|
Leading
in an organization is much like conducting an orchestra. The conductor
must stay one full beat ahead of the orchestra, envisioning the
whole opus as it is to be played while keeping a keen ear to the
ongoing performance. Filled with unpredictability and contradiction,
the musical interpretation of the opus flows through our bodies
with great intensity. Sometimes the inclination is to reduce the
composition and the performance into distinct parts to better understand
the intent of composer, conductor and musicians. Often, this deludes
us into the romantic notion that we can reduce the opus into discrete
components that explain the unexplainable.
The need to reduce the complex, explain the unexplainable, polarize
rationality and intuition, and describe traits and attributes of
successful leaders is reflected in decades of research and publication
across a multitude of disciplines. Yet, even the most sophisticated
integration of these theories, coupled with self-awareness and introspection,
seems to fall short when leading within the complex environment
of higher education. The purpose of this paper is to provide an
overview of the changing landscape of higher education and present
a summary of theories that apply to the study and practice of leadership.
Furthermore, the author seeks to stimulate thinking about the potential
integration of nomadic feminist practice and the central tenets
of complexity theory as complimentary frameworks that can be employed
by women leaders in the postmodern university.
The Changing Landscape of Higher Education
Universities have long been seen as traditional sites of learning,
knowledge development, and scholarship. However, the restructuring
of higher education in the 1990s, in an effort to move toward a
global knowledge economy, has led to profound and substantive changes
in the identity and defining characteristics of the university.
Shrinking government funds, increased demands for accountability,
demographic shifts, globalization, and an age of information technology
in the midst of changing business culture are among some of the
issues faced by leaders in higher education (Wenniger & Conroy,
2001). Increasingly, university leadership is under siege by the
process of globalization, and is employing frameworks for decision-making
that are based on economic restructuring with a powerful thrust
toward creating a corporate university environment.
The base of the traditional university is increasingly being transformed
into a privatized corporate commodity where the exchange of knowledge
and learning is the source of ‘value’ to the consumer
and is of high regard in a capitalist economy. Ann Brooks (2001)
maintained that these changes have resulted in a shift from the
epistemological foundations of the traditional university, with
its westernized, humanistic frame of reference, to a more technocratic,
instrumental emphasis in terms of knowledge, language, and goals.
Others argue that these movements can be seen as positive and an
aspect of the “repositioning of universities within an emerging
global knowledge economy” (Robertson, 1998; Pritchard, 1999,
p.5). Some claim that the direction of capitalistic economies is
toward an intensified emphasis on the capitalization and misuse
of learning and of knowledge practices and products (Pritchard,
1999).
Over the last decade, a number of countries have witnessed direct
political involvement in the reform of higher education. Thus, government-sourced
reform of higher education may be read as an outcome of alliances
between state, private sector, and international consulting bodies
and part of economic, political and social transformations involving
an enhanced position for knowledge and particularly learning as
a key source of value in capitalist economies (Pritchard, 1999).
Critics of the changes contend that universities are being repositioned
within an emerging knowledge economy. In the process, it is argued
that the focus on careers, credentials, and managerial practices
leaves little space for critical scholarship or challenging teaching
(Parker & Jary, 1995). In addition, the focus on performance
and transferability of the knowledge that is produced by academics
has put the emphasis on ‘exchange value’ rather than ‘use
value’ of such knowledge (Willmott, 1995). Prichard and Willmott
(1997) claimed that the use of performance measures and associated
practices as well as the language of line managers, customers, and
products is centrally concerned with the repositioning of the university
as a site of economic and managerial transformation.
In their comparative study of universities in Australia, the United
States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, Slaughter and Leslie (1997)
described the scenario of academic capitalism. They noted that state
funds are being supplanted by private funds; new and more dangerous
liaisons are being struck with industry; university courses are
being modularized, packaged, and marketed; and administrative officers
shape programs and curricula, and standardize routine faculty work
while costs are transferred to students. In general, academic work
is being transformed. Innovative universities are now increasingly
characterized by their entrepreneurship rather than their scholarship,
faculty and administrative values are in conflict, and funding favors
those who are self-funding.
