Distributed & Shared Leadership

HOW HAS SHARED GOVERNANCE CHANGED IN HIGHER EDUCATION

TODAY?

Presented by:Theresa Felder

Maryann McNeilHarvey Shaw

Alexandra (Sasha) Watkins

Problem of Practice Shared governance has been a hallmark of higher education since the early twentieth century. However, internal and external pressures have created the need to rethink the structure and practice of distributed/shared leadership in colleges and universities. An example of this problem is illustrated in the medical school interview at the end of this presentation.

Theoretical Perspective on Distributed/Shared Leadership

Trait & Contingency Theories of Leadership

Leadership = actions of an individual leader

Focus on:• Individual leader• Leader’s personal traits, characteristics, and behaviors• Expertise that is within the leader• Vertical unilateral relationships (from leader to followers)

Trait & Contingency Theories of Leadership

Leader

Followers

From “heroic” to “post-heroic” representation of leadership

Trait & Contingency Leadership Theories Shared & Distributed Leadership Theories

Reasons for the Shift

• Rise in cross-functional teams• Rise in speed of delivery• Availability of info• Greater job complexity• Increasing global interdependence• Demands for inclusion and diversity

Distributed and Shared Leadership Theories

Leadership = collective social process

Focus on:• Groups of interacting individuals• Leadership activities rather than roles• Expertise that is within many not the few• Vertical and horizontal reciprocal relationships

Distributed and Shared Leadership Theories

Individual

Individual

IndividualIndividual

Individual

Group

Theoretical Origins• The notion of “fulfilling organizational goals through people” goes back to

ancient times (Bolden, 2011, p. 252)

• Gibb (1954): “leadership is probably best conceived as a group quality, as set of functions which must be carried out by the group” (Gibb 1954, as cited in Bolden, 2011, p. 252)

• 1940’s-1990’s: work by various theoreticians on reciprocal influence, diffusion of leadership functions within groups, distribution of power and influence, dual leadership, sharing leadership, informal leadership, distributed cognition, organizational learning theory, etc.

• Mid-1990’s - Present: increase in number of publications on shared and distributed leadership in academic literature (see next slide)

Increase in Number of Publications Since mid-1990’s

Source: Bolden, 2011, p. 255

Lack of Consensus in Literature• Some authors use terms Distributed Leadership (DL) and Shared Leadership

(SL) interchangeably

• The majority of authors consider distributed leadership (DL) as incorporating SL, democratic, and other related forms of leadership

• Spillane (2005) argues that while leadership can be shared, sharing of leadership is not sufficient for it to be “distributed”

• Concept of SL is more popular in the US as compared to UK; more articles on SL in the healthcare field, more articles on DL in educational field (Bolden, 2011)

Main Premises of DL and SL• Functioning of an organization cannot be understood only by focusing on the actions of an individual

leader

• “Actions of any individual leader are less important than the collective leadership provided by many members of the organization, including both formal and informal leaders” (Yukl, 2013, p. 294)

• Even in hierarchical top-down organizations leadership is distributed; the question is how and why, who controls the distribution, and exactly what gets distributed (Bolden, 2011)

• There are many ways to share and distribute leadership in organizations, and some are more successful than others

• DL and SL are not simply an aggregation of the individual contributions; do not apply only to collaborative situations; do not negate importance of formal leaders; do not imply that everyone is a leader; do not provide a blueprint for leadership and management (Bolden 2011, Spillane 2005)

Distributed Leadership (DL)“Rather than viewing leadership practice as a product of a leader’s knowledge and skill, the distributed leadership perspective defines it as the interactions between people and their situation” (Spillane, 2005, p. 144)

Understanding of situation is different from contingency theories perspective that views situation as an independent variable. From the DL perspective:

• Situation “defines leadership practice in interaction with leaders and followers” (Spillane, 2005, p. 149)

• “Aspects of the situation can either enable or constrain practice, while practice can transform the situation” (Spillane, 2005, p. 149)

Shared Leadership (SL)“Shared leadership can be conceptualized along the continuum based on the number of leadership sources (i.e., team members) having a high degree of influence in a team” (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007, p.1220)

Three dimensions of the team environment that facilitate SL:• Shared purpose: shared understanding and focus on collective goals• Social support: support provided by the members to each other• Voice: having input into decision making

