Academic Leaders as Thermostats - Springer Link

JOUNI KEKÄLE

ACADEMIC LEADERS AS THERMOSTATS

ABSTRACT. University of Joensuu launched a two-year development and training project on academic management and leadership in the beginning of 2002. Open seminars were arranged for heads for departments, deans and administrative managers. In addition, personnel administration started pilot projects with two departments in co-operation with the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. The idea was to develop both (a) leadership and management and (b) division of work, work ability and workplace health. The author’s book Academic Leadership (Nova Science Publishers, New York) provides a background for this practical development project. The article deals with academic leadership, leadership philosophy and the system of personnel management at the University of Joensuu, the development projects, and lessons learned from them so far.

I NTRODUCTION The explicit reference to managers in universities is a relatively new phenomenon, which has developed in the western world in the 80s (Miller 1995: 167). Middlehurst (1995) has identified several trends (such as political and economic pressures, increasing size and scope of university business, and increased demand for accountability), which have underlined the fact that “management and leadership have become necessary” in the current academic context (see also Prichard 2000). The increasing demand on academic leadership is reflected in growing volumes of leadership and management literature. Tight (2000) estimates that at least one hundred books on the broad topic were published in the UK in 1999; the number of journals on leadership and management in universities has also increased rapidly. Many of these books and texts deal with the management of practical tasks and challenges as faced by academic leaders. Indeed, the power and the responsibilities of individual leaders such as heads of departments have also considerably increased – at least officially, formally and in principle. [My case studies have shown that different departments may develop rather persistent leadership cultures and patterns of management which tend to continue to work in the traditional manner regardless of the external changes in legislation, formal power relations and university regulations (Kekäle 2001).] At the University of Joensuu, for example, the heads are now practically responsible for the efficiency of their departments and for the decisions to be taken in their Tertiary Education and Management 9: 281–298, 2003. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

282

JOUNI KEKÄLE

departments. The demanding role has inevitably implications for training and development projects dealing with leadership and management in academia. In this article I shall deal with academic leadership and describe the ongoing development project on academic management and leadership at the University of Joensuu and the experiences gained from the project so far. I shall first provide the reader with some background by describing the University of Joensuu and its management structure, and by shedding light on the system of personnel leadership and leadership philosophy related to this system. The discussion will be connected to official policies at the University of Joensuu, but will reflect my own viewpoints also. The discussion will inevitably remain on a rather general level in relation to different view-points and opinions on leadership and management matters. The potential controversy starts with the concepts of leadership and management which are open to numerous definitions and interpretations (Birnbaum 1989: 22; Middlehurst 1993: 7; Bush 1995). Leadership and management can be seen as two complementary aspects or systems of action (Middlehurst 1993). A loose conceptual distinction is often made between them: Management refers to orientation towards results and goals, organising tasks and systems, while leadership alludes to orientation towards human relations and organising people. Studies have demonstrated that persons in charge often have a tendency to stress either leadership or management functions and behaviour in their work; different organisational or leadership cultures may also maintain this kind of emphases (e.g. Kekäle 2001). However, in practice both these functional aspects need to be taken into account if a leader/manager wishes to be effective (Blake & Mouton 1964). Middlehurst (1993: 129) notes that leadership and management functions have been closely integrated at the departmental level. When the university started the general education/development programme for administrators and academic leaders in the beginning of the year 2002, the emphasis was initially on management issues such as administrative regulations. The university had previously arranged leadership training with the help of some external experts. This time it was felt that after the renewal of certain service regulations and the university strategy, it is of a crucial importance to discuss these issues with newly appointed leaders who had just started their four-year periods as head of departments or deans. However, the new leaders stressed leadership and personnel policy issues so much that leadership training became a more substantial part of the development programme. As a result, the development programme has emphasised both the aspects of leadership


283

and management – as will this paper. In this article, I shall deal mainly with the management and leadership of academic units. However, before starting a more detailed discussion of the development project let us look at the relevant background of the institution itself, the University of Joensuu and its management structure.

T HE U NIVERSITY OF J OENSUU AND I TS M ANAGEMENT S TRUCTURE The University of Joensuu was founded in 1969. The institution is a multidisciplinary university with six Faculties: Education, Forestry, Humanities, Science, Social Sciences and Theology. In addition to the main campus in Joensuu, the university has a second campus in Savonlinna, a city known for its medieval castle and world-famous opera festival. The university has currently over 7,000 students, approximately 1,000 of whom study at the Savonlinna campus. The staff comprises about 1300 people, of whom 180 work in Savonlinna. The university participates in several international networks, including ECIU (European Consortium of Innovative Universities, see www.eciu.org). The university’s particular strengths and areas of expertise are: 1. Multi-disciplinary teacher training programme, which trains teachers for all levels of the education system 2. Teaching and research related to forests, other renewable resources and the environment 3. Proficiency in the development and application of high technology 4. Teaching and research relating to the social and cultural development of the European peripheral areas and border regions. The highest decision-making body at the university is the senate. It is responsible for the general development of the university’s operations; it also, among other things, appoints professors and approves the university’s main official documents such as the accounts and annual report. The rector directs the activities of the university and deals with and resolves matters relating to its general administration, unless otherwise provided in acts, decrees or university regulations. The university has one vice-rector who is responsible for personnel matters. The director of administration leads the administration office, and, among other things, decides on major acquisitions of equipment and property and on study leave applications by members of staff. The faculties (with the exception of the faculty of forestry which does not have separate departments) are divided into eighteen departments. In addition, there are two practice schools and nine separate institutes and