Universities across the globe are experiencing the pressures of:
(a) globalization and e-commerce, (b) government policies for lifelong
learning and widening participation, (c) changing markets, (d) greater
research selectivity, and (e) new imperatives for community links
(Tysome, 2000). Universities have responded to the need for ever-increasing
efficiency through creating a more casual workplace, downsizing
employees, strengthening accountabilities of staff by working in
a more competitive manner, and encouraging mergers between institutions.
The resulting culture is one that is suggestive of a marketplace,
promoting individualism and individual achievement rather than collegiality
and cooperative efforts. Paradoxically, this change is occurring
at a time when there is increased emphasis on universities to implement
equal opportunity policies and anti-discrimination measures (Hearn,
1999).
The day-to-day operations of the university reflect the changes
of globalization by an increased importance on the principle of
optimizing performance where efficiency and effectiveness become
the criteria for judging knowledge acquisition. Performance is focusing
on responding to the demands of market forces and the design of
new processes that redefine academic work. At the same time, Blakemore
and Sachs (2000) pointed out that the performance principle relies
increasingly on exploitation of the emotional, intellectual, and
physical work of academics and their desire to be successful in
ways that many academics and educational leaders find distressing.
They suggested that this focus on performance is mainly about image
and efficiency under the new management approach, market order,
and that these images of success are gender inflected.
Gender and the Academic World
Despite significant changes in legislation, the women’s movement,
and increased numbers of women who participate in education and
the labor market, women continue to be underrepresented in positions
of leadership. The demographics of female leaders throughout higher
education illuminate the fact that there are far fewer women occupying
positions of senior leadership than should be expected. According
to Chliwniak (1997), only 16% of college and university women are
presidents, only 13% of chief business officers are women, and only
25% of chief academic officers are women. However, women comprise
more than 52% of the current student body. This beckons the paradox:
we say leadership in higher education is not gender based, but significant
numbers of women do not occupy positions of leadership.
Dominant and diverse gendering of organizations has been the subject
of extensive research and analysis. Feminist and other critical
feminist-influenced studies have examined the explicit and implicit
gendering of organizations and management (Acker, 1990; Ferguson,
1984; Hearn & Parkin, 1995; Mills & Tancred, 1992; Powel,
1988). In contrast, academia often is presented as gender-neutral,
in both popular and academic representations. According to Hearn
(2001), academic life is incessantly, perhaps inherently, gendered
organizationally, structurally and practically. Like organizations,
and managements more generally, universities have grown as institutions
characterized by definite hierarchical patterns, themselves defined
by and reproducing other social divisions and social relationships,
including age, class, disability, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.
Furthermore, Hearn (2001) elaborated that gender equality is not
just about structures and procedures but also about the content
of academic teaching and research, and the deconstruction of non-gendered
mainstreams. Unfortunately, it is still possible to be a respected
male social science academic and not read, support or cite scholarship
by women, especially feminist scholarship. These are common academic
practices that are in need of urgent attention and change. It also
must be noted that gender is but one expression of diversity. It
exists with race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and social class,
family of origin, gender preference, profession, and level of education
to name just a few defining characteristics of individuals.
Research into the position of academic women in universities has
focused on the structural and cultural impediments to women’s
progression into senior levels (Brooks, 1997; Castleman, A., Allen,
M., Bastalich, W. & Wright, 1995) but little attention has been
given to leadership attitudes, performance and the development needs
of women holding leadership positions in universities. A challenging
issue is that leadership traditionally has been studied employing
male norms as the standard for behaviors. It is not unusual for
women to adopt male standards of leadership success so as to fit
into the patriarchal structures and systems that compose higher
education.
