> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Commentary
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Down With ‘Service,’ Up With Leadership

By  Cathy N. Davidson
November 11, 2013
Down With ‘Service,’ Up With Leadership 1
Michael Morgenstern for the chronicle

Since August of 2011, on what started out as a book tour, I’ve visited more than 80 campuses, research centers, association meetings, corporate events, foundations, academic leadership gatherings, and policy centers. The conversations have been as diverse as the institutions themselves, but there’s been one notable area of concurrence: the shortage of talented faculty leaders at our institutions of higher learning.

I hear this lament from every quarter. Administrators say they often have to call upon the same small overworked group of faculty members to chair departments, committees, or initiatives successfully. Professors often blame “administrators” for institutional woes—even when those very “administrators” may well have been, just a few months before, their respected faculty colleagues. It’s as if once you cross over to running the institution, you become some evil, other character. And then, perhaps dangerously, I hear trustees, corporate executives, and policy makers repeat, as if it were factual, that “academics aren’t leaders.” The implication is that you need CEOs or former politicians or policy wonks to head our major institutions.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Since August of 2011, on what started out as a book tour, I’ve visited more than 80 campuses, research centers, association meetings, corporate events, foundations, academic leadership gatherings, and policy centers. The conversations have been as diverse as the institutions themselves, but there’s been one notable area of concurrence: the shortage of talented faculty leaders at our institutions of higher learning.

I hear this lament from every quarter. Administrators say they often have to call upon the same small overworked group of faculty members to chair departments, committees, or initiatives successfully. Professors often blame “administrators” for institutional woes—even when those very “administrators” may well have been, just a few months before, their respected faculty colleagues. It’s as if once you cross over to running the institution, you become some evil, other character. And then, perhaps dangerously, I hear trustees, corporate executives, and policy makers repeat, as if it were factual, that “academics aren’t leaders.” The implication is that you need CEOs or former politicians or policy wonks to head our major institutions.

This is a problem. I do not believe universities should have to “go outside” to find leaders. Yet I see, over and over, that many institutions offer no clear pathway to leadership. And I must admit, during the eight years when I was in the central administration of my own university, as vice provost for interdisciplinary studies, at a time of tremendous innovation and growth, we would often pledge not to go to the “same six usual suspects” to lead major committees and initiatives. And then, with one option after another failing, we would return to those same overworked people yet again.

Why? First, it’s a hard job. Being a good academic leader requires a mentality of change within extremely confining rules. The skills of good academic institutional leadership often do not go together in one person. Academic administration is one part parkour (being able to figure out ways to get over and around obstacles dexterously and fast), one part chess (understanding the constricted rules and terrain available for moving each player forward in relation to other players), and one part lottery (overnight a crisis or, less frequently, a windfall can turn all your well-wrought plans upside down). Finally, administration is also one part crochet (accounting for every stitch even as you keep an eye toward creating a coherent and attractive whole).

Whatever metaphor you want to use, academic leadership requires an unusual amount of creativity and ingenuity within an unusual amount of constraint. It also requires communication skills, social skills, and, of course, a bottom line of ironclad integrity, ethics, and good will for the success of the institution and all its members (even those who spend their time grousing about “those administrators”). It’s a formidable task.

ADVERTISEMENT

Our institutions could do a better job, in structural terms, of helping to prepare faculty members for the task of institutional leadership. One way would be by recognizing, rewarding, and reinforcing the continuities between collective faculty responsibilities (such as peer review and faculty governance) and administrative, institutional leadership. We don’t just shape our institutions; they also train and help to shape us and our values. Right now, embedded in our institutional reward and recognition system is a contempt for the administrative leadership our institutions so crave. Specifically, I am thinking about the three pillars of our professional advancement: scholarship, teaching, and—way behind the others—service.

What if instead of recognizing “service” we evaluated “institutional leadership”? Service implies obeisance to an institution fixed in its requirements. Is that really a value we support? Or don’t we want to recognize and reward, instead, genuine participation in the shaping of our institutions? This is not just a change in name, but a genuine rethinking of how we should recognize contributions to the democratic process informing leadership within institutions and our profession.

This idea grew out of a recent conversation I had, during a visit to Swarthmore College, with the art historian Patricia Reilly, associate provost for faculty development. Especially at a student-directed liberal-arts college, keeping a balance between institutional traditions, a changing student body, and the demands of the world students need to be prepared for requires special talents of leadership. Indeed, every institution has different but equally challenging mission-driven imperatives now. How do we identify, support, and reward the kind of faculty leadership that is needed at all times, but especially at times of change?

We may not intend it, but by naming such contributions as “service,” we are reinforcing exactly the wrong values. “Service” is typically treated almost as an afterthought and is fraught with contempt. Worse, it carries in its etymology a history of homage and servitude, servant, and even slave. No wonder in the unusually brutal, high-stakes competition known as “the tenure track” (voting people either into exile or into a relatively permanent place in our institutions), the person who excels at “service” is not the one most esteemed.

We all know plenty of colleagues who thrive in our profession even though they cannot be counted on to shoulder their share of responsibilities. We know which colleagues never read the files, write the letters, get in their readers’ reports, do their jobs on committees, get in the paperwork for the grant or the panel or the website, and so forth. Yet they often are promoted into tenured positions. We know who they are and manage to work around them and, no doubt, resent their success when someone else has had to do their “service” (or, worse, “busywork”).

ADVERTISEMENT

If from the beginning we made the three pillars of our academic-reward system scholarship, teaching, and institutional leadership, it would mean changing our idea of what responsible participation in an institution and a profession entails. If we are going to champion faculty governance, we need ways of rewarding and even cultivating the talents of those who are responsible, and giving decisive, helpful feedback to those who do not measure up. As with most other things, you improve with both practice and positive reinforcement. Enacting the drudgeries of service (including doing the work left undone by irresponsible others) is exactly the opposite of contributing to the vitality of an institution or a profession, especially when difficult decisions must be made.

Finally, rewarding institutional leadership (as distinct from service) is not the same as rewarding sycophants or those who simply support the status quo. For those of us who avidly support institutional change, it is also important to make alliances with others who not only support change but are skilled at making it happen. You cannot change institutions without experience of the requirements, limits, and possibilities (parkour and crochet) of those institutions. If we rethink institutional leadership as a requirement for professional advancement, we might also help to shape future leaders who have the capacity to transform institutions—not simply serve them.

Cathy N. Davidson is a professor of interdisciplinary studies at Duke University. She is the author, most recently, of Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn (2011, Viking Press).

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Opinion
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin