Strategic Leadership
Perhaps uniquely in the world, contemporary America has become increasingly captivated by the possibilities and mysteries of leadership. From tiny
human-service agencies to vast multinational corporations, from the halls
of government to the local schoolhouse, there is vital interest in both the theory
and the practice of leadership. Books on leadership flood the shelves of libraries
and bookstores, and every organization searches for ways to develop the leadership skills of its members. Whether as citizens, professionals, or volunteers, people
want to understand the meaning of effective leadership and how to practice it
(Bligh and Mendl 2005).
THE UNCERTAIN PLACE OF LEADERSHIP IN
HIGHER EDUCATION
When it comes to institutions of higher learning, there are several ironies
concerning the phenomenon of leadership—as an area of study, as a goal of
education, and as an organizational process. In one form or another, the theme
has long been a subject of inquiry in both the social sciences and the humanities. Studies in these fields provide various accounts of leaders and leadership as
a part of their intellectual stock in trade. Without doubt, the motif has recently
become much more explicit in many disciplines and cross-disciplines, and the
study of leadership is increasingly the subject of organized curricular and campus
programs (Goethals, Swenson, and Burns 2004). Further, colleges and universities often turn to the language of leadership to describe how their educational
programs will prepare students to exercise intellectual and social responsibilities
in the future. Yet, at the same time, many academicians resist the endorsement of
CHAPTER
The Phenomenon of Leadership
4 Strategic Leadership
the leadership theme, for it continues to be associated with vague and unattainable educational objectives, and it is suspiciously tied to the moral ambiguities of
privilege and power—to which history's leaders often bear bloody testimony.
Perhaps the culminating irony is that colleges and universities, the institutions
that study leadership analytically and empirically, rarely make their own decisionmaking and leadership processes and practices the object of formal programs of
development or inquiry. There are notable and growing exceptions concerning
leadership development programs in larger institutions, but even in these cases
the emphasis is often on the responsibilities of designated positions of authority
(Ruben 2004b). They often focus more on management than leadership, at least
understood as a process that involves setting directions, motivating others, and
coping with change.
When we turn to academic decision making proper, the idiom in currency in
higher education is governance rather than leadership. The authoritative texts
and documents that define campus decision making say much about "joint effort"
or "shared governance," but little about leadership. Bringing various forms of campus authority and the decision-making process into proper balance, and parsing
texts and delineating practices to do so, is often the focus of faculty and administrative activity. The larger and often-pressing question of leadership—of the
ways, for instance, to develop a shared vision for the future—is pursued obliquely
through activities such as strategic planning that have an awkward place in the
formal governance system itself. Leadership as a process of change and motivation
remains a repressed theme.
This is a peculiar and troubling form of neglect, especially given the everintensifying demands on colleges and universities in a challenging environment.
Frank Rhodes, president emeritus of Cornell, voices a recurrent theme: "The
development of responsible, effective, and balanced governance, leadership, and
management is one of the most urgent priorities for the American university as it
enters the new Millennium" (2001, 201).
If we are to bring new resources to bear on this complex set of issues, it will
be in some measure because of the convergent understandings of leadership that
have emerged in a variety of fields in the last several decades. Although the work
on leadership is of very mixed quality and importance, from self-aggrandizing
memoirs to groundbreaking scholarship, there is much to be learned from the
best of the literature. It gives us reason to believe that it is worthwhile to look
closely again at leadership in colleges and universities through the lens of these
perspectives. As we review and synthesize some of these studies of leadership, we
shall keep before ourselves a central question. What can we learn about leadership
that will increase our understanding and improve the practice of it in colleges
and universities?
MOTIFS IN LEADERSHIP
We use the words "leadership" and "leaders" in everyday language to describe
an enormous variety of relationships and contexts in which certain individuals
and groups influence the thought and action of others. Leadership scholars have
developed a dizzying array of schools, categories, and taxonomies of leadership
and leadership theories to differentiate various approaches and concepts (Wren
2006). In order to get our bearings for the task, it is worth the effort to sort out
briefly several threads of common and academic usage before providing a more
formal analysis.
In many contexts we refer to leadership as a pattern of influence that resides in
an individual's or a group's innovative ideas and creative achievements outside
the bounds of formal institutions. Leadership in this sense can be indirect and
distant, as when we point to the leader of a school of thought, the innovator of a
set of professional practices or to the dominant figure in an artistic or social movement. We readily understand, for instance, the meaning of the claims that Albert
Einstein was a leader in the development of modern physics, or Paul Cézanne
in the evolution of twentieth-century painting, or Martin Luther King, Jr., in
civil rights, though none of them did so by virtue of holding a formal position of
authority. In Leading Minds, Howard Gardner (1995) suggests that this form of
leadership is real but indirect.
