Understanding Power and Leadership in Higher Education

Tools for Institutional Change

Mark Kretovics

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429801624
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación general

Within higher education, power is often perceived negatively. Rather than avoiding the idea of power, this book explores the importance of embracing and effectively engaging power to affect positive change on campus. Understanding Power and Leadership in Higher Education gives college and university administrators the tools to understand the relationship between leadership, power, and influence within higher education. Highlighting real stories of effective college and university administrators, this book helps readers understand and analyze the use of power, preparing leaders for the realities of today's administrative environment.

Chapter One

Introduction

The book begins by briefly describing the political nature of decision-making within today’s higher education environment. Next, I define leadership, management, and power and discuss how these interrelated terms are viewed and used in higher education. I then discuss the relationship between power and politics and wrap up the chapter with a look at the downside and upside to power and politics in our institutions.

The higher education landscape across the United States is comprised of a wide variety of colleges and universities. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), in the spring of 2016 there were 4,583 Title IV degree granting institutions in the United States. This included 1,579 two-year and 3,004 four-year institutions. These institutions can be differentiated by a variety of parameters including: institutional type, mission, size, and tax status, to name a few. These factors along with the fact that the U.S. has no national system of higher education and most states have multiple systems within their borders (two-year and four-year systems are most common), make higher education in the U.S. quite unique compared to the rest of the world. Add to this the host of independent and religiously affiliated private institutions and you have a very dynamic and incredibly rich non-system of higher education (see Chapter 3). All of these institutions, regardless of their size, location, or tax status, are complex organizations in an evolving industry that has been around for centuries, and is continually adapting to the ever-changing world.

Within this mosaic of higher educational institutions there are tens of thousands of administrators who make decisions and allocate institutional resources on a daily basis. Those decisions impact millions of students, staff, and faculty throughout the U.S. and are influenced by power and politics within the institutions and from each institution’s external stakeholder groups. As in most relationships, there are power imbalances (Wolfe and McGinn, 2005) between the various stakeholder groups, which in turn influence the decision-making processes within higher education.

As we explore the issue of power within higher education, it is important to define the terms which we will be looking at: power and politics. Politics is involved in the decision-making process of every organization, and therefore the use of politics and power is in every organization; power and politics are ubiquitous. It seems that not a day goes by without a colleague referencing the political nature of a decision that was recently made. When discussing a decision, most of you have heard a colleague utter the phrase that was pure politics or something very similar. My question to you is, why does that matter? I submit that the vast majority, if not all, administrative decisions made on college and university campuses (or any complex organization) involve power and are political in nature. I also contend that there is nothing inherently wrong with political decisions or the use of power. Usually we invoke the use of power or political refrain when we disagree with the decision, not when we are in agreement. Simply put, political decisions are decisions! Whether the decision is made behind closed doors in an elusive process or made publicly in what appears to be a transparent process, it is a political decision.

Within higher education, power is perceived quite negatively. Most faculty, staff, and administrators in higher education view power as a dirty word that should not be discussed let alone be the subject of a class or administrative training. In higher education we prefer to talk about leadership or administrative/managerial abilities and skills when referring to institutional executive officers.

It is my intent to utilize this book to demonstrate that the concept of power should be embraced and not avoided. As Townley (1993) states, “power is the desire to know. Power is not negative; on the contrary, it is creative” (p. 521). If you aspire to be in a leadership role in any organization, it is important to understand how power can be used to help further an agenda or perhaps to undermine a competing agenda. If you see yourself as someone who believes that power is harmful, then this book can be useful in helping you understand what others are doing (perhaps doing to you) as they move within the institutional hierarchy. If you view power as helpful then this book can be useful in understanding how one can affect positive change within organizations through the use of power. Regardless of how you frame power, institutional change does not occur without the utilization of some form of power.

What Is Power?

Power, leadership, and management are interrelated concepts that unfortunately are treated separately and individually when defined in the literature. Therefore, before defining power, I believe it is important to first take a brief look at leadership and management and how they have been so defined. Numerous authors have stated that management is doing things right and leadership is doing the right things. As you will see in the following paragraphs, the crucial difference in the literature may be the focus of the individual; a focus on people is often equated with leadership, while a focus on the results or tasks is more often attributed to management (O’Leary, 2016).

Leadership

Briefly, looking at leadership, one finds a variety of definitions and as Yukl (1989) puts it, “they differ in many respects, including important differences in who exerts influence, the purpose of influence attempts, and the manner in which influence is exerted” (p. 252). The definition of leadership I believe fits best for the purposes of this book is – motivating or influencing people to do things they would not do on their own. A plethora of books on the topic of leadership spend a great deal of time discussing how to motivate employees to accomplish the organizational mission. If these employees would normally strive to accomplish the mission on their own, there would be no need for leadership to motivate them.

Several authors connect leaders and leadership with the use of power: According to Zaleznik (1998) “Leadership inevitably requires using power to influence the thoughts and actions of other people” (p. 63). Additionally, Sousa and van Dierenfonck (2017) state that “One’s level of power will influence one’s ability to lead and of course, effective leadership will increase one’s power or potential to influence, in a positive and reinforcing feedback loop” (p. 18). Finally, Herdlein et al. (2011) suggest “that power is an essential tool of decision-making and is utilized through effective leaders, such as senior student affairs officers” (p. 41). Recognizing the link between leadership and power is the first step in understanding that power, like leadership, is not inherently a negative or a positive; rather, how power is used determines how it is perceived.

Maxwell (2013) believes that, to be effective, a leader must be a lifelong learner and a student of her or his profession. Additionally, he believes that, in order to reach the higher levels of leadership (levels 4 and 5), individuals must overcome their insecurities and realize that “good leaders forge ahead, break ground, and make mistakes” (p. 106).

Management

Management is often thought of in terms of four functions: planning, controlling, organizing, and leading (Nickels et al., 2008). One of the most important responsibilities of managers is to ensure that the employees they supervise are helping the organization accomplish its goals and objectives so it can fulfill its mission. This is more often than not achieved by motivating their employees to do things they would not do on their own.

Vecchio (2007) connects management and power when he states that “power is an essential feature of a manager’s role. Without some degree of power, a manager would find it very difficult to direct the efforts of subordinates” (p. 69). Additionally, Hill and Lineback (2011) mention that “management is defined by responsibility but done by exerting influence. To influence others you must make a difference not only in what they do but also in the thoughts and feelings that drive their actions” (p. 127). Vecchio also contends that it is important for managers to realize “that the tendency to use power can lead to greater effectiveness, while failure to use power can have the opposite effect” (p. 73).

Based on the definitions of leadership and management posited above, one can see that, at least on one level, leadership and management are similar, if not one and the same. Going forward I believe that to be effective, managers must be leaders and leaders must be managers, and effective leaders and managers do the right things the right way. According to O’Leary (2016) whether one calls it leadership or management is not an issue because what the individuals are doing (tasks, duties, responsibilities, etc.) are essentially the same.

Power

If we can accept that a common definition of leadership and management is to motivate individuals to do something they would not normally do, then it is also appropriate to connect leadership and management with power. The effective use of power, according to David McClelland (1976) and Jeffrey Pfeffer (1992) is getting people to do things they would not normally do on their own. Therefore, power, leadership, and management are inextricably linked. Based on the definitions provided above, I would modify that, to read – strong leadership requires strong management and the effective use of power. To be an effective leader, one must be able to get others within the organization to do things they, for whatever reason, would not do on their own.

As mentioned earlier, far too many people, especially those in higher education, tend to view power as a negative behavior and view leadership and management as positive or at worst neutral behaviors (see Figure 1.1). When administrators are successful, we tend to laud them with accolades about their vision and leadership abilities. However, when individuals fail or make an inappropriate decisions, all too often that gets attributed to the quest for power. As you search through history you will find numerous examples of effective and ineffective leaders and managers who used power in an attempt to accomplish organizational and/or personal goals.