The management and business literature often portrays the leader
as genderless or gender-neutral. However, according to Chliwniak
(1997) and other scholars such as Barrie Thorne and Deborah Tannen,
who research gender differences, social norms and issues of gender-role
ascription create differences between women and men. Gilligan’s
(1988) research on cognitive development has served as a catalyst
for many of today’s contemporary scholars to examine, explore
and revise the overall definition and understanding of leadership.
Gilligan (1988) argues that a single model or reasoning pattern
and stages of moral development fail to capture the different realities
of women’s lives. Gilligan’s work identified a separate
development pathway that results in personal and relational responsibility
being of highest value for females and legalistic justice for individuals
being highest in males (Chliwniak, 1997).
Examining Leadership through a Critical Lens
The definition of leadership varies greatly according to theoretical,
societal and organizational assumptions. However, there is general
consensus that leaders are individuals who provide vision and meaning
for an organization and embody the ideas toward which the organization
strives. Contemporary authors’ research and publications on
leadership (Bass, 1985, 1990; Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998;
Bennis & Nanus, 1985; House, 1977; Larwood, Falbe, Kreiger,
& Miesing, 1995; Sashkin, 1988) have argued that outstanding
leaders are typically described by their followers as inspirational
and visionary. Generally, the literature on charismatic and transformational
leadership appears to take vision as vital in terms of being a critical
component of leadership that motivates people to enhanced levels
of effort and performance. According to Marriner-Tomey (2001), leaders
need to do the right things, are challenged by change, focus on
purposes, and have a future time frame. They ask why and use strategies
on their journeys to developing human potential.
In an essay exploring the evolving nature of leadership research
over the latter half of the last century, Hunt (1999) described
a period of leadership research he called the “doom and gloom”
period (the 1970s and 1980s). This period was characterized by a
generalized apathy with the development of the field and the emergence
of critics who claimed that leadership research told us very little
and had out-lived its usefulness. Specific criticism included the
belief that the number of non-integrated leadership models, prescriptions,
and the like were mind boggling, and that much of the research was
fragmentary, unrealistic, trivial, or dull. Other criticism questions
the implicit assumption of the importance of leadership, arguing
instead that there are situations in which leadership would have
no effect (Kerr & Jermier, 1978).
Hunt (1999) argued that this period ended with the advent of the
“new leadership school” (Bryman, 1992), including visionary,
transformational and charismatic leadership approaches. He claimed
this school constituted a paradigm shift in the leadership field.
Furthermore, Hunt asserted that these new theoretical approaches
transformed the field, and we acknowledge the continuing importance
of current research that helps us incrementally increase our understanding
of leadership issues.
Kouzes and Posner (1987) described five leadership practices common
to successful leaders. These practices involve: (a) challenging
the process by seeking out opportunities, experimenting and taking
risks, (b) inspiring a shared vision by envisioning the future and
enlisting support, (c) enabling others to act by fostering collaboration
and empowering others to act, (d) modeling the way by setting an
example and planning small wins, and (e) encouraging the heart by
recognizing individual contributions and celebrating accomplishments.
Bass and Avolio (1993) suggested that transformational leaders change
the organization by realigning the organization’s culture with
the new vision and revision of assumptions, values and norms. They
identified four components that characterize transformational leaders:
(a) idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual
stimulation, and (d) consideration for the individual.
The transformational leader promotes employee development, attends
to needs and wants of followers, inspires through optimism, influences
changes in perception, provides intellectual stimulation, and encourages
follower creativity. Bass (1985) described transformational leaders
in terms of charisma, inspirational leadership, individualized consideration,
and intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders provide the
language, symbols, and emphasis on mutual goals that can help lead
to correlation (Bass, 1985; Hater & Bass, 1988). They also lead
followers to forgo their personal needs in an effort to meet the
needs of others (Bass, 1985). Moreover, transformational leaders
encourage followers to challenge ideas and assume responsibility
because they show confidence in followers’ capability to take
on assignments. This represents a facilitating rather than controlling
leadership style (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Burns (1978) emphasized
that transformational leaders seek to meet needs of the whole person.
