality:

The purely burecucratic type of administrative organiza-tion . the most rational known means of carryingout imperative contra over human beings. It is superiorto any other form in precision, in stability, in the strinsetuyof its discOline, and in its reliability (Weber 1947, p. 24).

Bureaucracies have often been criticized as impersonal, unre-sponsive, and unimaginative, but their countervailing benefitshave tended to go unappreciated. Among other things, theyare efficient, provide fairness and equity, and reduce the dis-cretion that superiors might otherwise have in dealing withsubordinates.

Leaders who adopt the structural frame "control activityby making decisions, resolving conflicts, solving problems,evaluating performances and output, and distributing rewardsand penahics" (Bolman and Deal 1984, p. 39). Becausebureaucracies create differences in status between individuals

4

higher and lower in the organization and people tend to dealwith each other in their official capacities, bureaucratic leadersare often seen by subordinates as distant and aloof

Human rwsource frameWhereas the structural frame suggests that people should hechanged to meet the needs of organizations, the humanresource frame suggests that organizations should be c%angedto meet the needs of people. Based upon studies of organi-zations (Liked 1961, 1967; McGregor 1960) as well as studiesof small groups (Homans 1950), this approach is based onthe belief that people have inherent needs for achievementand creativity. Effective organizations are those that provideopportunities for self actualization and self-control. McGregor(1960) differentiated the structural from the human resourceframe in his characterizations of Theory X (workers are lazy,resist change, and must he led by managers) and Theory Y(we :kers are inherently motivated and creative, and effectivemanagers are those who structure organizations to use thisenergy). Rather than emphasizing control and supervision,leaders who adopt the human resource frame give attentionto removing organizational constraints on workers and tosuch self enhancing processes as increased participation indecision waking and job enlargement.

The principle behind the human resource frame is thatemployee-centered leadership will lead to increased morale,which in turn grill lead to increased productivity. Critics ofthe human relations school argue, however, that "there islittle empirical support for the human relations theory or theodes, that extensive efforts to find support have resulted inincreasing limitations and contingencies, and that the grandschemes such as Likert's appear methodologically unstaindand theoretically biased" (Pen-ow 1979, p. 133).

Peal frameThe political frame is -narked by five essential characteristics:

I. Most of the important decisions in organizationc Myth x,the allocation of scarce rests/trees

2. Orisianizations are coalitions [comprised] of a numberof it dividuaLs and interest group (for example hier-archical kveis, departments, professiona I groups, ethnicgroups).

Ma6ing Sense of AdministraInv Leadership 29

4 3

3, Individuals and interest groups differ in their values,preferences, beliefs, information, and perceptions ofreality. Such differences we usually enduring andchange slouiy if at all

4. Organizational goats and decisions emerge from ongol!;18procemes of bargaining, negotiation, and joc keying forposition among individuals and groups

5. Because of scarce raources and enduring differencepower and conflict are essentied features of organiza-tional life (Bohnan and Deal 1984, p. 109).

leaders who use the political frame see organtrations as frag-mented into special interest groups, each pursuing its ownobjectives. Because no group is strong enough to imposeits will on all others, they form coalitions with other groupsthat have some commonality in their goals and that will worktogether to achieve them (Bacharach and Lawler 191A)). Thepolitical frame also assumes that most participants in a com-munity arc apathetic.

Organizational politics involves acquiring, developing, andusing power to obtain preferred outcomes in situations inwhich groups disagree (Pfeffer 1981). The power ofa groupto obt-tin outcomes (Insistent with its own preferencesdepends upon the value of its contribution to the politicalcommunity and the Extent to which that contribution is avail-able from other sources (Bacharach and Lawler 1980). Inhigher education settings, for example, depamuents thatacquire highly rewarded external resources, such as grants,arc more likely to have more influence over institutional bud-get allocations than are other departments (Hills and Mahoney1978; Salancik and Pfeffer 1974).

Leaders who adopt a politir:41 frame practice the art of thepossible. Because organizations consist of different groupswith legitimate interests, political 1.2ders try to find solutionsto problems in a manlier co nsiderct .acceptahle by variousconstituencies. Bef..ause these systems are too complex andfractionated to tx coordinated either through their structureor through appeais to common norms, leaders influence out-comes by analyting the prefr.-rtces of different groups anddesigning alternatives that can find common ground betweenthem (Lindblom 1968) and by developing compromises thatfacilitate the formation of coalitions that support the leaders'interests. Under the political frame, leaders assist the organi-

44

zation to manage its own affairs, assist in the process by whichissues are deliberated and judgments are made, and then takeactions to implement decisions (Tucker 1981).

Synthetic frameThrough the symbolic frame, organizations are systems ofreality invented through the continued interaction of the par-tidpants. The symbolic frame reflects a tradition of researchthat analyzes how organizational decisions are mzde whenrationality is limited, goals are equivocal, and claims on theleaders' attention exceed their cognitive capacities (Cyertand March 1963; March and Olsen 1979; March and Simon1958). The symbolic frame parallels many of the ideas pre-sented earlier in this section describing cultural, symbolic,and cognitive theories of leadership.

One of the most important organizational presentationsfrom a symbolic and cognitive perspective is Cohen andMarch's classic work, Leadership and Ambiguity ( 1974 ). Inthis work, colleges and universities are described as prom.typical "organized anarchies," a term coined to identify orga-nizations with three characteristics: problematic goals, uncleartechnology, and fluid participation in decision making. Tradi-tional notions of organizational rationality cannot be appliedwhen institutional purposes are vague and often articulatedto rationalize previous actions, the reasons that certain edu-cational practices appear to have certain results are not known,and authority structures and participants constantly shift. Inthe organized anarchy:

Teachers decide., if, tvhen, and ubat to teach. Studentsdecide if, when, and what to learn. Lt*slators and donorsdecide if, when, and what to stimort. Neither coordination(exapt the spontaneous mutual adaptation of decisionnor award As/ practiced Resources are allocated by what-ever process erns t. but without explicit accommodationand without explicit reference to some sups -ordinate goals.The ',decisions" of the system are a consequence producalby the system but intended by no one and decisive47 con-trolled by no one. The anarchy model assumes a looselyconnected tork4 or one that can be treated as loosely am-nected because it is bountifu4 and large resource "buffos"can be established between decisions It assumes that thestatistiad prop ertiew of a large number of autonomous deci

Making Sense of Administrative Lc adershp 31

4 z.,)

slims are such that they will reliably produce joint1), satisfactory stales (Cohen and March 1974, pp. 33-34).

Because the orgmization's goals are ambiguous, decisionsare often by-products of unintended and unplanned activity.Traditional models of organization assume that people indesignated roles follow rational processes to develop andimplement solutions to identified problems. But the modelof the organized anarchy suggests instead that problems, solu-tions, participants, and choice opportunities make up fourbus. ;y coupled streams flowing through the organization.When organizational choices must he made, problems, solu-tions, and participants may become connected to thembecause they are contemporaneous rather than because ofany logical relationship. These connections develop muchas if their elements were all thrown into a large containerand mixed up, a process referred to as "garbage-can decisionmaking."

Because of cognitive haws and limits to rationality, relationships that may have occurred in the garbage can by chancecan he believed to be integrally connected by participantswho create their versions of reality through processes of ret-rospective sense nuking (Weick 1979). Because the relation-ships are not necessarily logical, problems are seldomresolved according to traditional ideas of rationality. Instead,decisions are more likely to get made by flight (problemsarbitrarily connected to a decision leave when they find someother decision arena more attractive) or oversight (decisionsare made quickly before extraneous problems, solutions, orparticipants---consido.ed by the decision maker to be gar-bage-- -prevent action by hemming attached to it).

The effects of autonomous actors, loose coupling of organi-zational elements (Weick 1976), cognitive biases and limits,and chance severely circumscribe the influence of leaders,leading some observers to say that "the college presidencyis an illusion" (Cohen and March 1974, p. 2) that "person-if[ ies] the organization, its activities, and its outcomes"(Pfeffer and Salancik 1978, p. 16) and whose influence is moresymbolic than real. Elaborations of this concept suggest thatleaders are important as a class but not as individuals. A com-parison ikf leaders to light bulbs notes that while they areessential providers of the light that enables organirationalparticipants to work together, the differences between leaders

32

46

are minor and difficult to measure reliably (March 1984). Toproperly coordinate loosely coupled systems, leaders museemphasize symbolic management and in particular shouldfocus attention on the expression of key system values, whiledecentralizing everything else (Weick 1982 ).

SummaryAn organizational frame reptesents a distinctive cognitive lensthat influences what leaders see and do. The structural frame,for example, views organizations as mechanistic hierarchieswith dearly established lines of authority. The classic schoolof thought associated with this frame is Weber's bureaucracy.Leaders with a structural frame are likely to emphasize theirrole in making decisions, analyzing problems, determiningalternate solutions, choosing the best, and executing it.

Within the human relations frame, organizations are viewedas collectivities with organizational members as their primaryresource. The emphasis is on human needs and how orwmizations can be tailored to meet them. The school of thoughtassociated will this frame is McGregor's Theory X and TheoryY. Leaders with a human relations frame seek participative,democratic decision making and strive to meet people's needsand help them realize their aspirations.

The political frame sees organizations as formal and informal groups vying for power to control institutional processesand outcomes. Decisions result from bargaining, influencing,and coalition building. Conflict, not salient in the two preview frames, is here a central feature of organizations. leaderswith a political frame are mediators or negotiators betweenshifting power blocs.

Within the symbolic frame, organizations are viewed askxxsely coupled and as having unclear goals. Organizationalstructures and processes are invented. Leaders who adhereto the symbolic frame are primarily catalysts or facilitatorsof an ongoing process.

Making Sense of Adminivtratiit, Leadership 33

4 ;

HIGHER EDUCATION AND LEADERSHIP THEORY

This section examines works on leadership in the literatureti higher education from the perspective of theories discussedin the previous section, suggesiing implications of these stud-ies for effective leadership in higher education.

Although studies of leadership in higher education havetraditionally been atheoretical, a resurgence of theoreticalresearch has occurred in recent years, and several works haveattempted to integrate findings in the higher education lit-erature with more general theories of leadership. A reviewof the strengths and weaknesses of several conceptualapproaches to studying leadership in the context of academicorganizations, for example, provides a clear and concise sum-mary of the major theories of leadership along with a com-prehensive annotated bibliography of works on leadership,corporate management, and higher education administrationkeyed to each theory (Dill and Fullagar 1987). Another essayerapha.sizes the role of leaders in organizational improvementand gives considerable attention to characteristics and behav-iors of leaders as developed through the Ohio State leadershipstudies (Pincher 1987), not only recognizing the contingentnature of leadership but also including a critical analysis ofseveral works on the presidency.

Trak Meath:aTrait theory continues to be influential in images of effectiveleadership in higher education, even though it is no longera major approach to research among organizational theorists.Works concerned primarily with describing successful pres-idents, with identifying the characteristics to look for in select-ing individuals for positions of leadership, or with comparingthe characteristics of effective and ineffective leaders are themost likely to reflect a trait approach. Even though trait theorymay not necessarily be the authors' primary orientation, thetendency to associate leaders with specific traits is sYa commonthat many works on leadership refer to traits or individualqualities (see, e.g., Kerr 1984; Kerr and Grade 1986; Vaughan1986; Walker 1979).

Successful academic leaders have been described in termsof personal attributes, interpersonal abilities, and technicalmanagement skills (Kaplowitz 1986). Personal attributesinclude humor, courage, judgment, integrity, intelligence,persistence, hard work, vision, and being opportunity conscions; interpersonal abilities include being open, building

The most Nagysources ofpower foracademicleaders areexpert andreferentpower ratintrthankgftimate,coerdve, orreward power,

Making Senses of Administrative Letalenilip

48

35

teams, and being compassionate. Technical management skillsinclude producing results, resolving conflicts, analyzing andevaluating problems, being able to shape the work CiNif011-ment, and being gall oriented (Gilley, Fulmer, and Reithlingshoefer 1986; Vaughan 1986).

A portrait of the effective president suggests the followingpersonal traits:

. . a strong drive for responsibility, vigor, persistence, will-ingnem to take chances orOnalitv, ability to deltwate,humor, initiative in axial situation fairness, stiffcomfit decisimnms, sense of identity, personal style,capacio, to organize, willingne.ss to act or boldness(Fisher 1984, p. 24).

A belief persists that in selecting candidates for positionsof leadership, one should look for individuals who appearto have such characteristics. Most often cited are confidence,courage, fairness, respect for the opinions of (Acts, and sen-sitivity. Undesirable characteristics include being soft-spoken,insecure, vain, concerned with administrative pomp, andgraveness (Eble 1978). The trouble, of course, is that judg-ments on the presence or absence of these characteristicsare highly subjective. No research has shown, for example,that a college president who speaks in an assertive and strongvoice will be more effective than a soft-spoken president.One study of presidential effectiveness compares the traitsand behaviors of 412 presidents identified as highly effectiveby their peers with a group of 412 "represenrative" presidents(Fisher, Tack, and Wheeler 1988). The prototypical effectivepresident was self described as a "strong risk-raking lonerwith a dream" who was less likely to Eton dose collegial rela-tionships than typical presidents, worked longer hours, madedecisions easily, and confided less frequently in other pres-idents. Closer examination of the data reveals, however, thateffective and representative presidents were probably morealike than different. In four of five leadership factors derivedfrom a factor analysis of survey items (managing style, humanrelations, image, and social reference), no significant differ-owes were found between the two groups of presidents. Sig-nificant differences were found only for the confidence factor,which consisted of items that assessed the extent to whichpresidents believed they can make a difference in theirinstitutions.

36

While this study suggests that effective leaders are "loners"who maintain social distance, the findings of another studysuggest that successful colleges are headed by presidents whoare "people-orientedcaring, supportive, and nurturing" (Gil-ley, Fulmer, and ReithlinAshoefer 1986, p. 115). Similarly,while the former study maintains that effective leaders arerisk takers, the other says that successful presidents "workfeverishly to minimize risk at every step of the way" (p. 65).These audits' axifIkting findings suggest the problems ofanalyzing the effectiveness of leadership from a trait perspective. Few people exhibit consistent traits under all circum-stances, so that both "distance" and "nurturing" may accu-rately represent effective leadership as manifested in differentsituations. If this in Fad is the case, these studies provide astrong arz,ument for the need to define the effectiveness Ofleadership in dynamic rather than static terms.

Power and Influence TheoriesPower and influence theories fall into two types, those thatconsider leadership in terms of the influence or effects thatleaders may have on their followers (social power theory andtransformational leadership theory) and those that considerleadership in terms of mutual influence and reciprocal rela-tionships between leaders and followers (social exchangetheory and transactional leadership theory).

Social power theoryFrom this perspective, effective leaders are those who canuse their power to influence the activities of others. Conceptsof social power appeared to be an important influence inshaping presidents' implicit theories of leadership in one'study (Birnbaum 1989a). When asked to explain what lead-ership meant to them, most of the presidents participatingin an extensive study of institutional leadership provided defi-nitions describing leadership as a one-way process, with theleader's function depicted as getting others to follow or accepttheir directives. FOf a small minority, the role of the leaderwas not to direct the group but to facilitate the emergenceof leadership latent within it. Definitions that included elemitts of other conceptual orientations (trait theories, con.tangency theories, and symbolic theories) were mentionedinfrequently.

Making Sense of Ailminisiratir,e Leadmhip 37r

The most likely sources of power for academic leaders areexpert and referent power rather than legitimate, coercive,or reward powers (see the discussion of power and influencetheories in the previous section). It has been proposed thatcollege presidents can exert influence over their campusesthrough charismatic power, which has been questionablyidentified as analogous to referent power (Fisher 1984). Thisparticular perspective maintains that academic leaders cancultivate charismatic power by remaining distant or remotefrom constituents. by attending to their personal appearanceand style, and by exhibiting self-confidence. To establish dis-tance and remoteness, presidents are counseled not to estab-lish close relationships with faculty, not to be overly visible,and to emphasize the importance of the trappings of the officeas symbols of its elevated state. Style consists of presidentialcomportment, attitude, speech, dress, mannerisms, appear-ance, and personal habits. Self-confidence relates to cultivatinga style of speaking and walking that conveys a sense of selfassuredness. The concept of charismatic power that has beenproposed here appears to be much different from referentpower, which traditionally has been defined as the willingnessof followers to accept influence by a leader they like and withWhom they identify.

Practitioners and scholars tend to question the importancegiven to charismatic traits as well as whether leaders standto gain by creating distance between themselves and theirconstituents. It has been suggested (Keoliane 1985) that aleader who is concerned with creating an image of mysteryand separateness cannot be effective at building coalitions,a critical part of leadership. High levels of campus discontenthave been attributed to leaders who were considered to betcio distant from their internal and external constituenciesand who tended to take constituents' support for granted orto feel it wAS not needed (Whetter! 1984). Reacting to thecurrent preoccupation with charismatic leadership, a recentcomment:fly published in The Wall Street journalsays "lead-ership is more doing than dash."

It has Me to do with "leadership qualities" and ,71.11 lessto do with "charisma" . Charisma becomes the undoingof leaders It makes them nil-Ica-Mk convincedof their owninfallibility, unable to change This is what haipened to

38

Stalin, Hitler, and Mal, and it is a commotpktce in thestun . of ancient &slog that only Akaxtruier the Gmat's mirkdeath SCOW, him from becoming an ineffectual failure(Drucker 1988).

Social anthange theory/transactional timelyCollege and university presidents cm accumulate and exertpower by controlling access to information, controlling thebudgetary process, allocating resources to preferred projects,and assessing major faculty and administrative appointments(Corson 1960). On college campuses, however, the presenceof other sources of power-the trustees' power to make policyand the faculty's professional authority seriously limits theplesident's discretionary comrul of organizational activities.For this reason, social exchange theory is particularly usefulfor examining the principles of shared governance and con-sultation and the image of the president as first among equals,which undergirds much of the normative values of academicorganizations.

Transactional theory can he particularly useful for under-standing the interactions between leaders and followers. Theidiosyncracy credit (1C) model (Hollander 1987), a majortransactional approach to leadership, is of particular relevanceto the understanding of leaders' influence in academic own.nations, This model suggests that followers will accept chatand tolerate a leader's behavior that deviates from their expectations more readily if leaders first engage in actions that willdemonstrate their expertise and conformity to the group'snorms. The IC model, for example, explains why new piesidents initially may find it beneficial to concentrate on gettingto know their institutions history, culture. and key playersbefore proclaiming changes they plan to introduce. A studyof new presidents suggests that first-time presidents, not wanting to appear indecisive, may overkx)k the potential benefitsof "getting to know" and "becoming known" by the institution. In contrast experienced presidents, in assuming officeat a new institution, recognized the importance of spendingtime learning about the expectations of followers (Iiensimn1987, 1989a).