As we evoke the motif of leadership in organizations and institutions, and
in many social movements, quite different themes come to light. This form of
leadership is more direct and involving, for it occurs in smaller or larger groups in
which the participants have various roles, responsibilities, and mutual expectations defined by the collective itself. Perhaps the most familiar use of the terminology of leadership is when it is used to refer to formal positions of authority, as
exemplified by those who hold political office or carry major responsibilities in
a complex organization. These uses of the words "leader" and "leadership" turn
around power and authority and are the stuff of everyday life and language.
Any sketch of common usages would not be complete if it did not acknowledge the traditional belief that leadership is variously defined by the exceptional
attributes of leaders, which we can categorize as skills and personal characteristics.
In this perspective, leaders are special individuals marked by fixed attributes and
abilities, such as high resolve, energy, intelligence, expertise, persuasiveness, and a
forceful or magnetic personality, which is often called charisma. Great leaders are
often depicted as those who turn the pages of history. As the memoirs, biographies,
and studies of business and political leaders attest, many in the contemporary
world continue to believe that leaders possess special qualities and skills, such as
assertiveness, decisiveness, and confidence. In the public mind, they are often
understood to provide a compelling vision that gives purpose and direction to
the groups that they lead. It would be unwise not to reckon with the broad appeal
and continuing influence of this perspective. Although recent scholarship offers a
much more nuanced, penetrating, and contextual understanding of the attributes
of leadership, strong echoes of these traditional ideas can be heard in many of the
contemporary discussions of leadership.
One of the leading scholars in the field, Bernard Bass, uses the word "charisma"
as a way to describe one of the characteristics of those he calls "transformational"
leaders (Bass and Aviolio 1993; Bass and Riggio 2006). He uses the word to refer
The Phenomenon of Leadership 5
6 Strategic Leadership
to leaders whose followers in a given organizational context feel a magnetic
attraction to them, so charisma is not a fixed personality trait.
Other scholars have published numerous studies to show that leadership effectiveness is contingent on situation or circumstance, an insight that has become a
common assumption in the scholarly literature and in many spheres of practice.
Fiedler (1993), for instance, has shown in many studies that the task-oriented
style of leadership seems more effective when circumstances are less orderly or
verging on a crisis, while a more relationship oriented style fits better when conditions are more normal. As Clark Kerr and Marian L. Gade (1986) have suggested,
effective presidential leadership in colleges and universities is highly situational
since it depends on the right match between circumstance, individual, and institution. A hero in one institution could be a failure in another.
As we shall explore throughout this study, leadership recently has been differentiated both theoretically and practically from the possession of formal authority
and personal attributes. Many scholars have focused on the tasks or practices of
leaders, what some would call a behavioral orientation. More important than
what leaders are or the positions that they hold is what they do. They do such
things as define purpose, envision the future, set high ethical standards, and renew
the organization under many different circumstances (J. Gardner 1990; Kouzes
and Posner 1990).
Perhaps the most widely shared understanding among contemporary theorists
is that leadership is primarily a relationship between leaders and followers. The
relationship is interactive and involves a variety of social processes, practices, and
engagements through which followers respond to the influence of leaders, and
leaders attend to the needs and values of their followers. My concerns for leadership will center precisely on the development of a collaborative and interactive
method of strategic leadership as a systematic organizational process. Though
I by no means exclude a focus on the significance of authority, nor a concern for
the skills, styles, qualities, and practices of leaders, the components of strategic
leadership as an interactive form of direction setting and decision making will be
our central preoccupation.
GOOD TO GREAT: A CASE STUDY IN LEADERSHIP
In order to gain an understanding of the changing interpretations of the phenomenon, it will be useful to look briefly at the findings of one influential analysis
of leadership in business, the widely read book by James Collins (2001), Good
to Great. Using long-term superior performance in earnings and stock appreciation as indicators of success, the book attempts to find the characteristics that
differentiate good companies from great ones. The work's findings about leadership are striking because they are counterintuitive, at least in terms of popular
expectations. The author offers a typology of leadership with five levels of talent
and effectiveness that culminate in the motif of the executive leader who builds
greatness into an organization. Yet, ironically, the leaders of the great companies
The Phenomenon of Leadership 7
were not characterized as having particularly strong or forceful personalities, nor
were they seen as visionaries. Often shy and self-effacing, they were typically
uncomfortable in the limelight and did not call attention to themselves or their
personal achievements. Collins describes this as the paradox of personal humility
and professional will. These executives brought a powerful level of commitment,
unparalleled determination, and excellent managerial skills to their responsibilities, but the focus was always primarily on organizational purposes and goals.
These chief executives tended to lead by (1) raising questions, not providing
answers; (2) using debate and dialogue, not coercion; (3) conducting autopsies
on mistakes without placing blame; and (4) building red-flag problem indicators
into their systems of information.
