Academic Leadership: Gatekeeping or Groundskeeping?

Abstract

Common approaches to academic leadership include serving as assessors of the progress of individuals towards organizationallydetermined milestones and markers of success. Likewise, leadership development often focuses on leadership skills and tactics, rather than on cultivation and enactment of leadership philosophies and progressive vision. Here, I discuss the importance of cultivating leadership for progressive faculty and academic staff development through strategically tending the cultures and systems that one leads, in addition to tactical supervision of people. I describe this as systems-engaged leadership manifested as groundskeeping, or as attending to the individuals in an organization while simultaneously actively tending the ecosystems in which the work of the organization occurs. Groundskeeping contrasts with more traditional approaches of leading, which function as gatekeeping, or primarily via guarding who gains access and who advances based on conceptualizations and assumptions about who can function and thrive. Introduction Common Leadership Practices in Higher Education Academic leadership encompasses a range of different higher education roles, including distinct positions and titles. It often varies from tactical management, which centers on specific objectives, to administration, which is positioned as relational and mission-driven, to leadership, which is vision-driven and potentially transformational (Cheruvelil & Montgomery, 2019, p. 240). Academic leaders can pursue a range of different leadership paths. Many academic leaders enter department-level leadership positions and beyond via a faculty route (Figure 1). Progression in the faculty ranks, both in the tenure system or for non-tenured faculty, can position individuals for consideration for leadership roles. However, progression on the tenure track from assistant to associate, with the checkpoint of internal and external review for tenure, as well as to full professor, with a second review period for promotion, can be required for advancement into particular leadership roles for which tenure or promotion is considered a prerequisite. Given the recognized disproportionate underrepresentation for marginalized and minoritized groups and barriers to advancement in the ranks of higher education tenure-track or tenured faculty (Montgomery, 2020a), these “checkpoints” can result in limited or disrupted opportunities for equitable progression into leadership roles for many individuals in academia. When considering individuals’ preparation for academic leadership roles, we generally measure success at each of the prior levels of faculty rank or academic leadership as evidence that individuals will continue to demonstrate success at the next (Figure 1). While a strong case has been constructed for this model of advancement across levels within a disciplinary faculty ladder, we also often make decisions about who can and should lead primarily based on an individual’s success as a faculty member, rather than based on their aptitude or demonstrated abilities for a role as an effective academic leader. We use such a selection paradigm frequently, although it is BERONDA L. MONTGOMERY EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN readily recognized that “the role of the academic leader (department chair and/or dean) is very different from that of regular faculty members even though faculty members often are asked to serve in these capacities” (Rowley & Sherman, 2003, p. 1059). In their roles, academic leaders provide administration (e.g., operational efforts) and leadership towards academic goals (Rowley & Sherman, 2003). However, in many cases the formal training and selection processes for these individuals center primarily on their academic training and success in disciplinary roles and distinct leadership positions, with little to no formal training in or assessment of demonstrated administrative or leadership functions for a particular academic position under consideration, nor necessarily any evidence of prior practical experiences (Baker et al., 2019; Bisbee, 2007; Gmelch, 2013; Rowley & Sherman, 2003). Additionally, those who transition into leadership roles in academia often do so without a full understanding of, or preparation for, the complexities associated with these positions (Gmelch, 2013). Apart from deficits in training or demonstrated experience, many academic leaders also have no expressed aspirations for leadership (Rowley & Sherman, 2003). Once in leadership roles, “good” academic leadership is often judged based on leadership traits or capabilities, such as planning, organizational skills, listening, communication, stakeholder engagement, decision-making styles, humility, and courage (Mrig & Sanaghan, 2017; Rowley & Sherman, 2003). While these are all critical functions, much more is needed for progressive leadership, especially in dynamic current times. Less frequently do we select or advance academic leaders on the grounds of having assessed their formal leadership preparation, evidence of active cultivation of leadership philosophy, expressed or demonstrated leadership values, or development and enactment of a leadership vision. A focus on values in the development, cultivation, or advancement of leaders can be rare (Smikle, 2019). In regard to vision, while developing a vision is sometimes recognized as important, an ability on the part of an academic leader to execute a vision is even more critical (Mathews, 2018; Mrig & Sanaghan, 2017). Given that we have not always insisted on academic leaders even having an espoused or highly developed vision, a widespread requirement for demonstrated vision and a plan for execution would represent a major leap forward. Effectively incorporating such a requirement into academic practices would require that we revisit the means by which we prepare, select, and socialize academic leaders. Figure 1: Progression into Academic Leadership Roles. Academic leaders often emerge from faculty ranks (tenure system or non-tenured), for instance progressing from assistant to associate to full professor. Departmental leaders such as department chairs are often drawn from the senior-level faculty, and in a situation that is almost entirely unique to academia, these individuals may return to serve as faculty peers at the end of a leadership term. College-level and executive-level leaders or administrators are far less likely to return to the faculty peer level than departmental leaders.