Higher Education 38: 311–331, 1999.

311
© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Leaders and managers: Essential skills required within higher

education

KATHRYN S. HOFF
College of Technology, Bowling Green State University, OH 43403-0301, Bowling Green,
USA. E-mail: khoff@bgnet.bgsu.edu

Abstract. As the leaders of today’s higher educational institutions create and enhance their
vision to meet the needs of the changing student population into the twenty-first century, the
skills and attributes required are also changing. This article provides an overview of those
skills and attributes viewed as valuable in this changing environment, such as encouraging
reflective backtalk and the ability to see the long view; the roles (e.g., figurehead, leader, and
liaison) and relationships (both internal and external to the institution) in which the leaders are
engaged; governance and organizational structures of colleges and universities (particularly in
the United States); the culture, values, and vision of these institutions; and strategic planning
and financial management processes required. It is imperative that the leaders and managers
of our higher educational institutions embrace all their roles, share responsibility with formal
and informal leaders from faculty and staff groups, and recognize and embrace change.

What is a leader? What is a manager? Are both needed for America’s

institutions of higher education to remain viable entities as we approach
the beginning of the twenty-first century? What attributes are character-
istic of leaders, and of managers? Can individuals possess characteristics of
both, therefore demonstrating both leadership and management capabilities?
Responses to these and other questions will be addressed in this article as the
issues that colleges and universities face in the near future are discussed.
The issues facing higher education today are not simple. In most cases
they are multidimensional, broad in scope, and require complex assessment,
planning, implementation, and evaluation. Although many of these issues
are not new to the environment of higher education, societal, technological,
economic, and political factors are altering the way in which they must be
viewed. Some of the issues foremost in the minds of educational leaders
today are the changing demographics of our student and faculty popula-
tions, alliance building with community and global organizations, changing
and diminishing financial resource bases, fund raising and development
activities, rapid technological advancement, diversity, continuing profes-
sional and leadership development activities for all constituencies on campus,
community building both on campus and with the surrounding community,
gender equity, curriculum reform, and ethical considerations in relation to
312 KATHRYN S. HOFF

all services and programs offered (Anderson 1993; DePree 1989, 1992; Gaff
and Simpson 1994; Hauptman 1993; Owens 1995; Simerly 1991; Vandament
1989; Wheatley 1992).
The discussion of leaders and managers in this article is intended to
include all individuals within the postsecondary educational environment.
Not everyone engaged in administration, service, research, or instructional
activities within this environment holds an official title of leader or manager.
All do, however, possess and exhibit some of these characteristics at least
some of the time. One thing is clear, in order to be a leader one must have
followers. Often those viewed as effective leaders are those who understand
their role in securing resources so that those they serve may effectively and
efficiently perform their own responsibilities (Block 1993; Greenleaf 1977).
Therefore, this article is written with all members of a college or university
community in mind, not just those in positions of authority.
Learning organizations are those in which “people continually expand
their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive
patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and
where people are continually learning how to learn together” (Senge 1990,
p. 3). According to Rowley, Lujan and Dolence (1998) there are institu-
tions of higher education that will not survive into the 21st century. As key
issues are faced, endurance will depend on the ability to develop and focus
on the market niche that takes advantage of the positive characteristics and
distinctive attributes of each institution.
The real issue lies in the capacity of individual campuses to recognize the
fundamental changes required in the information age, to design effective
roles for themselves within those change opportunities, and to innovate
how they reach out to new and lifelong learners. (Rowley, Lujan and
Dolence 1998, p. 25)

Leaders of these institutions will need to exhibit the unique attributes, skills,
and values required to function in this changing environment.

Definitions

What is a leader? It has been reported that there are no fewer than 350 defini-
tions of leadership alone in the literature related to organizational behavior.
Following a review of many of these definitions, Owens (1995) reported that
“many definitions of leadership generally agree upon two things: 1) Leader-
ship is a group function: it occurs only in the processes of two or more people
interacting; and 2) Leaders intentionally seek to influence the behavior of
other people” (p. 116).
 LEADERS AND MANAGERS 313

Described as “as good a definition of leadership as we have at this time”

(p. 120), the following definition is offered by Owens (1995): “Leader-
ship over human beings . . . is exercised when persons with certain purposes
mobilize, in competition or in conflict with others, institutional, political,
psychological and other resources so as to arouse and satisfy the motives of
followers” (pp. 119–120). Owens (1995) also discussed James MacGregor
Burns’ concept of transformational leadership, upon whose work several
others have based aggressive research agendas. Among these others are
Warren Bennis (1989a, 1989b, 1993), Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1983), and
Noel Tichy and Mary Anne Devanna (1990). As quoted by Owens (1995),

The transformational leader looks for potential motives in followers,

seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower.
The result of transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimu-
lation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert
leaders into moral agents. (p. 126)

Moral leadership, a higher level of leadership, is comprised of three related

ideas.