Source: Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007

Areas of Research Interest in SL• What leadership roles can be shared by group members?• What are the demands, events, or processes that trigger

the sharing of leadership?• What factors facilitate displaying of shared leadership?• What influence approaches are most conducive with

shared leadership?• What are the evolutionary stages that occur when

leadership is shared?Source: Conger & Pearce, 2003

Distributed/Shared Leadership in Higher EducationSHARED GOVERNANCE

Watch Video for Introduction to Shared Governance(note – hit escape to move to the next slide after viewing video in slideshow mode)

What is Shared Governance? “Governance is the term we give to the structures and processes that academic institutions invent to achieve balance between the claims of two different, but equally valid, systems for organizational control and influence.” (Birnbaum, 2004)

The two main systems are:

•The Role of Trustees and Administration – based on legal authority

•The Role of Faculty – based on professional authority

Distributed/Shared Leadership in Higher Education

As cited in Goslin, Bolden & Petrov, 2009, p. 307

Statement of Government of Colleges and Universities

The statement, which is a common foundation for governance in higher education, was jointly developed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB).

The basic belief espoused in the statement is –

“a college or university in which all the components are aware of their interdependence, of the usefulness of communication among themselves, and of the force of joint action will enjoy increased capacity to solve educational problems.” (Mallory, 2010)

In other words, all units of the college must work collaboratively to move the mission and vision of the institution forward.

Governance is a Joint effort between:1. Governing Board2. Administration3. Faculty4. Students5. Others

Source: https://mycollege.sunybroome.edu/web/shared-governance/shared-governance-home

What are Good Governance Practices?

Source: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/Governance/Collection_EN.asp

Decision Making Process

Source: http://californiacompetes.org/news_and_events/shared-governance-that-works/

Power and Authority Issues in GovernancePeople who are accountable for decisions must have the authority to make them

Those with authority to make decisions should solicit the involvement of all stakeholders

Power Issues and Decision-Making

ADMINISTRATORS

“My authority as President has not diminished. The board still holds me accountable, but I make better decisions after getting the input from the college community.”

FACULTY

“There are more people involved in making decisions, but we’re not so naïve to think that we’ve leveled the playing field. A few still hold the power to make final decisions.”

Source: Heaney, 2010

Relationships, Trust and Leadership in Governance

“Structures and processes are not the heart of organizations – people and relationships are.” (Wheatley, 1996 as cited by Kezar, 2004)

“Organizations thrive only to the extent that participant relationships are central to decision-making processes.” (Del Favero, 2003 as cited by Kezar, 2004)“Effective governance

depends on people being willing to share their insights and ideas. Unless there are relationships of respect and trust, people do not share ideas.” (Kezar, 2004)

“A governance system can operate with imperfect structures and processes, but if leadership is missing relationships and trust damaged, the governance system will likely fail…” (Kezar, 2004)“There is widespread

understanding that structure is less important than the underlying culture it supports.” (Heaney, 2010)

Shared Governance Pressures

System Model for Shared Governance

(Birenbaum, as cited in Morphew, 1999)

Pressures from the Environment Shift in society’s expectations about the academy: from developer of democratic citizens to developer of workplace-ready adults

◦ Forces: Neoliberal thought, corporate initiatives◦ Impacts: Strains on decision-making around low-status programs, increased for-profit competition

Relationship of public academic institutions with government◦ Forces: Decreased or static funding, increased scrutiny of low-status programs by lawmakers◦ Impacts: Financial pressures, strains on decision-making

Pressures from the Environment Increasing role of technology in the classroom

◦ Forces: Increased use on technology through cooperative relationships with corporate partners, , learning technologies reducing faculty’s intermediary role

◦ Impact: Reduced clarity on academic mission (reach or revenue), shifting understanding of the role of faculty in the learning process

Sifting perceptions in society about the academy◦ Forces: 24/7/365 learning culture, increasing external assessments◦ Impact: Perception of unresponsive egocentrism

Pressures Within the Technical Core

Increased role of adjunct faculty◦ Forces: Economic pressures◦ Impact: Fewer voices involved in leadership decisions, disparity in wages and pressure from

administrators

Increased diversification of voices in decision making◦ Forces: International campuses and corporate partnerships bring different cultures and decision-making

processes◦ Impact: Shared governance process is muddled

Pressures Within the Administrative Core

Increased presence of non-academic administrators◦ Forces: Increased administrative organization, external pressures for managerial culture◦ Impact: Colliding definitions of success, decision making, service, and responsibility