To be sure, a simple, compelling vision was a crucial component of leadership in these cases, but it was the result of a collective process, open debate,
and intense discussions, often over a long period of time. The focus of the dialogue was not rhetoric about being the best company in the industry. Rather, the
preoccupation was using analytical methods and collaborative processes to find
those specific spheres of activity or product lines in which the company actually
excelled, or could excel, to become the very best in the world. The idea that a
bold leader imposes a dazzling vision on an acquiescent organization would ring
false to the top executives of these companies. "Yes, leadership is about vision.
But leadership is equally about creating a climate where truth is heard and the
brutal facts confronted" (Collins 2001, 74). Drawing these findings together in
a sharp, ironic reversal of traditional thinking about leadership, Collins offers
these conclusions: "The moment a leader allows himself to become the primary
reality people worry about . . . you have a recipe for mediocrity, or worse. . . . Less
charismatic leaders often produce better long-term results than their more charismatic counterparts" (2001, 72). So, charisma is a liability that effective leadership can overcome!
As we shall see in the brief phenomenology of relational leadership that follows, Collins's findings are largely consistent with the interpretations of leadership
that have emerged in the past several decades in many fields. The personalities
and styles of effective leaders come in all sizes and shapes. Often they are skilled
in delegating authority, but not infrequently they are immersed in the details of
the enterprise. What matters most are their practices and commitments and the
disciplined processes of leadership that they embed in their organizations.
TOWARD A PHENOMENOLOGY OF
RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP
This sample of Collins's research and reflection opens up a vast sea of contemporary findings about leaders and leadership. Some twenty-five years ago one
of the most influential students of leadership, James MacGregor Burns, made a
succinct claim to which scholars have tried to respond ever since: "Leadership is
one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth" (1978, 2).
8 Strategic Leadership
Over the past several decades, efforts to remedy this deficit have been made in a
variety of academic forms and organizational contexts.
As one reads some of the more influential studies of leadership, it soon becomes
obvious that there are any number of common insights and shared findings, though
no single dominant systematic theory (Goethals and Sorenson 2006). Without
claiming anything like an exhaustive explanation of an ever-enlarging body of
knowledge and inquiry, it nevertheless becomes possible to discover common
themes and parallel conclusions, especially concerning the reciprocal relationship
between leaders and followers. Although this is often called the "social exchange"
theory of leadership, the terminology is misleading, for the relationship is typically
much more significant and engaging than the rather mechanical term "exchange"
suggests (Hoyt, Goethals, and Riggio 2006; Messick 2005). A primary focus on
the skills, qualities, practices, styles, contexts, and authority of leaders usually still
involves interpreting leadership as what leaders do to or for others rather than as
engaging definitively with others. Some of the most interesting and promising
motifs for understanding and exercising leadership in academic communities flow
from a relational understanding of leadership.
In order to reveal the core meanings of relational leadership that emerge from
recent studies, we shall use some of the techniques of phenomenological analysis
and description. From this perspective, our task is to ask: What are the defining
characteristics of leadership as a human relational phenomenon? What conditions of possibility have to be satisfied for it to occur? How is it constituted? As
a consequence, what basic meanings does it convey, both tacitly and explicitly?
Leadership as Agency
We discover first that many modern scholars tend to depict leadership as an
activity, as a form of human agency. As agents, humans are self-determining beings
who are in charge of their own conduct. They give form and purpose to their
lives through their choices and actions, as carried out within various systems of
meaning. In this context, leadership is primarily a pattern of engagement and a
relational process within a larger framework of human sense making, rather than
a position of authority in an institutional hierarchy. Leadership is situated in that
sphere of life in which humans forge meanings with others and work towards common social and institutional goals to fulfill their needs and realize their values.
For Burns (2003), interactive leadership is the crux of historical causality itself, so
leadership as agency is on display in the record of human striving.
Leadership as Fundamental
"Leadership" is both a fundamental and a relational term. It describes the
dynamics of an inescapable form of social interaction by naming the relationship
that occurs between certain individuals (and groups) and those whom they influence and by whom they are influenced. The relationship has several features, one
The Phenomenon of Leadership 9
of which is that leadership is a basic ingredient of human social organization, not
an elective addition to it. As Thomas Wren puts it, "If leadership is viewed as a
process by which groups, organizations, and societies attempt to achieve common
goals, it encompasses one of the fundamental currents of the human experience"
(1995, x). One does not first create an institution and then search for ways to
introduce leadership into it. Rather, leadership occurs simultaneously with social
organization.
Leadership as Relational
One consequence of this perspective is that the term "leadership" always
involves the idea of followership. If no one is following, no one is leading. Leaders and followers (in the generic sense, not as a form of dependency) require
one another for either side of the leadership equation to make sense (Hollander
1993). According to Joseph Rost, "Followers and leaders develop a relationship
wherein they influence one another as well as the organization and society, and
that is leadership. They do not do the same things in the relationship . . . but they
are both essential to leadership" (1995, 192). The relationship has characteristic
features and patterns of interaction that give it texture and meaning.