First, that the relationship between the leader and the led is not one merely
of power but is a genuine sharing of mutual needs, aspirations, and values.
. . . Second, that the followers have latitude in responding to the initiatives
of leaders: they have the ability to make informed choices as to whom
they will follow and why. . . . Third, that leaders take responsibility for
delivering on the commitments and representations made to followers
in negotiating the compact between leader and followers. (Owens 1995,
p. 126)

Leadership, as defined by Gardner (1990) is “the process of persuasion or

example by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to
pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leader and his or her
followers” (p. 1). In addition to inducing and influencing people, teaching,
learning, and building relationships are crucial to effective leadership (Depree
1992). Drucker (1992) adds that the “foundation of effective leadership is
thinking through the organization’s mission, defining it and establishing it,
clearly, and visibly” (p. 121).
Although far fewer definitions of management were found, the two
included here contain critical elements. Drucker (1992) asserted that “the
correct definition of a manager – as we have known it for at least 40 years – is
someone who is responsible for the performance of all the people on whom
his own performance depends” (p. 166). Being in charge of an organization
314 KATHRYN S. HOFF

or one of its subunits has also been offered as a definition of a manager

(Mintzberg 1989).
Checking the indexes of books on both management and leadership, an
entry often found is manager versus leader. Organizations which are viewed
as overmanaged and underled are failing in today’s global society. Excelling
in the management of the daily routine, but neglecting the appropriateness of
that routine has been the cause of the demise of many organizations.

There is a profound difference between management and leadership, and

both are important. “To manage” means “to bring about”, to accomplish,
to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct.” “Leading” is “influ-
encing, guiding in direction, course, action, opinion.” The distinction is
crucial. Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people
who do the right thing. The difference may be summarized as activities of
vision and judgment – effectiveness versus activities of mastering routines
– efficiency. (Bennis and Nanus 1985, p. 21)

Another distinction between the two commonly found in the literature is

that things are managed and people are led (Owens 1995). The resources
of our institutions of higher education must be managed effectively to ensure
the continuance of providing the services and programs currently available,
especially in light of dwindling resources. Innovative and creative leaders are
also required as the environment in which our institutions function changes
and evolves given the questionable public opinion. “Educational leaders must
– as must all leaders – be able to manage” (Owens 1995, p. 133). Doing things
right and doing the right thing are both crucial to the continuing viability of
institutions of higher education today, and will remain critical far into the
twenty-first century.
Another way of looking at the difference between managers and leaders
is in their perspective of their positions. Is the person at the top focused on
the present or the future? “Managers are dedicated to the maintenance of
the existing organization, whereas leaders are often committed to its change”
(Tichy and Devanna 1990, p. 28). The change referred to could be structural,
philosophical, or strategic.
Two basic points were agreed upon by a diverse group of leaders who
engaged in a study conducted by Warren Bennis (1989). The diversity
of the group was evidenced in terms of background, accomplishments,
environments in which these individuals led, age, and gender.

First, they all agree that leaders are made, not born, and made more by
themselves than by any external means. Second, they agree that no leader
sets out to be a leader per se, but rather to express himself freely and fully.
 LEADERS AND MANAGERS 315

. . . Something else they have in common is that each of these individuals

has continued to grow and develop throughout life. (p. 5)

In our constantly changing society, the urgency for continuous, lifelong

learning cannot be overemphasized. One of the responsibilities of effective
leadership is to ensure that continued learning and development activities are
provided to all who are expected to perform and produce within an organiza-
tion. Taking this one step further we must strive to build our institutions of
higher education into learning organizations.
Based on the descriptions provided of managers and leaders and the issues
currently facing leaders and managers in higher education, it is evident that
the attributes and skills of both are needed. We need managers who do things
right, and leaders who know and do the right things. It is also believed that an
individual can be both an effective leader and an efficient manager, although
that is not always the case.
Leaders and managers, whether in a position situated at the top of a tradi-
tional organization chart, in the center of an organizational web or network,
or a faculty, staff member, or student, who takes a leadership role in a
department-based project, do not work in a vacuum. Institutions of higher
education have complex organizational and governance structures, numerous
intelligent, competent individuals holding positions of varying autonomy,
exist in a changing local and world environment, and are entrusted with the
responsibility to educate and prepare the future leaders of our nation and our
world.
These leaders and managers engage in many roles, develop multiple rela-
tionships, espouse individual and institutional values, empower others, and in
some cases hold an incredible amount of power. Leaders of our institutions
today hold a vision of what the institution should be in the years ahead. They
create mission statements and establish goals and objectives to ensure the
probability of that vision becoming reality.
In the sections that follow these roles and relationships, structures, culture
and values, visions, and strategic planning will be discussed, relative to the
issues facing higher education today and in the years ahead. The attributes
and skills required of successful leaders and managers will be addressed first.

Attributes and skills

Many scholars who study leadership have compiled lists of attributes and
skills common to people known as leaders in the world today, and of
historical leaders (Bennis 1989a&b; Bensimon and Neumann 1993; Gardner
1990; Helgesen 1995; Kouzes and Posner 1987; Tichy and Devanna 1990).
316 KATHRYN S. HOFF