This results in a mutual relationship between the leader and the
follower.
According to Chliwniak (1997), transformational leadership develops
organizational consensus and empowers those who are like-minded
in their goals. Further, since patriarchy has been organized through
men’s relationships with other men, a similar unity among women
is an effective means by which to combat institutionalized forms
and norms that exclude women.
Hollander and Offermann (1990) addressed that the latest trends
in research on power and leadership:
reflect a shift in focus from a leader-dominated view to a broader
one of follower involvement in expanding power … [and] presume
the willingness of leaders themselves to embrace the notion of sharing
power with subordinates, … [thereby fostering] the development
of leadership in others. (p. 179-185)
Such approaches promote good interpersonal relations, team leadership,
worker participation in decision-making, and the establishment of
a climate of openness, mutual trust, respect, concern, and receptiveness
(Harris, Smith & Hale, 2002).
A conceptual framework for women’s ways of leading can be found
in the work of Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Taruel (1986).
In their discussion of women’s ways of knowing, they described
a way of viewing the world that is characteristic of what they refer
to as “constructed knowledge,” “a position in which
women view all knowledge as contextual, experience themselves as
creators of knowledge, and value both subjective and objective strategies
for knowing” (p. 15). Constructivist women “show high
tolerance for internal contradiction and ambiguity” (p. 137)
and completely abandon the “either/or” way of thinking.
Women who have achieved success in higher educational leadership
possess the needed qualities and behaviors that are critical to
educational reform and the creation of a truly humanistic educational
community (Harris, Smith & Hale, 2002). This allows both men
and women to break away from the confining nature of stereotypes;
and that can lead to fluid and productive communication among men
and women as they work in collaboration to address the challenges
of leading in higher education.
Reframing the Leadership Journey
Leadership is a dynamic and interconnected process that involves
interacting with complex systems and structures within the university.
Feminist scholar Braidotti (1994) provided an energizing and valuable
perspective on leading within the changing university environment.
Hills and Rowan (2002) discussed the strength of Braidotti’s
(1994) framework in that it showed a liberating representation of
the work associated with transforming university environments. Braidotti
(1994) called for a nomadic type of feminist practice, “where
discontinuities, transformations, shifts of levels and locations
can be accounted for, exchanged, and talked about” (p. 172).
The nomad appealed to Braidotti because of its ability to pass through
occupied territories (such as universities) while remaining in excess
of them. It is precisely because of the nomad’s ability to
make transient connections and its transitory and mobile image that
Braidotti (1994) chose this as her figuration for a new feminist
subjectivity and politics. She went on to write that being a nomad,
living in transition, does not mean that one is unable or unwilling
to create those necessary stable and reassuring bases for identity
that allow one to function in a community. Rather, nomadic consciousness
consists in not taking on any kind of identity as permanent. The
nomad is only passing through; making those necessarily situational
connections that can help in survival, but never taking on fully
the limits of a fixed identity. An insistence on mobility and a
refusal to be pinned down or trapped within the options offered
by masculine approaches is one of the hallmarks of nomadic feminism.
This framework is useful to female leaders because it frees them
to move beyond traditional boundaries and provides opportunities
to form connections between our lived experience and our current
activity. It can also be used to form non-hierarchical and experimental
alliances across diverse fronts in a feminist community. Our differences
become strengths not weaknesses (Braidotti, 1994).