Leadership as Sense Making
One of the central forms of reciprocity is effective communication between
leaders and followers about the challenges and issues that they face together.
Leaders seek to influence their followers to adopt the leader's interpretations
of their shared experience, and they use a variety of linguistic and nonlinguistic
forms of communication to do so. They use symbols and metaphors and tell stories
of identity and aspiration to construct a shared sense of meaning (Bennis and
Nanus 1997; H. Gardner 1995; Goethals 2005). In communicating with followers,
leaders typically express a compelling sense of vision for the future. "A leader does
not tell it 'as it is'; he [or she] tells it as it might be. . . . The leader is a sense-giver"
(Thayer, quoted in Weick 1995, 10). Sense giving and sense making offer people
a sense of possibility that an otherwise hostile, indifferent, or incomprehensible
world can be brought under their control.
Moral Leadership
As has become clear in the modern scholarship on leadership, followers or
constituents, especially in a democratic context, are not empty vessels who are
filled by content provided by the leader. At a minimum, followers have to give
their consent to the leader's goals and priorities. When they are fully engaged,
they are committed to the leader's program, and frequently to his or her person.
Yet it is clear that followers do not lend their support blindly but do so in terms
of needs and interests of their own that are satisfied by the leader.
10 Strategic Leadership
Followers bring expectations and criteria to the relationship based on mutual
respect between them and the leader. As James O'Toole suggests, "Treating people
with respect is what moral leadership is about" (1995, 12). People expect their
voices to be heard, their problems to be addressed, their needs to be satisfied, and
their hopes to be fulfilled. They seek security and protection from threatening
circumstances (Messick 2005). If the goals they entered into the relationship in
order to secure are not reached, in time their support will dissolve. It is at their
own peril that leaders forget that support is always conditional. Authority is not
an absolute but is always conveyed in the name of larger social and organizational
ends, and measured by the criteria that those purposes entail (Heifetz 1994).
Leaders and followers together serve a "third thing," a common cause that defines
their relationship. Whatever the social context, followers always have means to
influence and to assess the effectiveness and legitimacy of their leaders (cf. Hollander 1993). From the gathering of the elders to the ballot box, from passive
resistance to violence in the streets, followers know how to influence and replace
their leaders.
Because of the depths to which leadership reaches, followers have explicit
moral expectations of their leaders. The support of followers is conditioned on
the leader's legitimacy, trustworthiness, and credibility. Should there be many false
notes, the leader's credibility soon begins to fade. If lies or duplicity are revealed,
the leader's trustworthiness vanishes overnight. Nor is trustworthiness just accuracy in communication, for it involves integrity in the leader's conduct and commitment as well. To be credible, the leader must embody the values for which the
institution stands, or the leadership relationship will be weakened or broken (cf.
Hogg 2005). When leaders use careful ethical reasoning, establish and enforce
high standards, live the values that they claim, and sacrifice their own interests
to do so, they become respected or even hallowed figures in the eyes of their followers. Contemporary leadership scholars such as James O'Toole (1995), Ronald
Heifetz (1994), Joanne Ciulla (1998, 2002, 2005), Douglas Hicks and Terry Price
(2006) Terry Price (2005), Howard Gardner (1995), John Gardner (1990), and
James MacGregor Burns (1978, 2003) place ethics and moral integrity at the
heart of leadership.
Leadership, Conflict, and Change
Invariably, changing circumstances or the leader's chosen directions will stir
up resistance and engender conflicting interests among some constituents, which
reveals another defining characteristic of leadership. Since the resources of time,
space, attention, and money are always strictly limited, and everyone's values,
interests, and appetites can never be fully reconciled, inequality and conflict are
at the heart of social experience. Leaders work tirelessly to resolve conflict in a
variety of forms and at every level of the organization.
The leader also has to address threatening forms of change that create fear
and resistance and that may stir up bitter conflict of its own. So leadership is
The Phenomenon of Leadership 11
always a gritty affair that engages leaders in a perpetual process of responding to
conflict and change. They expend considerable energy in motivating, persuading, influencing, and manipulating others to join them in responding to tension
and change; or they may use more assertive methods to enact their purposes.
Historical experience shows that leaders will use a large range of harsh sanctions, the logical end point of which is coercion and violence, to achieve their
goals. Where leadership ends and domination begins becomes a compelling and
complex issue of historical and ethical interpretation.
Leadership and Empowerment
In the contemporary scholarship on leadership, there is often an emphasis
on the ways that the leadership relationship leads to the explicit empowerment of followers. In political contexts, of course, empowerment is a central
feature of democratic systems. Increasingly, however, the meaning of the word
has broadened. It now refers as well to the ways that leaders seek to place more
decision-making authority and responsibility in the hands of individuals and
teams throughout the organization. The focus is often on ways to improve processes that are best understood by those closest to them. Empowerment in this
sense often opens other doors of human development and personal fulfillment,
for it leads to the creation of ways to improve the motivation, decision-making
skills, and capabilities of the total workforce or community. When work takes on
a deeper sense of purpose, people become far more engaged in their responsibilities (George 2003). As success is achieved, they develop more self-confidence,
optimism, and self-respect (Messick 2005). Leadership at this level appears to
touch a person's sense of identity and self-esteem, so it triggers a range of strong
intrinsic motivations for achievement and for effectiveness in working with
others (House and Shamir 1993).