Although there are common elements, some of these lists are fairly unique in
the wording and terms used to describe these characteristics.
Included in Gardner’s (1990) list are physical vitality and stamina; intel-
ligence and judgment-in-action; willingness (eagerness) to accept responsi-
bilities; task competence; understanding of followers/constituents and their
needs; skill in dealing with people; need to achieve; capacity to motivate;
courage and resolution, steadiness; capacity to win and hold trust; capacity to
manage, decide, and set priorities; confidence; ascendance, dominance, and
assertiveness; and adaptability and flexibility of approach. The obvious point
is made that all leaders cannot possess, nor demonstrate consistently, all the
attributes included. Addressed separately, Gardner listed five skills of critical
importance: agreement building, networking, exercising nonjurisdictional
power, institution building, and flexibility.
In a discussion regarding coping with change, creating continuous
learning environments, and forging a new future, Bennis (1989a) listed ten
personal and organizational characteristics as critical. The ten factors are that
leaders (1) manage the dream; (2) embrace error; (3) encourage reflective
backtalk; (4) encourage dissent; (5) possess the Nobel Factor (an individual
with boundless optimism, sure he or she could win the Nobel prize if he
were a scientist); (6) understand the Pygmalion effect in management; (7)
have the Gretzky Factor (in addition to keeping a thumb on the current pulse
of the organization, the leader senses where the culture is going to be and
what must be done to remain viable); (8) see the long view; (9) understand
stakeholder symmetry; and (10) create strategic alliances and partnerships.
The possession of these characteristics by the leadership team of a univer-
sity is crucial. Bennis, former president of the University of Cincinnati, and
now Distinguished Professor of Business Administration at the University of
Southern California offered examples from his own experience in educational
leadership to support the critical need for our leaders to demonstrate these
important characteristics. He also emphasized, however, all the things that
occur to keep managers from being effective leaders.
One of the examples he offered in his book entitled Why Leaders Can’t
Lead (1989b) was his receipt of at least 150 letters to which he was expected
to respond regarding a young dean of the School of Education. The letters
had nothing to do with the responsibilities of the position this young dean
held, however. They had to do with the fact that the dean’s ten-week-old son
was often in the dean’s office as the dean performed the duties required of
him. The letters, which were overflowing Bennis’ in-basket, were written by
people urging the arrest of the dean for child abuse, or at the very least his
immediate dismissal. As Bennis stated,
 LEADERS AND MANAGERS 317

my only public comment was that we were a tax-supported institution,

and if Hendrik could engage in that form of applied humanism and
still accomplish the things we both wanted done in education, then, like
Lincoln with Grant’s whiskey, I’d gladly send him several new babies for
adoption. (p. 15)

The point of this example, of course, is that the time of the designated leader
of a major research university was usurped to attend to a task which really
had nothing to do with the effective operation of that institution.
Bennis (1989b) also defined four competencies as a result of his five-
year research for a book on leadership. This effort was a direct result of
his thoughts and feelings upon stepping down from his position as presi-
dent. “. . . the sum total of my experiences as president of the University of
Cincinnati convinced me that most of the academic theory on leadership was
useless” (p. 18). In reference to his often quoted statement “leaders are people
who do the right thing; managers are people who do things right” (p. 18), he
cautioned that he “often observe(s) people in top positions doing the wrong
thing well” (p. 18). The four competencies he found exhibited to some degree
by every leader in this study were management of attention (the ability to
draw others to them), management of meaning (ability to communicate their
vision, to make their dreams apparent to others, to align people with them),
management of trust (reliability and constancy, others always know what
the leader stands for), and management of self (knowing one’s skills and
deploying them effectively).
In many ways colleges and universities today are in a transformational
state. Changes are occurring in government coordination and control (some
states are exploring the feasibility of a shift from coordinating to controlling
boards), financial resource allocations (shifts in funding from federal to state,
and in many cases, lower state funding as states are reallocating funds to
prisons and other priorities), and public opinion of higher education (recent
demands for more accountability of how faculty time is spent), to name just
a few areas. The leaders and managers of our institutions must have the skills
and flexibility to thrive within this volatile environment.
Tichy and Devanna (1990) outlined seven characteristics that differentiate
leaders and managers who will be successful in a transformational atmo-
sphere. Leaders who possess these characteristics (1) identify themselves as
change agents (intend to make a difference); (2) are courageous individuals
(prudent risk takers); (3) believe in people (are sensitive to the needs and
strengths of others and work toward true empowerment); (4) are value-driven
(articulate a core set of values and role model the behavior congruent to these
values); (5) are life long learners (continue to learn from their mistakes); (6)
have the ability to deal with complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty (can cope
318 KATHRYN S. HOFF

with and frame problems); and (7) are visionaries (they not only have dreams,
but can share them so that others can understand).
Max Depree (1989, 1992), former Chief Executive Officer of Herman
Miller, and the author of at least two books on leadership is a great maker
of lists. He has included many lists in his books, always with the caveat that
they are, of course, not complete. That task is left to the reader. He included
a list of attributes in his book entitled Leadership Jazz (1992) comprised
of the following elements: integrity; vulnerability; discernment (which lies
somewhere between wisdom and judgment); awareness of the human spirit;
courage in relationships; sense of humor, intellectual energy and curiosity;
respect for the future, regard for the present, and understanding of the past;
predictability; breadth; comfort with ambiguity; and presence.
There was one other source found in the research for this article that
specifically mentioned spirit or soul. That source is a book by Bolman and
Deal (1995) entitled Leading with Soul: An Uncommon Journey of the Spirit.
One of the basic premises of these authors is that leaders must take a spiritual
journey that begins with the self, in order to be effective leaders of other souls.
Organizations and institutions suffer and sputter when we ask too much
of our leaders and too little of ourselves. Effective leadership is a rela-
tionship rooted in community. Successful leaders embody their group’s
most precious values and beliefs. Their ability to lead emerges from the
strength and sustenance of those around them. It persists and deepens as
they learn to use life’s wounds to discover their own spiritual centers.
As they conquer their demons within, they achieve the inner peace
and bedrock confidence that enable them to inspirit and inspire others.
(pp. 56–57)

