The Dangers of Top-Down Leadership and Benefits of Collaborative Leadership

In my last Musing (“If You are the ‘Boss,” How do you Lead”?), I presented a case for a collaborative approach to leadership, in sharp contrast to a top-down leadership style. The more in-depth analysis that follows includes my elaboration on these two styles of leadership.

As in my last Musing, I will focus on leadership in academic institutions, since my leadership experience has been exclusively with such institutions. However, I firmly believe that what I present below can be adapted to numerous other institutions or organizations.

In light of this focus on academic administration, the following reflections can be subsumed under the label “Respect the College Dean.”   

In his 1969 Country & Western hit song “Okie from Muskogee,” Merle Haggard bemoans what he perceives to be a problem with the late 60s youth culture that included burning draft cards on Main Street; applauding, in sharp contrast, the “kids” in Muskogee who “still respect the College Dean.”

I will eventually propose some elements of being a “College Dean”[1] that I believe deserve “respect,” especially in our contentious age. But I must first clear away some underbrush, drawing on my own experience, without suggesting that my experience should be normative. My advice is directed primarily to those readers who may be considering making a vocational move from being an effective teacher to becoming (hopefully) an effective academic administrator.

DON’T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF THINKING THAT BEING AN EFFECTIVE TEACHER WILL MAKE YOU AN EFECTIVE ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR

It has not been unusual in the history of higher education to assume that having proven yourself as an effective teacher will necessarily lay the foundation for you to become an effective academic administrator. NOT SO! Too often, such a “promotion” proves to be an exemplification of the “Peter Principle” (being promoted to an elevated level of incompetency).

The truth is that, although there is some overlap, being an effective College Dean generally requires a different set of “skills” and “loves” than being an effective classroom teacher.

Not having space here to reflect on what it takes to be an effective teacher, I will only report that under the mentoring of Forman Acton, a late professor of electrical engineering under whom I served as a Teaching Assistant at Princeton University,[2] I made a major vocational change at the age of 28 from being an aerospace scientist to becoming a college math teacher, first at The King’s College (1963-75) and then at Gordon College (1975-1980). My reason for this radical change in vocation was my discovery as a TA  that I was very good at explaining difficult math concepts to undergraduate students and that I loved teaching.

But as you will read below, my experience also suggests that there are special skills needed to be an effective College Dean that go beyond the skills needed to be an effective teacher.

TRY OUT SOME ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES BEFORE DECIDING TO BECOME AN ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR

If you are an effective teacher who is open to the possibility of assuming a position as a College Dean, here is my advice to you based on my own experience: As opportunity presents itself, try out some quasi-administrative responsibilities to gain some perspective as to how good you are, or not so good, at being an administrator.

During my 12 years of teaching mathematics, I was given the opportunity to try out administrative work by chairing a number of important faculty committees, in addition to writing two self-study reports toward The King’s College gaining regional accreditation. In carrying out these responsibilities, I discovered that I had some administrative skills, and I actually enjoyed some of the new types of responsibilities that many teaching faculty avoid like the plague, such as sitting through many committee meetings (discovering that such meetings could be productive, and even enjoyable, if I could be in charge of shaping and implementing the agenda).

LET YOUR “VISION” INFORM YOUR DECISION TO BECOME AN ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR; NOT THE PROMISED HIGHER PAY OR GREATER PRESTIGE

Based on some good quasi-administrative experiences while teaching, I was interested when I was recommended by a faculty colleague at Gordon College for a position, that he had turned down, as Vice President for Academic Affairs at Northwestern College (NWC) in Orange City Iowa (from where I write these words).

My interest stemmed from my passionate belief in what I believe to be the primary distinctive of Christian Liberal Arts education that emerged during my twelve years of teaching: The “integration of faith and learning.” Since there is no present unanimity at Christian institutions of higher education as to what this phrase means,[3] let me now share what it means to me and how that meaning propelled me to accept the position of VPAA at NWC that was offered to me.

As I was completing my doctoral studies, I came to the unwelcome conclusion that I was an entrenched intellectual dualist. I embraced two worlds of knowledge: The world comprised of my biblical and theological understanding and the world comprised of the knowledge claims in the various academic disciplines. But my two worlds of knowledge never intersected.

Intuitively, I concluded that this disconnect was unacceptable. But I didn’t know how to overcome this disconnect. I then enthusiastically embraced the idea that the most fundamental distinctive of Christian liberal arts education is the “integration of faith and learning” that  requires that I seek to make “connections” between these two worlds of knowledge.

