Table Of ContentDOCUMENT RESUME
ED 357 698
HE 026 446
AUTHOR
Bensimon, Estela Mara; Neumann, Anna
TITLE
Redesigning Collegiate Leadership: Teams and Teamwork
in Higher Education.
INSTITUTION
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing. Coll. of
Education.; Pennsylvania State Univ., University
Park. Center for the Study of Higher Education.
SPONS AGENCY
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
[92]
CONTRACT
R117G10037
NOTE
355p.; Published in book form by Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2715 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD
21218-4319 (ISBN-0-8018-4561-0: $29.95).
PUB TYPE
Information Analyses (070)
Reports
Research /Technical (143)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC15 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
Administrative Organization; *College Administration;
Comparative Analysis; Higher Education; Interviews;
*Leadership; *Management Teams; Organizational
Development; Postsecondary Education; Powe
Structure; *Teamwork
ABSTRACT
This report examines the usefulness of leadership
teams in higher education based on study results involving 15
institutions of higher education located throughout the United
States. In chapters 1 and 2 the concept of the "leadership team" is
introduced by means of:
a discussion of the advantages and
(1)
disadvantages of teamwork; and (2) a comparison of the conventional
view of leadership as a "one-person act" with the idea that
leadership is a shared, interactive, culturally framed activity.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 explore how a team works when it is thought of
in cultural terms, including what leaders may hope to derive from
team functioning, how team members think together, and how teams that
work like complex social brains are designed. A variety of examples
are presented, drawn from the study, to make the point that what the
team and their members do, and especially how they think, makes
a,
difference between real teamwork, and teamwork that is illusory.
Chapters 6, 7, and 8 are devoted to issues of team building,
including how to develop teams that are inclusive and responsive to
complex campus changes. The book concludes with a review of the
principles of good teamwork and recommendations for team building.
Appendices include a sample interview protocol. Contains 86
references. (GLR)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
mIDMIXOMING COMAGIUM UhIMPICEPs
U ur =OUR IDUCATION
T
Anna Desna=
Motl* Nara Densinon
Department of Staaational
Center for the Stair
Administration
of Ifigber law satiate
Michigan Itaie University
Pennsylvania State University
U $ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Once of Educat.onar Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER tERICI
Ins document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organaatron
orrgonat.no
o Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction Quality
Points or new or op.nrons stated rn th.s doCo.
men, do not necessarily represent official
OERI posrtroo 0 policy
Project No.:
1U7G10037
84.117G
CODA No.:
BEST COPY
AVAILAIRE
2
CONTENTS
ii
Tables
iii
Introduction
and the
the Need, the Promise,
Leadership by Teams:
1.
1
Reality
Teams
Teams:
Think About Leadership
A Different Way to
2.
26
as Cultures
and Neglect to
How Leaders Use --
What Teams Can Do:
3.
58
Use -- Their Teams
100
Together .
The Art of Thinking
.
.
Making Teams Work:
4.
149
Searching for a Good Team
5.
and Interpretive
It Demands Relational
Team Building:
6.
196
Work
Reconstructing Leadership
Speaking to Administrators:
7.
253
Campuses
Practice for Teams and
.
.
.
.
as a Collective
and Think
Teams that Lead, Act,
Toward the Creation of
8.
281
Together
319
APPENDIX A
323
APPENDIX B
325
REFERENCES
0.0
TABLES
Table
3.1
Three
Functions
of Presidential
Teams
Table
4.1
Eight
Thinking
Roles
for
a Presidential
Team
ii
4
INTRODUCTION
What is your image of good leadership?
If you are like most
people you think of leadership as
a rare and special talent,
power, or expertise that only a few "chosen" individuals
are
lucky enough to possess.
Although the study of leadership has
traditionally focused on such special individuals
-- on their
traits, behaviors, skills,
or influence tactics -- there is now
considerable interest in looking at leadership,
not as a "one-
person act," but as a collaborative endeavor.
We are beginning
to think of leadership, not in terms of single individuals,
but
in terms of teams.
In particular, we see a growing interest in
the dynamics of interactive leadership at the executive
level in
a variety of organizations, be they corporations, public
agencies, or colleges and universities.
We see the theme of
collective and interactive leadership throughout
the professional
literature:
We hear references to "the team as hero" (Reich
1987); we hear about the strengths of "integrative leadership
(Kanter 1983); and we attend to slogans like, "Forget charisma,
focus on teamwork" (Cox 1989).
The growing interest in team-oriented leadership has also
provoked serious debate.
Advocates of the collaborative
perspective contend that team-oriented leadership
makes it easier
for organizations to adapt to technologically complex and
information-rich environments (Zuboff 1988, Kanter 1983,
Cleveland 1985).
The central premise of the collaborative view
is that learning is the most important activity of
modern-day
iii
organizations.
Kanter (1983) maintains that
collaborative modes
of management stimulate the
search for solutions "beyond
what the
organization already 'knows'
(or, to be more accurate,
beyoLd
what its leaders think they
know)" (p. 29).
Similarly, Zuboff
(1988) writes that in the "age
of the smart machine"
the
increased flow of information
demands "a more team-centered,
problem-solving orientation" (p.
360) so that organizations
are
in a position to "maximize
[their] own ability to learn
and
explore the implications of
that learning" (p. 398).
In short,
advocates believe that a team-centered
managerial approach
enhances the capacity of organizations
to master new knowledge
and to use it effectively
to improve innovation, problem-solving,
and productivity.
Dissenters argue that the collaborative
perspective is
incompatible with the cultural
values of North American society.
They also maintain that
a team orientation is inconsistent
with
characteristics most likely to elicit
superior leadership.