Although not written in typical textbook fashion, or as a scholarly publication,

this book offered a unique perspective from which to view the leading and
managing of institutions of higher education today. The uniqueness of the
individuals, and the balance required in leading productive lives, is recog-
nized and acknowledged by these authors as they offered a different way of
approaching leadership.
Even if leaders could be found who could walk on water, as many of these
lists might seem to indicate, there are certain roles to be filled in which these
attributes will be demonstrated. There are also relationships to be built and
developed with those who are being led.
 LEADERS AND MANAGERS 319

Roles and relationships

Just as there are many roles an individual plays in the private realm of life,
so are there many roles to be filled in the lives of leaders and managers in
educational institutions. There are also multiple relationships to be built and
developed with the various constituents with whom an individual comes in
contact in performing the tasks associated with those roles.
Divided into three categories based on tasks performed and relationships
established, Mintzberg (1989) listed ten roles, or organized sets of behaviors.
“Three of the manager’s roles arise directly from formal authority and involve
basic interpersonal relationships” (p. 15). These three roles are that of figure-
head (performing duties ceremonial in nature due to position as head of a
unit), leader (indicating responsibility for the work of the unit), and liaison
(the making of contacts outside the direct vertical chain of command).
The second set of behaviors, the informational roles, emerge as a result
of the leader or manager having access to more information than any other
individual within the unit. “The manager may not know everything, but he or
she typically knows more than any one of his or her subordinates” (Mintzberg
1989, p. 17). The three roles included as informational are the monitor
(conducting a continuous environmental scan); disseminator (the passer of
critical information in all directions); and spokesman (serves as contact for
internal and external constituent groups).
Decision roles comprise the third set of behaviors indicative of a leader
or manager. There are four roles comprising this set: entrepreneur (voluntary
initiator of change); disturbance handler (firefighter and conflict manager);
resource allocator (prioritizer of projects and allocator of resources); and
negotiator (Mintzberg 1989).
Two of the roles frequently filled by the leader or manager are that of
goal setter and motivator. Stated as tasks of leadership rather than roles, the
tasks specified by Gardner (1990) can also be seen as roles. It is the role
of the leader to share a vision, norms, expectations, and purposes. Along
with that shared vision, it is the responsibility of the leader to perpetually
rebuild and renew ownership in the shared values. Creating and maintaining
an environment that encourages people to be creative and innovative is one in
which people are motivated to do their best. The leader also keeps the pulse
of the organization to maintain the productive, effective aspects of current
processes, and to encourage attainment of the vision shared by all within the
institution.
Trust is a critical factor in the success of any organization. An environment
of trust must exist in which there is trust among all groups and entities, not
just trust in the designated leaders and managers. It is a role of the leader, in
whatever position, to set the stage for establishing this environment of trust.
320 KATHRYN S. HOFF

Similar to Mintzberg’s figurehead and information disseminator roles,

Gardner (1990) described the leader serving as a symbol, representing the
group, and explainer. “The top leader of a community or nation symbolizes
the group’s collective identity and continuity” (p. 18). This concept can be
extended to any group or team, as a leader serves as a representative to
individuals and groups external to it.
Key to relationship building in any environment is effective commu-
nication. In a traditional organizational structure, communication channels
need to flow both vertically and horizontally. This is the only way to
ensure a feeling of openness and honesty among all departments, divisions,
and colleges on campus. Although many institutions of higher education
are currently structured using the traditional pyramidal hierarchy, there are
innovators who are exploring other options. This effort is somewhat complex
in this setting due to the governance structures established within higher
education.

Governance and organization

Governance, used in a very broad context, refers “to the structures and
processes through which institutional participants interact with and influ-
ence each other and communicate with the larger environment” (Birnbaum
1988, p. 4). There are a number of players involved in this environment
including trustees, the president and vice presidents, faculty, administrators,
and students. This complex structure makes the actual decision-making
and implementation processes more complicated than this simple definition
would imply.
States hold the power and authority to establish institutions of higher
education through statute, charter, or constitutional provision with lay
governing boards. Legally, an uncomplicated view of the structure could be
adopted. The governing board could actually be viewed as the institution.
This is obviously not the case in American institutions of higher education
today.
Birnbaum (1988) has identified a number of problems of governance.
“Different campus constituencies now assert their claim to primacy in areas
over which boards retain legal obligations and responsibilities” (p. 5). One
example is that of faculty groups becoming more professionalized and
assuming more responsibility for curriculum and academic personnel matters
such as tenure and promotion decisions.
In the early days of American higher education, faculty could temporarily
assume administrative responsibilities, function admirably, and return to the
classroom once their responsibilities were transferred to another faculty
 LEADERS AND MANAGERS 321

member. “As institutions become larger and more complex, knowledge

of legal precedents, federal regulations, management information systems,
student financial aid procedures, grant and contract administration, and many
other areas of specialized experience is needed to accomplish many admin-
istrative tasks” (Birnbaum 1988, p. 7). Even though many faculty are still
interested in assuming full time administrative roles, there are many more
who are anxious and willing to engage in leadership roles through faculty
governance groups, or informally emerging as leaders involved in short term,
departmental or divisional projects.
Dual control systems within university structures are identified as another
problem area within the governance of higher education institutions. The
boards of trustees and upper administration of our institutions have admin-
istrative authority that is based on the control and coordination of activi-
ties. Professional authority, held by faculty members and faculty governing
groups, on the other hand, has autonomy and individual knowledge as its
foundation (Birnbaum 1988).
Contrary to the processes used in industrial organizations that have
the “ability to move swiftly and decisively” (Green 1998, p. 41) when
approaching major change, institutions of higher education are faced with
this more complex structure. As stated by Green (1998)