The more decisions are dispersed, the more individuals and groups become
directly accountable for their performance. The roles of leader and follower
become fluid, as individuals and groups both respond to the influence of others and exercise their own leadership. Leadership scholar Gill Hickman makes
a point that has special relevance for academic communities: "Individuals move
from participant to leader or leader to participant based on capabilities, expertise,
motivation, ideas, and circumstances, not solely on position or authority"
(1998, xiii). Leadership becomes a disposition and a process that is incorporated
into the workings of the organization.
In an influential study of adaptive leadership, Ronald Heifetz focuses on some
of the complexities of placing responsibility in the hands of constituents that
they may prefer to avoid, a phenomenon that is common in academic communities. He emphasizes the leader's role in focusing, analyzing, diagnosing,
and interpreting challenges to the group's values and effectiveness that have to
be faced. The leader's task is many sided but must take into account Heifetz's
counsel to "Give the work back to people, but at a rate they can stand. Place
12 Strategic Leadership
and develop responsibility by putting pressure on the people with the problem"
(1994, 128).
Leadership and Positions of Authority
These comments on empowerment make explicit an important theme about
authority that has substantial implications for the exercise of leadership in institutions of higher learning. Academic professionals carry much of the authority
and responsibility for leadership in various units and activities—schools, departments, committees, programs—spread throughout the organization. Given our
description of leadership, we can see clearly why those who hold positions of
formal authority such as president, dean, or chairperson are not thereby necessarily the only leaders, or even the most effective leaders, in academic organizations. Based on this understanding, it is perfectly consistent to say that a person
can be the titular head of an organization, but not the leader of it. Under some
circumstances, such an individual might be better described as an authority
figure, a manager, a figurehead, or a paper shuffler. At one extreme, they may
function as autocrats who glory in imposing their will on others, or at the other
pole as mere figureheads who cannot make decisions. Conversely, individuals
with little formal power or authority may play vital roles in leadership. The
exercise of leadership can be found at every level of an institution's formal
hierarchy, especially in academic communities where authority is diffuse and
widely dispersed.
We should not, of course, rush to break the link between leadership, power, and
authority. Effective leaders are often known by their ability to use their administrative, legal, coercive, and symbolic power responsibly and effectively (cf. Hughes,
Ginnett, and Curphy 1995). The capacity to do so is no mean accomplishment but
is dense with organizational and moral significance. Both designated and other kinds
of leaders also gain power informally by means of relationships, talents, expertise,
and political skills. As we shall see more than once, the critical question for leadership in colleges and universities becomes the way power, authority, and influence are
exercised to define and to achieve common purposes. Governance is one thing and
reciprocal leadership is another; but those who have been granted authority have
the opportunity and the responsibility to transform it into interactive leadership. As
we shall see, embedding strategic leadership processes throughout the organization
is one of the ways to accomplish this transformation systematically.
Transactional and Transforming Leadership
As we continue to explore the nuclear elements of reciprocal leadership, we will
do well to pause over an important distinction between transactional and transforming leadership. First articulated in Burns's groundbreaking 1978 study Leadership, and reformulated in his 2003 book Transforming Leadership, these concepts
The Phenomenon of Leadership 13
have become a pivotal organizing theme for much of the research and writing on
leadership. For Burns, and now many others, one basic form of leadership involves
a mutuality of immediate interests and exchange of benefits between leaders and
followers that can be called "a transaction" and is therefore termed "transactional
leadership." Leaders meet the conscious needs and interests of their followers and
are rewarded with their support, or punished by its withdrawal. Leaders in turn
use rewards and sanctions to build their power base and to create discipline in
the ranks. Classic examples of these types of exchanges come readily to mind:
the politician elected to office rewards his supporters with jobs and punishes his
opponents by reducing their influence, a manager gains or loses the confidence
of an operating unit by providing or withholding capital resources, and a college
dean is judged to be effective if she increases faculty salaries and budget lines.
This form of leadership meets the basic test of reciprocity, for the mutuality of the
relationship is clear. Yet transactional leadership tends to accept the status quo,
and to avoid or deflect important forms of conflict over purposes and values. It
lacks the ability to respond creatively to the forces of change, to inspire followers
to superior performance, or to challenge the community or the organization to
meet demanding moral commitments.