Therefore, during my twelve years of teaching mathematics at two Christian liberal arts colleges, with the help of influential mentors, like David Wolfe, a professor of philosophy, I diligently sought to uncover connections between my teaching discipline of mathematics and my biblical and theological understanding.[4]

With the above narrative as background, I was delighted to discover, during my interview for the VPAA position at NWC, that the faculty wanted to pursue the integrative quest for “connections” between their biblical and theological understanding and the knowledge claims in their various academic disciplines. But they didn’t seem to have much of a clue as to how to go about seeking to uncover such connections. A wild idea then came to mind. Since I had spent the last twelve years seeking such “integrative connections,” with some modicum of success, in my teaching discipline of mathematics, it would be great if I could inspire and help all the faculty at NWC to do likewise in their various academic disciplines. On my flight back to Boston, I decided that, based on that VISION, I would accept the VPAA position at NWC if it was offered to me.

The VPAA position was offered to me and I quickly accepted. To be sure, I welcomed the increase in salary that came with this plunge into administration (no need to continue working two part-time teaching jobs on top of a full-time teaching position just to keep food on the table).[5] But, as has always been the case with me, it was the congruence between what I loved to do, what I was good at, and my understanding of how I could “partner with God” toward the realization of God’s redemptive purposes for earth, rather than salary (or the supposed greater “prestige” that came with this vice-presidential position) that led me to this momentous change in Christian vocation.

RELEVANCE IN OUR TRIBALISTIC CULTURE

As I suggested in my last Musing, there is an enormous disconnect between my collaborative administrative focus on working together with my faculty toward the accomplishment of shared aspects of our respective VISIONS and the rampant tribalism that is currently infecting all of public discourse.

In brief, the growing tribalism of our times is characterized by a severe us-versus-them mentality, wherein “me and my people” (e.g., My school, my church or denomination, my political party, or my circle of like-minded friends) possess the “whole truth” about the issue at hand, and “those other folks” (e.g., That other school, that other church or denomination, that other political party, or that other circle of friends) possess none of that truth. Therefore, there is nothing new to learn from listening to “those other folks.”

For a tribalist, the only possible reason for talking to “those other folks” is to “win an argument,” meaning that the other person “loses the argument” This becomes a zero-sum exercise, where there are only winners and losers.

In sharp contrast that cannot be overstated, I view the purpose for conversing with “those other folks” as seeking to build the mutual understanding and mutual trust that will enable us to uncover some common ground that combines the partial glimpses of the full truth that each of us  has captured as a finite and fallible human being.

How, then does one initiate such a conversation? NOT by jumping right into the fray by quickly telling the other person why he/she is all wrong. Richard Mouw, President Emeritus of Fuller Theological Seminary, suggests a better starting point, based on the fact that each of us has what we consider to be “good reasons” for our beliefs: Start the conversation by asking the other person the following non-threatening question:

Please help me to better understand the position you hold on this issue and the reasons you have for that holding to that position.

In the many interfaith conversations in which Mouw has participated he has found that starting the conversation in this way often leads to reciprocity – WOW! Richard really wants to understand my position and my reasons for holding to that position. Maybe I should do likewise, seeking to better understand his position and his reasons for holding to his position – I view the emergence of such reciprocity as a splendid exemplification of the proverbial teaching that “a soft answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1).

In summary, my experience as an academic administrator committed to a collaborative leadership style resonates with Mouw’s proposal. In those conversations with my NWC faculty members many years ago, I learned that the best way to pursue shared aspects of our respective VISIONS was to give each other a safe and welcoming space to explain ourselves, which I take to be a deep response to the call of Jesus for all of us who claim to be his followers to love others. It is also a deep expression of “respect” for the person who disagrees with me.

But this raises the thorny issue as to the extent to which any Christian college or university should give its faculty and staff a safe and welcoming space to express any perspective on any controversial issue. To cite a current hot-button issue at many Christian institutions of higher education, should safe and welcoming spaces be provided for conversations among faculty and staff relative to same-sex marriage; allowing for some to advocate for the traditional Christian perspective on marriage as reserved for a man and woman, while allowing others to advocate for the non-traditional belief that God will bless a same-sex marriage that reflects a covenantal commitment to love one another for a lifetime.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIAN HIGHER EDUCATION: CREATING A SAFE AND WELCOMING SPACE FOR DISAGREEMENTS

I believe that every private institution of higher education has the right to define itself in terms of foundational institutional beliefs, provided its definition does not violate established laws. Public institutions of higher education must also abide by local or state regulations that protect the public.

I also believe that a Christian college or university, whether private or public, has the right to limit its hiring of faculty and staff to persons who embrace the teachings of a sponsoring church or denomination, provided its hiring practices do not violate established laws.

But the looming question remains as to whether a Christian institution of higher education should foster a robust conversation about the adequacy, or not, of its foundational beliefs. My answer is “yes,” which may worry a number of my readers. So, let me explain.