The exercise of power by an institutional head in ways that suggest lack

of consultation, arbitrariness, or high-handedness is likely to meet with
disapproval, anger, or resistance. Collegial governance, with its prevailing
norms of consultation and building consensus, makes change a slow
and laborious process. . . . A pivotal question in the change process is
whether it is possible (or desirable, some would say) to preserve collegial
shared governance in light of the need for constant and rapid change.
(p. 41)

The three commonly articulated goals of teaching, research, and service are
obvious in the mission statements of many institutions of higher educa-
tion. This three-fold mission, however, presents another problem related to
governance and organization of the institution. The problem is addressed by
looking at who holds the control for major decision making regarding these
three major goals. According to Birnbaum (1988), “no single organizational
design can optimize all legitimate organizational interests” (p. 12). Another
question often raised in this regard is that of rewards. Even institutions that
espouse a strong emphasis on teaching demonstrate through the tenure and
promotion process the emphasis on research.
Another problem area addressed by Birnbaum (1988) was that of power
and control.
322 KATHRYN S. HOFF

Power is the ability to produce intended change in others, to influence

them so that they will be more likely to act in accordance with one’s
own preferences. Power is essential to coordinate and control the activi-
ties of people and groups in universities, as it is in other organizations.
(Birnbaum 1988, pp. 12–13)
Five commonly identified forms of power are coercive, reward, legitimate,
referent, and expert. The most commonly utilized types of power used in
college and university structures are referent and expert. Referent power
refers to the ability of one person or group to influence another because of
a preexisting relationship. Expert power exists when one person or group
believes another to possess specific knowledge or competence in a given area
or field.
One important aspect of power lies in giving it away. The term most
often used for this effort in today’s literature is empowerment (Bennis 1989b;
Bennis and Nanus 1985; Owens 1995; Wheatley 1992). Leaders can give
power to others in their organization; in many ways actually making them-
selves even more powerful. Assigning important tasks and providing the
resources necessary to accomplish them is one way of distributing power.
Another is providing autonomy and decision making authority to those who
have had tasks delegated to them. A third is publicly recognizing individual
and team efforts, and the fourth is by building strong relationships by way of
networking (Kouzes and Posner 1987).
An interesting commentary on power was found in a book by Helgesen
(1995) entitled The Web of Inclusion. She talked about the idea of deriving
power and authority from being accessible, which she termed “interactive
charisma”. This concept appears to be similar to and an expansion of the idea
of the open door policy implemented in many organizations in the 1960’s and
’70’s.
Interactive charisma stands in contrast to what might be defined as “the
charisma of command and control,” which commonly distinguishes lead-
ership in a top-down organization. Command and control charisma is
based on position and maintained by distance, as in the military model,
whereas interactive charisma is based on influence and maintained by
communication. (p. 6)
Some of the ways leaders of today’s higher educational institutions are exhib-
iting interactive charisma are: including university faculty, staff, and students
in focus groups to identify key institutional issues; holding open forums for
brainstorming of possible solutions to those key issues; convening university-
wide cross-divisional groups to address issues from a systems perspective;
involving people in the creation of shared vision, mission, and core values
 LEADERS AND MANAGERS 323

statements; and communicating this information through the use of listservs,

presidential websites, and campus-wide informal celebratory gatherings.
The sharing of information by a comprehensive system of communication
is probably one of the strongest and most effective modes of empowering
people within any organization. Bennis and Nanus (1985) discussed four
components of empowerment. The first of these components is significance,
the feeling held by an individual that he or she is making a difference to
the organization. “The second component of empowerment is competence,
meaning development and learning on the job” (p. 83). Experiencing a sense
of community, almost the close feeling of family, is a result of sharing a
common purpose. The fourth aspect, enjoyment, can be obtained through a
sense of accomplishment and involvement in the process.
The organizational structure of an institution of higher education is
“one of the most complex structures in modern society” (Alpert 1985,
p. 241). “Colleges and universities are extremely complex organizations,
more complex than businesses of comparable size. The products they deliver
– teaching, research, and public service – are difficult to measure and to
evaluate” (Ford 1993, p. 449). The establishment of a mission statement
and pursuit of goals is complicated by the organizational structures currently
utilized.
Organized anarchies is the descriptor of this structural type by Cohen and
March (1974/1986). Three general properties are characteristic of organized
anarchies: 1) problematic goals – a loose collection of changing ideas rather
than a coherent structure; 2) unclear technology – rather than leaders of our
institutions making conscious choices related to operating procedures, “it
operates on the basis of a simple set of trial-and-error procedures, and the
residue of learning from accidents of past experiences, imitation, and the
inventions born of necessity” (p. 3); and 3) fluid participation – the boundaries
of the organization appear to be constantly changing due to the great variety
in time and effort expended by individual participants within the institution.
Another complicating factor is the number of constituencies to whom
institutions of higher education are answerable including faculty, parents,
alumni, students, donors, legislators, and the local community. This also
makes it extremely difficult to set, pursue, and obtain goals due to the
conflicting wishes of these various groups.
Graphic interpretations of these structures, organization charts, typically
exhibit a hierarchy of authority drawn in a pyramidal structure. At the top
of the hierarchy is the governing board with the president of the college or
university who is responsible for the overall management and leadership of
the institution just below. At the next layer are typically the chief academic,
financial, student affairs, and development officers (Ford 1993). A number of
324 KATHRYN S. HOFF