Two works relate presidential failure and success inaccomplishing change to presidents' initial actions. Thesestudies show the relevance of concepts underlying the ICmodel. For example, a member of a new university admit.),

Making Sensr cif AdminiVrative Leadership 39

istration attributed the fitilure to implement radical changesand reforms to the inability of the new president and his aca-demic administrators to build loyaltyand to gain credits--among respected members of the faculty.

W'e succeeded in infusing new bkxxl. . but we failed torecirculate the old blood We lost an opportunity to buildloixdty among repeded members of the' tweran facultyIf veteran faculty members had been made to feel that Ay,too, bad a future in the transformed university, they mktbar embraced the' academic reorganization plan withsome' mthusius-m. Instead the veteran faculty members werehurt, inclOuint, and finally- -angry (Bennis 1972, p. 116).

In contrast another study illustrates that time spent accumu-lating credits (e.g., fulfilling the expectations of constituents)can lead to positive outcomes (Gilley, Fulmer, and Reithlingshoefer 1986). The authors observed that presidentialsuccess was related to gaining acceptance and respect fromkey constituents thrt.,ugh low-key, pleasant, and noncontro-versial actions early in the presidential term. In their judg-ment, change and departure from established patterns weretolerated because "of the safety zone of good will they hald)created" (p. 66).

The influence of mid:it exchange theory can also bedetected in works that downplay the charismatic and directiverole of leaders. These studies portray leaders as coordinatorsof ongoing activities rather than as architects of hold initi-atives. This view of leadership is related to the anarchical(Cohen and Mardi 1974), democratic-political (Walker 1979),atunustic (Kerr and Gade 1986), and cybernetic (Birnbaum1988) moclels of university leackrship that will be discussedin the next section.

Transformational theoryThis perspective suggests that effective leaders create andpn mite desirable "visions" or images of the institution.Unlike goals, tasks, and agendas, which refer to concrete andinstrumental ends to be achieved, vision refers to akered per-ceptions, attitudes, and commitments. The transforming leadermust encourage the college community to accept a visioncreated by his or her symbolic actions (Green 1988b; lies-burgh 1979).

40

Transformation implies a "metamorphosis or a substitutionof one state or system for another, so that a qualitatively Offerent condition is present" (Cameron and Lunch 1986, p. 1).Fear that higher education is suffering a crisis in leadershiphas made calls for transformational leadership a recurrenttheme in recent studies. Some suggest it is an "illusion, anomnipotent fantasy" (Bennis 1972, p. 115) for a changeoriented administrator to expect that academic organiationswould be receptive to this kind of leadership. In higher edu-cation, transformational leadership more appropriately mayrefer to the inspirational role of the leader. For example, thedescription of leadership as the "poetic part of the presi,dency" that "sweeps listeners and participants up into thenobility of intellectual and artistic adventures and the urgencyof thinking well and feeling deeply about the critical issuesof our time" (Keller 1983, p. 25) is unmistakably transfor-mational in tone, as is thc following eloquent and inspiringcall:

in the years ahead, higher education will he sorely testedIf we believe that out- institutions lave value, we must articWale that metre and achieve adequate utulerstanding andsupport. We must find leaders ubo are dedicated enoui,e)to the purpose of higher education that they will (Vendthimis(dves, if necosary, for that purpose.... The qualitiesof transforming kadership are those that res2ore in organi,zations or society a srnse of meaning and purpow andrelease the powerful capacity humankind has for reneual(Kauffman 1980, pp. 114.15).

A modem example of the transformational leader may hefound in Theodore I lesburgh, who has been described"brilliant, forceful, and charismatic...a legend on campus,where stories of students scampering up the fire escape outside his office for a glimpse of the great man arc a pan ofthe Notre Dame lore, like winning tine for the Upper" ( Ward1988, pp. 32-33). Images like this one, along with the popularbelief that transformatit alai leaders are concerned with "doingthe right things" while managers are concerned with "doingthinxs right" (Bennis and Nanus 1985; Cameron and Ulrich1986), make transfonnational leadership irresistible to leadersand nonkaders alike.

A five step agenda derived from an analysis of the qualities

Making Sense of Administrant v.> Leader.,10 41

-16, :az

possessed by great leaders like Ghandi, Mart n Luther King,Jr., and Winston Churchill attempts to put transformationalleadership into practical terms (Cameron and Ulrich 1986).The list includes the following steps: (1) create readinessfor change by focusing attention on the unsatisfactory aspectsof the organization; (2) overcome resistance by using non-threatening approaches to introduce change; (3) articulatea vision by combining rational reasoning and symbolic imag-ery; (4) generate commitment; and (5) institutionalize com-mitment Suggested approaches on how to implement eachstep came mostly from examples drawn from industry andtested in cisc studies of two colleges in crisis whose presi-dents took actions that corresponded to the agenda prescribedfor transformational leadership. Of course, while followingthese steps might result in changes that make the campusmore adaptable to the demands of the environment, it mightnot result in changes in the perceptions, beliefs, and valuesof campus constituents that are at the core of transformationalleadership as initially proposed (Rums 1978).

The nature of colleges and universities appears to makethe exercise of transformational leadership extreme:- difficultexcept under certain wnditions. Three such conditions havebeen suggested-- institutional crisis, institutional size, andinstitutional quality (Bimbaum 1988). institutional crisis islikely to encourage transformational leadership because cam-pus members and the external community expect leadersto take strong action. Portrayals of presidents exercising trans-formational leadership can be found in case study reportsof institutions sufftyring adversity (see, e.g., Cameron andUlrich 1986; Chaffee 1984; Clark 1970; Riesman and Fuller1985). Thansfonnational leadership is also more likely toemerge in small institution.; where leaders can exert a greatdeal of personal influence drough their daily interactionswith the campus. Leaders in 10 small private liberal arts col-leges identified as having high faculty morale displayed char-acteristics tithe transformational orientation (Rice and Austin1988). These leaders were seen by others as powerful influ-ences in the life of their colleges and were credited withsingle-handedly turning their institutions around. Institutionsthat need to be upgraded to achieve comparability with theirpeers also provide an opportunity for transformational leader-ship. Such pRtsidents have been described as "pathbreakingIf aciers" ( Kerr and Cade 1986).

42

Although with few exceptions (see Bass 1985) leaders tendto be considered as being either transactional or transfor-mational, a recent study comparing the initial activities ofnew presidents in institutions in crisis suggests that leaderswho use transactional means (e.g., conforming to organiza-tional culture) may be more successful in attaining transfor-mational effects (e.g., improving the organizational culture)than leaders whose behavior reflects the pure form (one--way approach) of transformational leadership (Bensimon1989c). Even in institutions in distress, a leadership approachthat conforms to the group's norms while also seeking toimprove them may he of greater benefit than heroic attemptsat redesigning an institution.

Behavioral TheoriesBehavior of the leaderThese theories examine whether the leader is task (initiatingstructure) or people (consideration) oriented or both. Blakeand Mouton (1964) adapted their managerial grid into anacademic grid and applied it to higher education. Their modelsuggests five styles of academic administration (Blake, Mouton, and Williams 1981): caretaker. authority-obedience,comfortable pleasant, constituency-centered, and team. Theoptimum style is identified as team administration, whichis characteristic of leaders who scored high on both concernftx- institutional performance and concern for people on theirgrid.

Some limited empirical tests of this theory have been per.formed. A study of department chairs found that those judgedas effective by the faculty scored high both in initiating Anteture (task) and consideration of people (Knight and Nolen1985). On the other hand, a case study of a single institutionreports that departments with high faculty morale had chairswho scored high on measures of consideration of peopleand participative leadership style but not in initiating structure(Madron, Craig, and Mendel 1976). The academic grid appearsto have found its greatest use as a tool for self assessment.For example, the grid was adapted into a questionnaire toassist department chairs in determining their prsmal stylesof leadership (Tucker 1981).

Presidents perceptions of the similarity of their role toother leadership roles were used to describe two types ofpresidentsmediative and authoritative, which are roughly

Laiders Woousetransactionalmeans maybe more=Kress/ad inattainingtrans-formationaleffects thankoders whosebe orreflects thepure form oftrans-formtionalleadership.

Making Sella' of Administrative Leadership 43

comparable to emphasizing consideration of people andinitiating structure (task), respectively (Cohen and March1974). Mediative presidmts tended to define their roles interms of constituencies, while authoritative presidentsappeared to be more directive. Additionally, mediative pres-idents were more likely to measure their success on the basisof faculty respect, while authoritative presidents were morelikely to base it on the quality of educational programs.

Administrative styles based on the self reported behaviorsof presidents were found to be related to faculty and studentoutcomes in 49 small private liberal arts colleges (Astin andScherrei 1980). These findings, however, may be influencedby the size of the institutions.

Mannerial role;A comprehensive essay (Dill 1984) reviews the literature onadministrative behavior in higher education, employing thebehavioral framework developed by Mintzberg (1973). Thefindings (p. 91) suggest that like managers in other settings,senior administrators in higher education:

Perform a great variety of work at a continuous pace;Carry out activities characterized by variety, fragmentation,and brevity;Prefer issues that are current, specific, and ad hoc;Demonstrate preference for verbal media (telephonecalls, meetings, brief discussions); andDevelop informal information systems.

Although academic leaders are likely to learn from theiractions, almost no attention has been given to what leaderslearn on the job. A qualitative study 'used on interviews with32 presidents reports that what presidents learn from theiractions varies, depending on whether they feel the actionthey took was wrong (substantive error) or whether they feelthe action was justified but the pnx-css used (process error)was inappropriate (Neumann 1988). New presidents whomade substantive errors learned how to sense situational dif-ferences that called for diverse (and new) responses, theybegan to identify new behaviors that were more appropriateto their new settings, and they gave up the behaviors thatworked in their old settings but appeared to be dysfunctionalin their new ones. From process errors, presidents tended

44

97

to learn the degree of influence organizational members haveon what presidents can accomplish. Some presidents alsomade action errors, which consisted of taking action whennone should have been taken. From these errors, presidentsgained respect for personal and organizational limitations.

emigiagency TheoriesFrom this perspective, effective leadership requires adaptingone's style of leadership to situational factors. Applying fourcontingency theories to higher education, Vroom (1983)found that if used to determine the kind of leader best suitedto chair academic departments, each would prescribe a dif-ferent type of leader. Situational variables in Fiedler's con-tingency model and in House's path -goal theory prescribea task oriented leader who would do whatever is necessaryto drive the group to complete a job. In contrast, Hersey andBbnchard's 11k-cycle theory and the Vroom-Yetton decisionprtx-ess theory identify individuals with a delegating and participative style of leadership. The contradictory prescriptionsmay be the result of their development in organizational set-tings with dearly delineated superior and subordinate roles.Thus, they may have limited applicability to the study of lead-ership in higher education. The Vroom-Yetton model appearsto be better suited to higher education organizations, becauseit uses multiple criteria to determine particivative or autocraticdecision making (Floyd 1985).

Although the observation that "a president may be egalitarian one day and authoe;tarian the next" (Gil ''y, Fulmer,and Reithlingshoefer 1986, p. 66) is commonplace, little sys-tematic application of contingency theory has ot.-curred todetermine under what conditions alternative forms of lead-ership should be displayed. Generally, contingency theorieshave found their greatest applicability in the study of lead-ership in academic departments, probably because decisionmaking at this level is less ecluivtral than at higher levelsof the academic organization. An application of the ViliX1111'Yetton model to the study of decision making among depart-ment chairs concludes that they frequently chose autocraticstyles of decision making in situations where a consultativestyle would have increased the likelihood of the faculty'sacceptance of the decision (Taylor 1982). Hersey and Blan-chard's theory was used to develop a questionnaire that wouldhelp department chairs determine departmental level of matu

Making Sense of Administrative Leadership 45

rity and select a corresponding style of ieadership (Tucker1981). An analysis of studies on the behavior of leaders (Dill1984) suggests that "when given a choice of leader roles, fac-ulty members consistently preferred the leader asa... 'facilitator' or one who smoothed out problems andsought to provide the resources necessary for the researchactivities of faculty members" (p. 79).

Kerr and jermier's theory of substitutes for hierarchical lead-ership may be highly relevant for academic organizations.Despite being one of the few contingency theories in whichleadership is not seen as residing solely with the officialleader, it has received little attention in the study of academicleadership. If leadership in higher education were to beviewed from this perspective, one could conclude that direc-tive leadership may not be effective because characteristicsof academic organizations (such as faculty autonomy anda reward structure that is academic-discipline-- and peer-fused)substitute for or neutralize the influence of leaders (Birnbaum1989a). Similarly, a consideration of the influence of admin-istrators on the faculty's motivation asks, "What are universityadniinistrators to do in the face of so many 'substitutes' fortheir leadership?" (Slaw 1983, p. 312). Because alternativessuch as stressing local (e.g., primary identification is with theinstitution) rather than professional orientation (e.g., primaryidentification is with the academic discipline) or reducingself-goverrance and self-motivation are not in the best inter-.ests of the university, it may be more fruitful for administratorsto assume the role of facilitator than controller.

Cultural and Symbolic TheoriesOccasionally effective leaders give symbolic meaning toevents that others may see as perplexing, senseless, or chaoticThey do so by focusing attention on aspects of college lifethat are both familiar and meaningful to the college com-munity. Cultural and symbolic approaches to studying lead-ership appear in works on organizations as cultural systems(Chaffee and Tierney 1988; Kuh and Whitt 1988). Understand-ing colleges and universities as cultures was originally intro-duced in a now classic case study of Reed, Swarthmore, andAntioch (Clark 1970, 1972). This study suggests that leadersmay play an important role in creating and maintaining insti-tutional saws. The role of academic leaders in the preset.vation of academic culture may be even more critical today

46

than in the past, because increased specialization, profes-sionalintion, and complexity have weakened the values andbeliefs that provided institutions with a common sense ofpurpose, commitment, and order (Dill 1982). Although lead-ers may not be able to change culture through management,their attention to social integration and symbolic events mayenable them to sustain and strengthen the culture that alreadyexists (Dill 199:4.

Cultural and symbolic perspectives on leadership have fig-ured prominer.iy in a small handful of recent works thatexamine the actions of leaders and their effects on campusduring times of financial decline. A recent study suggests thatcollege presidents who are sensitive to the faculty's inter-cartation of financial stress are more likely to elicit the facul-ty's support for their own leadership (Neumann 1989a). Oneof the most important contributions to the understandingof leadership from a cultural perspective is the work on therole of substantive and symbolic actions in successful turn-around situations (Chaffee 1984, 1985a, 1985b). The exam-.ination of managerial techniques of presidents in institutionssuffering financial decline discloses three alternative strategicapproaches -- linear, adaptive, and interpretive. Linear striate'gists were concerned with achieving goals. Adaptive strategistswere concerned with aligning the organization with the envi-ronment, for example, by changing the organizational onentation to meet current demands and thus to ensure thecontinued flow of resources. Interpretive strategists reflectedthe cultural/symbolic perspective in that they were concernedwith how people saw, understood, and felt about their lives.Interpretive leaders believed that effective action involvesshaping the values, symbols, and emotions that influencethe behaviors of individuals. The use of interpretive strategyin combination with adaptive strategy was considerably moreeffective in turning institutions around than the use of adap-tive strategy alone (Chaffee 1984). Presidents who employedinterpretive strategies were careful to protect the essentialcharacter of their institutions and to refrain from actions andcommitments that compromise or disrupt the institution'sself-identity and sense of integrity by only introducing newprograms that were outgrowths of the old ones. For example,they reaffirmed the existing institutional mission and did notattempt to pursue programmatic thrusts that were outsidethe expertise of the faculty.

Making Sense of Adnsinibtratiiv I.eadersiip 47

6 0

Strategies of change that make sense to institutionalmembers and that therefore are likely to elicit acceptanceand support may depend upon leaders understanding anorganization from cultural perspectives, To do so, leadersmay be required to act as anthropologists uncovering theorganizational culture by seeking to identify metaphorsembedded in the language of the college community (Cor-bally 1984; Deshler 1985; Peck 1983; Tierney 1988). Frameworks for organizational cultures suggest that leaders canbegin to understand their institutional cultures by identifyinginternal contradictions or incongruities between values andstructure, by developing a comparative awareness, by clar-ifying the identity of the institution, by communicating soas "to say the right things and to say things right," and by act-ing on multiple and changing fronts (Chaffee and Tierney1988, pp. 185.91).

Leaders should pose organizational questions to help themidentify characteristics of the organizational environment,the influence of institutional mission on decision making,processes of socialization, the uses of information, theapproaches used to make decisions, and constituents' expec-tations of leaders (Tierney 1988). Researchers also can gaininsights into leadership by examining the symbols embeddedin the language of leaders. A study of 32 presidents revealsthat they used six categories of symbols -metaphorical, phys-ical, communicative, structural, personification, and ideational----when they talked about their leadership role. Under-standing the use of symbolism can help academic leadersto become more consistent by sensitizing them to contra-dictions between the symbols they use and the behaviorsthey exhibit on their campuses. Leaders may become moreeffective by using symbols that are consistent with the insti-tution's culture (Tierney 1989).

The "techniques of managing meaning and social inte-gration are the undiscussml skills of academic management"(1)ill 1982, p. 304). For example, it has been suggested thatleaders in community colleges have consistently failed tointerpret and articulate their missions and to create positiveimages among their publics (Vaughan 1986). While it is dearthat cultural and symbolic leadership skills are becomingincreasingly important to presidents, scholars still have muchto kart about the characteristics of these skills and effective

ways of teaching them to present and aspiring leaders (Green1980. A recent examination of colleges and universitiesfrom a cultural perspective provides administrators with thefollowing insights: Senior faculty or other axe groups of in.sti..tutional leaders provide continuity and maintain a cohesiveinstitutional culture; institutional policies and practices aredriven and bound by culture; culture-driven policies and practices may denigrate the integrity and worth of certain groups;institutional culture is difficult to modify intentionally; andorganizational size and complexity work against distinctivepatterns of values and assumptions (Kith and Whitt 1988, p.

Cognitive TheoriesCognitive theories have important implications for perceptionsof leaders' effectiveness. In many sinrations, presidential leadership may not have measurable outcomes other than socialattributionor the tendency of campus constituents to assignto a president the credit or blame for unusual institutionaloutcomes. From this perspective, leaders are individualsbelieved by followers to have caused events (Birnbaum1989b). Leaders themselves, in the absence of dear indicators,are subject to cognitive bias that can lead them to make predictable errors of judgment (Birnbaum 1987) and to overestimate their effectiveness in campus improvements (Birn-baum 1986).