Voices of Pressures on Shared Governance

“There are increased pressures on tenured and probationary faculty members to participate in groups such as the faulty senate.” (Morphew, 1999)

“Shared governance ideals may sometimes be set aside or ignored by the campus administration.” (Morphew, 1999)

“Many faculty have yet to fully embracethe anytime-anywhere access to raw information and still believe it is their command of facts that matter.” (Cavanaugh, 2010)

“Reducing higher education to the handmaiden of corporate culture works against the critical social imperative of educating citizens who can sustain and develop inclusive democratic public spheres.” (Giroux, 2002)

“(C)hanges in the ways in which knowledge is created and transmitted in today’s colleges…have already altered the relationship between the technical and administrative cores.” (Morphew, 1999)

Addressing the Pressures with Leadership Strategies

As cited in Goslin, Bolden & Petrov, 2009, p. 300

Faculty Interview: Shared Leadership Problem of Practice:How can the faculty integrate the medical school curriculum in the timeline and budget constraints proposed by the administration?

INTERVIEWER: MARYANN MACNEIL

INTERVIEWEE: DR. DW, FACULTY CHAIR, PRINCIPLES INTEGRATING SCIENCE AND MEDICINE (PRISM)MEDICAL SCHOOL CURRICULUM RESTRUCTURING 2015

We are investigating shared leadership in education. The current research suggests that educators no longer believe that administration can serve as the only leader in education and that faculty must be involved in leadership and as facilitators of change. Do you agree that this is the current trend at the University?

Dr. DV:

Yes and this has been somewhat put in place by the International Association of Medical Science Educators (IAMSE). It is really important to have faculty, who face the day to day challenges of education, on the boards involved in decision making. Otherwise you have people who have no idea what it is like to teach the students making decisions that are just not practical. We need a pedagogical approach, and those decisions need to be made by those that are actually doing the teaching. The administration is aware of this. We are fortunate to have a university and department that puts such an emphasis on education.

Define and describe the goals related to the reorganization of the medical school curriculum . Is this a shared vision of the administration and faculty?

Dr. DV:

The goals include creating a new curriculum that integrates the seven medical school foundational science courses by promoting an understanding of the human body. The integration should avoid any repetition and promote learning and teaching approaches that reflect evidence based pedagogical practice. We want to encourage lifelong independent learning by incorporating independent activities outside of the classroom with the goal of developing critical thinking. In addition, we hope to integrate the clinical science into the new curriculum to prepare the students for clerkship training. A focus will be promoting professionalism and ethical values expected in medicine.

Yes we share the vision, and we use those goals to guide what we do. The common goals were to integrate the curriculum, cut down on teaching hours and of course make sure the students are prepared to pass the board examinations. The goals were initially generated by the faculty, then sent to administration for approval or modification. The Office of Medical Education is currently generating a survey to give to students to determine if the goals set by faculty AND administration are truly being addressed.

Are there outside influences that have an effect on the decisions that are being made in the restricting? Is the leadership truly shared? Or does the administration have the final say in a decision?

Dr. DV:

Yes, and many of our policies and procedures are motivated by the Liaison Committee for Medical Education (LCME) restrictions. The LCME wants half of the curriculum devoted to independent study. This resulted in a restructuring that allows the students to have most afternoons off to participate in online interactive activities. The LCME documentation is cumbersome and labor intensive, which is very challenging for us as we try to change the entire first year curriculum by next fall.Yes, Ownership of these changes is both faculty and administration driven.

Describe the common goals of the administration and faculty. Are there specific areas of tension or areas of conflict?

Dr. DV:

In addition to the curriculum change, the structure of the medical school recognizes the mission of research, medicine and academics. There are lots of administrative subcommittees, and faculty is most often involved to some level.Budget is the primary area of tension. There are constraints in place. Often there is no compensation for overworked faculty, especially as the new curriculum requires never ending hours. Fortunately, we have very dedicated faculty, and the administration does respect that. We have had areas of success in this area. For example, faculty pushed for an the expensive testing center that was built last year. Another problem is the time constraints to implement the curriculum change by next year (fall 2015). The administration wants this, many faculty have concerns that go beyond compensation or budget.

Is there a certain level of trust and mutual respect between the administration and faculty committee?Is there open and honest communication between the groups?Describe some of the problems of shared leadership. Were these anticipated?How has the faculty/administration relationship grown as a result of the shared leadership?Do you feel that shared leadership is an area that will grow and develop as a professional practice of linking leading and learning? How can improvements be made?