administrative positions generally report to each of these officers, with faculty

falling in the vertical line of command beneath the chief academic officer.
One drawback to this type of organizational structure is the assumption
that all leadership is found at the top of the organizational chart. Especially
in today’s changing environment, when it is impossible for any leader or
manager to know all there is to know about the effective management of an
institution “it is essential that administrators view themselves as members of
the cooperative team giving them the ability to undertake a range of different
roles and tasks” (Ling and Ling 1994, p. 227). This may be accomplished
more effectively by restructuring and by a more collaborative leadership style.
Faculty, staff, and student involvement is crucial to building a more
collaboratively functioning community.

The ideal leader will be someone who knows how to find and bring
together diverse minds – minds that reflect variety in their points of view,
in their thinking processes, and in their question-asking and problem-
solving strategies; minds that differ in their unique capacities as well as
in their unique limitations. . . . it is likely that we will stop thinking of
leadership as the property or quality of just one person. We will begin
to think of it in its collective form; leadership as occurring among and
through a group of people whom think and act together. (Bensimon and
Neumann 1993, pp. 1–2)

As leaders begin and continue to emerge from all groups within our educa-
tional communities, teams will evolve which are led by individuals with the
specific expertise needed to accomplish the task for which the team was
formed. As a result, our institutions will become stronger. It takes more than
just emerging leaders, however. “Good teamwork depends, not only on the
individuals who compose the team, but also on innumerable institutional
factors such as financial health, faculty and staff morale, the president’s
leadership orientation, design of governance, and so forth” (Bensimon and
Neumann 1993, pp. 4–5).
Sidney Ribeau offered one possible organizational structure, in his
opening address to the Bowling Green State University community in 1995.
His visual showing a fading pyramidal structure with a beacon of light
moving through a prism toward a brighter network structure is one option.
He demonstrated that he had arrived on campus with a vision, fully recog-
nizing that he cannot do anything in a vacuum. He is exploring the campus
community to find people who will emerge as leaders to assist him in
assessing and refocusing the mission of the university. He has the begin-
ning of a new organizational structure in mind, which can fully emerge only
through the collaborative efforts of all constituents.
 LEADERS AND MANAGERS 325

Helgesen (1995) describes a new structure called the web of inclusion in

her book of that title. Dr. Ribeau’s model and the reasons he stated for needing
it bear a striking resemblance to that described by Helgesen.
. . . when all of our institutions – business, medical, legal, educational,
governmental, and religious – are engaged in a search for ways to adapt
to a transformed environment . . . organizations of every variety are being
challenged to reconfigure in ways that will make them better able to take
advantage of innovative technologies and more responsive to a vastly
expanded market – while in the process becoming more satisfactory
places for people to work. (Helgesen 1995, p. 12)

Using an architectural metaphor, the web is characterized as building from the

center out, with the building process never ending. The center and periphery
are interdependent; the periphery depending on balance and harmony for
structural strength. No matter how strong a center, its strength alone cannot
keep the web from fraying. “Thus the leader in a web-like structure must
manifest strength by yielding, and secure his or her position by continually
augmenting the influence of others” (Helgesen 1995, p. 13).
In a web-like structure, there are no boundaries enclosing the network.
Only the number of connections available binds the web by combining the
professional contacts of those working within the web. Strategic alliances
with external constituencies can only strengthen the web. It is the responsi-
bility of everyone, however, to assist with the building of these alliances,
unlike in the traditional hierarchy in which the primary responsibility for this
function was held by only a few, generally those at the top.
The stability offered by this reinforcing structure is another advantage of
the web.
Various aspects of the web tend to reinforce one another. This sets in
motion a kind of centripetal force that gives the structure as a whole
a coherence greater than the sum of its parts. Since web structures are
circular rather than pyramidal, those who emerge in them as leaders tend
to be people who feel comfortable being in the center of things rather than
at the top, who prefer building consensus to issuing orders, and who place
a low value on the kind of symbolic perks and marks of distinction that
define success in the hierarchy. This preference on the part of web-style
leaders infuses their organizations with a collegial atmosphere, which in
turn enables people to focus upon what needs to be done rather than who
has the authority to do it. (Helgesen 1995, pp. 20–21)

A key to the success of this structure in an educational environment, as in any,

will be the communication patterns and processes utilized, the demonstrated
326 KATHRYN S. HOFF

willingness to take and encourage others to take risks, and the united efforts
at cooperation and collaboration among academic and service units, as well
as with the larger community.

Culture, values, and vision

The literature on organizational behavior and development, leadership, and

management is replete with references to culture, values, and the need for a
clearly articulated vision. None of these elements of an organization could
exist without leadership. According to Schein (1992)
neither culture nor leadership, when one examines each closely, can really
be understood by itself. In fact, one could argue that the only thing of
real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture and that
the unique talent of leaders is their ability to understand and work with
culture. (p. 5)

He distinguishes leadership from management in relation to culture.