SummaryTrait theories and power and influence theories appear tobe particularly influential in works on leadership in highereducation. Several tithe works reviewed tend to relate effec-tiveness of leaders to individual characteristics, although Ili Anecessarily the same ones. For example, while some consider"being distant" as a desirable characteristic, others proposethat "being nurturing" is more important.

Even though exchange theories are more relevant to theunderstanding of leadership in academic organizations, winksthat consider leadership from the perspective of power andinfluence theories tend to emphasize oneway, leader !iiitiatedand leader directed approaches. Transformational ineory, inparticular, has received Considerable attention, while transactional theory has for the most pan been igreired

Behavioral and contingency theories may have itni:tedapplication in higher education because these theories focus

Making Sense of Administrant, Leaderabip

62,

their attention on the relationship between superior and sub-ordinate roles. Within the category of behavioral theories,the most promising approach may be in the study of admin..istrative behavior, particularly as a way of understanding howleaders learn from their actions and mistakes. Examininghow leaders learn from a behavioral perspective may providenew directions and ideas for the design of training programsfor academic leaders.

Within the category of contingency theories, Kerr and jer-mier's theory of substitute for hierarchical leadership maybe of greatest use, even though it has been almost totally over-looked by scholars of academic leadership.

Although cultural and symbolic perspectiveson leadershipwere first suggested in the early 1970s in Burton Clark's casestudy of Reed, Swarthmore, and Antioch, only recently hasthis view of leadership attracted serious attention. Culturaland symbolic perspectives have been shown to be especiallyuseful for understanding the internal dynamics of institutionsin financial crisis, particularly in differentiating the strategiesleaders use to cope with financial stress and to communicatewith constituents. Cognitive theories offer a promising newway of studying leadership, but their use in higher educationto date has been

HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY

This section examines works on leadership in higher edu-catica through the lenses of the four organizational framesintroduced in the second section. The first part examinesworks on leadership in higher education according to theirdominant organizational frame; the second examines morerecent works that have attempted to examine leadership byintegrating two or more of the organizational frames.

The works selected for discussion belong to the generalbody of literature on leadership in higher education; however,special attention has been given to those works that have beeninfluential in illuminating the theory and practice of leader-ship and administration in colleges and universities. As inthe previous section, the assignation of a particular work toan organizational frame was more likely to be erased on itsimplicit rather than its explicit conceptual orientation.

The University as Bureaucracy (The Structural Frame)According to the structural frame, the essence of bureaucraticleadership is making decisions and designing systems of con-trol and coordination that direct the work of others and verifytheir compliance with directives. Because bureaucracies areultimately centralized systems, the bureaucratic leader hasfinal authority and therefore may be ea% as a larger-than-life,or heroic, leader. "Much of the organization's power is heldby the hero, and great expectations are raised because peopletrust him to solve problems and fend of threats from the envi-ronment" (Bakkidge et al. 1978, p. 44). Bureaucratic leadershave been thought of as heroic in that their position at thetop of a presumably competenc -based hierarchy suggeststha they have knowledge and power well beyond the rangeof the average person. (This perspective is different from theculturally inspired concept of the leader as hero, which refersto the symbolic rather than to the instrumental effects of leadership. Cultural hems come over time to be thought of asthe embodiment of institutional purpose, and their exploitsare celebrated through organizational myth and legend. )

From the bureaucratic perspective, the president of a college or university is seen as the center of power, responsiblefor the welfare and outcomes of the institution (Kerr andGad e 1986). The heroic image of leaders in higher educationcan be found in references to great presidential figures ofthe past (see, e.g., Kerr and (Made 1986) as well as in currentworks that idealize the pusition (see, e.g., Fisher 1984; Fisher,

ingegrilYy goodjudgmen4 andcourage, thanto attributesassodatedwith thesymbcdicinrim4 ssui,as tolerancefor ambiguityand curiosity,

Making Sense of Adminiciratitfre leadership 5'

Tack, and Wheeler 1988). The concept of heroic leadershipcan also be found in presidents' perceptions that they aremore effective than average---and considerably more effectivethan their predecessorsand that under their adminisirationit has been possible to make major improvements on campus(Birnbaum 1986).

The influence of the bureaucratic perspective is most appar-ent in rational interpretations of the leader's administrativeand managerial role and the skills necessary to perform therile. Colleges and universities have many bureaucratic prop-erties, because the same processes that create bureaucraciesin othcv settings do so in higher education as well (Blau 1973;Stroup 1966). The classic work representative of this framesuggests it is the responsibility of the leader to "synchronize"the orP..alintion so that all its parts are working effectivelyand in harmony. The leader's role is to guard against disrup-tion by anticipating and eliminating potential sources of con-flict (Stroup 1966). Qualities and skills commonly associatedwith this perspective include being decisive, being resultsoriented, having the ability to plan comprehensively, man-aging by objectives, and being a rational problem solver (Bald-ridge et al. 1977, 1978; Benezet, Katz, and Magnusson 1981).

The bureaucratic perspective on leadership in higher edu-cation can he found in works that focus on administrativeand managerial techniques. Such works provide extensivepractical advice in the art and science of administration,including how to deal with diy-to-day tasks, the appropriateways of working and communicating with faculty and stu-dents, how to use time efficiently, methods of getting themom from people, and how to exercise authority (Epic).maticdly (see, e.g., Eble 1978). Such works tend to provideadvice that stresses rational administrative procedures. Forexample, administrative decision making has 11.!n describedas consisting of a series of sequential steps in which leaders:

I. Idermfp problems, analyze them, and decide in whatorder they should be taper achedDetvlop a program of solutions to these problems indi-viduals!), and jointly.07ganize support for individual parts of Ibis programin priver order and for the total program.

4. Get the human and financial resources necematycarry out the prwram.

52

e

C

5. Take atiminkratite action to effectuate the programs(Kerr and Gade 1986, p. 55).

The rational side of administration is also evident in severalrecommendations stressing the need for forecasting, planning,and institutional research during times of decline (Baldridgeet al. 1978).

Under the structural Of bureaucratic paradigms, effectiveleaders apply rational calculations to most effectively relateresouttes to desired outcomes. Administrative leaders areseen as establishing and accomplishing instrumental goals,acquiring and maneuvering the resources that will effectuatethem, deigning adequate organizational structures and staff-ing them with qualified personnel, engaging in informationaland analytical activities before deciding the best means foraccomplishing the goals, and evaluating activities to assesscompliance with goals (Balderston 1978; Dressel 1981; Richman and Fanner 1976). From this perspective, effective pres-idents are the "masters of the enterprise over which they pre-side" (Mayhew 1979, p. 82). They show their control byappointing strong individuals to chief administrative officesand being willing to remove people from office, by devotingtime to the details of administration and management, byhaving a high level of understanding for finances, by establishing their own agendas and priorities, and by valuing thefaculty without succumbing to what presidents may view asimproper intrusions in institutional governance.

While rational approaches figure prominently in the lit-erature on higher education leadership and administration,the concept of bureaucracy conjures up negative images inhigher education. Leaders labeled bureaucratic tend to heseen as hierarchical and authoritarian, if not autocratic. Theymay be seen as having a "muscle view of administration"(Walker 1979, p. 5). A study of 40 small liberal arts collegesreports that presidents who were classified as bureaucraticreceived negative judgments from campus constituents, bothin terms of their human relations Adlis and administrativeskills. Faculty and their fellow administrators perceived themas remote, ineffective, and inefficient. Although bureaucraticleaders would appear to emphasize efficiency, students ontheir campuses were found to be dissatisfied with basic ser-vices, such as registration processes, financial aid, and thequality of housing. Additionally, the administrative teams of

Making Sense of Administrative Leadeninp 53

54

bUCCAUCIIffiC presidents, rather than displaying alternative WM-plementuy styles (e.g., collegial), were found to functionin a hierarchical fashion, both in the way they communicatedand interacted with the president and with their own subordinates (Asiin and Scherrei 1980).

A study of the relative influence of administrators and fatulty on colleges and universities reveals a high level ofbureaucratic control in private, less selective, liberal arts col-leges and in community colleges. In these institutions, facultysenates were nonexistent or were dominated by adminis-trators (Baldridge et al. 1978). Bureaucratic leadership hasbeen associated with administrative dthninance over decisionmaking (Baldridge et al 1978; Bensimun 1984; Reyes and`1\vombly 1987; Richardson 1975; Richardson and Rhodes1983). The findings reported in a recent study of communitycollege presidents show they gave greater importance toattributes associated with the her )ic image of bureaucraticleadership, such as integrity, good judgment, and courage,than to attributes associated with the symbolic frame, suchas tolerance for ambiguity and curiosity. And rational skills,such as producing results and defining problems and soh}dons, were rated higher in importance than collegial skills,such as motivating others, developing collegial relations withfaculty, and being a team member (Vaughan 1986).

The University as Collegium (TheHuman Resource Frame)Within higher education, the human resource orientationis best exemplified by considering the institution (or at leastthe faculty of the institution) as a collegium, a communityof equals, or a cc immunity of scholars ((oodman 1962; Minot1962). In a collegium, where differences in status are deem-phasizea people interact as equals in a system that stressesconsensus, shared pc wer and participation in governance,and common commitments and aspirations. Behavior is controlled primarily through the group's norms (Humans 1950.1961) and through acceptance of professional rather thanlegal authority (Etzioni 1964). Leaders in collegial systemsare selected by their peers for limited terms and are considcard "first among equals" as they serve the interegs of thegroup members. Rather than issue orders, they try to moldconsensus and to create the conditions under which the groupwill discipline itself by appealing to the group's moms and

values. Leaders are more servants of the group than masters,and they are expected to listen, to persuade, to leave themselves open to influence, and to share the burden of decisionmaking.

From this perspective, presidents are viewed as the centerof influence (Kerr and Gade 1986) and as responsible fordefining and articulating the common good (Millets 1974 ).While the skills seen as important for a bureaucratic leader(=note attributes related to "getting results," leaders in col-legial systems rise to power because others see them as exem-plifying the group's aspirations and accomplishments to ahigh degree (Humans 1950). Characteristics seen as essentialfor the collegial leader are modesty, perceiving the unspokenneeds of individuals and goals of groups, placing institutionalinterests ahead of one's own, being able to listen, facilitatingrather than commanding group processes, and influencingrather than dominating through persuasion. Leaders gainacceptance, respect, attention, and trust of campus conslitcents and colleagues by demonstrating professional expertiseand interpersonal skills (Baldridge et al. 1977).

While decision making in the collegium may he understoodas a rational process similar to that discussed under thebureaucracy, leaders place emphasis on the processesinvolved in defining priorities, problems, ;curls, and tasksto which institutional energies and resources will be devoted.Within this perspective, leaders are viewed as less concernedwith hierarchical relationships. They believe that the organi-zation's core is not its leadership so much as its membership.The job of leaders is to promote consensus within the corn-munity--and especially between administrators and faculty.

Under the human resource or collegial paradigm, effectiveleaders are those who view themselves as working withrespected colleagues. They see talent and expertise diffusedthroughout the organization and not lodged solely in bierarchical leadership. They believe that it is the responsibilityof leaders to discover and elicit such expertise for thf, goodof the community. The leader's job is not to control or todirect but to facilitate and encourage.

While many presidents consider themselves to operate ina collegial mode, campus constituents do not always see themthat way (Beasimon 1988). To be an effective collegial leadermay require considerable attention to communication pro-cesses. From the comparative descriptions of authoritarian

Making Sense of Admit isindisw Leaders* 55

and democratic leaders (Powers and Powers 1983), it canbe inferred that effective collegial leaders gain authority bydemonstrating the ability to orchestrate consultation ratherthan relying on authoritarian tactics. Collegial leaders do notact alone; they use proc-esses and structures to involve thosewho will be affected by the &visions made.

The following guidelines have been proposed for academicleaders who want to implement consultative practices: (1)consultation should occur early in the decision-making pro-cess; (2) the procedures for consultation should be uniformand fair to aill parties; (3) adequate time should be providedfir responding to requests for consultation; (4) access toinfomiation relevant to the decision should be readily avail-able; (5) the advice rendered must be adequately consideredand feedback given; and (6) the decision, when made, shouldbe communicated to the consulting group (Mortimer andMcConnell 1978, p. 275). It is generally agreed that consul-tative and participatory processes are highly desirable in aca-demic organizations; however, it has been noted that if theseprocesses are to be effectively implemented, greater attentionmust he given to the training of administrators in participatoryleadership skills (Floyd 1985).

Cotlegiai leadership tends to be associated with positivecampus outcomes. For example, a case study of 10 small inde-pendent colleges attributes high faculty morale and satisf=ac-tion in part to leaders who were aggressively participatory,emp(iwering, willing to share information, and willing to pro-mote a strong role for faculty leadership (Rice and Austin1988). Presidents and faculty members may not agree on theproper role (if faculty leadership on their campuses, however.

In one study, presidents tended to emphasize the role offaculty leadership in performing and supporting traditionalacademic activities, while faculty officers emphasized theirrole in protecting fitculty rights and promoting their welfare(Neumann 1987). Additionally, presidents and faculty weremore likely to have incollSiNiel views al)out the meaning(if good ficulty leadership in commtmity and state collegesthan in universities and independent colleges. In some ways,these findings lend support to the declaration that collegialg(wernance has died, except perhaps in elite liberal arts colleges ( Baldridge et al. 1978).

Although the literature on the collegial mix1t.1 includesdiscussions of the responsibility of the collective faculty to

assume a leadership role on campus, limited attention hasbeen given to the roles of individual faculty leaders at thepolicy-making level. An extensive review of the literature onfaculty participation in decision making observes:

The higher education literature dues not provide anyfocused coverage of the leaders,* role played by facultyserving in roles like chair of the campuswide academic sen-ate or chair of a committee directly advisory to a presidentor academic vice president Both the interactions betweenfaculty waders and other faculty participants and the interactions between faculty leaders and administrative leadersshould be examined It is likely that rather major midi*aims will be necessary to apply generic organizationtheory to such faculty leadership, which has no direct parallel in business or other organizational settings (Floyd1985, p. 68).

Collegial approaches to leadership are not without critics.Some blame the absence of strong leadership on the mythsof the collegium, maintaining that "dual leadership does notwork" (Keller 1983, p. 35). Studies of public institutions alsosuggest that a purely collegial approach is nOt likely to beeffective in the majority of these institutions, as it ignores theconflict and adversarial relations that may be characteristicof unionized institutions and fails to take into account theinfluence of external authorities in institutional affairs (Mortimer and McConnell 1978).

Other critics suggest that faculty and administration consistof two distinct cultures, making a process of developing consensus based on shared values unlikely. Furthermore, invoking "the best interests of the institution" as the evaluativecriterion guiding decision making gives the process a senseof rationality, even though it is based on a standard that isundefinable. From this perspective, collegial approaches, suchas consultation, Lan be thought of as myths to make decisionmaking appear rational rather than political (Lansford 1970).

The University as Political System(The Political Frame)The political model as applied to higher education ( lialdridge1971) focuses on processes that commit an organization tospecifi c goals and sets the strategies for reaching those gel;.

Makin g Sense of Administrative Leadership 57

58

Because most people most of the time find establishing policyan uninteresting, unrewarding activity, polity making is usu-ally left to administrators. Participation is fluid as people movein and out of the decision-making process. Decisions aremade by those who persist, usually by small groups of polit-ical elites who govern most major decisions. Conflict is a nor-mal condition of the model; it increases as resources becomescarce. The pressures exerted by internal groups can, as wellas the activities of external audiences and constituents,severely limit formal authority.

When leadership in higher education is viewed throughthe political frame, leaders are considered mediators or negotiators between shifting power blocs and as policy makerspresiding over a cabinet form of administration. The leader'spower is based on the control of information and manipu-lation of expertise rather than on official position within ahierarchical structure, as in the case of the structural frame,or the respect of colleagues based on professional expertise,as in the case of the human resource frame.

1 hider the political paradigm, effective leadership is seenas catalytic (Whetten 1984). Catalytic leaders concentrate onbuilding support from constituents, on establishing jointlysupported objectives, and on fostering respect among all inter-est groups. they rely on diplomacy and persuasicm; they arewilling to compromise on means but unwilling to compro-mise on ends (Birnbaum 1988). One of the best known por-trayals of the political role chin--,terizes the president as:

. leader, educator, creator, initiator, wielder ofposeur,lump; be is also office bolder, carrtaker, inheritor, con-

sensus weker, persuader, boti;eneth. But he is mos* a medi-ator The first lath of the mediator is peace. . peace withinthe student lx dl; the faculty; the trustees; andpeacebetween and among them (Kerr 1963, p. 36).

A valuable discussion of the role of presidents froma political perspective, Walker's highly personalized obserrations about presidential leadership demonstrate a complexunderstanding of organizations from an open-systems perspective that incorporates both political and symbolic ele-ments of university organization (1979). Consequently, hisobservant ms and comments have an interpretive quality thatgo beyond the mere recollection of anecdotes. In his

derntrratic-political model of leadership, presidents are prob-lem solvers rather than bureaucratic decision makers. Thedifference is that decision makers see themselves as single-handedly making tough choices, whereas problem salverssee themselves as presiding over a process that involves nego-tiating, interpreting, and compromising with many powerfulindividuals over many potentially good solutions. Theproblem-solving style requires that leaders be open and com-municative so that all parties nave access to the same infix-mation, that they first consult the people closest to the prob-lem, and that they avoid committing themselves irrevocablyor too early to a preferred solution that may undermine theemergent- -if more plausible options. Leaders who adhereto this styli should also he sensitive to giving and sharingcredit with others, valuing patience. perseverance, criticism,and faimes,s.

Tactics recommended to academic loaders who wish tohe politically effective include giving constituents advancenotice of actions they plan to take, being sensitive to timingannouncements with the mood of the campus, keepingmembers of the cabinet informed and enlisting their support,and personally soliciting the support of constituents (Kel-lerman 1987; Richardson, Blocker, and Bender 1972). Duringfinancial crises, a style cif leadership that combines politicalacumen (involving important campus constituencies) andrational management proemses (gaining good infrirmation )will he more beneficial than resorting to a bureaucratic crisiscentered style of management (McCorkle and Archibald1982). Scholars, diswev, however, about the benefits of consultative processes during crises (Hammond 1981).