Dr. DV:

Yes, there is a great deal of trust and respect between the committees. We work well together and we are very fortunate to have such a dedicated group, both administration and faculty members, devoted to the project. Yes, there is communication and respect between the groups.

That being said, some faculty members did not want to change, especially in the timeframe outlined by the administration. We are changing the curriculum over a period of 11 months, some schools take 3-4 years to implement such a change. The administration knew who they could count on to get this job done, and those faculty members have lead the committees. Most faculty members, even if initially resistant, have accepted the changes and cooperated.

Do you feel that this experience will result in the continued growth and development of shared leadership and cooperation between administration and faculty?

Dr. V.

The relationship is good and I expect that it will continue to grow. The administration has recently hired someone new to oversee the budget and help lessen the gap between what faculty asks for and actually receives. The administration listens and responds to the faculty and has entrusted them with the task of integrating the curriculum in very limited time. I think that speaks of the trust level, and working relationship between the two. It hasn’t been easy, as we started last September when faculty was overwhelmed with teaching. The faculty has worked hard on this, and the administration recognizes it. I expect our relationship to continue as it is, working together to make necessary changes.

According to Kutner, et al. (2006), collaboration in medical education is essential and required for strategic planning purposes and to proactively discuss the flow of money with the intent of learning from previous successes and failures of collaboration (p. 172).

The interview with Dr. DV demonstrated that although there are some challenging areas such as budget and time constraints, the shared leadership relationship in the medical school curriculum change has been successful. It is interesting that many articles related to shared leadership discuss budget or “flow of money” as a potential area of tension and this was found to be true according to Dr. DV. Overall, it appears that the relationship between administration and faculty is one of open communication and mutual respect.

Interview Summary

Evidence of Shared Governance from the Interview

Decisions on pedagogy and curriculum being made by faculty

Faculty developed goals for the curriculum redesign, approved/modified by administration, students voices also included

Faculty and administration jointly decided to apply external standards (LCME)

Strong levels of trust, respect, and communication reported between faculty and administration

Administration recently added budget manager in response to faculty requests

Evidence of Pressures on Shared Governance from the Interview

Increasing role of technology in the classroom (online interactive activities) disturbing traditional relationship among, faculty, students, and knowledge

Unclear how the compressed timeline for curricular change was agreed – source of contention?

Increased voices of accountability in decision making (IAMSE, LCME)

Increased management by administrators (involved in selecting committee heads)

Signs of friction over pace of change from some faculty

Recommendations to Administrators and Faculty

Faculty:◦ Continue striving for strong classroom experiences for your students◦ Ensure that the use of technology in the curriculum serves strong educational objectives◦ Begin identifying supports needed for the roll-out of the new curriculum, including technology support,

additional adjuncts, and on-going fine-tuning of the curriculum

Administrators:◦ Demonstrate that the compressed timeline for curricular change and the presence of external standards

supports significant administrative objectives ◦ Seek to keep everyone in the room and encourage two-way communication◦ Maintain the positive culture as student voices are added and the new curriculum rolls out

References Birnbaum, R. (2004). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. New Directions for Higher Education, (127), 5-22.

Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251-269.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of management Journal, 50(5), 1217-1234.

Cavanaugh, J. (2010). How academia can avoid withering and flourish instead. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13(4), 223–233.

Conger, J. A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). A landscape of opportunities. In Shared leadership. Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, pp. 285-303.

Gosling, J., Bolden, R., & Petrov, G. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education: What does it accomplish?. Leadership, 5(3), 299-310.

Heaney, T. (2010). Democracy, shared governance, and the university. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 2010(128), 69-79. doi:10.1002/ace.392

References Kezar, A. (2004). What is more important to effective governance: Relationships, trust, and leadership, or structures and formal processes? New Directions for Higher Education, (127), 35-46.

Kutner, J.S., Westfall, J.M. Morrison, E.H., Beach, M.C, Jacobs, E.A. & Rosenblatt, R. A. (2006). Facilitating collaboration among academic generalist disciplines: A call to action. Annuals of Family Medicine, 4(2), 172-176.

Mallory, B. L. (2010). Practicing what we preach: Democratic practices in institutional governance. New Directions for Higher Education, (152), 91-97. doi:10.1002/he.417

Morphew, C. C. (1999). Challenges facing shared governance within the college. New Directions for Higher Education, (105), 71.

Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150.

Yukl, G.A. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.