Hills and Rowan (2002) wrote that by acknowledging that there are
multiple ways in which women can de-territorialize traditional roles,
images and spaces for women in universities are an important means
of making diverse ways of being a ‘female academic’, a
‘feminist’, or a ‘woman’ visible. This allows
women to recognize their own contributions to the broad political
project of feminist reform, without requiring them to demonstrate
how their contribution matches up to any feminist dogma. It is on
this point, that nomadic feminism can be most useful in that it
allows us to see that as our context changes so must our response
to change. We cannot rely on habituated responses or purist dogmas
but must be mobile enough to develop new strategies that are specific
to the constantly altering self-representations of a university
(Hills and Rowan, 2002). Nomadic feminism provides women leaders
with an invigorating contextual way to frame leadership that fosters
a healthy and joyful work experience for both men and women in higher
education.
Complimentary to nomadic feminism is the theory of complexity. Women
leaders can readily use the central tenets of complexity theory
in concert with nomadic feminism as a holistic and practical framework
for leading in multifaceted organizations. Complexity theory, according
to Regine and Lewin (2000), moves away from linear, mechanistic
views of the world, where simple cause-and-effect solutions are
sought to explain physical and social phenomena, to a perspective
of the world as nonlinear and organic, characterized by uncertainty
and unpredictability. Complexity science moves us away from reductionist
perspectives that reduce holistic systems to isolated observations.
Instead, it encourages us to see organizations as complex adaptive
systems composed of a diversity of agents who interact with one
another, mutually affect one another, and in so doing generate novel
behavior for the system as a whole (Marion, 1999; Regine & Lewin,
2000).
Complexity theory asserts that effective leadership is about learning
to take advantage of interactive dynamics (correlation, randomness
and interaction) among and within organizational groups (defined
as sets of individuals such as departments or other work groups
that are characterized by common, direct interrelationships). Thus,
leadership effectiveness cannot be built exclusively around controlling
the future; rather, it depends on being able to foster interactive
conditions that enable a productive future. Nor is it limited to
human relations concepts that focus on the leader’s ability
to foster relations with followers. Complex leaders understand that
the best innovations, structures and solutions to problems are not
necessarily those that they, with their limited wisdom, proclaim,
but those that surface when interacting groups work though issues.
From a complexity perspective, relationship-oriented behaviors would
enable effective networks rather than simply keeping peace or motivating
enhanced effort. This changes the role of the leader to one who
is able to create conditions in which followers’ behaviors
can produce structure and innovation. This can be risky but it can
produce remarkable and lasting results. Complex organizations exist
on a cusp, “the edge of chaos,” just shy of anarchy, risking
catastrophe to enable creativity and fitness (Marion & Uhl-Bien,
2001, p.396).
Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001) provided a valuable framework as to the
application of complexity theory to leadership in higher education
that is radically different from the past theories and leadership.
They gave five specific examples as to how leadership roles are
reframed through complexity theory: (1) foster network construction,
(2) catalyze bottom-up network construction, (3) use leadership
tags, (4) drop seeds of emergence and (5) think systematically.
Foster network construction
In complex organizations, effective leaders learn to manage and
develop networks. They foster and cultivate interdependencies within
and without the organization (Marion & Bacon, 1999). Regine
and Lewin (2000) concluded in their ethnographic study of leadership
in a dozen US and UK industries that were operating according to
complexity principles, “Leaders generally felt that is was
their responsibility to enrich connections in the system and to
forge new connections where none existed or to improve existing
connections” (p.10). Networks not only provide contacts but
it is the network itself, more than direct gain from a relationship,
which benefits network participants. According to Marion & Uhl-Bien
(2001), networks provide the structure within which innovation can
emerge and grow. Systems within a network feed one another both
directly (universities and students) and indirectly (employers that
provide positions that require a degree in higher education). A
sound network provides the university with a sense of organizational
fitness and resiliency that is gained through interaction.
Catalyze bottom-up network construction
The leader can serve as a catalyst for the development of networks
within the organization. In this environment leaders effectively
delegate, empower others to make decisions and trust colleagues
to use their responsibility wisely. The atmosphere of the work area
is designed to facilitate the building of community and face-to-face
interaction. Thus, the woman leader who sees herself as a nomad
can readily move throughout the system in a fluid and highly effective
manner.