In Leadership, Burns characterizes transforming leadership in primarily moral
terms. It involves the leader's ability to summon followers to a higher level of ethical understanding and commitment, the capacity, for example, to move the group
or the society to the more elevated concerns of justice and equality, rather than
just the satisfaction of material wants and needs. The transforming leader who
engages followers at these encompassing levels of values and purposes also creates
pervasive, enduring, and fundamental changes in organizations and societies,
a conclusion introduced by Burns in Transforming Leadership.
As Burns's ideas have been pursued by other scholars, such as Bernard Bass, they
have been translated into different idioms and contexts. For Bass, transformational leadership becomes a pattern of relationship between leaders and followers
in business, the military, and other organizations. Transformational leaders challenge their subordinates' thinking, show personal interest in their development,
inspire them to higher levels of achievement, and represent a magnetic source of
attraction. Bass makes it clear that transformational and transactional leadership
are not exclusive alternatives, for most leaders show both characteristics in their
work (Bass 1990; Bass and Aviolio 1993).
In terms of leadership in higher education, it is clear that the words "transactional" and "transformational" can be misleading if they are used to classify leaders
or their influence in exclusive categories. They are better seen as motifs and methods of leadership that are largely intertwined in practice, not as rigid categories to
be glibly applied to all the work of an individual or group. In Burns's (2003) terms,
many transforming changes may take decades and can be the result of incremental
achievements over time. For colleges and universities, the key question becomes
the shape and intent of the processes of leadership and their potential to motivate
an academic community to respond effectively to change.
14 Strategic Leadership
Leadership as Service
For a number of contemporary commentators, these ideas lead to the conclusion that leadership is best understood as a form of service to others and to
shared values. The influential reflections of Robert Greenleaf have given the
notion of servant leadership an important place in discussions of the role and
responsibilities of leaders. As he puts it, "A new moral principle is emerging
which holds that the only authority deserving one's allegiance is that which
is freely and knowingly granted by the led to the leader in response to, and in
proportion to, the clearly evident servant stature of the leader" (1977, 10). The
practices of leading through deep listening, persuasion, and empathy, and by
articulating a vision of new moral possibilities, are some of the components of
servant leadership.
Implications of the Contemporary Concepts of Leadership
Our description of some of the defining elements of relational leadership points
in many directions both to understand and practice leadership. To offer a working
definition for our purposes, we propose that leadership is an interactive relationship of sense making and sense giving in which certain individuals and groups
influence and motivate others to adopt and to enact common values and purposes,
and to pursue shared goals in responding to change and conflict.
If leadership takes us to the fundamental conditions of human self-enactment
in groups, it also reveals essential human possibilities and needs. Leadership
ultimately has to do with the human condition (Goethals and Sorenson 2006).
A person does not live without values and commitments that make the human
enterprise itself worthwhile in facing the limits and threats with which he or
she must contend. Ultimately it is the protection and flourishing of their values
that humans seek in the leadership of their organizations and institutions. The
ultimate tests of leadership end up as moral and spiritual criteria because of the
way humans are constituted.
Implications for Higher Education
The framework that we have constructed gives us the insights, concepts, and
vocabulary to assess and to critique various theories of leadership in higher education, and to draw useful perspectives from them. Most importantly, our phenomenology of relational leadership will serve as a central point of reference in our
efforts to describe a process of strategic leadership. We can already see in broad
terms the criteria that it will have to satisfy. The process will have to be
• Sense making and sense giving
• Collaborative and empowering
• Direction setting and values driven
The Phenomenon of Leadership 15
• Change oriented and conflict resolving
• Motivating and influential
When we reach the campus, we shall find again the familiar leadership themes
of reciprocity and responsiveness to the needs and values of participants, now
arrayed in the colorful and complicated regalia of collegial governance. The
process of academic decision making rests on academic values and professional
norms that have powerful ethical force. Yet leadership in colleges and universities is typically problematic and unsure of itself both in theory and in practice.
Structural conflict is a given of the decision-making system, often frustrating the
tasks of leadership. Thus, these preliminary ideas about leadership will be put to
the test as we investigate the possibilities of strategic leadership.
LEARNING LEADERSHIP
One of the persistent questions about reciprocal leadership concerns the relationship between the characteristics of individual leaders and the process of leadership. We have spoken repeatedly of leadership, but little of leaders. Yet at one
pole of the relationship are those we call leaders. What can we say about leaders
as part of the leadership equation? Though not simply defined by fixed traits or
the possession of formal authority, leaders nonetheless logically must have some
set of attributes and qualities that give meaning to the term. The characteristics
and skills of leaders may vary widely with context and circumstance, but it is still
impossible to avoid some generalizations about them. We need to focus on these
factors in order to give precision to a formal method of strategic leadership. An
answer must finally be given to the questions, Who will use the process? What
skills will they require? How will they learn them?
In this context, a number of questions regularly present themselves concerning
the genetic, psychological, experiential, and educational formation of leaders.