Some have argued that it is acceptable for a Christian college or university to hire “dissidents” (those who disagree with the institution’s foundational beliefs), as long as a “critical mass” of the faculty and staff embrace those beliefs. One problem with this approach is a lack of clarity as to what constitutes a “critical mass.” Is it 25%, 35%, 45%, or what? My main problem with this approach is its legalistic focus; trying to define what is acceptable in terms of numbers.

I prefer to define what is acceptable hiring practice in terms of the culture that should be pervasive at a Christian institution of higher education. The culture that I believe needs to prevail flows from what I believe to be the essence of Christian higher education, which I now embrace after a forty-year career serving at four Christian liberal arts colleges; an essence that I describe in only three words: Conversations Seeking Truth.

If the ultimate purpose of Christian higher education is to uncover “Truth,” the institution must be open to the possibility that its foundational beliefs have not captured all aspects of that “Truth.” It is possible that a more full-orbed understanding of that “Truth” can be gleaned from respectfully listening to and considering the contrary views of dissidents.

But there are two ways to orchestrate such conversations. One is to limit hiring to those who are clearly committed to the institution’s foundational beliefs, while hosting conversations about the adequacy, or not, of those beliefs with faculty and staff from other institutions who embrace a differing set of foundational beliefs.

What may result from such respectful conversations? One possible result is that these conversations will serve to strengthen the institution’s commitment to its foundational beliefs. But it is also possible that these conversations will result in the institution having “second thoughts” about some of its foundational beliefs, leading to some refinement or correction.

While not discounting this approach, my clear preference is to create a campus culture where it is acceptable, or better yet, where faculty and staff at the institution are encouraged, to have respectful conversations about the adequacy, or not, of the institution’s foundational beliefs, provided that all participants in the conversation meet the following expectations:

#1: The faculty or staff member has exemplified unambiguous commitment to be a faithful “follower of Jesus.”

#2: The faculty or staff member is committed to engaging those who disagree in a loving and respectful manner.

#3: The faculty or staff member will not disparage any of the foundational beliefs of the institution; suggesting, rather, that those institutional beliefs capture one way to conceptualize the Christian faith that should be talked about among other alternatives.

The strength of my preferred approach, in my estimation, is that it allows for evolution in the thinking of a given faculty or staff member employed by the institution, without damaging the institution’s commitment to a core set of beliefs.

I close by addressing a final challenging question that emerges from my call for a safe and welcoming space for respectful conversations about beliefs that differ from the foundational beliefs of the institution. Is it possible to implement the approach I am proposing in our increasingly tribalistic culture?

Although I have not been employed by a Christian college or university for the past 20 years, I have heard some recent anecdotal evidence that saddens me: some member institutions of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) have taken the idea of “being the boss” to the unacceptable extreme of silencing those who disagree with the foundational beliefs of the institution.; a terribly unloving thing to do. This unloving action is especially tragic if it reflects a concern that “our talking about some contentious issues” (e. g., same-sex marriage) will alienate some who donate funds to the college or send their sons and daughters to the college.

My particular concern is that some who aspire to become academic administrators at Christian colleges and universities are committed to the faulty “Command-and-Control” model for leadership that gives them license to practice “being the boss” in ways that succumb to the increasing tribalism of our age, which doesn’t allow for expressions of disagreement with “the boss.” It is questionable whether such “bosses” have earned much respect.

If you aspire to become an academic administrator (one of the “bosses” at the institution), I advise you to limit your explorations of such administrative possibilities to Christian colleges and universities that will provide a safe and welcoming space for expressions of disagreement with the foundational beliefs of the institution.

Footnotes

[1] Or whatever title is given to a Chief Academic Officer at a college or university; which may be “Vice President for Academic Affairs,” or “Provost,” or whatever.

[2] For a description of this marvelous mentoring experience, see the Addendum titled “Thank God for Your Mentors, and Thank Them Too”  in my book Let’s Talk: Bridging Divisive Lines through Inclusive and Respectful Conversations. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2021, pp. 104-106.

[3] For elaboration on what I believe the “integration of faith and learning” means see chapter 3 of my Let’s Talk book, pp. 22 – 33.

[4] I reported on the results of this integrative quest in an essay titled “Mathematics: Freedom Within Bounds” in a book that David Wolfe and I co-edited titled The Reality of Christian Learning: Strategies for Faith-Discipline Integration. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987, pp. 204-230. In brief a “connection” I uncovered is that a decision to “do mathematics” can be subsumed under a broader Christian ethic that can be labeled “Freedom Within Bounds.”

[5] A thorny question that can be raised at this point is whether it is just to pay administrators higher salaries than teaching faculty. It can be argued that both academic administrators and teaching faculty are making equally important, albeit differing, contributions to accomplishing the goals of the college, and should, therefore, be remunerated using the same pay scale. But to consider the pros and cons of that argument would take us well beyond the purposes of this Musing.