Become leadership “tags”
Leaders catalyze network development by becoming what Holland (1995)
has called a “tag.” Tags are not necessarily leaders.
Flags and ideas do not lead, yet they symbolize and draw people
together. For example, the catalyzing dean might serve as a tag
for developing a reputation that a university is a place where women
are intentionally mentored into roles of leadership. Tags promote
and express an idea and an attitude. The tag does not control the
movements of ideas as some charismatic writers suggest (Howell &
Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). Movements and organization
systems are complex entities, and the wise leaders will not stifle
their creativity with strict, top-down controls (Marion & Bien,
2001).
Drop seeds of emergence
Complex leaders identify centers of knowledge within an organization.
They encourage these centers or groups to work and create together
by taking on new projects. The complex leader does not closely control,
for controls limit the organization’s potential; rather, the
complex leader creates organized disorder in which dynamic things
happen at multiple locations and levels within the system (Regine
& Lewin, 2000).
Think systematically
Systematic thinkers are able to see the whole system (Senge, 1990).
It is an awareness of the interactive dynamics that are occurring
at all levels within and outside of the organization. Complex leaders
create the conditions that enable interactions among employees to
flourish, provide environments that foster healthy and productive
organizational cultures, and cultivate innovative and fit systems
that are fluid and resilient.
In sum, complexity theory proposes that leaders must deal with the
conditions of organizational activities more than their local manifestations.
Marion & Uhl-Bien (2001) insisted that complex leaders generate
transformational environments, or the conditions necessary for innovation,
rather than creating the innovation itself. Complex leaders drop
seeds of innovation rather than requiring innovation plans; they
create opportunities to interact rather than creating isolated and
controlled work spaces; they tend networks; they catalyze more than
they control. Complex leaders are tags, symbols, rather than brave
ship captains guiding their vessels to port. Leaders are seen as
part of a dynamic rather than being the dynamic itself and are one
element of an interactive network that is far larger than they.
Looking to the Future
Leadership is practiced within the complexity of the human setting.
The unpredictable, chaotic and fluid nature of the academic environment
requires the leader to be able to transform himself or herself by
valuing differences and acknowledging that there are different ways
of leading. Women leaders in higher education must resist the traditional
and hierarchical leadership models entrenched in current university
structures and systems.
It is imperative that we stretch ourselves to create inclusive and
innovative academic environments by looking at current practices
through new and different lenses. In leadership roles women can
take advantage of opportunities for change and demonstrate new models
of leading that resist negative practices and create learning communities
that ensure the future of the university. The central tenets of
complexity theory in concert with the practices of nomadic feminism
provide a stimulating and practical approach to leading in the postmodern
university.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered
organizations. Gender
and Society, 4(2), 139-58.
Bacchi, C. L. (1990). Same difference: Feminism and sexual difference.
North Sydney:
Allen and Unwin.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.
New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership
and organizational
culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 112-121.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational
effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Stodgill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s
handbook of leadership:
Theory, research and managerial applications. New York: Free
Press.
Baum, R. J., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. (1998). A longitudinal
study of the relations
of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial
firms.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 43-54.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule,
J. M. (1986). Women’s
ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New
York: Basic
Books.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for
taking charge. New York:
Harper and Row.
Blakemore, J., & Sachs, J. (2000). Paradoxes of leadership and
management in higher
education: Some Australian reflections. International Journal
of Leadership in
Education, 3(1), 1-16.
Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects: Embodiment and sexual
difference in
contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Brooks, A. (1997). Academic women. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Brooks, A. (2001). Restructuring bodies of knowledge. In A. Brooks
& A. Mackinnon
(Eds.), Gender and the restructured university (pp. 15-44).
Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations.
London: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and
Row.
Castleman, A., Allen, M., Bastalich, W., & Wright, P. (1995).