Critics of the political aspects of campus leadership havefocused on the president's role in resolving conflicts amongpower blocs within the university. Power blocs are depictedas a "conspiracy against leadership" (Kerr and Gade 1986,p. 143), and polycentric authority is seen not as a system ofchecks and hahnces (Walker 1979) but as a system "organizedmore to stop things than to get things done" (Kerr and Gade1986, p. 145). Partial support for this view might be foundin the belief that consensus politics is under strain becauseinterest groups or power blocs tend to compete rather thanto cooperate, unlike the consultative prticesses associatedwith a political style of leadership (Kellerman 1987).

Making Sense of Administrative Leadership

Duringfinandalcrises, a stykof leadershipthat craibinespoliticalacumen andrationalmanagementprocesses wigbe morebenefidalthan resortingto aburwiercratkcrisis-centertylstyle ofmanagement

59

The University as Organized Anarchy(The Symbolic Frame)When leadership in higher education is viewed through thesymbolic frame, leaders serve primarily as facilitators of anongoing process. This perspective, which is influenced bythe cognitive approaches to leadership discussed in the sec-ond section, emphasizes the effect leaders have on the expres-sive side rather than on the instrumental side of organizations.They channel the institution's activities in subtle ways. Theydo not command, but negotiate. They do not plan compre-hensively, but try to apply preexisting solutions to problems(lialdridge et al. 1978). An administrative leader might beseen as one who brings about a sense of organizational pur-pose and orderliness through interpretation, elaboration, andreinforcement of institutional culture.

The symbolic view of organizations challenges two basicbeliefs about leadership. One is the belief in the effkacy ofleadership, which presumes that leaders have the power andresources to make choices that will affect organizational out-comes. The other is the belief in differential success amongleaders, which pre';umes that individuals pussess attributesthat determine their success or failure as leaders (March1982). The symbolic view stresses that administrative disaction is constrained by many factors. It also emphasizes,however, that academic leaders usually have more influencethan other organizational participants and that they can usethat influence to make marginal changes supporting theirown desired outcomes.

Fight tactical ruies have been suggested for leadership inthe organized anarchy (Cohen and March 1974) and hivebeen elaborated and illustrated with practical problems rel-evant to the administration of higher education (Birnbaum1988):

1. *era time. A leader who is well informed about an issueand gives it full and consistent attention is more likelyto be in a position to influence outcomes.

2. Pmist. Initial rejection of an idea, project, or solutionshould be seen as a temporary condition rather than anirreversible defeat. The longer a leader persists in push-ing for something, the more likely it is to get accepted.

3. 1...Lu.-bange status for substance Leaders who can suppress[heir need for recognition by letting others take the credit

r

or by sharing credit with others may be more successfulin gaining approval for programs they suggest.

4. Facilitate the opposition's particpation. Sharing problem-solving authority with opponents is likely to diminishtheir aspirations and discourage expressions ofdiscontent.

5. Overload the system. Proposing many new issues andnew projects simultaneously may increase the likelihtxxlthat some will be accepted without close suutiny.

6. Provide garbage cans. Making a proposal always involvesthe risk that it will attract other unrelated and unresolvedproblems. To avoid having one's proposal buried bysuch "garbage," always try to make "garbage cans" avail-able in the form of alternative forums in which otherpeople's problems can be expressed.

7. Manage unobtrusively. 1,arge-scale effects may be moreobtainable by making small and unobtrusive changesrather than major changes, which can trigger oppositionand alarm among campus constituents.

8. Interpret history. Records of meetings, decisions made,and significant campus activities should be preparedlong enough after the event so that they can be writtento appear consistent with actions seen as desirable inthe present.

Because the symbolic perspective on leadership consistsof propositions that challenge widely held ideas about lead-ership, it has attracted a fair amount of criticism. The suggestion that presidents may have only limited effects on erg.nizational outcomes has been interpreted as disparagementof the presidency. Critics have become overly preoccupiedwith literal interpretations of the conceptual metaphors (the implications of labeling the university an "organized anar..clay" or the comrarison of presidents to light bulbs) and therigor of Cohen and March's research methodology (1974)(see, e.g., Pincher 1987; Millet 1978; Trow 1985). As a consequence, a tendency exists to overlook subtle but very imporrant ideas concerning the meaning of symbolic leadershipfor example, that presidents can have an impact on institutional functioning if they pay greater attention to initiatingand maintaining structurt ; and processes designed to attendto the expressive side of their institutions than if they becomeoverly preoccupied with imposing rational control in anorganizational form that is antagonistic to it.

Making Sense of Adrninistrative Leadershp 61r14

But even those who criticize the concept of organized anar-chy (e.g., Kerr and Gade 1986) appear to accept many of itspremises in their alternative model labeled "atomistic deci-sion making in a shared environment" This model assumesthat the autonomy enjoyed by individual members of the aca-demic community and the absence of a clear purpose con-strain the exercise of leadership. Additionally, the presidencyis seen as bound by context so that actions that could resultin effective leadership in one setting could lead to failureof leadership in another. In the "atomistic model," presidentsact as "the guardians of the community, maintaining it and,when necessary, changing it--a little at a time" (p. 154). Thepresident is not seen as playing an active role in the decisionsbeing made, except perhaps when a serious internal or exter-nal threat arises. Within this model, the president needs tobe well informed, most be sensitive about any threats, andmust be selective about intervention. While the atornisticmodel of !tradership is not linked conceptually to any particular theory of leadership or organizational behavior, theunderlying assumptions are substantively similar to thosein the organized anarchy model.

Despite the criticisms of organized anarchy:

. . academic management is still highly intuitive, tendsavoid the use of quantitative data or ataikihk, man.

((gement technology, and is subject to the political influenceof mrious powerful grolf...c and interests.. .. in short, thegarbcce can model of decision making and the institu-tional context of organized anarchy... receive much support from the available research on administrative behavior(Dill 1984, p. 92')

The Urlversity as Cybernetic SystemWhile approaches associated with bureaucratic and collegialframes are easily differentiated from one another, more overhip is evident among the collegial, political, and symbolicapproaches to leadership. Consultative processes, for example,play an imptatant role in both the collegial and political mod-els, and open communication and unobtrusive managementale considered important skills in the political and symbolicmodels.

While the models may appear to be competing, in manyways they are complementary. Each illtimi.ntes certain aspectsof organizations and leadership while ohscuring others. A

62

4 ti

r

fifth modelthe university as a cybernetic system---has beenproposed as one way to integrate important aspects of bureau-cratic, collegial, political, and symbolic concepts into a com-prehensive view of how academic institutions work (Rim.baum 1988). Within this model, institutions are seen ascontrolled in part by negative feedback loops created andreinforced in the institutions (bureaucratic) structure andnegative feedback loops created and reinforced in the insti-tution's (collegial) social system. The balance and relativeimportance of these loops are mediated by systems of (polit-ical) power and cultural and cognitive (symbolic) elementsunique to the institution. In the cybernetic organization(Steinbruner 1974), institutional perfmmance is continuouslyassessed by "monitor' institutional leaders or groups inter-ested in a limited number of specific aspects of organizationalfunctioning. If organizational performance in a monitoredarea (e.g., minority enrollment, faculty parking) falls belowthe threshold considered acceptable by a monitor, the mon-itor is activated to alert others to the "problem" and to pressfor correctivt action.

For the system to work, leaders must know what kind ofnegative feedback is important, they must appoint capableand responsible "monitors" for outcomes considered by theleader to be important, and they must be sure that the mon,itors are free to present the negative feedback that is detected.Cybernetic institutions tend to run themselves, and leaderstend to respond to disruptions or to improve activities throughsubtle intementions rather than engaging in dramatic attemptsto radically change institutional functioning. This appnuchdoes not mean that leaders arc unnecessary to the systemor that they have no effect on it but rather that their effectiveness depends on their functioning according to specificcybernetic principles.

The principles of cybernetic administration (Rimhaum1988; Morgan 1986; Weick 1979) reflect the integration oforganizational theory, leadership theory, and highereducation:

I. Leaders should "complicate' themselves by learningto kx)k at pn iblerns and events through the four diffetera (x-Amizational frames and change their behaviorto match changing situational demands.

2. Leaders should bcct.me more sensitive to the possibility

Making Sense of Administrative Leader4b4) 63

1"-.

U

of unanticipated consequences of their actions. Effectivecybernetic leaders are able .:o define and design prob..!ems in a manner that enables them to be addressedby ongoing organizational structures and processes.

3. Presidents should increase reliance on intuition as theygain experience and are able to understand their orga-nizatim through multifnune perspectives.

4. Leaders should recognize that decision making is notan analytical, sequential process that culminates in amajor pronouncement but the incremental effect ofmany small actions that make some outcomes morelikely than others.

S. Presidents should understand the sources of commoncognitive errors and develop habits of thought thatquestion the sources of data and their interpretation.

6. Presidents should encourage dissent within their staffsand seek opinions and perspectives that challenge thestatus quo.

7. Presidents should select personnel who emphasizedifferent values and thereli we notice and interpret cuesdifferently from the leader.

8. Presidents should be certain that data are collected thatserve as indicators of the issues with which the pres-ident is concerned.

9. Presidents should practice openness by sharing ir!fix-illation and data widely and iry using a variety of forumsto communicate formally and informally with campusccrnstituents.

10. Presidents should know and listen to their ibllowers.11. Presidents should be prod bureaucrats by giving atten-

tion to the routine tasks of administration that influencethe perceptions constituents form abcut the larder'competence and the institution's quality.

An Integrated Perspective of Leadershipin Higher EducationIntegrated approaches are becoming more evident at the con-ceptual (Bess 1988; Chaffee 1988; Childers 1981; Faennanand Quinn 1985; Whetten and Cameron 1985) and applied(Bensimon 19891,; Birnbaum 1988; Neumann 1989b)Combining cybernetic logic with the linear, adaptive, andinterpretive models of strategy results in a highly sophisticatedand useful analysis of leadership and effectiveness in state

systems of higher education (Chaffee 1988). The analysisdraws on cybernetic principles to suggest ways in which systems can carry out the: responsibilities for monitoring with-out controlling institutional affairs. Three models of strategyare used to explain the multiple tasks of system leadershipgoal achievement, resource acquisition, and constituentsatisfaction.

The concept of Janusian thinking (Cameron 1984), whichsuggests that leaders should value inconsistency and the paradoxical aspects of their institutions, represents anotherattempt at developing analytical approaches that match thecomplexity of organizations. The existence of such paradoxesmeans, for example, that bureaucratic and collegial systemscoexist within an institution, that stability and change bothmay be seen as desirable, and that generalists and specialistsmay be equally valuable to an institution.

Much of the current research suggests that the effectivenessof leadership may be related to cognitive complexity. Morecomplex leaders may have the flexibility to understand situations through the use of different and competing scenariosand to act in ways that enable them to attend simultaneouslyto various organizational needs. Ineffectiveness is related toindividual rigidity and narrow interpretation of organizationalneeds (Faerman and Quinn 1985; Whetten and Cameron1%5). nuts, effective leaders are seen as those who cansimultaneously attend to the structural, human, political, andsymbolic needs of the organization, while ineffective leadersare those who focus their attention on a single aspect of anevganizat ion's functioning.

Leaders who incorporate elements of the four Orgard12-6011ai models may be more flexible in responding to differentadministrative tasks because they are able to enact differentrealities of the organization and provide different interpretations of events. The display of complex under Landingsthrough the use of multiple frames or strategies may be partitularly important as the environment of colleges and uni-versities becomes more turbulent. Presidents entering officetoday appear to be more complex than those who began theirterms several years ago (Neumann 1989b). The prevalenceof adaptive and interpretive strategies among presidents takingoffice today suggests that the changes that have taken placein the environment demand more complex and varied struttegic approaches.

Making Sense of Administrative Leadership 65

0

Maintaining a complex approach to ',ministration (e.g.,:.ending to mukifaceted organizational processes and out-comes) is of particular importance during periods of decliningresources. At such times, administrators need to rememberthat organizational health depends not only on the acquisitionof resources but also on their efforts to involve constituents,to keep them infonnc,',, and to solicit their input (Whetten1984).

Despite the increasing acceptance of the notion that CMplex leaders are likely to be more effective than the kx! whothink and act on every problem using a single perspective,it is unclear the extent to which administrative styles of aca-demic leaders are in fact complex. A study of 32 college anduniversity presidents who identified the organizational framesimplicit in their definitions of what constitutes gocx1 lead-ership shows greater use of one (e.g., bureaucratic) and twoframes (e.g., collegial and symbolic) rather than three or more(Bensimon 1989b). The results also show that new presidentswere likely to define good leadership from a single-frameperspective, while presidents who had been in office for atleast five years and new presidents who had held at least oneother presidency in the past were found to hold mukiframeperspectives almost exclusively. It is passible that the moreexperienced presidents have assimilated the potential cornplexities of the role and so can shift among frames withgreater ease.

SummaryThis section suggests that leadership in academic organiza-tions can be viewed as taking different forms, depending onwhether the university is regarded as a bureaucracy, a col-legium, a political system, or an organized anarchy.

When the university is seen as a bureaucracy, the emphasisis on the leader's role in making decisions, getting results,and establishing systems of management. When the universityis portrayed as a cc illegiurn, leadership is seen as participative.The leader strives to meet constituents' needs and help themrealize their aspirations, and the emphasis is on the abilityto manage processes of consultation and on into personalskills. When looking at the university as a political system,leaders are seen as influencing through persuasion and diplo-macy and as being open and communicative. The leader isa mediator or negotiator between shifting power blocs. in

it;

the university as organized anarchy, leaders are constrainedby existing organizational structures and proses es and maymake modes improvements through subtle actions and themanipulation of symbols.

Rment work suggests that leaders who incorporate ele-ments of the four models are likely to have more flexibleresponses to different administrative tasks because they noticethe multiple realities of an organization and are able to inter-pret events in a variety of ways. leaders who can think andact using more than one organizational model may be ableto fulfill the many, and often conflicting, expectations of theirposition more skillfully than leaders who cannot differentiateamong situational requirements. Integrated approaches toleadership are represented by the cybernetic model and bystrategic appnmches that combine linear, adaptive, and interprelive modes of administrative thought and action.

Makin R StliSt* of Adminiangine LeatietsbpU

67

OVERVIEW AND INTEGRATION

Potential users of research on leadership have often criticizedconceptual studies of administration as being neither relevantnor particularly instructive. Our review suggests that the appli.cation of some theorits of leadership (e.g., transactional, sym.balk, situational) could provide academic leaders withinsights into processes of leadership and otganizational functioning that have not been captured in works that treat lead-ership as a set of personal characteristics or specified behav-iors. While conceptual works on leadership may not telladministrators what kind of leaders they are or tell them whatto do, they can be useful in helping them understand thelimits of leadership, in describing the difference betweeninstrumental and symbolic behavior and the importance ofdemonstrating both, in recognizing the importance of thecommon, everyday activities of leaders that go on behindthe scenes and prevent things from going wrong, and inappreciating the advantages of seeing and understanding theirinstitutions through many lenses.

The apparent lack of connection lwtween leaders' activityand research on leaders is as much the fault of leaders as itis of scholars. As long as leaders look to researchers to identifyspecific activities that will enable them to Ile more effective,they are doomed to disappointment. Research can provideonly trivial and superficial responses to those who seek spycific answeis. What scholars have done--and can continueto do----is provide insights that enable administrators and theirconstituents to make the organizational world they live inmore coherent, thereby permitting them to engage in moreconstructive, sensible, and personally rewarding behavior.Practitioners often lose sight of the significant effects of stiltarship, because the best ideas researchers develop are internalized and become pan of the way practitioners constructtheir world. As simple ideas of institutions as machinesbecome replaced by images of colleges and universities aspolitical systems, cultures, even anarchies, the administrativeworld view is changed in the most profound and fundamentalways.

Even though it is true that a dearth of research exists inthe area of administrative leadership, particularly in the studyof rok.-s other than the presidency, some promising newtrends deserve recognition. First, issues related to organiza-tional culture and symbolic leadership are receiving concertedattention from a small group of scholars. Second, consensus

Afaking Sense of Admintstnaive leadership

As king asleaders bobto resetrvrchersto identify*ecificactivities thatwill enablethem to bemore effective,they aft'doomtml todisappointmenL

is growing that the complexity of organizations demandsgreater complexity in research designs. in the rig, scholarshave been inclined to define and !exile at leadership photon].ena in terms of dichotomous variables (Fischer l9871. Thus,leaders are seen as authoritative or participative, bureaucraticor collegial, transformational or transactional, task- or peopleoriented. By applying intewated conceptual frameworks andpospectives, scholars may better capture organizational andadministrative complexity that more effectively comprehendsthe presence and effects of complementary and competingcharak teristics within a single organization or individual'sbehavioral repertoire.

several themes in this report about the study and practiceof leadership merit further discussion: the meaning of effec-tive leadership, the concept of cognitive complexity, differ-ences between transactional and transformational leadership,}cadetship paradigms, gaps in the literature, and new waysof thinking about leadership.

The Effectiveness of LeadershipEvery theory of leadership and organizational frame discussedin this monograph holds implications for effective leadership;at its core, each has a picture of what ideal leaders shouldhe like, what they should accomplish, or how they shouldcarry out the role of leadership. Therefore, conceptions ofthe effectiveness of leadership depend on the theory beingused.

A pluralistic culture can have no single acceptable definition)1 leadership or measure of effA-tiveness. In higher education,

views of effedive leadership vary aux wding to constituencies,levels of analysis, and institutional types. When academic lead-ers want to know how well they arc doing, it might be morebeneficial to ask themselves how they are viewee by their

inst intents rather than assessing themselves against an arbi-trary standard like charisma, decisiveness, or courage.

iespite the difficulty of measuring effective leadership onthe basis of institutional outcomes, theories of leadershipand o irganizational models influenced by the traditional para-digm suggest the critical role leaders play in affecting organirational outcomes. The current dominant view, as capturedby reports of prestigious atalL}rities, proclaim that "presidentsmake a difference" (Kerr 1984 ). Causal attributions can leadby to believe that because "stn ing and lxild leadership" and

purposeful presidential activity have (apparently) resultedin desired changes in some institutions, such leadership isdesirable in all institutions.. Leaders who have not been suc-cessful can therefore be defined as incompeteu and organi-utional behavior that is not rational labeled as pathological.What appears to be missing from the literature, becauseresearch designs have precluded it, is an examination of casesin which strong presidential behavior has not led to improvedinstitutional effectiveness or situations in which effectivenesshas improved in the apparent absence of heroic executiveleadership.