284

JOUNI KEKÄLE

centres, such as the computer centre, the university library and the educational technology centre, to mention only a few. The faculties are led by deans and faculty councils; the departments, institutes and centres have heads of departments and – in the case of rather independent institutes and centres – directors as their leaders. As noted, the heads of departments are responsible to deans and to the rector for the effectiveness (in terms of degree production) of their departments. The degree targets aimed at are set by the university after negotiations with the Ministry of Education (for the background of the negotiation system, see Rekilä 1995). Over the years, there have been discussions in Finland on the issue whether or not academic leaders and managers should be professionals who are appointed to their leadership posts on a permanent basis. Today, the senate, faculty councils and deans are still elected by their peers for a period of four years (student members of the collegial bodies for two years) at a time. The deans appoint heads of departments for four years after taking advice from the department in question. Rectors are elected for five years at the time. As the key leaders may change – and the new ones may not be experienced in leadership and management – the development of leadership/management training and the development of support structures for personnel management and leadership have become crucial issues. T HE S YSTEM OF P ERSONNEL M ANAGEMENT AND L EADERSHIP The delegation of the functions of personnel management and leadership to local leaders is a typical feature in personnel strategies of many Finnish universities, including the strategy of the University of Joensuu. A postmodern and multi-disciplinary university is too complex an organisation to be managed and run completely from the top down. The dynamics and development within the various disciplinary fields tend to be much too complicated to be controlled even by the academics, let alone by the university management (Clark 1997). The many cultures within academia are too diverse to be led by using a single, uniform pattern of leadership (Becher 1989; Becher & Trowler 2001; Kekäle 2001). At the University of Joensuu, managerial solutions in such an original and complex leadership environment has been sought from Birnbaum’s (1989) ideas on cybernetics and self-regulation as well as from Clark’s (1983) seminal work (Hölttä & Pulliainen 1996). A university is an open system in constant interaction with its environments. A university is also a loosely coupled system in the sense that the organisational units of a university are only partially connected to each other. The administrative action connects the basic units with certain rules and regulations,


285

which normally do not strictly direct the core issues of academic work, namely research and teaching. The basic academic tasks largely belong to the realm of academic freedom and are, therefore, directed mainly by academic professionals. Consequently, a university should rely on selfregulating control loops and monitor only a limited number of variables and strategic issues (Hölttä & Pulliainen 1996). There are other grounds for the delegation of leadership and management functions to local managers such as heads of departments: The basic academic tasks are carried out in the departments, which may differ from each other on the basis of culture, disciplinary basis, economical resources and expectations of the personnel (Kekäle 2001). At the level of the basic unit, there is (or should be) the best understanding for the operational (local and academic) environment and the best prerequisites for leadership, and for smooth self-regulative actions when needed. In both in good and bad times, the key professors can have power and influence over the kind of research conducted within their department, the expectations concerning that research, and the tempo or the manner of work: Although researchers may often be rather independent, academic leaders can hinder or help the pursuit of the scholarly activities of the researchers in many ways (Moses 1985: 338). In particular, the academic’s contribution to research constitutes a very strong source of personal power, influence and respect in his/her own department and field (Tucker 1993: 44–46; Kekäle 2001). This does not imply that the university cannot direct the basic academic tasks at a certain level, or to some degree, on the basis of its strategical, policy-driven and economic considerations. After hearing the faculties, the rector of the University of Joensuu decides annually which teaching and research posts or offices will be established, declared vacant or done away with. The document, which is called “the strategic personnel plan” has proved to be an important tool in implementing the strategy and in keeping overall expenditures in control. Another mechanism for implementing strategy is the process of internal target negotiations in which the basic funding of the departments is the issue, and in which other questions can also be discussed before the rector decides on the internal allocation of funds (on the basis of key results of the department in comparison with the results of other departments in the same disciplinary field in Finnish higher education). The central management also has other ways to make an impact. The use of the university’s reward systems (which, however, mainly monitor the quantity and quality of the work being done) and the allocation of economic resources to certain preferred projects, for example. In addition, a new, more rewarding salary system is under negotiation in Finnish higher