Limited access: Women’s
disadvantages in higher education employment. Melbourne: National
Tertiary
Education Union.
Chilwniak, L. (1997). Higher education leadership: Analyzing the
gender gap. ASHE-
ERIC Higher Eduation Report. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Press.
Ferguson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Gilligan, C., Ward, J. V., & Taylor, J. M. (Eds.). (1988). Mapping
the moral domain: A
contribution of women’s thinking to psychological theory and
education.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Hater, J., & Bass, B. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and
subordinates’ perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73,
695-702.
Harris, C. M., Smith, P. L., & Hale, R. P. (2002). Making it
work: Women’s ways of
leading. Advancing Women in Leadership, Fall, 1-8.
Hearn, J. (1999). Men, managers and management: The case of higher
education. In S.
Whitehead and R. Moodley (Eds.), Transforming managers: Gendering
change
in the public sector. London: UCL Press.
Hearn, J. (2001). Academia, management and men: Making the connections,
exploring
the implications. In A. Brooks & A. Mackinnon (Eds.), Gender
and the
restructured university (pp. 69-89). Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Hearn, J. & Parkin, W. (1995). ‘Sex at work’: The
power and paradox of organizational
Sexuality (2nd ed.). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester.
Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways
of leadership. New York:
Doubleday.
Hills, E., & Rowan, L. (2002). Feminist academics as nomadic
subjects:
Reconceptualizing women in universities. Advancing Women in Leadership
Journal, Winter, 1-19.
Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership
in organizations:
Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 45, 179-185.
Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In
J.G. Hunt, & L.L.
Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207).
Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of
charismatic leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43,
243-269.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership’s
transformation of the field:
An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. (1978). Substitutes for leadership:
Their meaning and
measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22,
375-403.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect
effects of three core
charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes.
Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36-61.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987, 1990). The leadership
challenge: How to get
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Larwood, L., Falbe, C. M., Krieger, M. P. & Miesing, P. (1995).
Structure and meaning
or organizational vision. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
740-769.
Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity
theories of formal
social organization. Newburg Park, CA: Sage.
Marion, R., & Bacon, J. (1999). Organizational extinction and
complex systems
emergence. A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations and
Management,
1(4), 71-96.
Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations.
The
Leadership Quarterly, 12, 389-418.
Marrinner-Tomey, A. (2000). Guide to nursing management and leadership.
St. Louis,
MO: Mosby.
Mills, A. J. & Tancred, P. (Eds.). (1992). Gendering organizational
analysis. London:
Sage.
Parker, M., & Jary, D. (1995). The mcuniversity: Organization,
management, and
academic subjectivity. Organization, 2(2): 319-38.
Powell, G. (1988). Women and men in management. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Prichard, C. (1999). Constructing knowledge and learning service
corporation in
Aotearoa/New Zealand. Paper presented at Massey University,
Palmerston North.
Prichard, C., & Willmott, H. (1997). Just how managed is the
mcuniversity?
Organization Studies, 18(2): 287-316.
Regine, B., & Lewin, R. (2000). Leading at the edge: How leaders
influence complex
systems. Emergence: A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations
and
Management, 2(2), 5-23.
Robertson, J. (1998). The emerging political economy of higher education.
Studies in
Higher Education, 23(2): 221-5.
Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J.A. Conger (Ed.),
Charismatic
leadership (pp. 122-160). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth disciple: The art and practice
of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism, politics,
policies and the
entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Tysome, T. (2000). It’s tough at the top for Britain’s
research elite. The Times Higher
Education Supplement, 30, June, p. 6.
Wenniger, M. D., & Conroy, M. H. (2001). Gender equity or bust!
On the road to
campus leadership with women in higher education. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass.
Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler.
Willmott, H. (1995). Managing the academics: Co modification and
control in the
development of university education in the UK. Human Relations,
48(9): 993-
1027.
|