In contrast, theories of leadership and organizational models influenced by the cultural puadigm suggest that the per-ceived relationship between a leader's acts and organizationaloutcomes may be a result of cognitive and perceptual filtersand biases.

Leadership is the outcome of an attribution process in whichobservers- in order to acbk'vt a feeling of control over theirenvironment- -tend to attribute outcomes to persons ratherthan to conteai, and the identification of individuate withleadershp pckeitions facilitates this attribution process(Pfeffer 1978, p. 31).

If this is t!:e case, the difference between successful andunsuccessful Imders may lw nacre apparent than real andmore frequently based on luck a ad the exigencies of the envi.ronment than on specific behaviors or skills.

By traditional measures of effectiveness, leadership inhigher education seems to be in serious trouble. As pointedout earlier, the onus fox rescuing higher education from fallinginto a deeper state of mediocrity has been placed on its lead.ership. The evidence that certain kinds of leadership havecertain organizational effects is equivocal, whether one talksabout corporate executives, sports managers, or college pres.idents. Numerous examples suggest that yesterday's successstories may he today's Failures, even though their qualitiesof leadership remain unchanged.

The answer to the dilemma of effectiveness in leadership

does not lie in more and better research mettaxiologies butin the ability to think about leadership differently. In manycolleges and universities, the obligation of leadership to"interpret the role and character of the enterprise, to perceive

Making Sense of Adminixtra..,,e Leadenhip 71Cs' el(or

and develop models for thought and behavior, and to findmodes of communication that will inculcate general ratherthan merely partial perspectives" (Selznick 1957, p. 150) maynot belong solely to persons filling formal roles as leaders.In large measure, this responsibility may be fulfilled throughthe socialization of the rarticirants, professional traditions,and institutional histories. Leadership in this sense may beseen as distributed rather than focnsed, as "a group quality,a set of functions (that] must be carried out by the woup"(Gibb 196g, p. 215). Presidents who accept this idea may findsocial exchange theories to be useful to them in becomingsuccessful leaders and influencing the future success of theirinstitutions.

Cognitive ComplexityThe difference between effective and ineffective leaders maybe related to cognitive complexity. It has been suggested herethat aeademic organizations have multiple realities and thatleaders with the capacity to use multiple lenses are likely tohe more effective than those who analyze and act on everyproblem using i; single perspective. If they are to be effective,academic leaders must recognize the interactions betweenthe bureaucratic, collegial, political, and symbolic processespresent i., all colleges and universities at all times.

The ability to use several frames and switch from one toanother may reflect a high level of cognitive differentiationand integration. Leaders who incorporate elements of severalorganizational perspectives are likely to be mote flexible inresponding to different administrative tasks because they areable to create alternative organizational realities and providediffering interpretations cat events. Less effective leaders arelikely to have simpler understandings of their institutionsand their roles. Academic leaders are called upon in manysituations to function simultaneously as chief administrativeofficer, as colleague, as symbol, and as public :official. Fachrole may require differentand mutually inconsistentbehaviors, so that actions that are effective in one contextmay cause difficulty in another. Because of knowledge, skill,or luck, successful presidents have developed complex behav-ioral repertoires enabling them to balance thee roles. Un.suc-cesthil presidents are more likely to emphasize only oneto act as a manager without sensitivity to academi,.: valuesor to stress institutional culture without attending to the inter-

72

ests of external political audiences, for example.One of the best ways for leaders to develop complex under.

standings is to develop awareness of the various theories ofleadership and conceptual models of organizations so thatthey can generate multiple descriptions of situations and mul-tiple approaches to solutions. Using multiple frames meansthat a college president can disassemble a process, such asbudgeting, for example, and use "political jockeying for posi-tion, bureaucratic channels for review, and a collegial sum-mary session" (Chaffee 1983, p. 403) while simultaneouslyengaging in symbolk: acts that cause people to modify theirperceptions of reality.

Academic leaders can gain more complex understandingsin several ways (Bintraum 1988). They can practice role rever-sal, a process in which people try to see a situation throughthe eyes of others. For example, a president might betterunderstand pmsible faculty reaction to a prtposed admin.istrative initiative by playing the role of the faculty senatorand responding to the presentation of a colleague playingthe president's role. A president could also engage in frame-analysis, considering how people who use each of the fourframes might interpret an event or proposal. When leadersencounter what they consider to be undesirable behaviorin others, they might ask themselves what they are doing thatis influencing what is happening. in doing so, presidentsmight come to understand how they can influence othersby changing their own behavior.

As leaders acquire higher levels of responsibility in theorganization, the demand to incorporate diverse behavioralrepertoires will increase. Research suggests that academicleaders may become more cognitively complex as theybecome more experienced, either as a result of learning orbecause the lass complex do not remain long in office. Professional development programs for college administratorsmay need to give more attention to creative ways of developing complex thinking patterns. More attention needs tobe given to how leaders learn from their mistakes.

Transformational and Transactional LeadershipColleges are reportedly desperately seeking leadership. Theyseek leaders with vision who are not satisfied with the statusquo--leaders who air unafraid of change and have the powerand wherewithal to transfix-tit their organizations.

Nkikihw Sense of Atiminissinahr Lamle:N.11g, 73

Even though transformational leadership in higher editcation enjoys rhetorical support, it is an approach that in manyways may not be compatible with the ethos, values, and orga-nizational features of colleges and universities. Under normalcircumstances, the exercise of transformational leadershipin colleges and universities would be extremely difficult, andin many cases it could have disastrous consequences for thosewho dare attempt it.

Within the transformational perspective, leaders are seenas directing and having a personal impact on their followers;they are looked upon as a source of motivation and inspi-ration. The transformational model of leadership has threeunderlying assumptions that conflict with normative expec,talons in higher education and that therefore are likely tomake it inappropriate in academic organizations: (1) lead-ership emanates from a single highly visible individual; (2)followers are motivated by needs for organizational affiliation;and (3) leadership depends on visible and enduring changes.The presence of two forms of authority in academic organi-zationsadministrative and profaisionalwnsiderably limitspresidential authority and hence the opportunity for trans-formational leadership. Indeed, the principles of shared gov-ernance assign considerable authority and discretion overacademic decision making to the faculty. While it is true thatsuch principles may not be equally observed in all institutionsof higher education, they are clearly influential in establishingexpected norms of shared governance. Beccuse colleges anduniversities constitute professional organizations, "followers"in some institutions are likely to have a stronger identificationinternally with their academic departments, and externallywith their disciplinary bodies, than with the institution thatgrants their academic appointments. Faculty rewards arelargely controlled and handed out by their peers, and moti-vation for scholarly productivity is more likely to be derivedintrinsically than inspired by presidential acts. Finally, transformational leadership depends on radical change; however,no reason exists to believe that the majority of colleges anduniversities would benefit from or respond positively to suchattempts.

In contrast, transactional theory views leadership as amutual and reciprocal process of social exchange betweenleaders and their followers. The ability to exercise leadershipis seen as highly dependent on the group's willingness to

74

E6

accept the leader. The conceptual foundations of transactionaltheory appear highly adaptable to those features of academicorgianizations most likely to obstruct transformational leadership: the concept of governance as a collective process thatinvolves all important campus congituencies, with particularemphasis given to the participation of the faculty; the faculty'sdiscretion in deciding who should teach, who shall be taught,and what should be taught; and the faculty's prerogative todeclare no confidence in the president, which often has thesame power to dismiss a president as does a vote by the college trustees. In normative organizations, the leader's roleis more appropriately seen as servant than as controller.

It would appear that at is good transactional leadership thataffects the life of most colleges most of the time. To the extentthat failure of a college can be attributed to a failure of leadership, it is usually not the result of a lack of charisma butto lack of basic organizational competence. The rarity of suc-cessful transformational leadership makes it all the morenoticeable when it is minks t. But because it is so oftenrelated to a complex web of situational contingencies, idlesyncratic personalities, and chance events, little likelihtxxlexists that its nature can ever be truly undemxxl or its fit'quency increased This situation is not necessarily cause fordespair, however; organizations can probably tolerate onlya limited level of transformation, and the constant changesof values induced by a succession of transformational leaderswould severely threaten both the stability of inAituti )ns andthe systems of mutual interaction of which they are part.

Transformational theory is seductive, but transactional thecry may be potentially more useful as an explanatory toolfor the understanding of successful leadership on most cam-puses. It also provides presidents with a theory of administrative leadership that is sensible without requiring extra( wdimly characteristics and supernatural powers. Transactionalleadership tends to be spurned despite its obvious applicability to higher education, because it is seen as descriptiveof a "managerial" rather than a "leadership" pnifile. Researchand commentaries on the presidency suggest that presidentsthemselves when they speak of their role have adopted a Iraditional and directive view of leadership, and few appear tofocus upon two-way communication, social exchange pro.cesses of mutual influence, and facilitating rather than directing the work of highly educated professionals. GI xi(' lead

Making Serisr tf Administraiiiv Leadership 75

ership in higher education may not necessarily consist ofdoing the work of the organization but of helping the otga-nization do its own work by infusing daily behavior withmeaning.

Leadership ParadigmsContemporary research can be juxtaposed to reflect two maim-paradigmsthe traditional, conservative, or "social fact"approach on the one hand, and the cultural, radical, or socialdefinition approach on the other (Peterson 1985). Severalcurrent works examined in this report indicate that the under-standing of leadership in academic organirations, at lestamong scholars, may be undergoing a paradigmatic shift, fromthe rational perspective toward the cultural and symbolic per-spectives. Close attention is being giv,:n to the manifestationof symbolic leadership, as shown by works concerning therole of college presidents in the management of meaning,the construction of institutional reality, and the interpretationof myths, rituals, and symbols.

'Fhe increased reliance on symbolic theory to understandleadership in academic organizations can be attributed toseveral factors: the popularization of corporate cultures alongwith the warning that scholarship was neglecting the toolsof symbolic management and the use in higher educationof research methods that arc anthropologically based (i.e.,ethnographies, naturalistic studies). Thus, studies are morelikely to observe cultural features of organizations and sym-bolic aspects of management than seen in classic quantitativestudies.

Practitioners have not embraced the symbolic view of lead-ership. With very few exceptions, practical works on lead-ership written by present and former presidents do notespouse, even implicitly, a symbolic perspective on leader-ship. By and large these works continue to be guided by tra-ditional conceptions of one-way rational leadership. Theimage of the leader with which we are presented is of some-one in control of the campus, setting goals and priorities,making decisions, and providing direction and a vision ofthe future.

The symbolic view of leadership may lack supportersamong practitioners because it presents the leader in rolesthat arc considerably more modes (and less alluring) thanthose of heroic or transformational leadership. For adherents

of the "strong and bold" brand of leadership, the symbolicperspective conjures up images of a leader that lack bothinfluence and substance. Another unfixtunate misperceptionis that the concept of symbolic leadership is often thoughtof as doing things fix- their intended effectdressing for success, walking around campus to appear visible, or holdingceremonial activities to show off the presidency.

Symbolic theories deserve serious attention because theypresent a view of leadership that is highly compatible withthe characteristics of academic organizations. The ambiguityof purpose, the diffusion of power and authority, and theabsence of clear and measurable outcomes are but a few ofthe constraints Faced by college presidents. Viewed from arational perspective, these constraints make the presidencyappear to be an impossible job. In contrast, presidents whointerpret their role from a symbolic perspective will he lessconcerned with leaving an imprint and more concerned withhelping their campuses make sense of an equivocal world.Such presidents will be more concerned with influencingperceptual changes than in convincing others of the correctness of their decisions. In an "organized anarchy," symbolicleadership may in fact be the rational choice.

While the symbolic view is receiving greater scholarly Awndon, many studies tend to be limited. For the most part, workon symbolic leadership remains &swam The need continuesto identify how conceptual terms like the "management ofmeaning," "social construction of own- izations," or "enactmeat of the environment" get translated into the routineadministrative practices of colleges and universities.

Thinking about LeadershipMuch of good leadership consists of apixopriately doing thosethings that others expect leaders to do, attending to the roll,tines of institutional life, repair* them as they are buffetedand challenged by internal and external forces, and maintaming the organizational culture. These behaviors are essential, but usually not heroic. When they are done well, theyoften go unnoticed; when they are done porly, the institutionmay suffer and the tenure of the leader may he threatened.

When things appear not to be going well and the causeis unknown, a natural tendency exisis to blame those nomfinally in charge and to call for "strong" leadership. It is usuallyan exercise in rhetoric rather than of organizational analysis,

Making Sense of Adminictrative Leaderthp 77

E;

No evidence exists that amertive and courageous institutionalleadership will have the positive effects that its proponentsenvision. It is true that we can identify a small number of aca-demic leaders whose institutions were significantly altered1757their presence, and in some cases those changes may havebeen caused primarily by the leader's performance. But inothers, "leadership" may be just an explanation for eventsor outcomes that would have inevitably occurred. It has beennoted in medicine that about a third of all illnesses are curedwithout treatment, and it is likely that many organizationalproblems can be resolved without the leader's intervention.Just as a third of all hospital patients suffer from symptomscaused in whole or in part by their treatment, leaders haveto beware of precipitant actions that make things worse ratherthan better (Birnbaum 1989c).

In colleges and universities, as in other organizations, pro-cesses are primarily influenced by routines, organizationalhistory, and the socialization of the participants factors overwhich most leaders have little control most of the time. Itdoes not mean that leaders have no influence but rather thatthey probably have less responsibility for either the institu-tion's failure or success than theyor their followers- -mightbelieve. The same factors that limit the influence of leadersmay spontaneously correct institutional response if leaderscan control their tendency to act prematurely. "It is simplya matter of not upsetting ancient customs and of adjustingthem iraead to meet new circumstances. Hence, ifa princeis just ordinarily industrious he can always keep his position"(Machiavelli 1977, p. 4). Fortunately, the process.es by whichleaders in the academy are selected make it likely that theywill both understand the customs and be reasonably indms-Mous. The sharing of institutional authority and influencethat characterizes the bey practices in higher education meansthat most gtiod leaders are unlikely to leave a major markon their institutions. But by understanding and using the selfcorrective properties of their institutions, they can leave thema little bit better than they found them, and that by itself isa worthy gm! (Birnbaum 1989c).

An Agenda for Research on Leadershipin Higher EducationA review of works on administrative behavior (1)ill 1984) isparticularly valuable in identifying gaps in the study of leader-

78

ship in academic orionizations. Dill concluded that studiesof administrative behavior in action are seriously lackin4c. Morespecifically, within the category of human relations skills, heidentified the need for more research on peer-related hehavior, panicukaiy in establishing and maintaining communi-cation networks with internal constituents. Resolving conflictswas also identified as an unexplored area for research. Withinthe category of conceptual skills, almost no research WaSfound on entrepreneurial behavior, particularly on how aca-demic leaders search for problems or opportunities forchange, and on introspective behavior, particularly on howacademic leaders learn from their actions. Our review tendsto indicate that much of the research on administrative lead.ership continues to overlook these gaps.

Our understanding of leadership is shaped by our researchapproaches and cmceptual lenses. It is important to allowin our work not only for the passibility that in colleges anduniversities directive leadership under mom: circumstancesmay be ineffectnal but also that leadership need not comesolely from the president. The theories that appear to havea strong influence in the understanding of administrative lead-ership in higher education discount the emergence of lead.ership from sources other than the official role of the pres-ident. To advance the study of leadership in higher education,It is essential that we use theories that give attention to mul-tiple sources of leadership. Studies examining interactionsamong administrative leaders and the functioning of admin-istrative teams are practically nonexistent. This omission isserious because organizational success in professional owni-zations may he related to the "density of administrative com-petence" (March 1984, p. 29) within the organization or teamefforts rather than individual efforts. No attention has beengiveo to faculty *Irate leadership or to the leadership of fac.ulty unions. This omission is critical, as these officers are likelyto influence faculty agendas, to of cot campus decision makingand communication systems. and to interact and communicatewith the president and other leaders more than other faculty.

In addition to social exchange theories, Ken and Jermier'stheory of substitutes for hierarchical leadership, which hasbeen largely ignored in the higher education literature, couldprovide a useful approach to determining how the charac-teristics of academic organizations, of academic work, andof key campus constituencies sulxsWute for or neutralize ma

Making Sense of Adminisirainv Leadership 79

ditional notions of leadership. This theory could also providea framework for examining various campus leadership roles.

Present-day theories of leadership have been limited bytoo much reliance on narrowly focused studies, but they canbe improved with greater commitment to comprehensiveand multivariate studies.

ljevite the many apparent points of convergence betweenthe trait research, the power research, and the behaviorresearch, few studies include more than one set of variablesin the same investrgation, and even these studies fall shortof the broad pc Live required of truly integrativeresearch To advance the intwation of approach somestudies are needed with a perspeaitv broad enough toencompass leader traits, behavior, influence processm inter-rming variablm, situational variables; and end-result var-iables. . . If some of Ithe relevant] variables' cannot bemeasured quantitatively, the researcher should at least makean effort to assess qualitative4, how they fit into the lead-ershrpPrOCeSS (Yukl 1981, p. 287).

In the descriptions of theories of leadership provided inthis monograph, !milers are seen in roles ranging from all-powerful hero to illusion and symbol. Leaders are describedin terms of who they are, what they do, how they think, theirpresumed effects, and how they arc seen by others. They areconsidered as heads of bureaucratic organizations, peergroups, political structures, and systems of myth and met-aphor. Probably each major idea about leadership is correctunder certain conditions, in certain institutions, at certaintimes, and with certain groups. A research agenda for lead-ership in higher education must recognize that leadership,as is the case with other social constructs, is multidimensionaland that its definition and interpretation will legitimately differamong different observers with different values whose assess-MOMS may be based on conflicting criteria, units of measuremerit, or time hi rizons. &if- this reason, no nmsensus pres-ently exists- or is even likely to-- on a grand unifying the-thyof academic leadership.

HO

REFERENCES

The Educational Resources Information Center (F.R1C) Clearinghouseon Higher Education allstraers and indexes the current literatureon higher education fox inclusion in F.RIC's data base and announce-ment in ERIC's monthly bibliowaphic journal, Resourres in Edu-cation (RIO. Most of these publications are available through theERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED/L5). For publicationscited in this bibliography that are available from EDILS, orderingnumber and Fire code are included. Readers who wish to ordera publication should write to the ERIC Document ReproductionService, 3900 Wheeler Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22304. (Phoneorders with VIM or MasterCard are taken at 800/227-ERIC or 703/823-0500.) When ordering, please specify the document (ED) number. Documents are available as noted in microfiche (ME) and papercopy (PC). if you have the price code ready when you call ERRS,an exact price can he quoted. The last page of the latest issue ofResources in Educatkin also has he current cost, listed by code.

