|
Distributed leadership
Universities traditionally divide their organizational structures between academics – (which have relatively extended academic freedom) and the administration (which is organized hierarchically). Both spheres are characterized by top-down (meritocratic) leadership with a clear centre of control. Especially within the administration there are well defined role based responsibilities and one is not meant to think or participate in areas that are not with ones own domain.
In most investigated universities, a culture where superiors were controlling the results was present, the LSE was the exception and serves as benchmark as it displayed a practice of identifying clear individual responsibilities (champions), while at the same time arranging for disperse collective stewardship (control) in form of committees and other collectives.
Even though the main argument of this research is against a direct application of business management techniques, it has to be stated that it is also not positive that the majority of principals and senior managers have arrived in their post following a career in the education system (UPC administration 16), have few or no formal management qualifications and rely on experiential learning that draws heavily on their previous posts within further education (Birnbaum, 1988). This does not mean that all HEI managers need a Master of Business Administration but a Master of Higher Education Administration or similar would be desirable.
One phenomenon that is becoming more and more dominant in human resource management and investigations dealing with motivation is the phenomenon of employee engagement- or staff empowerment, (named distributed leadership in this research) (Gallup, 2007; Hornstein., 2002; Lotter, 2007; Mitleton-Kelly, 2005). The general insight is that, as work becomes more and more dependent on knowledge application and creativity, intrinsic motivation is a very determining factor. One study on how to create an innovative environment has expressed this insight as simple as: “We treat them as adults” (Mitleton-Kelly, 2005) meaning employees are not excessively told what and how to do their jobs. The Gallup Institute has surveyed 4.51 million employees in 112 countries (Gallup, 2007) and reports that employee alienation from his work and his company – is causing significant damage to organisations worldwide. These results are assessed to be ultimately true for the universities investigated. Subsequently the practice of giving spielraum is found to be a positive attractor, while facelessness is a negative attractor.
Case Studies
The  mindset and structure observed at the LSE serve as benchmark for the description of this attractor (see chapter 3 LSE section 3.1.5.1.). One administrative staff summarized the leadership as a “light steer” and the “strategy is general we interpret” (LSE 13). This creates the high-performance atmosphere where everybody feels responsible for his area.
The UOC and the FU are very characteristic cases for the traditional leadership paradigm still very dominant in HEIs (see chapter 3 FU section 3.2.5.1.; UOC section, 3.4.5.1).
UOC’s leadership style has been described as a solar system – officially, the students were in the centre, but in reality the rector and the manager were in total control (UOC 6). Again the situation today is difficult to assess as the new leadership team is just coming into power. The fact that the rector appoints everyone intrinsically has the effect that even when the code of honour drives him/her not to select a ‘family’ into decision maker positions, opposition is virtually impossible, as there are no checks and balances. This structural centralism is supported by a comparably traditional and hierarchical culture in Spain. The traditional and conservative business environment is humorously illustrated by Mrs. Tubella who commented in her blog that the female form rectora is still recognized as a spelling error in Microsofts Office Suite (Tubella Blog).
The UPC in contrast showed a rather formal and defined leadership. Here each leader has to define the roles and objectives for he/she and his/her subordinates in a cascading fashion. The result is a rather holistic strategy and coordinated practice; but leaders do not necessarily empower their staff. One manager summarized this notion by answering the question about strategy construction: “What strategy do we have? My strategy!” (UPC 8)
In summary, the universities investigated have not – with the exception of the LSE – embraced distributed leadership. As has been elaborated in the paragraph on the ICT based opportunities for creating transparency (see 4.2.4.4.), the sharing of information as one aspect of empowering employees and creating a positive work atmosphere, results in better performance (especially) with regards to quality.
Spielraum
At the FU the rhetoric for enabling instead of controlling environments is common, and the understanding that some spielraum (leeway, or flexibility) is necessary and positive in the case of finance and governance structures (FU Chancellor 4) especially when it allows us to transpose the responsibility for budget or personality cuts. As such the practice is not meant to stimulate bottoms up participation but rather is sharing the burden and responsibility without co-determination of an overall strategy (Chancellor5). On the other hand, some FU students and professors agree that the freedom some had fought for and that was subsequently imposed upon (FU5) the following generations has not been taken adequate advantage of (FU6).
The concept of spielraum seems very fitting to describe the phenomenon of giving the steward of a task some flexibility to be able to feel intrinsic motivation and react to changes in the environment. Let’s look at the term and its meaning in a bit more detail. The eminent German philosopher Gadamer (1965), best known for his work on hermeneutics, explained spielraum with the example of the wheel of a bicycle. The wheel is attached to the bike through the axle that is held to the bike’s frame by a nut. In this case he says that it is “important not to tighten the nuts too tightly, else the wheel could not turn. ‘It has to have some play! […] then he added, ‘ . . . and not too much play, or the wheel will fall off" (Miller, 1996).
Facelessness
One negative attractor found in relation to distributed leadership is named facelessness, meaning not attributing work to the individual, but only to the organisational function. This practice is traditionally common in governmental organisations but is more and more amended by mentioning both the name and the function. As one senior UPC professor with an extensive leadership record paraphrased it: “leadership is always personal” (UPC4). Hence it is very surprising that at the UOC for example, most official messages are not signed by the individual but instead by a function. Arguably, the reason is that several administrators serve that function and that they might change, nevertheless, there is no obstacle to combine the signature with the function.
Prepare for Serendipity
The last element in this section treats the mental and physical preparation for serendipity. Serendipity, a term taken from an old Persian fairy tale about “The Three Princes of Serendip”, was first coined in today’s meaning by Horace Walpole (1754, according to (Borselli, Borselli, Remer, & Tramezzino, 1965)). The tale deals with three Ceylonese princes, who were constantly making accidental discoveries. Walpole’s point however is that these are not accidents. Instead the appropriate background is necessary to recognize a discovery as valuable. An obvious analogy is the disregard of so called supposed errors, “noise” or chaos in scientific experiments until someone recognizes a pattern in them. In the university’s entrepreneurial context, the preparation for serendipity means that the organisational mindset and infrastructure needs to be opportunistic; which in turn is only possible when its members are empowered, have spielraum , as described above. When Maturana and Varela’s concept of autopoiesis (auto (self)-creation) (Luhmann, 1992; Maturana & Varela, 1980) is added as causal factor, the preparation for serendipity means to be vigilant for opportunities to re-create one-self (or the institution) while adapting to the changing environment by means of mutation.
Given the fundamental and pervasive nature of serendipity in the non-stratified, non-defined phenomenon of random chance. The FU’s Chancellor has for example has acknowledged that many times “chance brings the initial spark” (FU 16). In the first place there is of course pure chance, when people just happen to receive a phone call from someone bringing up a theme that had just been identified as interesting (LSE 14).
Traditional bureaucratic organisations simply neglect these kind of accidental opportunities. At the UOC for example big research projects are used for obstetrics in regards to developing research dynamics in the institution (UOC 15). But established procedures and hierarchies have to be taken into account and no real dynamic has emerged until recently. It is thus a controlled and not a dynamic process.
A preparation for serendipity is needed because employees do not realize incidental potentials when they follow their well defined routine; they will and maybe even cannot react to opportunities and “allow things to bubble up” (LSE 15). What is necessary is to prepare the right mindset, plus the right infrastructure for serendipity to be allowed a venue to occur; and thus to allow for entrepreneurship. Again the phenomenon and its benefits are widely known and both at the FU and the UPC managers have expressed the need to create the right milieu, (FU 17, UPC 9) which is exactly what the following sections intend to describe based on the findings of this research.
Users' Comments (0) 
|
|
|