Figure 1.1 Power Continuum

One of the major problems people have with the concept of power is their individual perception of what power means. Many people conflate power with a term with a similar definition – manipulation. This may help to explain why so many people perceive power negatively: they equate power with manipulation, which has a negative connotation, instead of leadership, which is viewed positively. After all, to a certain extent, good leaders and/or powerful people do manipulate others to accomplish their goals and objectives: they motivate or encourage people to do things they would not normally do on their own. In some instances this manipulation is done in a positive way through positive motivation or reward power, and in other cases it may happen with a negative spin or the use of coercive power (see Chapter 2). In higher education you will not see a job announcement for a senior administrator as seeking candidates with strong manipulation skills or a power-hungry individual; instead, we prefer to recruit good or excellent leaders, or at least that is our intent. In reality, good leaders are in fact good manipulators. The leaders we hold in high regard are able to convince people to do something they would not normally do on their own.

As you survey the higher education landscape and corporate world, you will be hard pressed to find a successful leader who does not embrace the use of power. A successful leader uses power to forward the goals of the institution. “[P]ower is part of leadership and is necessary to get things done – therefore, leaders are naturally preoccupied with power” (Pfeffer, 2010a, p. 7). On one hand, great leaders and managers typically use power in positive ways to accomplish goals, objectives, and mission of the organization. On the other hand, many bad leaders and managers use power in negative ways, mostly to accomplish their individual goals or for self-promotion. Nonetheless, leaders and managers use power and therefore, by extension, are powerful people. It is unfortunate that the use of power is perceived so negatively, primarily due to the numerous examples of individuals who have abused the power afforded them. In most instances, the individuals who abused power did not give any indication that they would behave so poorly; in other instances, colleagues and co-workers could have predicted such performance by looking at the individual’s past performance. Sadly, there is little if anything that can be done to prevent such abuses by those who become enthralled with their newfound power. Therefore, it becomes critical that college and university administrators understand how to use their power in an appropriate and ethical manner so as to minimize the impact of errant leaders.

Politics in Higher Education

No conversation about power within higher education would be complete without a discussion of organizational politics. As Hill (1978) stated, “the struggle for power, more commonly known as politics, pervades [all organizations]” (p. 21). Additionally, Pfeffer (1992) defines political activity as “those activities taken within organizations to acquire, develop, and use power and other resources to obtain one’s preferred outcome in a situation in which there is uncertainty or disagreement about choices” (p. 74). One’s ability to navigate the political dynamics of an organization is essential to one’s ability to become a successful organizational leader. There are two types of politics that higher education administrators encounter on a regular basis – internal (micro) and external (macro) (Kretovics, 2011). At the state and national levels, as long as resources continue to be constrained, universities will need to compete with other politically powerful and meritorious sectors such as prisons, roads, and K-12 education among others. This competition for resources increases external political activity: the macro level. Simultaneously, individual colleges and universities (micro level) are interdependent organizations in which administrators need the assistance of others to accomplish their goals and objectives. This interdependence makes them political organizations (Pfeffer, 1992).

By their very nature, institutions of higher education operate as political systems. Additionally, because these institutions have multiple interdependent parts (departments and divisions) there is the presence of power within the administrative structure. Pfeffer (1992) points out that power is used more frequently under conditions of moderate interdependence. Where there is little or no interdependence there is little or no need to develop power or exercise influence because units do not need to rely on others for assistance in accomplishing their goals. In organizations where there is a high level of interdependence (perhaps dependence), units must work together and coordinate their activities. A ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Dedication
• 1. Introduction
• Part I: The Context of Power and Leadership in Higher Education
• Part II: Power in Higher Education
• Part III: Politics and Decision-Making
• Part IV: Practical Perspectives
• References
• Index