Back in April, my friend and former colleague Erik Benson authored the first guest post The Value of the Liberal Arts to the University in By’s Musings. In spite of his very busy summer with international travel and work on several projects, Erik has prepared another offering. This one speaks to the overall university culture and what it means or should mean for leadership. For those of us in the higher education world, he asks the very probing question: WHERE ARE YOU?

Irreconcilable Differences?

This past academic year had some high-profile presidential resignations in higher education. The scandal at Baylor has dominated headlines from mainstream media to sports talk radio. This has overshadowed a number of other such resignations which nonetheless have revealed some rather profound issues in higher education. For example, Simon Newman resigned after a brief and tumultuous tenure at Mount Saint Mary’s University, a Catholic college in Maryland. He had come to “the Mount” with a background as a business executive and consultant, which likely impressed board members perceiving a need for such leadership, but raised faculty suspicions. He roused controversy last fall with a plan to encourage struggling first-year students to drop out, made infamous by his line that one must be willing to “drown the bunnies.” Amidst the resulting backlash from inside and outside the institution, Newman insisted on loyalty, and rashly fired a couple of faculty critics. His subsequent effort to mollify the faculty by offering to reinstate those terminated did not head off a vote of no-confidence. Despite support amongst the student body and the board, he ultimately resigned, leaving behind an institution seeking “healing.”     

Such an episode is hardly unprecedented. Lawrence Summers was effectively forced out of Harvard in 2006 in the wake of a faculty no-confidence vote stemming from clashes with high-profile faculty and controversial comments about gender imbalance in fields such as math. Yet such instances of campus politics only infrequently make national or even local news. It is safe to say that every year numerous unpopular presidents are ousted at institutions large and small. Such events may take place under the guise of “moving on” to new opportunities, “promotion” (e.g. to chancellor), or “personal reasons.” Many more presidents find themselves languishing at institutions, holding a position but struggling to lead effectively.

We might regard this as a silent epidemic of sorts, one that does not invite scrutiny of failed administrations. It seems that only when there is a high-profile failure, such as Newman’s, that questions get asked. Even then, neither the questions (nor the answers) may be correct. In Newman’s case, faculty criticisms pointed to his corporate background as the problem, asserting that business leaders are simply not capable of leading universities. Such views are not limited to the Mount, as evidenced in Jack Stripling’s article for The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled “The Mount St. Mary’s Presidency Was a Corporate Test Case. It Failed Miserably.” On the other hand, Newman’s supporters at the Mount blamed the faculty for naively (and improperly) opposing needed change. Outside the Mount, Scott Jaschik notes in an article for Inside Higher Ed, Newman’s resignation will hardly dissuade many college boards from hiring presidents from outside academia, as they remain convinced that higher education needs to be informed by “real world” business models.

Talking past each other…

Obviously, if faculty are convinced that leadership rooted in a non-academic (e.g. “business”) model is flawed, and boards insist on imposing such leadership, the potential for misunderstanding and conflict is high, to the detriment of institutions both parties are supposed to serve. Both have responsibility to mitigate this, but it is the administrators who need to recognize and address the situation. They are the ones “caught in the middle” between board and faculty. They have the most to lose; much like coaches of sports teams, they often end up ousted if things are going badly. In short, they are the ones who are positioned to make things work, and most need them to work.

This might seem like a tall order in this day and age. Many boards and faculties are simply not on the same page about how an institution should function and what it should do. Add in that presidents have to deal with students, parents, donors, alumni, politicians…it is hard for an administrator to avoid upsetting someone. Furthermore, many entering academic administration are lacking in background and training. Those who have followed the “traditional” path of being a professor, then moving up to chair, dean, etc. have to learn basic administrative functions, such as budgeting. Those who have come from the outside, whether business, government, or ministry, have to learn about such things as academic freedom and due process. It is only in recent years that there has been academic training in higher education administration, and even these programs can be sadly lacking in vital areas. In short, academic administration requires a lot of “on the job” learning.

No “Ugly Americans (or Administrators)”

Yet this does not mean that someone entering academic administration needs to enter it blindly, hoping to avoid stepping on a proverbial landmine. One can prepare to avoid some basic missteps, and be better attuned to what he or she needs to be looking for and learning as he or she goes. One needs to approach it as he or she should approach visiting another country and culture.    

Of course, some people go to other countries and fulfill the stereotype of the “ugly American.” This is the person who arrives in another country, presumes to know everything about everything, treats his or her values and ideas as superior to those of the “locals,” insists on having his or her way, and becomes belligerent when he or she doesn’t get it. Such travelers are often blissfully unaware of their foibles, which makes them all the more outstanding to others who witness them. Of course, no reasonable person would argue that this is at all ideal. Put more bluntly, we’d all rather those type of people not travel. In much the same way, we ought not to want administrators who arrive on campus with all the answers, demanding others blindly follow, and retaliating against those that don’t.

In all fairness to both American tourists and college administrators, there are many who don’t fulfill this stereotype. A number of reports have shown, contrary to many Americans own view of themselves, that they do not rank as the worst tourists. By the same token, many college administrators render credible, even outstanding, service to institutions. Moreover, it is not just on administrators to better understand institutions and make them functional. That said, as noted, administrators are the ones who this expectation typically “lands on,” and they tend to come “from the outside,” making the need to better understand the culture they’re entering more pertinent to them.

