I did not have an hours this week with my mentor. However, I did gain some significant insights from my reading this week.
In the opening chapters of Fullan’s and Scott’s (2009) Turnaround Leadership for Higher Education, the authors discuss the challenges facing higher education and the failed strategies that have characterized change in higher education settings. Three key concepts that resonated with me are part of several factors that characterized a change averse culture. These factors are unclear accountability and acknowledgement systems, unaligned structure and processes, and poor leadership identification, focus, and support.
Unclear accountability and acknowledgement systems
A key indicator of this characteristic is staff working around a noticeably poor performing worker and not be willing to confront them. Also, people in the environment avoid addressing unfavorable issues fearing they will upset social norms. Additionally, there is a failure to communicate clear expectations and hold staff accountable for failing to meet them. Often funding, performance, development, and rewards are misaligned with the strategic goals of change efforts. Finally, staff are who are performing well and meeting fulfilling established responsibilities are not adequately acknowledged.
In my current context, we have not done enough to appreciate our strong workers. We have taken steps to address this through the presentation of an award to the staff member who presented the most positive attitude while executing their duties during that time. As supervisors, we have also begun to conduct more professional development check-ins. The requirement is to communicate expectations at the beginning of the annual professional development cycle and conduct an evaluation at the end of the cycle. However, we found that the staff required more formal and informal feedback. I conduct my check-ins every two to three months because I have staff members who have been with us for less than a year. It has been a good tool for reiterating expectations and clarifying individual goals.
Unaligned structure and processes
Management and decision-making structures may present strong support or significant opposition with regard to engagement, responsiveness, and implementation. In some higher education organizations where areas of leadership are decentralized, administrative and academic staff may operate in parallel without little to no collaboration. Also, position descriptions should align with organizational goals and should be complimentary to the other positions within its proximity. Also, too often, professional development workshops are given by individuals who are not familiar with the participant’s work situation. Professional development opportunities should be tailored to the context within which the participants work.
The us versus them mentality does exist in our institution. I have encouraged more explanation. I have found that leaders may often reduce staff members to children when the treat them as if they cannot grasp the “bigger picture.” I try as best I can to utilize every opportunity to teach and spread knowledge. I see it as preparation for the larger scale activities. I have found in my experience that spreading knowledge is a key factor in building trust with staff and helping others develop competence. Continuous professional development not only supports current work; it also prepares a person for a key role in the change that they may participate in in the future.
Poor leadership Identification, focus, and support
Many leaders at varying levels have experienced substantial difficulty leading change in organizations with impenetrable systems and approaches and a culture that is resistant to change. Moreover, very little time or effort is spent determining a leader candidates level of experience leading change in a complex environment. Further, most of the professional development tools that leaders need to improve their skills are supported by only a few higher education institutions. Finally, leader identification and development is a critical area that does not receive the attention needed to produce leaders of effective change.
It has been my experience that organizations do not actively support leader development or mentorship. It often feels as though many leaders are afraid such efforts will diminish them in their roles. Other times, it feels like there is a competition. I have seen many different forms of leadership. However, I have rarely seen wisdom. Higher education leaders and those who aspire to be leaders, need some form of ongoing professional development. I have found that so much time is lost waiting for a new administrator to gain an understanding of the organization and practice and begin to show signs of growth. At the very least, higher education institutions should work to develop a stronger onboarding process that provides leaders with a more coherent direction and helps them visualize the way ahead.
Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
No comments:
Post a Comment