The
crux of the dissenters' view is that North
American
entrepreneurship is made possible
by individualism (Fellows
1989); leaders (as opposed to managers)
are the product of
experiences that imbue them with
a sense of separateness or
apartness from those around them (Zaleznick
1989).
The debate between the individualist
and collectivist
camps
has occurred mostly through research
or through other forms of
discourse focusing on corporate organizations,
and through
comparative international studies of
organizations.
For the most
iv
0
part, the debate has not yet surfaced with
regard to the
leadership of academic organizations.
Although college
presidents and other campus leaders often
espouse a teamwork
ideology, what this means for academic
organizations specifically
is not clear.
Most often, the usefulness of
leadership teams is
taken for granted, which
means that the particular nature of
their "usefulness" is left unexamined.
The Study of Leadershit Teams
Our knowledge of leadership teams is
based primarily on
a study that we collaboratively planned and implemented.
During
the course of the study,
we visited fifteen institutions, located
throughout the United States, twice, first
in 1986-87 and again
in 1988-89.
During our second visit we conducted
individual
interviews with the president and
up to four members of her or
his leadership team about the nature
of the team's organization,
functions, and internal dynamics (a
copy of the interview
protocol is provided in Appendix A).
In selecting interviewees
we asked each president to identify up to four
individuals whom
she or he considered
as members of her or his leadership team.
For the most part, the presidents named
the chief officers of
typical college and university divisions
-- academic affairs,
finance and administration, student affairs,
rind external affairs
or development.
We interviewed a total of seventy individuals
on
1.4
4
a one-to-one
basis, spending
approximately three
hours with
each
president and
an hour and
a half with each
of the other
team
members (many
of whom carried
the title of
vice president,
although others
were deans,
directors, executive
assistants,
etc.)
Additionally,
because we
were collecting
these data
as
part of a
larger study
(the Institutional
Leadership
Project of
the National
Center for
Postsecondary
Governance and
Finance),
we
also conducted
interviews with
faculty and
trustees.
From these
multiple views
wa were able
to construct
comprehensive
images of
leadership
processes in the
sample institutions.
In addition
to
learning how
the president
and the
persons that she
or he had
designated worked
together
as a team,
we collected
data on how
faculty perceive
their
administrative
leaders, including
the
effectiveness of
the president,
individual
team members
(e.g.,
vice presidents),
and the
leadership team
collectively.
Our data
base included
transcripts of
the seventy
personal
interviews
as
well as
comprehensive
case studies
for each of
the fifteen
institutions.
Although we spoke
at great
length with
the presidents
and
members of their
leadership
teams, we did
not observe
them at
work as such.
All of the
data we present
were, therefore,
derived exclusively
from our
interviews.
The fifteen
institutions
involved in
the study
were diverse
in type,
including four
research
universities,
four public
comprehensive
four-year colleges,
four independent
colleges, and
three community
colleges.
Nine of the
institutions
were public;
vi
3
The sample was also diverse in terms of
six were private.
including, for example, a mixture
program emphasis and location,
Of the fifteen
of urban, su)urban, and rural settings.
Eleven of the presidents were
presidents, four were women.
relative newcomers to their position (in office for less than
remaining
five years with some only in their first year); the
In keeping
four had been in office for a minimum of seven years.
with our promises of confidentiality, we use pseudonyms to mask
institutional and individual identities, and we refer to all
We
institutions as "colleges," regardless of their real type.
titles to
also use generic rather than institutionally specific
designate roles, governance bodies, college events, etc.
in
The intent of the study was to explore models of teamwork
orientations
higher education, taking into account the leadership
Our interest was to
of presidents and their executive officers.
examine how presidents and their designated team members work
their working
together; how team members perceive the quality of
relationships; how presidents select, shape, and maintain
particularly effective teams; and how teams address conflict and
Even though this
diversity of orientation among team members.
collected at the fifteen
book relies greatly on interview data
in
participating institutions, it is more than a research report
of others and on our
that we also rely on the published research
in a variety of groups.
own experiences as participants
college leaders
We hope that this book will be valuable to
leadership teams and promoting
concerned with building effective
vii
teamwork.
In Chapters
1 and 2 we introduce
the concept of
the
" leadership
team" (or
as we refer to it in
terms of
our study,
the "presidential
team" or the "top
administrative team").
Following a discussion
of the advantages
and disadvantages
of
teamwork (Chapter
1), we contrast
the conventional
view of
leadership as
a "one-person act"
to the theme
of this book
--
that leadership
is a shared,
interactive,
culturally framed
activity (Chapter
2).
In Chapters 3,
4, and 5,
we explore, in
greater detail, how
a team works when
we think of it in
cultural
terms, including
what leaders
may hope to derive
from team
functioning (Chapter
3), how team
members think
together (Chapter
4), and how
teams that work
like complex
social brains
are
designed (Chapter
5).
In these chapters
we use a variety of
case
examples, drawn
from our study,
to make the
point that what
teams
and their members
do, and especially
how they think,
makes a
difference between
"real" teamwork,
on the one hand,
and teamwork
that we deem
as "illusory"
on the other.
Chapters 6, 7, and
8
are devoted to issues
of team building,
including how to
develop
teams that are
inclusive (Chapter
6) and responsive
to complex
campus changes (Chapter
7).
We conclude with
principles of good
teamwork and
recommendations for
team building
(Chapter 8).
While the book
speaks strongly
to college and
university
presidents, it should
also be of interest
and use to other
campus
leaders who want to
better understand
their own (and
their
teammates') potential
for contribution
to a leadership
team.
In an extensive
review of leadership
development
programs,
viii
I 0