Are they born or made? Can leadership be taught, or, put more precisely, how is
it learned? In serious studies, the answer to these questions is always equivocal,
always both yes and no (Bass 1990; K. E. Clark and M. B. Clark 1990, 1994;
J. Gardner 1990; Kouzes and Posner 1990; Padilla 2005). The ambiguity comes
from the fact that, as we have seen, leadership involves a wide variety of forms of
intelligence, knowledge, skills, practices, commitments, and personal characteristics. The talent for leadership is widely but not equally distributed in the species.
While much can be taught and learned about both the nature and the practice of
leadership, some of its crucial components—consider courage and resilience—are
largely beyond the influence of formal education.
Needless to say, those issues relating to the different dimensions of leadership,
and how and whether it can be taught and learned, touch on a series of complex
and difficult questions. Relying on the work of Bass, Hollander, and others, John
Gardner (1990) has synthesized a list of attributes of leadership that includes general competencies, skills, and qualities that are shaped in practice by context and
16 Strategic Leadership
circumstance. As we examine many of these broad characteristics of leadership,
we also begin to get a good sense of how different aspects of leadership can be
learned and taught, and the place and potential for learning a structured process
of strategic leadership.
A Spectrum of Leadership Characteristics
In effect, the possibility for both attributes and practices of leadership to
be learned can be considered as points along an uneven and disjointed spectrum, punctuated by the unpredictability of the influence of circumstances on
individuals and groups. Although subject to a great deal of fluctuation and variation, it is helpful to think of three broad zones along the leadership spectrum:
(1) fixed characteristics, (2) forms of practice and behavior, and (3) methods of
thinking, problem solving, and deciding. As one moves along the spectrum, the
characteristics of leadership become more predictably subject to different forms
of experience, intentional development, and formal education.
Fixed Characteristics
Consider some of the categories that seem to describe a person's ways of being,
or the fixed elements of identity that are more or less defined by genetic predisposition, the stable characteristics of personality, the influences of powerful
formative experiences, and the deepest commitments to values and beliefs. Attributes of this sort noted by Gardner include high intelligence, courage and resolution, the need to achieve, the willingness to accept responsibility, confidence and
assertiveness, adaptability, and physical stamina. Although there are undoubtedly
many exceptional cases and circumstances, these characteristics are difficult to
change intentionally or fundamentally through teaching and learning in the adult
years.
Forms of Practice and Behavior
At the midpoint along the spectrum, the characteristics of leadership tend to
consist of forms of practice, action, and behavior. Thus, we find on Gardner's list
skills in dealing with people, the ability to motivate others, the understanding of
followers' needs, and the capacity to win and maintain trust. These patterns of
action and forms of relationship are in large measure learned through a variety
of social, educational, and personal experiences throughout life, including both
classroom and experiential education. Yet unlike most aspects of a person's fixed
characteristics, they are subject to continuous reinterpretation and modification,
as mediated by new experiences, the powers of practical intelligence, and formal programs of education and personal development. Although highly variable
according to each individual, few would claim that thoughtful efforts to develop
the appropriate interpersonal and behavioral competencies are without effect.
Knowledge about leadership can be appropriated for the practice of it, especially
if it is tied to an effective set of systematic methods, as one finds in an effective
strategy process.
Knowledge, Skills, and Expertise
At the other end of the spectrum are attributes of leadership that are clearly
subject to conventional forms of teaching and learning. Always within limits set
by motivation and talent, it is obviously possible to teach people how to improve
judgment through knowledge, to achieve expertise in complex fields, and to
use complicated systems of decision making and management—all of which are
required in a strategy process. In these contexts, the exercise of leadership itself
is closely tied to acquiring and applying knowledge through basic and applied
disciplines. Leaders in any walk of life will only be able to lead their colleagues if
they have a mastery of the intellectual and practical tools of their trade, whether
they work on Main Street or Wall Street, in a courtroom or a classroom.
Leadership Education and Development
The possibilities of leadership education and development have been seized by
virtually every large organization, so that it has become something of a profession
unto itself. Leadership programs of all sorts are now offered in most corporations and government agencies, and in many colleges and universities. We should
emphasize, however, that many of the programs do not instruct us consistently or
precisely about the possibilities of teaching leadership as a way to motivate change
and to set directions for the future. They sometimes appear to have a confused and
confusing agenda, much of which consists of different forms of management training or executive development that focus on the skills needed for a specific position. They can include everything from computer literacy to running a successful
meeting to deepening personal self-awareness. Many corporations use a variety of
developmental methods, including mentoring, coaching, formal education, and
developmental assignments, to enhance an executive's leadership readiness.
In effect, the activities and programs that go under the name of leadership
development are often quite distinct enterprises. Most of them are valid and
valuable in their own ways. As long as expectations are realistic, there is good
reason to believe that such efforts can make an incremental contribution to
a person's effectiveness as a positional leader, especially in terms of enlarged
18 Strategic Leadership
self-understanding, broadened professional experience, and a larger repertoire
of skills.