American Association ha' Higher Education. 1967. Faculty Partic-ipation in Academic Governanm Washington, D.C: NationalEducation Association.

American Association of I iniversity Professors, American Councilon Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Uni-versities and Colleges. 1984 (orig. pub. 1966). `Joint Statementon Government of Colleges and Universities." Reprinted in PolityDocuments mod Report% pp. 105- 10. Washington, DC: AAUP.

Association of American Colleges, Project on Redefining the Meaningand Purpose of Baccalaureate Degrees. 1985. inicwriv in the ColkweCurriculum. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Astin, A.W., and RA. Scherrei. 1980. Maximizing Leadersilip kffec*mess San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bacharach, Samuel B., and Edward.). Lawler. 1980. Amer arul POkticsin Organization& San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Balderston, Frederick E. 1978. ivi..a.aging Todays Univercity ranFrancisco: Jossey Bass.

Baidridge, J. Victor. 1971. Power and Conflict in she I Mieersity NewYork: John Wiley 44 Sons.

Baldridge, J. Victor, David V. Curtis, George Ecker, and Gary L Riley.1977. "Alternative Models of Governance in Higher Education."In Governing Academic Organizations.' New Problems, Noe Pers-pectives, edited by Gary 1. Riley and J. Victor Bakkidge. Berkeley:McCutchan.

. 1978. lull. , Making and Effective leadership. San Francisco:Jemmy-Bas

Bass, Bernard M. 1981. Soo gin's Handbook of Lc ader:44A New York:Free Press.

. 1985. Leaderthip and Performance &Tout P.Vectation.

Making Se m, of Administrative Leader:00 81C' '71

New York: Free Press.Benezet, Louis T., Joseph Katz, and Frances W. Magnusson. 1981.

SO* and Substance Leadership and the Coligge Prewidency Wash-ington, D.C.: American Cotmcil on Education.

Bennett, William J. 1984. To Reclaim a Legacy: A Report on theHumanities in Wier Education. Washington DC: National En.(Immo' for the Humanities ED 247 880.63 pp. MF-01; PC-03.

Bennis, Warren G. 1972. "Who Sank the Yellow Submarine?"Reprinted in Governing Academ ic Organtr,ations: New Problems,New Perspectives, edited by Gary L Riley and J. Victor Baldridge,pp. 110-22. Berkeley: McCutchan. Bennis, Warren G., and BurtNanus. 1985. leaders New York: Harper & Row.

Bensimon, Poeta M. 1984. "Selected Aspects of Governance: AnERIC Review." Community Cogege Review 12(2): 54-61.

. 1987. "The Discovery Stage of Presidential Succession." Paperpresented at a national meeting of the Association for the Studyof Higher Education, November, Baltimore, Maryland. ED 292381. 27 pp. MF -01; PC-02.

1988. 'Viewing the Presidency: Perceptual Congruencebetween Presidents and Leaders on Their Campuses." Paper pre-sented at an annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, April, New Orleans, Louisiana.

1989a. "Five Approaches to Think About: Irons Learnedfrom Experienced Presidents." In On Becoming a Proident: Adviceto New College and University CEOs, edited by E.M. Bensimon,

Gade, and J. Kauffman. Washington, D.C: American Assoc ionfor Higher Education.

. 1989b. "The Meaning of 'Good Presidential Leadership':A Frame Analysis." NVkii7 of fligber Education 12: 107-23. ED292 416. 38 pp. MF-01; PC-02.

. 1989c. "New Presidents' Initial Actions: Transactional, Trans-formational, or Transvigorational' Leadership." Paper presentedat an annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation, March, San Francisco, California.

Bess, James L 1983. "Maps and Gaps in the Study of College andUniversity Organization." Review of 110ber Education 6(4):

23951.. 1988. ailegiality and Bureaucracy in the Modern University:

The Influence of Information and Power on Decision-Mahing5truc1ure New York: Teachers College Press.

Riemilk -r, Lawrence. 15 October 1986. "Timing the Only Surpriseas Dartmouth President Quits." Chronicle of Higher Education.33(7): 3.

Birnbaum, Robert. 1986. "Leadership and Learning: The CollegePresident as Intuitive Scientist." Review of IlOber Education9: 381-95

82

. 1987. "When College Presidents Are Wrong: The Effectof Knowledge Structures and Judgmental Heuristics on Administrative Inferences." College Park: Univ. of Maryland. Natioal Center for Postsecondary Governance and Finance (OP 87:6).

1988. How ColkNes Work.: The girernetia of AcademicOrganization and Leadership. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

1989a. "The Implicit Leadership Theories of College andUniversity Presidents." Review of H(1,0er Education 12: 125-36.ED 292 408. 28 pp. MF-01; PC 02.

. 1989b. "Presidential Succession and Institutional Functioningin Higher Education."Jourrud (01414ber Ethroation 60(2): 123 -35.

19W9c. "Responsibility without Authority: The ImpossibleJob of the College President." in Homer Education: Handlxxikof Theory and Research, vol. 5, edited by jiihn C. Small New York:*ohm Rms. in press.

Blake, Robert R., and Jane S. Mouton. 1964. Ti e Managerial Grid.Houston; Gulf Publishing Co.

Blake, Robert &Jane S. Mouton, and Martha S. Williams. 1981. TheAcademic Administratioe Grid San Francisco: jossey Bass.

Blau, Peter M. 1956. Bureaticreay in Modern Society. New York:Random House.

. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: jolui& Sons.

1973. The Organization of Academic Work. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

Holman, lee G., and Terrence E Deal. 1984. Modern Approachesto Understanding and Managing Organizations. San Francisco:jossey &us

Bradley, Gifford W. 1978. "Self-Serving Biases in the Attribution Pro.cess: A Reexamination of the Fact or Fiction Question." journalof Personality and Social Psychokkcy 36( 1): 57-71.

Brewster, Kingman, jr. 1976. "Politics of Ac demia." In Power andAuthority: Transformation of Campus Goix,rnance, edited byHarold L. Hodgkinson and 1.. Richard Meeth San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Bums, J. MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: I larper & Row.Calder, Bobby j. 1977. "An Attribution Theory of Leadership." In

New Directions for Orwnizational Behavior, edited by Harty M.Raw and Gerald R. Sakmcik. Chicago: R. Clair Prms.

Cameron, Kim S. 1984. "Organizaikmal Adaption and Higher Mu+=ion." Journal of Higher Education 55(2 ): 122-44.

Cameron, Kim S., and David a Ulrich. 1986. "Transformational leadership in Colleges and Universities." In Higher Education. Handbook of Theory and Reward', vol. 2. edited by John C Smart. NewYork: Agatlum Press.

Making Sense of Administrative Ictidc 83

( I:"

Chaffee, Ellen Earle. 1983. "The Role of Rationality in I IniversityBudgeting." &Newt,- 19: 387-406,

. 1984. "Successful Strategic Management in Small PrivateAkNtli." found of Higher Education 55(2): 212..4:.

. 1985a. 'The Concept of Strategy: From Business to HigherEducation." In HOW Education: Handbook of Theory andResearch, vol. I, edited by John C. c,mart. New York: Agathon Press.

. 19851 `Three MtxleLs of Strategy." Academy of ManagementRe view 10: 89-.98.

. 1988. "Strategy and Effectiveness in Systems of Higher Edu-cation." In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research,vol. 5, edited by John C. Smart. New York: Agathon Press.

Chaffee, Ellen Earle, and William G. Tierney. 1988. CoRtgiate Culturecaul Leadership Strategies. New York: American Council on Edu.cation/Macmillan.

Childers, Marie E. 1981. "What Is Political about Bureaucratic.Collegial Decision Making?" Relief!' of Higher Education 5:

25 i5.Clark, Burton R. 1970. 771e C Chicago: Aldine.---. 1972. "The Organ. izational Saga in Higher Education."

Administratim Science Quarterly 17: 178- 84.. 1983. 7h lI gher Education System: Academic- Organization

in Crass-National Perspective Berkeley: 11niv. of California Press.Cohen, Michael 1)., and James G. March. 1974. "milers/p and Arai-

glaty: The American Came Presidency New York: McGraw-Hill.Jahn E. 1984. "Theory into Practice: Higher Edatation and

the Cultural Perspective." In Leadersh#, and Organiztaionallure, edited by 'Ilk mas J. Sergi( >vanni and John E. Corbally.l!lballa: Univ. of Illinois Press.

Ca trs( Jul at J. 19(W). Goeermance of Colleges and Unit rraties NewYork: McGraw.liill.

Cr( inshaw, S.F., and Rilliert !Ala 1987 "Effects of Categorization,Attribution, and Encoding Proce sses on Leaderthip Pemptions"Journal ,if Applied Psychology 72( 1): 97 106

Crowe, Bruce J., Stephen Widmer, and Alfred W. Clark. 1972. "TheEffects of Sub( gdinates' Behavior on Managerial Style." HumanRelations 25( 3): 215 37.

Cyen, Richard M., and James G. March. 19(,3. A Behavioral Theriryof the Finn. EROCWIL X )d CI itti, NJ.: Prentice Ball.

Daft, Richard L, and Karl E. Weick. 1984. "Toward a Model of OrganWithal!: as Interpretation Systems." Academy of Ah47160,41nntRetitle% 2): 284 -95.

Deal, Terrence K, and Allan It Kennedy. 1982. Corporate Cultures:The Nights and Rituah of Corporate Life Reading, Mass: Addison.Wesley.

84

'-U

1

De Greene, Kenyon B. 1982. 7be Adaptitr Organization: Antici-pation and Management of Oicis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Deshler, David. 1985. "Metaphors and Values in Higher Education."Academe 71(6): 22-28.

Dill, David D. 1982. "The Management of Academic Culture: Noteson the Management of Meaning and Scrial Integration." HigherEducation 11: 303-20.

. 1984. "The Nature of Administrative Behavior in HigherEducation." Educational Administration Quarterly-2(X 3):

69-99.Dill, David D., and Patricia K. Fullagar. 1987. "Leadership and Admin-

istrative Style." In Key Resources on ilkher Education Governance,Management, and Leadership A Guide to the literature, editedby Marvin W. Peterson and Lisa A. Mets. San Francisco: Josscy.Bass.

Dressel, Paul L 1981. Administrative Leadersh0. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Drucker, Peter F. 6 January 1988. "Leadership: More Doing thanDash." The Wall Street journal

Eaton, Judith S. 1988. "Conclusion: Observations and Rey ommen&Aims." in C011egec of Choice: The Enabling bnpact of the Cornminify Craw, edited by Judith S. Eaton. New York; AmericanCouncil on F.ducation/Macmillan.

El*, Kenneth E 1978. The Art of Administration. San Francisco:Josser Bass.

Etzioni, Amitai. 1961. A Conparatire Analysis of Compka. Organis ttiotcc New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

. 1964. A Comparative Analysis of Complex OrganizatiormOn "wen havolvement, and Their Correlates. New Ycrtic FreePress.

Evangelauf, Jean. 21 November 1984. "Presidents Say They're Spend,ing More Time away from Campuses." Chronicle of Wier Editcation 29( 13): 1+.

Rickman, Sue R., and Robert E. Quinn. 1985. "Effectiveness: ThePerspective from Organizational Theory." RetrieW of Higher Edu-cation 9:83 -100.

Feldman, Martha S., and James G. March. 1981. "Information inOrganizations as Signal and Symbol." Adminiarative .5c-fent(' Quar-t ir* 26: 171-.86.

Fiedler, Fred E. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effecternem. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

. 1971. "Validation and Extension of the ContingencyModel of Leadership Effectiveness: A Review of the Empirical Find-

kw." Porhological BuNetin76(2): 128 48.Fiedler, Fred E., and J.E. Garcia. 1987. New Approaches to Effect* As

Leaders* New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Making Sense of Adminiorative Leadersh# 85

Pincher, Cameron. 1987. "Administrative leadership in Higher FAI-L:aim" In 114fber Eziutwtion: Handbook of Theory and &ward;vol. 3, edited by John C. Smart. New York: Agathon Press.

Fisher, James L 1984. The of tf,ie Presidency New York:Macmillan.

Fisher, James L, Martha W. Tack, aral Karen J. Wheeler. 1988. "Lead-ership Behaviors of Effective College Presidents." Paper presentedat an annual meeting of the American Educational Research Assu.dation, April, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Floyd, Carol E. 1985. Faculty Participation in Decision Making:Nem:city or Luxury? ASHE ERIC Higher Education Repoil No.8. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.El) 267 694.119 pp. MF-01; PC 05.

French, John R.P., Jr., and Bertram Raven. 1968. "The Bases of SocialPower." In Group Dynamics: Raearch and Theory, edited byDorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander. 3d eel, New York: Harper& Row.

Frieze, Irene, and Bernard Weiner. 1971. "Cue Utilization and Ann-hollow! Judgments for Success and Failure."Journal of Personality39: 591-606.

Gardner, John W. 1986a. "The I lean of the Matter: LeadeConstituentInteraction." Third in a series of papers prepared for the Lead-ership Studies Program. Washington, D.C.: Leadership StudiesProgram.

. 1986b, "Leadership and Power." Fourth in a series of papersprepared for the Leadership Studies Program. Washington, D.C:leadership Studies Program.

1986c. 'The Moral Aspect of Leadership." Fifth in a seriesof papers prepared for the Leadership Studies Program. Wash.ington, D.C.: Leadership Studies Program

. 1986d. "The Nature of Leadership." First in a series of papersprepared for the Leadership Studies Program, Washington, D.C.:leadership Studies Program.

. 1986e. "The Tasks of Leadership." Second in a series of pap-ers prepared for the Leadership Studies Program. Washington,DC: Leadership Studies Program.

. 1987a. "Attributes and Context." Sixth in a series or pensprepared for the Leadership Studies Program. Washington, DC:Leadership Studies Program.

1987h. "Constituents and Followers." Eighth in a series ofpapers prepared for the leadership Studies Program. Washington,D.C.: Leadership Studies Program.

. 1987c. "Leadership Development." Seventh in a series ofpapers prepared for the Leadership Studies Program. Washington,D.0 : Leadership Studies Program.

1988a. "The Changing Nature of Leadership" Eleventh in

s.. tJ

a series of papers prepared for the Leadership Studies Program.Washington, DC: Leadership Studies Program.

1988b. 'Renewing: The Leader's Creative Task" Tenth ina series of papers prepared for the Leadership Studies Program.Washington, D.C.: Leadership Studies Program,

---. 1988c. "The Task of Motivating." Ninth in a series of papersprepared for the Leadership Studies Program. Washington, D.C.:Leadership Studies Program.

Gibb, Cecil A 1968. "leadership." In The Handbook of Soda! P7&oho; mi. 4, edited by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson.3d ed. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

G'Ifley,J.W., Kenneth A. Fulmer, and SJ. Reithlingshoefer. 1986.Searching for Academic arellence: Twenty C'elleges on the Moveand Their Leaders. New York: American Council on Education,Macmillan.

Goodman, Paul. 1962. The Community of Scholats. New York: Random House.

Green, Maildeine F., ed. 1988a. 'The American College President:A Contemporary Profile." Washington, D.C.: American Councilon Education.

. 1988b. Leaders for a New &a: Vnittgies for 1107er Mu.cation. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

Green S.G., and T.R. Mitchell. 1979. "Atuibutional Processes of tearers in Leader-Member Interactitxts." Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance 23: 429- 58.

Greene, Charles N. 1975. "The Reciprocal Nature of Influencebetween Leader and Subordinate." Journal of Allotted Psycho /4g60(2): 187-93.

. 1979. "Questions of Causation in the Path -Goal Theory ofLeadership." Academy of Management journal 22: 22- 41.

Hammond, Martine F. 1981. "Organizational Response for Survival:A Case Study in Higher Education." Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Association fix. the Study of Higher Education,March. ED 203 811. 25 pp. ME-01; PC-01.

Hersey, P., and K.11. Blanchard. 1977. Management of OrganizailontdBehavior 3d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.

Hesburgh, Theodore. May June 1979. "The College Presideixy: Lifebetween a Rock and a Hard Place." Change 11: 43-47.

Hills, ES, and TA Mahoney. 1978. "University Budgets and Organizatitmal Decision Making." Adminigrath Silence' Quarterk 23:454. 65.

Hollander, Edwin P. 1964. Lead r% GnmiLs and Infhwnce NewYork: Oxford Univ. Press.

. 1985. "Leadership and Power" in The Handbook of SocialItychologg edited by G. Lindley and E An rison. 3d ed. New York:Random House.

Making Sense of Administrative Leadership d7

. May 1987. "College and University Leadership from a SocialPsychological Perspective: A Transactional View." Prepared fOrthe Invitational Interdisciplinary Colltxluium on Leadership inHigher Education, vonsored by the Institutional Leadership Pro-ject, National Center for Pogsecondary Governance and Finance,Teachers College, New York City.

Homan, George C. 1950. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt,Brace & World.

. 1958. "Social Behavior as Exchange." American journalof Sociology 63: 597-606.

. 1%1. Serial Behavior: Its Elementary Rffnix New York. Harcourt, Brace & World.

l louse, Robert J. 1971. "A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness."Administrative Science Quarterly 16: 321-38.

House, Robert J., and Mary L Ham. 1979. "leadership: Some Empir-ical Generalizations and New Research Directions." Research inOrganizeaional flthavior 1: 341---i2.5.

Howell, Jon P., and Peter W. Dorfman. 1981. "Substitutes for Lead.ership: Test of a Con aruct." Academy of Mamtgement journal24(4): 714-28.

Ilowell, Jon P., Peter W. Dorfman, and Steven Kerr. 1986. "ModeratorVariables in limdership Research." Academy of ManagementReview 11(1): 88-102.

Jacobson, Robert L 20 May 1985. 'Thi.stees Vexed over Colleges'Quality, Said to Mull Role in Academic Affairs." aronide of HigherEducation 29(23): 1+.

KAneman,D., P. Slavic, and A. Tversky. 1982. Judgment underUncertainty: Heuristics and Biases Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press.

Kanter, Rusabeth Moss. 1983. The Change Masters. New York: Simon& Schuster, Inc.

Kaplo...itz, Richard A. 1986. Selecting Colkwe and University Personnek The Quest and the Quistion ASIIE-ERIC Higher EducationReport No. 8. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Rudy of HigherEducation. El) 282 488121 pp. MF-01; PC-05.

Kw., Fremont E., and James E Rosenzweig, eds. 1973. ContingencyViews of Otganization and Management Chicago: ScienceResearch Associates.

