Winter/Spring 2003
|
|
Winter/Spring 2003 |
 |
 By
Richard EkmanThe voluminous literature on “leadership” is so intent on articulating universal truths that generalizations often crowd out concrete examples. Yet it is in the specific cases that one can understand best the marks of a leader’s unusual success and distinguish it from the responsible, but more conventional performance of duties. On a national stage, it is easy to see the exemplars. When Nathan Pusey, Harvard’s president in the 1950s, refused to cooperate with Senator Joseph McCarthy’s reckless search for Communists on American campuses, the newspapers reported it widely, and with admiration. More recently (and focused on the academic enterprise itself), Richard Levin, Yale’s current president, eliminated binding Early Decision procedures, and was praised by countless high school students, parents, and guidance counselors for easing the pressure on students. Similarly impressive acts of leadership occur on less visible campuses all the time and, unfortunately, they pass without wider notice. It took courage, for example, for Bill Crouch, president of Georgetown College in Kentucky, to defend an art exhibition in the college’s art gallery, “Beatitudes Betrayed,” which focused on religious injustice. Some in the community initially considered the exhibit obscene, and Crouch organized guest lectures, including some by religious leaders, to turn the controversy into a learning experience for all, and a testament to the principle of freedom of expression. It took leadership for Susan Pierce, president of the University of Puget Sound, to deaccession the university’s locally popular law school, because it detracted from the university’s aspirations to become a national liberal arts institution. Fervent commitment to breaking the escalating tuition spiral prompted Samuel W. Speck and Anne C. Steele, successive presidents of Muskingum College in Ohio, to carry out a direct assault on this national problem by reducing Muskingum’s tuition in 1996 by 29 percent and since then, maintaining Muskingum’s lower tuition rate. And Pace University’s president, David Caputo, demonstrated heroic calm, confidence, and a rational plan to prevent panic in the hours and days following the terrorist attacks and collapse of the World Trade Center, which was, literally, adjacent to the campus. Good leadership fosters change that is both transformative and sustainable. It can be concerned with moral or organizational matters. It can define the college’s role in the world beyond its walls or it can determine the internal dynamics of the institution. Most importantly, it requires a worthy goal—a vision, if you will—but it also requires persistence. It is no accident that the many independent colleges and universities that have enjoyed long periods of enrollment growth and program innovation, are known for especially effective leadership over long time spans. Of CIC’s 513 member institutions, 120 are now led by presidents who have served for ten years or longer. Longevity is not always synonymous with good leadership, to be sure, but it is a measure of both the courage to take a stand and persistence in working it through—long after the headlines have shifted to another topic. Does a college president need to engage a controversial issue—especially one that has resonance with a national debate over public policy—in order to demonstrate effective leadership? Certainly not. For more than a decade, the United States has struggled to cope with a severe shortage of K-12 teachers. Quietly, at least 79 smaller private colleges and universities have launched so-called alternate teacher preparation programs, attracting to the teaching profession many talented individuals who would probably have chosen other careers. Few complimentary newspaper editorials or comments by public officials have accompanied these efforts, as these colleges have persistently countered the older practices and policies that retard the country’s ability to train a greater number of new teachers. Some small colleges are contributing significantly to the solution of this national problem. When students and faculty members, residents of the local community, or officials of local school systems have confidence in the durability and fairness of the college’s leadership, significant results can be achieved. Whether the college president is charismatic or a “servant leader,” utilizes a “top-down” style or an extreme version of shared authority, the best examples of leadership effectiveness are the many college presidents who have set idealistic goals, have maintained the courage of their convictions through the necessarily quiet and detailed work that follows, and have thereby achieved what they started. Independent |