“. . . Leaders create and change cultures, while managers and administrators
live within them” (p. 5). Schein describes an organization’s culture as
a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its
problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked
well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new
members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to
those problems.

It is quite obvious that as an attempt is made within an organization to change

the structure, an assessment and reevaluation of the culture is required. The
construction of this structure and the behaviors subsequently expected, can
be somewhat difficult to understand.
A great deal of attention is being directed at the effects of vision,
values, and culture on organizational vitality, especially within postsecondary
institutions.
We now sense that some of the best ways to create continuity of behavior
are through the use of forces that we can’t really see. Many scientists now
work with the concept of fields – invisible forces that structure space or
behavior. I have come to understand organizational vision as a field – a
force of unseen connections that influences employees’ behavior – rather
than as an evocative message about some desired future state. (Wheatley
1992, pp. 12–13)
 LEADERS AND MANAGERS 327

Another of these fields or invisible forces is the feeling of shared human-

istic values by members of the university community. Although discussed in
the context of workplaces in corporate America, Rosen (1991) has defined
values in a way that certainly fits this discussion of leadership in educational
institutions. Values
are the glue that binds healthy, successful employees with healthy,
productive workplaces. These values influence the way people act and
think at all levels of the company and form the foundation for corporate
policies and practices. They define roles and responsibilities and dictate
how business decisions are made. (pp. 9–10)

Values identified by Rosen (1991) include a commitment to self-knowledge

and development, a firm belief in decency, respect for individual differences, a
spirit of partnership, a high priority for health and well-being, and an appre-
ciation for flexibility and resilience. An adoption of these values could be
especially helpful in addressing many of the issues listed at the beginning of
this article that leaders in higher education are currently facing.
A shared vision is also essential in light of the myriad changes faced by
leaders today. According to Senge (1990) “a shared vision is not an idea.
It is not even an important idea such as freedom. It is, rather, a force in
people’s hearts, a force of impressive power. . . . It is palpable. People begin
to see it as if it exists. Few, if any forces in human affairs are as powerful as
shared vision” (p. 206). All members of the university community must be
included in the quest to shape the institutional culture and define values that
will serve to enhance accomplishment of the goals in their constant striving
for the vision.
One of the pivotal activities of leaders is to engage constantly in the
dynamic process of stating a vision of things to come; then revising in
light of emerging events, ideas, and beliefs; and restating the vision of
“where we are and where we are going” that coheres the members of the
organization in mutual purpose and resolve. (Owens 1995, p. 128)

Recognition of the efforts of others is also crucial as is a vision shared, and

energy expended in an attempt to make that vision a reality. There are many
functions within the areas of service that require a great deal of effort and
these efforts must be recognized and rewarded, just as we reward research
efforts.
We need only to lead by our vision, example, and direction, and to release
the power in others to do what they come to know as right – and then to
thank them for a job well done. Our own strength of vision is expanded
328 KATHRYN S. HOFF

geometrically by releasing responsible creativity in others, so that the

greater vision unfolds as the fulfilled dreams of many. (Young 1994, p. 8)

Empowerment of all individuals within the institution can only serve to create
a stronger culture, increase the intensity of the shared values, and constantly
renew the vitality needed to seek achievement of the visionary state.
All the vision, values, and cultural richness will not assist in the accom-
plishment of our goals, however, unless there is a specific plan in place. You
have to know where you’re going, or you may end up someplace else. Key
to a good strategic plan are financial resources and a way of managing the
allocation of those resources.

Strategic planning and financial management

Leaders and managers of institutions of higher education, as described in

the definitions above, have an obligation to themselves and constituents to
lead a strategic planning process. External, as well as internal, forces are
applying pressure for more accountability and responsibility in the lead-
ership and management of our institutions. Legislators and taxpayers are
asking questions about how their money and the energies of faculty members
and administrators are being spent. Parents and current students are ques-
tioning the content and impact of what they are learning in the classroom.
Faculty members are wondering why the organization charts of non-academic
functional areas seem to be so top-heavy.
What is being called for is a plan for the present and the future that
will assure that available resources are being utilized in the most effective
and efficient ways possible. Strategic planning and financial management of
our institutions must be taken very seriously. “Strategic planning . . . is an
active process by which an institution, through the self-discipline imposed
by clearly defined phases, combats the normal drift in the strong currents of
the status quo and gains control of its own destiny” (Vandament 1989, p. 29).
Identifying needs by conducting an environmental scan is a good first
step in determining possible strategic direction. Included in any strategic
planning process is an assessment of client and stakeholder interest, insti-
tutional strengths and weaknesses, internal opportunities for expansion and
enhancement of unique programs and services, and internal and external
threats that might compromise the use of the institutions’ resources or market
position. Once gathered, this information is used to develop strategies that
will guide the leaders and managers of the institution through the problem
solving and decision making processes required to effectively meet the needs
of its constituent groups. Decisions must be made regarding the desired niche
 LEADERS AND MANAGERS 329