Yet any assessment of the capacity of these programs' success in developing the
attributes or methods of engaging, relational leadership requires a careful sorting
out of their actual goals and practices. They must serve a larger end if they are to
reach the heart of leadership—which is to mobilize and motivate the members of
an organization to enact shared values and purposes.
Much of the burden of our argument goes toward showing that an important
dimension of reciprocal leadership can be taught and learned as a process and
discipline of decision making. We have tried to go beyond the common effort to
list the characteristics of exceptional leaders as the primary way to understand
leadership. In his compelling account of authentic leadership as the chief executive of a major corporation, Bill George relates, "In my desire to become a leader,
I studied the biographies of world leaders, as well as great business leaders of my
era, attempting to develop the leadership characteristics they displayed. It didn't
work" (2003, 29).
To be sure, there is no leadership without leaders; yet many of the skills and abilities of leaders become effective dimensions of leadership only as they are woven into
a more encompassing process of decision making oriented to the fulfillment of the
purposes of the organization. In the context of a relational theory of leadership, we
can see the skills and talents of leaders in a new and dialectical perspective. Until
the capacities of leadership are woven into the realization of shared purposes and
commitments, they are resources waiting to be defined and given content. Unless
the leader's abilities carry and inspire a larger meaning than individual virtuosity,
they do not meet the tests of leadership as a reciprocal process oriented to values.
At the same time, engaging and intentional leadership cannot be sustained without
the hard and effective work of skilled leaders whose competencies and qualities are
necessary, but not sufficient to inspire commitment to shared purposes.
THE CONTEXT FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF
STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP
These reflections allow us to anticipate the possibilities of a formal and systematic process of strategic leadership. As a structured, collaborative method and
discipline of decision making, it can be taught and learned. Like all processes
and disciplines, it will be practiced more effectively by some than others. As we
shall see, it requires integrative and systemic thinking, quantitative reasoning,
collaborative decision making, effective communication, sensitivity to narratives
and values, and a capacity to work in structured group processes. As suggested by
our analysis of the attributes of leadership, these are not abilities that everyone
has in the same measure, but each step in the total process is part of an applied
discipline that can be learned.
Perhaps the most promising possibility for a systematic process of leadership is
its use by those who have been charged with strategic decision-making responsibilities. As we turn our inquiry in this direction, we shift our attention to the
The Phenomenon of Leadership 19
actual choice processes of academic organizations. In a collegiate setting, strategic decision making involves the governing board, the president and other top
officers, much of the administrative staff, and at one time or another many of the
faculty. Whether in committees, departments, schools, or the university itself,
issues that touch on questions of purpose and direction always raise the question
of leadership.
In all these contexts and many others, both the faculty and the administration
know the need for effective leadership but are also keenly aware of their peculiar
lack of authority. It is in the nature of things that most colleges and universities do
not have mechanisms of authority that can readily create or implement a vision
of the future. In hierarchical organizations, on the other hand, the development
of a vision may require involvement from many quarters, but once adopted it is
implemented through a clear system of authority.
One symptom of the tension in academic organizations is that leaders often
yearn for clearer authority and support in a chain of expectations that ends, for
presidents, with the governing board. Many other leaders reason tacitly that if
only they could improve their skills in leadership, they could create far better
results for their organization. Although the goal is worthy and important, even if
they could transform themselves and their talents, leadership as the creation and
enactment of a shared vision for the future is disproportionate to the skills
and practices of leaders considered in isolation. The dialectic between leaders and
leadership beckons us to move in a new direction and to draw systematically
on contemporary insights about leadership. By attending to relational leadership
and its role in both empowering and engaging individuals and groups in a collaborative strategy process, it offers a new way of thinking about both the tasks
and the authority of leadership. In this approach, leadership can be closely tied
to the methods and systems of decision making in a legitimate institutionalized
process. Effectively implementing the steps in the process does not require decision makers to reinvent themselves or their responsibilities, but it enables them
to mobilize and to amplify their existing authority and talents by drawing them
into a method of leadership.
Some years ago, James MacGregor Burns signaled with some urgency the need
to better understand and evaluate leadership as a phenomenon that shapes our
lives profoundly—in politics, the professions, science, the academy, and the arts.
He went on to lament that "There is . . . no school of leadership, intellectual or
practical" (1978, 2). Since that claim was made, schools, centers, and programs
on leadership have proliferated within and beyond universities, and resources for
understanding it have continued to grow through the efforts of many scholars and
reflective practitioners. Leadership has become a self-conscious interdisciplinary field of study with a range of theoretical and practical achievements. Yet we
would go further. Theory gives rise not just to knowledge about leadership, but to
methods of decision making for leadership. An understanding of leadership as the
enactment of shared purposes can frame the construction of an applied and integrative discipline for the exercise of strategic leadership. To effect that translation
between theory and practice is the aim and the subject of this work.