This article utilizes current interview data from 42 senate presidents to analyze patterns of leadership orientations. The language and symbols that faculty leaders use reflects their beliefs and behaviors about shared governance. Three themes that arose from the interviews are discussed. References to citizenship, skepticism about faculty governance, and a desire for personal career gain were dominant themes. The study suggests that the various dimensions of academic culture influence leadership and that thinking of shared governance through a cultural lens rather than a bureaucratic or political standpoint enhances our understanding about how to improve shared governance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bass, B. (1981). Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
2.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies of taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
3.
Bensimon, E. (1989). The meaning of good presidential leadership: A frame analysis. In M. Peterson, E. Chaffee, & T. White (Eds.), Organization and governance in higher education: An ASHE reader (pp. 421-431). Neadham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
4.
Birnbaum, R. (1989). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Brown, M. (1991). Cosmopolitans as heralds of a vitalized faculty role. Academe, 77(5), 19-22.
7.
Burgan, M. (1998). Academic citizenship: A fading vision. Liberal Education, 84(4), 16-21.
8.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
9.
Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton University Press.
10.
Collis, D. (2001). When industries change: The future of higher education. Continuing Higher Education Review, 65, 7-24.
11.
Damrosch, D. (1995). We scholars: Changing the culture of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of organizational life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
13.
Dill, D. (1982). The management of academic culture: Notes on the management of meaning and social integration. Higher Education, 11, 303-320.
14.
Eckel, P. (1999). The role of shared governance in institutional hard decisions: Enabler or antagonist? Review of Higher Education, 24(1), 15-39.
15.
Frank, R. H. (2000). Higher education: The ultimate winner take-all market. In M. Devlin & J. Meyerson (Eds.), Forum futures: Exploring the future of higher education (pp. 3-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Gouldner, A. W. (1957). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward and analysis of latent social roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 281-306.
17.
Lee, B. (1991). Campus leaders and campus senates. New Directions for Higher Education, 75, 41-61.
18.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104-119.
20.
Schuster, J., Smith, D., Corak, K., & Yamada, M. (1994). Strategic governance: How to make big decisions better. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
21.
Tierney, W. G., & Minor, J. (2002). Challenges for governance. Available from The Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Rossier School of Education, The University of Southern California, WPH 701, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031.
22.
Trow, M. (1990). The academic senate as a school for university leadership. Liberal Education, 76(1), 23-27.
23.
Turner, C., & Meyers, S. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
24.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Background characteristics, work activities, and compensation of faculty and instructional staff in postsecondary institutions: Fall 1998. Washington, DC: Linda J. Zimbler.