within this newly scanned environment, redistribution and redefinition of

available academic talent, and the determination of the most optimal use of
resources. “The key is deciding what should happen and then developing the
strategic plan – and the strategic thinking that this type of planning encour-
ages – to ensure that it will happen” (Rowley, Lujan and Dolence 1998,
p. 278).
Even a strong strategic plan is useless, however, unless there is a formal
link between the ongoing planning process and the budgeting process and
overall financial management of the institution. “Planning is an effort to
determine and control the destiny of an institution. . . . Budgeting is the pricing
or costing mechanism, which develops the financial blueprint for plans”
(Vandament 1989, p. 30).
The financial management of an institution is larger than the budgeting
process. Financial management must be a consideration of every member
of the community as he or she engages in leading and managing projects,
services, and functions within the educational arena. According to Vanda-
ment (1989) there are three fundamental purposes of financial management
of educational institutions. They are
1) the long-range protection and enhancement of the organization’s ability
to accomplish its missions;
2) the provision of adequate resources to support the present valued activi-
ties of the organization; (and)
3) the maintenance of accountability to those organizational constituencies
with a stake in the organization’s services. (p. 8)
It is the responsibility of every faculty member and administrator to recognize
and pursue partnerships that could lead to increasing collaborative efforts in
research, service, and teaching. It is often from these strong relationships
built on hours of working side-by-side for the betterment of our institutions
and the services we provide our students and other constituents, that gifts of
equipment and financial resources are realized.
A clearly articulated strategic plan, sound financial management and
allocation of resources will provide educational leaders with the appropriate
responses to the external and internal pressures apparent today.

Conclusion

Institutions of higher education are exciting environments in which scholars,

teachers, administrators, and students search for new ideas and work together
to solve problems. These environments provide safe places in which to learn,
face challenges, explore new vistas of opportunity, and build crucial relation-
330 KATHRYN S. HOFF

ships. It is while on campus, that the foundation is laid and the beginnings of
networks and webs are spun.
A whole vast world of new knowledge, new ideas, and new challenges
awaits those who attend our colleges and universities as they venture forth at
the conclusion of their time on campus. It is the responsibility of the educa-
tional leaders and managers to ensure that the safe environment left behind
has provided a firm foundation on which our graduates, tomorrow’s national,
world, and educational leaders, build their lives.
Leaders and managers who truly believe in and strive to accomplish the
stated missions of teaching, research, and service, and who possess the char-
acteristics and skills to achieve their goals, are being actively sought by
institutions of higher education. Leaders who have the strength to face the
challenging days ahead as we enter the twenty-first century are the ones
surfacing as top candidates as our institutions seek individuals to serve at
the centers of our webs of inclusion.

References

Alpert, D. (1985). ‘Performance and paralysis: The organizational context of the American
research university’, Journal of Higher Education 56(3), 241–281.
Anderson, R.E. (1993). ‘The economy and higher education’, in Breneman, D.W., Leslie,
L.L. and Anderson, R.E. (eds.), ASHE Reader on Finance in Higher Education. Needham
Heights, MA: Ginn Press, pp. 419–435.
Bennis, W. (1989a). On Becoming a Leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bennis, W. (1989b). Why Leaders Can’t Lead: The Unconscious Conspiracy Continues. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bennis, W. (1993). An Invented Life: Reflections on Leadership and Change. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York:
Harper & Row.
Bensimon, E.M. and Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning Collegiate Leadership: Teams and
Teamwork in Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (1995). Leading with Soul: An Uncommon Journey of Spirit. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, M.D. and March, J.G. (1974/1986). Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College
President (2nd ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
De Pree, M. (1989). Leadership is an Art. New York: Dell.
De Pree, M. (1992). Leadership Jazz. New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Drucker, P.F. (1992). Managing for the Future: The 1990’s and Beyond. New York: Truman
Talley.
 LEADERS AND MANAGERS 331

Ford, F.R. (1993). ‘Business, financial, and administrative functions’, in Breneman, D.W.,
Leslie, L.L. and Anderson, R.E. (eds.), ASHE Reader on Finance in Higher Education.
Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press, pp. 449–460.
Gaff, J.G. and Simpson, R.D. (1994). ‘Faculty development in the United States’, Innovative
Higher Education 18(3), 167–177.
Gardner, J.W. (1990). On Leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Green, M.F. (Ed.). (1998). Transforming Higher Education: Views from Leader Around the
World. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education, Oryx Press.
Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant Leadership. New York: Paulist Press.
Hauptman, A.M. (1993). ‘The economic prospects for American higher education’, in
Breneman, D.W., Leslie, L.L. and Anderson, R.E. (eds.), ASHE Reader on Finance in
Higher Education. Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press, pp. 199–216.
Helgesen, S. (1995). The Web of Inclusion. New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Kanter, R. (1983). The Change Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1987). The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary
Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ling, L. and Ling, P. (1994). ‘Administration for Innovation in Higher Education’, Innovative
Higher Education 18(3), 221–236.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on Management: Inside our Strange World of Organizations.
New York: The Free Press.
Owens, R.G. (1995). Organizational Behavior in Education (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Rosen, R.H. (1991). The Healthy Company: Eight Strategies to Develop People, Productivity,
and Profits. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Perigee Books.
Rowley, D.J., Lujan, H.D. and Dolence, M.G. (1998). Strategic Choices for the Academy: How
Demand for Lifelong Learning will Re-create Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Simerly, R.G. (1991). ‘Preparing for the 21st century: Ten critical issues for continuing
educators’, The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, Spring, 2–12.
Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1990). The Transformational Leader. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Vandament, W.E. (1989). Managing Money in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wheatley, M.J. (1992). Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organization from
an Orderly Universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Young, J.H. (1994). ‘Laying stone on sacred stone: An educational foundation for the future’,
Educational Record, Spring, 7–12.