Katz, Daniel, and Robert L Kahn. 197R The Social Psycholoio, ofOrganizations. 2d ed. Ncw York: John Wiley &Sons.

Kauffilm, Joseph F. 1980. At the tinware of On.. Boan The Serviceof the Collige and Ilnitersity President Washington, D.C.: Amer-ican Council on Education. El) 187 217. 122 pp. ME-01; PC notavailable MRS

Keeton, Morris. 1971. Shared Authority on Cam ac Washington,D.C.: American Association for higher Education.

Keller, George. 1983. Academic .S'tnitigy: The Management Rev-olution in American Higher &lactation. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniv. Press.

Kellerman, Barbara. October 1987. "The Politics of Leadership inAmerica: Implications for Higher Education in the late 20th Cen-tury." 'Wpmd for the Invitational Interdisciplinary Colloquiumon Leadership in Hither Education, lxxisored by the InstitutionalLeadership Project, National Center for Postsecondary Governanceand Finance, Teachers College, New York City.

Keobane, Nanneri. 1985. "Collaboration and Leadership: Are Theyin Conflict!" CO iltge Board Review i35: 4-5+.

Kerr, Clark. 1963. The Uses of the University Cambridge, Mass.: Har-vard Univ. Press

. 1984. ems Make a Difference: Strengthening Leadership in Colleges and Uniterslties Washington, a.sstwiationof Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. EL) 247 879.140 pp. MF-01; PC not available EDRS.

Kerr, Clark, and Marian Gade. 1986- The Many Litt's of AcademicPresiiknis Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boardsof Universities and Colleges. El) 267 704.267 pp. MF- 01; PC11.

Kerr, Steven, anti Jahn M. Jamier. 1978. "Substitutes for Leadership:Their Meaning and Measurement." Organizational Sidlia4or andHuman Performance 22: 375-403.

Knight, W. Hal, and Michael C. Holen. 1985. "Leadership and thePerceived Effectiveness of Department Chairpersons." journalof HOer Education 56(6): 6T7-90.

Korman, Abraham K. 1966... 'Consideration,' 'Initiating Structure,'and Organizational Criteria: A Review." Personal ISychokogy 19:349-61.

Kuh, George D., and Elizabeth J. Whitt. 1988. The Invisible TapestryASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. I. Washington, D.C.:Association for the Study of Higher Education. HE 021 960.144 pp. MF-01; PC-06.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."international Encyclopedia of Unified Science, vol. 2, no. 2.2d ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Laney, James T. Spring 1984. "The Moral Authority of the Collegeor University President." Educational Record: 17-19.

Lieberson, Stanley, and James F. O'Connor. 1972. "Leadership andOrganizational Performance: A Study of Large Corporations" Amerscan Sociologiad Review: 37(2): 117-30.

Merl, Rensis. 1961. New Patterns of Management. New York:

. 1967. The Human Organization. New York: McGraw Hill.

Making Sense of Administrative leadership

Lincoln, Yvonna, ed. 1985. Organizational Theory and inquiry TheParadig n Revolution. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Lindblom, Cliarks E. 1968. The Polity-Akiking Pro( EnglewoodNj.: Prentice -Hall.

Lippett, Ronald, and Ralph K White. 1958. "An Experimental Studyof Leadership and Group life." In Readings in Social Psychology,edited by Eleanor Macka' iby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and EugeneL Hanky. 3d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Lansford, T.F. 1970. "Authority and Ideology in the Administerediniversity." In The State of the University: Authority and Change,

edited by C.E. Kruythosch and S.L Messinger. Beverly Hills: SagePublications.

McCall, Morgan W., Jr., and Michael M. Lomtranki eas. 1978. Lead-ership Where Else Can We Go? Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press.

McCorlde, Chester O., Jr., and Sandra 0. Archibald 1982. Managemeat and tecidership in Higher Education. San Francisco: josseyBass.

McElroy, J.C. 1982. "A Typology of Attribution Leadership Research."Academy of Management Review 7(3): 413--17.

MGregar, Douglas. 1960. The Human Side of Entoprise New York:McCraw -1M.

Machiavelli, Nicrolo. 1977 (orig. pub. 1513). The Prince translatedand edited by Rohm M. Adams. New York: W.W. Norton & Co,

McMillen, Liz. 4 June 1986. "Feud between President and Regents1k7bilitateslJniversity of New Mexico." Chronicle of Higher Education 32(14): 1 +.

Madam, Thomas W., James R. Craig, and Raymond M. Mendel. 1976."Derartmental Morale as a Function of the Perceived Perk-Enroleeof Department Heads." l?eyearch in Higher Education 5: 83- 94.

March, James G. 1982. "Emerging Developments in the Study ofOrganizations." Review of Higher Education 6: 1- 18.

. 1984. "How We Talk and How We Act: Administrative Theoryand Administrative life." In Leader* and Organizutkonal Cutture edited by Thomas J. Se rgiovanni and John E. Corivally.Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.

March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1979. Amhiptily and aoicein Oiganizatiora 2d ed Bergen, Norway: 1 iniversitetsforlaget.

March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Martin, Jenne. 1982. "Stories and Scripts in Organizational Settings."In Cognitive Soda/ 1*.bolggy, edited by Albert H. I Wolf andMice M. Ism New York: Elsevier N Holland

Martin, J., MS, Feldman, M.J. Hatch, and S.S. Sitkin. 1983. "The UM'queness Paratkix in Organizational Stories." Administrative ScienceQuarterly 28: 438 53.

1

Mayhew. Lewis B. 1979. Surviving the iFightim. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meindljames R., Sanford B. Ehrlich, and Janet M. Duketich. 1985.The Romance of leadership." Adminis trative Science Quarteriy30: 78-.102.

Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1983. "Institutionalized Organizations: Kama! Structure as Myth and Ceremony." In Organ-izational Erwironmentc: Ritual and Rationality, edited by JohnW. Meyer and W.R. Scott. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Millen, John D. 1962. An Essay on Organization: The A.:ademic Community. New York; McGraw, Hill,

1974. Strengthening Cbmmunio, in Ilighe. Education. Washington, D.C.: Management Division, Academy fix' EducationalDevelopment, Inc.

. 1978. New Structurrs of Campus Power Succes:s and Failuresof Emerging Forms of Institutional Governance San Francisco:Josser Bass.

Mintzberg, Henry. 1973. 7bc Nature of Manaffnal Work. New York:Harper & Row.

Mitchell, Terence, James R. Larson, and S.G. Green. 1977. "leaderBehavior, Situational Modenaors, and Group Pei-film-lance: AnAttributional Analysis." Organizational Belmirior and HumanPerformance 18: 2S4 68

Mooney, Carolyn J. 13 July 1988. "For College Presidents, a Loss ofFaculty Confidence Can Lead It; Waror Dialogue." amnia,of Higher Education 34(44): Al+.

Mown, Gareth. 1986. Images of Organization. Beverly Hills: SagePublkatkms

Kenneth P., anti T.R. McConnell. 1978. Sharing AuthorityEffectarly: Part icipation, Interaction, and Discretion San Francisco: Jowl/ Bacs.

National Institute of Education, Study Group on the Conditions ofacellenc? in American Higher Education. 1984. hark mem inLearning Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education.Washington, D.C.: Author. Fl) 275 951. 22 pp. ME-01; PC 01.

Neumann, Anna. 1987. "Defining Good Faculty Leadership': Inter,pretations (if Professors and Presidents." Paper presented at anannual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Editcation, Noveinber, Baltimore, Maryland. ED 292 394. 28 pp.MF- 01; PC- -02.

. 198. "Making Mistakes: Error and Learning in the College.'Presidency." Paper presented at an annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, April, New Orleans, Louisiana.ED 298 810.26 pp. ME- -01; PC 02.

. 1989a. "Colleges under Pressure: Budgeting. PresidentialCompetence, and Faculty I Incenaintr Paper presented at

Making Sense of Administrative' Leadership 91

103

an annual meeting of the Annerkan Educational Research Asso-dation, March, Ben Francisco, California

. 1989b. "Strategic Leadership: The Changing Orientationsof College Presidents." The Review of ft her Education 12:137-51. ED 292 393.21 pp. MF 01; PC -01.

Nishett, R., and L Ross. 1980. Human Inference: Vrategies and Short-comings of SOCialfildOWIlt Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Peck, Robert D. 1983. 'The EranTreneurial College Presidency."Educational Record 64: 18..25.

Perkins, JA, ed. 1973. The (Adversity as an Chganization New York:McGraw Hill.

Perrow, Charles. 1979. Cbmplex Organizations: A Critical Esso 2ded Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co.

Peters, Thomas J., and Robert II. Waterman. 1982. hi Sean* of 1..:xcel-lence: Lessons from America's Best Run Companies New York:Harper & Row.

Peterson, Marvin W. March 1985. "Emerging Developments in Post-secondary Organization Theta)/ and Research: Fragmentation orIntegration." Educational Rettvarther 14: 5-12.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1977. "The Ambiguity of leadership." Academy ofManagement Remez,2: 104-12.

. 1978. "The Ambiguity of Leadership." In LeadosbrP: Where!lice Can We Go?-..itimi by M. McCall and M. Lombardo. Durham,N.C.: Duke Univ.

. 1981. "Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation andMaintenance of Organizational Paradigms." Resoarch in Organ.izational Behavior 3: 1-52.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald It Salaneik. 1978. The External aWitrdof Organizations: A Resource &pendency Perspeake New York:Harper & Row.

Phillips, IS., and Robert G. lord 1981. "Causal Attributions and Per-ceptions of Leadership." Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance 28: 143-63.

Plante, Patricia R. 29 May 1985. 'The College Administrator in theMarketplace." Chronicle of Higher Education 30(13): 72.

Powers, David R., and Mary F, Powers 1983. Making ParticiPatoryManagement Work San Francisco: yxssiey.liass.

Price, Kenneth II, and Howard Garland 1981. "Compliance witha Leader's Suggestions as a Function of Perceived Leader/MemberCompetence and Potential Retipmeity."purzia/ of Applied Psychaff?"' 66(3):329 -36.

Quinn, Robert E. 1988. Beyond Rational Management: Masteringthe Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High PerformanceSan Francisco: Jossey-Ittss.

Reyes, P., and S.B. Twombly. Winter 1987. "Peweptkins Contem-porary Governance in Community Colleges: An Empirical Study."

92

1c

immunity College Review 14: 4--12.Rice, It Eugene, and Ann E. Austin. March /April 1988. "High Faculty

Morale: What Exem1, lazy Colleges Do Right." acme 20: 51 58.Richardson, Richard C., ed. 1975. Reforming College Goterricince

New Directions for Community Colleges No. 10. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Richardsm, Richard C., Jr, Clyde E. Blocker, and Louis W. Bender.1972. Governance for the Two-Year College.. Englewood Cliffs.Ni.: Prentice 1 1x11.

Richardson, Richard C., and William R. Rhodes. 1983. "Building Qui).mitment to the Institution." In issues for Community Colk.ge Leaders in a New Era, edited by George B. Vaughan and Associates.San Francisco: Joss(/ Bass.

Richman, Wary M., and Richard N. Farmer. 1976. Leadershp, Goads,and Power in Higher Education. San Francisco: jussey-Bass.

Riesman, David, and Sharon Elliott Fuller. 1985. "Leaders: PresidentsWho Make a Difference." In Opportunity in Adversity, edited byJanice S. Green, Arthur Levine, and Associates. San Fran ism:JosserBass.

Salancik, Gerald R., and J.R. Wind!. 1984. "Corporate Attributionsas Strategic Illusions of Management Control." AdministratheScience Quarterly 29: 238-54.

Salandk, Gerald R., and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1974. The Bases and Useof Power in Organizational Decision Making: The Case of a Uni:Jersity." Administrative Science Quarterly 19: 453-73.

. 1977. "Constraints on Administrator Discretion: The limitedInfluence of Mayors on City Budgets tirbati Affair; Quarterly12(4): 475-98.

Sayles, Leonard R. 1979. Leadership: What Effective Mantgers ReallyDo...and How They Do It New York: McGraw-MIL

Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Oiganizational Culture and Leasienhip SanFrancisco: jossey- /WS.

SC'Ott, W. Richard. 1981. Cfrganizationk Rational Natural and (*yenSystems Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.

Selznick, Philip. 1957. Leaders4 in Adminishution: A Sociokwicedinterpretation New York: Harper & Row.

Giovanni, Thomas J., and John E. Corbally, eds. 1984. Leadeninpand Organizational Culture. Chicago: Univ. of Illinois Press.

Silverman, Robert J. 1987. "How We Know What We Know: A Studyof Higher Education journal Ankles." Review of IliAer Mucation11(1): 39-59.

Sims, Henry P., Dennis A. Gioia, and A.ssociates. 1986, The ThinkingOrganization: Dynan iss of Olganizationed Thinking Cognition.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smirdch, Linda. 1983 "Concepts of Culture and OrganizationalAnalysis." Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 339.58

Making Sense of Administrative Leadosh0

10593

Smircich, Linda, and Gareth Morgan. 1982. "Leadership: The Man-agement of Meaning."fournal c f Applied Behavioral Science18(3): 257-73.

Srivasna, Suresh, and Associates. 1983. The Euvutitr Mind San Fran-cisco: jersey -baxs.

Slaw, B.M. 1975. "Attribution of the Causes of Performance: A NewAlternative Explanation of Cross-sectional Research on Organinti00.5..' Organizational Rehatior and human Performance13: 414-.32.

Staw, Barry M. 1983. "Motivation Research versus the An of FacultyManagement." The Review of Higher Education 6(4): 301-21.

Steinbruner, J.D. 1974. The Cjhernetic Theory of Decickm. Princeton,NJ.: Princeton Univ. Press.

Stogdill, RM., and A.E. Coons. 1957. Leader Behavior its Descriptionand Measurement Columbus: Ohio State tIniv., Bureau of Business Research.

Stroup, Hobert. 1966. Bureaucracy in Higher Education New York!Free Press.

Taylor, Alton L 1982. "Decision Process Behaviors of Academic Man-ago. Research in If r Education 16(2): 155-73.

Tierney, William G. 1985. "Leadership and Organizational Culturein Public State Colleges." Unpublished paper. National Centcrfor Higher Education Management Systems.

1988. "Organiutional Culture in Higher Educatkm." journalIfsAer Education 59( 1): 2-21.

. 1( . "Symbolism and Presidential Perceptions of Lead-ership." Rilift71' of Higher Education 12: 15366.

Trx ow, Martin A. 1984. The University Presidency Comparative &flee-litiriS on Leadership Urbana: Univ. of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign.

. 1985. "Comparative Reflections on Leadership in HigherEducation." Eurripean journid of Education 20: 2. .3+.

Tucker, Allan. 1981. Chairing the Academic Apartment: Leadershipamong Peers Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Vaughan, George a 1986. The Community thikwe President. NewYork: American Council on Falumical/Macmillan.

Vruom, Victor H. 1976. "Leadership." In Handbook of industrialand Ow:A-rational Psychology edited by M. Dunnette. Chicago:Rand McNally.

. 1983. "Leaders and Leadership in Academe." Review ofHigher Education 6(4): 367.86.

Vroom, Victor H., and Phillip W. Venom 1973. Leadership and Decision Making Pittsburgh: I Iniv. of Pittsburgh Preis.

Walker, Donald 1979. The Effeaive Administrator: A PracticalApproach to Problem Sok.ing Decturtm Making and Canvas Lead-ership San Francisco: Jowl/ Bass.

94

ICS

W. Alm 12 June 1988. "Monk Malloy's Notre Dame." M44, YorkTimes Iiimazine

Weber, Max. 1947. "The Essentials of But-mut-mile Organization:An Ideal -Type Construction." In The Theory of Social and Economic Organization edited by Talcon Parsons. London: Oxfordt Iniv. Press.

Weis.* Karl E. 1976. "Educatkmal Organizations as Loosely CoupledSystems." Administrative Science Quarter* 21: 1-.19.

. 1979. The SOCia1PSyChOkOP of OrgatiiZing New York: Randon House.

---. 1982. "Administering FAILICatiO0 in lAxisely CoupledSchools." 04 Defta Kqppan 63(10): 673. 76.

Weiner, Bernard 1985. " Spontaneous' Camsal Thinking." APsjkixilogical Bute& 97(1): 74- 84.

Weiner, Bernard, and Andy Kukla. 1970. "An Auributional AnalysisAdvievenvnt Motivation." Journal of Nrsonahry and So: ial

PsYoktfro&T 15( I ): 20-Whetten, David A. 1984. "Effective Administratots: Ckx.xl Management

on the College Campus." Change 16(8): 38-43.Whetten, David A., and Kim S. Cameron. 1985. "Admin:strative Wee

tiveness in Higher Education." Review of 1140er Education 9(11):35.49.

Yukl, Gary A. 1971. "Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership."Orgarsizatitms/ &tailor and Human Performance& 414 40.

--. 1981. Leadership in Organizations. Englewood ClifEs, NJ.:Prentice- Hall.

Zahn, Lawrence 6., and Gerrit Wolf. I5'81. "Leadership and the Artof Cycle Maintenance: A Simulation Model of Superior -SuhimiinateInteraction." Organizational Ifehm*ff and Human Performance214: 26.49.

Making Sense of Admirer:gratin, Leadership 95

INDEX

AAMR' (see American Association of university Professors)Academic adminiAration models., 43Academic Siratoot 1Adaptive strategies, 47, 64, 65Adversity, 42, 43American Ass(xiatit in oft Iniversity 1)rofeva rs ( AAUP ),Anarchy model, 31, 40Antioch College, 46, 50"Atomilak- model," 62Authoritarian dv 12

Authoritarian-democratic leadership, 12Authority-obedience style, 43

BBehavioral theories, 7, 12. 14, 43 46Bennett, William, 1Blue ribbon commissions, 1Bureaucracy

model, 26, 28, 33university as, 51. 54

CCaretaker style, 43Catalytic leaders, 58Change

radical, 74reaction to, 42strategies for, 48

Charisma, 24, 38.- 39Chronicle of Higher Education, 3Churchill, Winston, 42Clark, Rattan, 50Coalitions

kxmation of, 30, 38ommizatii ins as, 29

Coercive power, 9Cognitive theories, 7, 16, 23 24, 49Cognitive complexity, 65, 72 73Celle gial me 'el, 54-.57Comfortable pleasas it style, 43Committee chairs, 57Communication

networks, 79prormses, 55-56

Community collegesfaculty leadership, 56

Making Sense of Admirtigralive lxadersh0 97

108

lkaciership attributes, 54mission/irrrage, 48

Competence, 16Conflkt

essential feature, 30resolution, 59, 79

Constituency centewd style, 43ingraints

examples, 2.4overarming, 46

Consultative practk-es, 56, 62Contingency theeries, 7, 14-20, 45 46CArntradictions, 6Crisis in leadership, 1, 11CulturalisymIxrlic theories, 7, 20 23, 46-49Cybernetic model, 40, 62.- 64

Data collection, 64Decision making

collegial system, 55departmental, 45- 46fluid participation, 31"garbage can," 32ixuticipation model, 17, 18process, 64sequential steps, 53 53

Democratic political model, 40, 59Departments

chairs, 43, 45, 46influential, 0

Discontent: campus, 38Dissent, 64

E

Effectivenessme-itsuring, 70- 72presidoitial, 36, 55

Entrepreneurial behavior, 79Exchange theory, 10Expectations, 10, 11Experience, 16Expert power, 9

F

Facultyexpectations in decision making, 3

X09

leadership, 56, 57loyalty of, 40moraleisatisfactim, 56motivation, 46, 74reaction to financial stress, 47rewards, 74role in got/mance, 2, 3satisfaction, 53senates, 54, 57, 79suture of power, 39

Fiedler ciwitingency model, 15, 16, 17, 45Financial decline, 47, 6 -66Followers

influence, 10institutional identification, 73

Formal vs. informal lcaders, 9Frames

analysis, 73human resource, 54 57multiple, 72 73organizational perspectives, 27, 66structural, 51- 54

"Garbage tans," 61Ghandi, 42G0315, 30Governance

board support of president, 5shared, 74

Groupsacceptance of leader, 74- 75norms, 39, 43, 54

Guidelinescybernetic administration. 63-64for &tisk n making, 52- 53organized anarchy. 60-61

HHeroic image, 51-52, 54, 76Hersey/Blanchard life cycle theory, 45Hesbuigh, Theodore, 41Hieter education: rescue from mediocrity, 71Hitler, 39House, Robert j, 45Human resource frame, 27, 29, 54-57

Making Sense of Administratim Ltvidersb4t; 99

IIdiosyncracy credit ( IC) model, 39Images (see also Symbolism), 26 33, 40In Search of Eccellence 1,essons from America's Best Run

Companies, 2Information sharing, 64Influence (see Power/influence theories)Intelligence, 16Integrated approach, 64-.67, 70intwrity in the Co &we Curriculum, IInterpersonal abilities, 35, 36Interpretive strategies, 47,64, 65Introspective behavior, 79Intuition, 64

JJanusian thinking, 65"Joint Statement on Government of Colleges and t lniversities," 2

KKerrjennier theory of substitutes, 46, 50, 79King, Martin Luther, Jr., 42

L

Leadershipexplanation of crtcomes, 78leaderlike activities, 2 ;, 26

Leadership and Antkquity, 31Legitimate power, 9liberal axis colleges

bureaucratic leadership, 53faculty leadership, 56

life-cycle theory, 45linear strategies, 47, 64

M

McGregor, Douglas, 29, 33Management theory, 26Manapria/ Grig 13Managerial roles, 44Mao, 39Metaphors: organizational,Mission, 48Models (see also Theories of leadership), 40, 43Multiple linkage model of leader effectiveness, 18

ICAO

111

NNeutralizer haracteristics, :9

0Ohio State leadership studies, 13, 14, 35Organizational charactc-rimits, 19. 20Organizational control, 9Organizational culture, 21-22, 43, 46-49Organizational theory

and higher education, 51 -67and images of leads hip, 26. 33

"Organized anarchy," 31. 32, 60- 62, 77

pParkligms 76Partkipatory processes, 56Path-goal theory, 17, 45People orientation, 43Perception of leadership, 25- 26, 55.-56Persistence, 60Personal attributes, 8, 35Personnel selection, 64Political frame, 27, 29-31, 57 59Power

blocs, 59coercive, 9faculty/tru.stee, 39political use of, 30referent, 9, 38sources of, 38

Power/influence theoriesleadership model, 7, 8- 12social exchange, 39-40social power, 37-39transactional, 39-40transformational, 40-43

Presidentsadvice to, 5-6as center of power, 51, 55bureaucratic, 53cealial systems, 55control over resources, 4 5cooperation with faulty/trustees/constituents, 3effective, 36, 55experienced, 66hen* image, 51..52new, 39-40, 43, 44, 66

Making Sense of Administrative Loads rship 101

112

past, 4perception Of role. 43.44pressures on, 3successful vs, unsuccessful, 72transformational, 41 42

Private colleges faculty leadership, 56Problem solving, 59

Reed College, 46, 50Relationship c xrientat ion, 13, 16Research on leadership

agenda. 78-80multidimensional, HOnarrowly focused studies, HOnew trends, 69 70relevance, 69

Resourcesallocation of scarce. 29, 30inginizational influence, 30

Revitalization of colleges, 1Rewards

control over, 19faculty, 74power, 9

S

Search cc itrunittees, 4Situational leadership theory, 17Situational variables. 14, 15, 19, 44Small colleges: faculty leadership, 56Social exchange theory, 8, 39 40, 72, 74Social IX/RIT theory, 8, 37. 39Socialization, 72Stalin, 39State colleges

collegial approach, 57faculty leadership, 56

Status, 60"Strong" leadership, 77Structural frame, 27, 28 29, 51. 54Student vatisfaction, 53Style

identification, 13related to fitculty/mtnient outcomes, 44types, 43

Substitutes for hierarchical leadership, 19, 20, 46, 50, 79

102

113

Strcessful vs. unsuccessful leaders, 71Sunshine laws, 4Swarthmore CO lege, 46, 50Symbolic frame, 27, 31-33, 60 62Symbolism (see also CulturalisymbOic theories)

reliance on, 76use of, 11, 48

TTask oriotratkm, 13, 43, 45Team management style, 43Technical management skills, 36Theories of leadership

behavioral, 12-14categories, 7cognitive, 23- 24comparisons, 24-26contingency, 14-20cultural and symbolic, 20-23power and influence. 8-12trait, 7

Theory X, 29, 33Theory Y, 29, 33To Reclaim a 1.twacg 1'11-ait theories, 7, 8, 35-37Transactional lealership, 10 11, 39 40, 73 76Transformational leadership, 10 12, 40 43, 73-76*nutlet's

cooperation with, 3intrusive, 4presidential authority, 4.sourre of power, 39working relationship, 5

Typologies of organizations 27

UUnions, 4, 57, 79University of Norte 1)am, 41

VValues, 72Vision, 40, 73Vnxml-Yetton decision process theory, 45

wWeber, Max, 26Weberian hureautraty, 26, 28, 33Worker characteristics, 29

Making Sense of Adminisoyaive Leadership 103

114

ASHE-ERIC HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTS

Since 1983, the Associaticm for the Body of Higher Education (A. Hiand the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clear-inghouse on Higher Education, a sponsored project of the Schoolof Education and Human Development at The George WashingtonUniversity, have cosponsored the AVIE,EWIC Ihgber Education&port series. The 1989 series is the eighteenth overall and the firstto be published by the School of Education and Human Devekr.ment at the George Washington University.

Each monograph is the definitive analysis of a tough higher edu-cation problem, based oil thorough research of pertinent literatureand insitutlonal experiences. Topics are identified by a nationalsurvey. Noted practitioners and scholars are then commissionedto write the reports, with experts providing critical reviews of eachmanuscript before publication.

Eight monographs (10 before 1985) in the ACHE-ERIC HigherEducation Rotno series are triblished each year and are availableon a Individual or subscription basis. Subscription to eight issuesis $83.00 annually; $60 to members of AARE, MR, or AERA, and $50to ASHE members. All foreign subscribers must include an additional$10 per series year for postage.

Prices for single copies, including book rate pospage, are $15.00regular and $11.25 for members of AERA, AIR, AAHE, and ASHE($10.00 regular and $7.50 for members for 1985 to 1987 reports,$7.50 regular and $6.00 for members for 1983 and 1984 reports, $6.50regular and $5.00 for members for reports published before 1982).All foreign orders most include $1.00 per Inn* for foreign postage.Fast United Parcel Service or first class pillage is available for $1.00per book in the U.S. and $2.50 per book outside the U.S. (ordersabove $50.00 may subsonic. 5% of the total invoice amount fordomestic postage). Make checks payable to ASHE-ERIC. For VISAand MasterCard payments, include card number, expiration date,and signature. Orders under $25 mug be prepaid. Bulk discountsare available on orders of 15 or more reports (not applicable to subscriptkm orders). Order from the Publications Department, ASHEERIC 114gber Education Reports, The George Washington University,One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC: 20036-1183, or phoneus at (202) 2% -2597. Write for a complete catalog of all availablereports.

1989 ASHE ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Making SCIISC of Administrative Leadership: The Word inHigher Eckration

&Ma M. Bensimun, Anna Neumann, and Robert Birnbaum

Making Sense of Adminivtraittk, Leadership 116 105

1988 ASHEERIC Higher Education Reports

I. The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in American Colleges andUniversities

Geofge Ilk Kuh and Elizabeth,' Whitt

2. Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice, and Possibilitiespanne Gainen Kurfikc

3, Developing Academic Programs: The Climate for InnovationDaniel T Striumr

4. Peer Teaching: To Teach is To Learn TwiceNeal A. WItitrnart

5. Higher Education and State Governments: .trtnership,Cooperation, or Competition?

Edward R Hines

6, Entrepreneurship and Higher Education: Lessons for Colleges,Universities, and Industry

Jowl S. lioirweather

7. Planning for Microcomputers in Higher Education: Strategiesfor the Next Generation

Reynolds Ferrante, John Hayman, Mary Susan Carbon, andHarry Phillips

H. The Challenge for Research in Higher Education: HarmonizingExcellence and t utility

Alan W. Lindsay and Ruth T Neumann

1987 ASIIE-EILIC Higher Education Reports

I. Incentive Early Retirement Programs for Fatuity: InnovativeResixinses to a Changing Environment

fay L Chnmbler and Thomas R. Keppkir.

2. Working Effectively with Trustees: Building Cooperative CampusLeadership

Barbara E Taylor

.3. Formal Rectwition of EmployerSixxisored Insinu,tion: Conflictand Collegiality in Postsecondary Education

Nancy 5 Nash and Elizabeth M Hawthorne

4. learning Styles: Implications for Improving Educational PracticesChar/es S. Carton and Patricia H. Murrell

5. 1 figher Education Leadership: Enhancing Skills through Profes.sional Developmmt Programs

Shorn A McDade

106

11)

6. Hight/. Education and the Public Trust: Improving Stature inColleges and Universities

WI/0d L. Alfred and jute Weissman

7. College Student Outcomes Assessment: A Talent l)evelupmentPerspective

Maryann Jacobi, Alexander Actin, and Frank Avaki Jr

8. Opportunity from .Strength: Strategic Planning Clarified withCase Examples

Robert G ayre

1986 ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Post tenure Faculty Evaluation: Threat or Opp. triunity?0141.$011. M Licata

2. Blue Ribbon Commissions and Higher Education: ChangingAcademe from the Outside

Janet R Johnson and Laurence R Marcus

3. Responsive Profes.sional Education: Balancing Outcomes andOpportunities

Joan S Stark, Malcolm A Le mother, and Ronnie MK iNtsteri).

4. Increasing Students' Learning: A Faculty Guide to ReducingStress among Students

Neal A Whitman, David C Spendlow and Claire 11. Clark

5. Student Finaixial Aid and Women: Equity Dilemma?Mary Moran

6. The Master's Degree. Tradition, Diversity, InnovatumJudith S. Gkizer

7. The College, the Constitution, and the Consumer Student: Implications for Policy and Practice

Robert M. Hendrickson and Annette Gibbs

8. Selecting College and 1 Tniversity Personnel: The Quest andthe Question

Richard A Kaploultz

1985 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

1. Flexibility in Academic Staffing: Effective Policies and PracticesKenneth P Mortimer, Marque Augsburg', and Andrew TMasland

2. Associations in Action: The Washington, D.C, Higher Education°immunity

Harland G Noland

Making Sense of Adminiviratire Leadership 107

117

3. And on the Seventh Day: Faculty Consulting and SupplementalIncome

Cara M Boyer and Darrell R Lewis

4. Faculty Rest-anti Performance: Lessons from the Science=s andSc xial Science:,

Min W. Creswell

5. Academic Prow: 4n Review: Institutional Approaches. ExpecMims, and Controvcrsies

Clifton E Conrad and Richard F WiLsvit

6. Students in Urban Settings: Achieving the Baccalaureate DegreeRichard C Richanison, Jr. and Louis W Bender

7. Serving More Than Students: A Critical Need for College StudentPersonnel Services

Peter FL Garland

8. Faculty Participation in Decision Making : Necessity or luxury?Gary/ E. Hoyt

1984 ASHE -ERIC Higher Education Reports

I. Adult Learning: Rate Policies and Institutional PracticesK Patricia CrYms and Anne-Marie McCartan

2. Stutknt Riess: Effects and SolutionsNeal it Wintman, David Vendknr, and Claire N. Clark

3. Pan time Faulty: higher Education at a CrassroadsJudith M Gama

4. Sex Discrimination Law in I ligher Education: lie Lessons ofthe Past Decade

J. Ralph Lindgren, Patti T. (Na, Peny A. Zirlai andNan Van Gieson

5. Faculty Freedoms and Institutional Accountability: Interactionsand Conflicts

SWPV71 G ()buying and Barbara A tee

6. The 'Ugh Technology Connection: Acidemicilndustrial Gag}eration kir Economic Growth

137171 G Johnson

7. Employee Educational Programs: Implications for Industry and1ligher Education

Suzanne W Morse

8. Academic Libraries: The Changing Knowledge Centers of Colloges and I ;nivel-sines

Barbara B. Moran

108

113

9. Futures Research and the Strategic Planning Prokess: lntltlications fOt Higher Education

James I Morriion, L Renfro, and Wayne 1. Boucher

1(11. Faculty Workload: Research, Theory, and InterpretationHarold E Yuker

1983 ASRE-ERIC Higher Education Reports

I. The Path to Excellence: Quality Assurance in Higher EducationLaurence R. Marcus Anita 0. Leone, and Eduard I). Goldberg

2. Faculty Recruitment, Retention, and Fair Employment: Ohlipions and Orvortunities

John S. Weggiaman

3. Meeting the Challenges: Developing Faculty Careers*Midraei CT Brooks and Katherine L Gt7MUN

4. Raising Academic Standards: A Guide to Learning improvementRuth Talbott Keinug

5. Serving Learners at a Distance: A Guide to Program Practices(hales E &ado?

6. Competence, Admiwions, and ArtiCtIbtitHI: Returning to theBasics in Higher Education

Jean L i'rter

7. Public Service in Higher Education: Practices and PrioritiesPatricia 11. Crawm

Ei Allitirftlit: Employment and Retrenchment: Judicial Reviewand Administrative Attic gi

Robert M. Hendricksim arid Barbara A. he

9. Burnout: The New Academic Disease.Winifred ANZU Melendez anti Rafael M de Guzman

la. Academic Workplace: New l".remands, leightened "l'emionsAnn L Austin caul !.elks F Garrison

"Omni' print. Available through E1)RS (.411 I *) 227 RK:

Making Sour of Adminigrative leadership 109

119

PRAISE FOR PAST REPORTS

"I welcome the ASHE -ERIC monograph series. It is a serviceto those who need brief but dependable analyses of key issuesin higher education."

(Ref) Mardi", M liesburgh, CSC.President Emeritus Univenaly of Notre Dame

"Running a successful institution requires mastering detailsquickly. The ASIIE-ERIC Higher Education Reports are valuablebecause they give a national perspective that helps me meetmy own reponsibilities."

Milton G eenberg Prtivost, American University

"The first books off my shelf when I'm looking for answers.Keep me aware of potential problems and offer solutions thatreally work"

Kathryn Al. Moore ProftwirMickgan Slate University

"The monographs make excellent textbooks. and theirbibliographies are essential for graduate students."

Eileen Kuhn CoordinatorEducation Adminkaration ProgramCatholic Universiv of America

"Excellent publications, authoritative and well researched, ontimely topics."

Ronald W. Collins, Provast and Vice President for AcademicAffairs, Eastern Michigan 1 Inivenity

"A godsend to an administrator of a brand-new doctoral programwith raps on resources for course development."

Antonia D'Onofrio, DirectorHigher Education Prv,ilramWidener University

"Excellent -- scholarly, informative, enlightening- -superb foradministrative and faculty development."

Robert Gleason, Dimcior of Library SerticesRockland Community Cam!

"An invaluable resource that gets me on top of a topic in avery efficient manner."

Donald Reichard, Dire -tor of Institutional ResearchUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro

120

estetA ini4setor4 was recentlY appointed assistant professorIeseOrch: associate the Coati for the Study of Higher

$dutation * the 'Pennsylvania State DniviotitY. .She is abct:;assistant director and reseafill associste of the instktarnatit'

Project of the National Cetutt for .Postsecon404K,,.yrsovernance 'and Finance. * earned. her EdD. in highee.:,-''' education at Teachers College, ColumbialkiiverAty: She 'Ka

tats in the.School of Educadon at the Universky ofCalifornia-'°-

'tits Angeici and in the Depinment .of Higher and.Aduk:,IkkKlition at Teachers College. Currendy she is tot `

reseatelf ea:ejecta on piesidential succession. and executive.leadership teams.

atm Nstataps is assistant director and research sasociate.of'the Institutional Leadership Project of the Mikan' Getter fritPostsecondary Governance and FLOM= ,and adjunctprofessor in the Department of Higher and Adukat TeachtasCollege, COlumbia University. She earned her firt:t,4n higher edicatIon at the Univeishy of whigan, wheie !he'Also held several reseanch' and .adirtinisuitive pOsitloristlieumacit has taw& Courses in onlianiznional behavict and,program evalusion and is currently conducting resettle') on'leadership and facuky behavict under financial aress,etetutitti*leadetship:tearns, and ahninistmtive learning

tfi

r ,

maw scat is associate director of the National Cents*.for Posseamdary Governance and Finance, where his ctirtent'.'tesponsibilities include directing a major five-year 'studyinstkutional leadership, and pniesscs. of higher education' ak

' the.University of Maryland at College. Pa& He received hisEd.D. in higher education from Teadters COlege, C41'11164:

.,..liniversity. Birnbaum has held administrative positions aj.rinnOer of =den* settings and has also been a

higher education at the University of Miami. His resent:Iv;:..findings. have been published in many. scholarly and,,'Oniessionai Karnak, and he is the author or coauthor of several

books.

ISBN 0..96238824:-3»11150:..: