LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION

                                                                                                                                   Tale of Two Universities

                                                                                                                                         Timothy Stagich, Ph.D.

        Leadership in Higher Education is much more than the art of compromise and the politics involved in keeping boards and staff members happy and budgets balanced. Real leadership consists of collaborating with board members, staff and teachers regarding the teaching, learning, performance and research opportunities of their organizations and assimilating new ideas while adapting to the changing landscape of the social and political environment. The following provides two examples of how universities operate – one under the old system of leadership and the other under a more collaborative and dynamic approach to leadership (See Leadership in Education).

       Old School University operates under a tight budget which has been strapped in recent years through declining student enrollments. The Leadership of Old School including the President and Board of Directors in an effort to increase revenue and boost enrollment has developed a new curriculum of narrowly focused practical degrees and developed a fast track evening adult education program aimed at the working adult population who have little time available during the day. In addition, because Old School has little room for the expansion of their campus, they have developed an online degree program so students could pursue degrees over the internet in the convenience of their homes. As a direct result of their narrowly focused curriculum that increased the number of disciplines and doubled the “technical requirements” for teaching faculty, department heads and faculty became increasingly protective of their fields of study while they developed new vocabulary, built barriers to other disciplines and prevented faculty from collaborative work outside of their disciplines based upon narrow tenure criteria.

       In the meantime, students continued to flock to the University for quick and easy degrees that could be attained in half the time. And, research faculty began to develop increasingly narrow studies that became more and more meaningless as faculty were prevented from working openly with other disciplines if they wanted tenure. When two chemistry majors complained their curriculum was too narrow as they wanted to do collaborative research with other departments, they were told to stay in their “own” departments to conduct their research as other departments used a different “language” for their studies. When the students graduated, they immediately found jobs in the Pharmaceutical Industry and continued their narrow laboratory research developing drugs that worked well in the lab but had many side effects when used over time by real people. Subsequently, Old School University has increased their budget and even found more ways of saving money by recruiting part time adjunct faculty with little knowledge of theory but considerable “practical experience.”

       In contrast, New School University had many of the same budget problems as Old School, but decided to take a much different approach. The Collaborative Leadership consisting of the President and Board of Directors met with representatives of each Department consisting of teachers, professors and researchers to design curriculum that would be built upon an interdisciplinary and collaborative learning model. This interdisciplinary approach encouraged the students to seek out answers to their questions across disciplines and do research that was more connected and realistic communicating often and openly with various students and professors from different departments. Tenure criteria was changed to encourage open communication with other disciplines and the disciplinary “jargon” of each discipline was replaced with language all of the faculty and students could understand. New School continued to offer degrees in most of the traditional disciplines, but developed new core curriculum that emphasized critical thinking across disciplines and collaborative learning, communication and leadership as well as teamwork and collaborative research methodologies. They marketed their school’s new program and core curriculum as necessary and foundational for every area of study. And, the leadership of New School even developed online curriculum to enhance communication and collaboration among faculty and students.                                                                                                                  

       As a direct result of their efforts, students of New School graduated with the collaborative leadership and research abilities to more readily work with various groups and disciplines. Some of their students were hired by the health care industry to develop a collaborative and democratic approach to health care delivery that gave better quality as well as more efficient and more affordable care to all segments of the population based upon income. Other students became key researchers who succeeded in working with groups of biologists and chemists to discover new sources of stem cells eliminating the need for the use of undeveloped embryos. Finally, other graduates of the Collaborative Leadership Program were hired by the new U.S. President to find more collaborative, democratic and efficient ways to respond to the needs of U.S. citizens in natural disasters as well as in national emergencies.

       Subsequently, New School University slowly increased their revenue over time. And, while Old School University became rich, New School sustained themselves and prospered in the quality of their graduates and the difference they made in society. Gradually, the reputation of Old School continued to decline.

 Copyright 2008: Global Leadership Resources - For classroom and teaching use only.

Note: The above example is based upon the concepts and principles found in the book, Collaborative Leadership and Global Transformation by Timothy Stagich, Ph.D.

                                                                                     Discussion Questions

1. Discuss the different approaches to leadership used by Old School University and New School University.
2. What are the advantages of the Collaborative Approach to Leadership and Curriculum Development? Disadvantages, if any?
3. Old School University Leadership chose the fast track to financial success. What are the problems with this strategy and why will it eventually fail?
4. How does the element of greed contribute to the decline in school reputation?
5. What are the real academic and social benefits of collaborative learning, communication and research?
6. Does financial success necessarily equate with a quality academic program?
7. Discuss other future possibilities for success in contributing to a better society for students educated at New School University.