Cultural Intelligence

Cultural Intelligence (“CQ”) is an emerging field, one that is being applied in education, government, and business. Being better informed about a culture one is entering has obvious potential benefits for students, diplomats, and business people. One of the leading figures in the field is David Livermore, president of the Cultural Intelligence Center (USA). Livermore has pioneered much of the work in CQ, embedding the field in sound research. He has authored numerous books and taught at multiple universities.

In his book Leading With Cultural Intelligence, Livermore relates an experience he had while on a trip to Monroevia, Liberia. He was scheduled to meet with the president of a local college, about whom a Liberian friend had related some troubling reports. Before the meeting, he had the opportunity to talk to another Liberian who was connected to the institution. He decided to ask some direct questions, but got only evasive answers. When he left the meeting, his friend (who had been in the room) explained that the person he had just questioned would not answer directly with another Liberian in the room—it would have been culturally taboo. Moreover, the man was a childhood friend of the college president. Livermore realized that his “usual” approaches to such situations were not going to work in this context; he had to adapt them in order to achieve his objectives.   

Livermore’s anecdote points to some insights, both explicit and implicit, for those who travel abroad, or those who enter the culture of higher education. The most obvious and overarching point is that one needs to know the cultural context in which one is operating. In Livermore’s case, he needed to know what someone would be willing to say in what company. He also needed to be aware of the specific factors at work—in this case, a personal relationship.

In much the same way, one entering academia needs to be aware of the general culture into which they are entering. For example, someone coming from a business background is used to a workplace culture that is typically “top-down” in administration, with someone at the top of a chain of command making decisions which are then passed down the ranks for execution. If working groups are formed to study issues and provide recommendations, they do so only at the commission of those at the top.  Furthermore, in many businesses, there is a certain urgency in decision making—put simply, things happen fast (often for good reason). For those coming from such a background, the decision-making process in higher education often seems maddening. Higher education does not typically follow a “top-down” model. Unlike employees at most firms, faculty have a well-established expectation of “shared governance.” In short, they get a vote on a number of initiatives. Typically, they are highly educated, intellectual people, which means they have to be convinced to support something, and are not hesitant to reject that which they don’t support. Such convincing often involves numerous committees, faculty senate meetings, discussions, and votes, which takes time. One might be tempted to simply try to change the culture by imposing a top-down model, but such a course of action would be foolish for a number of reasons. One, it will almost certainly produce resistance that will ultimately undermine the administrator’s position (as Newman discovered). Two, it overlooks a simple fact—the person or people at the top are often not the best informed about higher education. Unlike business, higher education has a myriad of expectations and requirements (e.g. accreditation) best understood and handled by those with experience in the field, e.g. faculty. Examples abound of administrative initiatives that suddenly run afoul of an external restriction or requirement unknown to them. In short, many cultural norms in higher education are not just a reality, but exist for a reason. Thus, it behooves an administrator coming from the outside not only to realize, but to understand and respect them.    

As Livermore discovered, there are also specifics in any context, such as a relationship. In the case of institutions, there are specific histories, politics, and relational dynamics. This reality means that not just those coming from outside higher education, but also those coming from the “inside” (e.g. another institution) need to approach their new institution as they would a foreign country. Each school has its own history, norms, issues, etc. Someone who has not been privy to these could be surprised by an unknown stumbling block. Has there been a history of poor administration—faculty relations? If so, presuming that faculty will support initiatives right out of the gate would be foolish; there is a need to first build credibility and confidence. (Whoever assumes the presidency of Mount St. Mary’s will definitely need to dedicate him- or herself to this.) This might run contrary to one’s own norms, but one must remember that he or she are in a new culture. This doesn’t mean things cannot be accomplished or even changed at an institution; it simply means that to do so, one has to adapt.

Obviously, this isn’t an exhaustive study of the applications of CQ to leadership in higher education. We could delve into a number of topics, such as how to identify who can really help get things done at an institution, how to engage the “locals,” or how to “learn the language” of higher education. Frankly, someone who is transitioning into higher education from another field, or even someone who is merely moving from one institution to another, ought to have a consultant/coach who can help in this process. This would help smooth the transition, and thus benefit the institution and all involved. There would be fewer administrators who would fail coming out of the gate, and it wouldn’t be necessary to drown those “bunnies.”      

References:

Scott Jaschik, “Last Nonacademic President? Not a Chance,” Inside Higher Ed (2 March 2016). https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/02/experts-doubt-debacle-mount-st-marys-will-diminish-board-interest-nontraditional?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=2e5937c71d-DNU20160302&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-2e5937c71d-198412081#.VtdEjMheC28.mailto (Accessed 2 March 2016).

David Livermore, Leading With Cultural Intelligence: The Real Secret to Success (New York: AMACOM, 2015).

Jack Stripling, “The Mount St. Mary’s Presidency Was a Corporate Test Case. It Failed Miserably,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (2 March 2016). http://chronicle.com/article/The-Mount-St-Mary-s/235558  (Accessed 3 March 2016).