286

JOUNI KEKÄLE

education. The university of Joensuu has taken an active and a pioneering role in this major reform. [The author has acted as a chairman of a national working group dealing with the new salary system, and also participates in the ongoing central negotiations with trade unions.] In the issues of personnel management and leadership the division of labour between different administrative levels is as follows: The central decision-makers (the senate, rectors and director of administration) decide on the common and general guidelines and principles which can be evaluated, corrected and rethought on the basis of the feedback gained. Within these broad outlines, the departments will develop their own policies and practices. Academic leaders as thermostats Leadership is not an action with an inherent value. Rather, the aim is to support the basic tasks and excellent performance, to maintain a good working atmosphere, personnel policy and well-functioning internal cooperation. On a broad scale, leadership is perhaps best assessed on the basis of how well the basic work is carried out by the group in question, and on the basis of the evaluations of the “subordinates” (Hogan, Curphy & Hogan 1994). It has often been argued that the idea of strong management and heroic leadership is inappropriate in the context of academic institutions (e.g. Becher 1989; Birnbaum 1989; Middlehurst & Kennie 1995). As Dearlove (1995: 13) stresses: Precisely because fundamental research involves going beyond the frontiers of established understanding, good researchers can hardly be told what to do.

Academic leaders act as thermostats: he/she does not have to control or direct everything, but instead concentrates on promoting the most important strategic issues. In “normal times”, when everything is running smoothly and well, the leader supports basic conditions of work, maintains a creative working atmosphere and tries to keep things in a proper balance and within the range of normal operational conditions. The responsibility of the leaders and managers is to keep things going and keep the organisation working. One good way to achieve this is to make the followers more independent, to facilitate commitment and reflective self-management (Hersey & Blanchard 1982; Sims & Lorenzi 1992). The reward structures and salary systems of the organisation should support and reward work which is done well and according to the strategic preferences of the university. However, when serious problems arise, the limits of acceptable operation are exceeded, or the self-management skills of the members of staff


287

are tottering, leaders may have to contribute more actively to the process by providing support, advice or a more direct leadership (Hersey & Blanchard 1982; also Birnbaum 1989). The thermostat reacts by trying to resolve the tension between different contradictions and pressures. If the problems cannot be solved at local departmental level, the leader can contact the dean or central administration which will act as further thermostats, by resolving the tensions and by seeking solutions to the problems at hand. This structure works especially in relation to social tensions and administrative problems. In extreme cases the rector has the power to take stronger actions if needed (e.g. by giving warnings). The departments have also been encouraged to establish a body consisting of respected members of senior staff, which would support the head of a department in his/her leadership role during the times of crises. The university has also established other similar buffer-structures, -organs and -groups, which will initially deal with (potential) problems related to conflicts between staff or, among other things, (suspicions of) sexual harassment or discrimination. A general starting point is that leadership and management do not take place in a social vacuum. Currently, influential trends in leadership theories have taken fully into account the impact of power and cultural influence, subjectivist perspectives, and they emphasise the idea of leadership as a process. Contingency (and cultural) theories, which have remained influential from the late 1960s to the present, have discarded the notion of One Best Way of Leadership (Smith & Petterson 1988). These theories are based on at least three assumptions: (1) different circumstances require different qualities or patterns of behaviour for a leader to be effective; (2) leadership is not unidimensional, but the dynamic interaction between leader and context will inevitably shape the nature of leadership; (3) context and circumstances place different demands and constraints on leaders (Middlehurst 1993: 20). The pressures and possibilities a leader will have to deal with – as well as, to a great extent, the “limits of acceptable operation” according to which the “thermostat” will have to react – may arise from legislation, (sub)cultural norms and values, economic resources, power issues or the (mis)fit of human competence in relation to the needs of the work (Kekäle 1998). An academic leader inevitably operates in a complex, changing and historically developing field of possibilities loosely framed by features, pressures and possibilities arising from the simultaneous interaction of the contextual spheres (legislation, economic resources, human competence and resources, the cultural sphere and the sphere of power and interests). In principle, any action can be fostered or hindered by the different spheres. In the negative case: the action can be illegal, against cultural values,

288

JOUNI KEKÄLE

impossible to carry out in financial terms or because of the lack of the competence needed. The relationship between the act and the contextual sphere may be ambiguous or neutral, or legislation, culture, etc. may also support certain acts or behavioural patterns. The contextual spheres change in time and place, but the diverse contextual aspects – the field of possibilities – largely determine what is good and appropriate in terms of leadership, and what is not. Previous leaders may have contributed to the current field of possibilities; and an academic leader may also broaden the field of possibilities by applying funding, by negotiating with the staff in order to bring about cultural change, by starting training/development programmes which provide the personnel with new competencies, etc (for further discussion on the heuristic model of the field of possibilities, see Kekäle 1998). Since the local and disciplinary contexts vary, different basic units may develop their own leadership cultures and ways of working within the broad frames set by the university (Kekäle 2001). Blau (1974) has maintained that the dilemma of leadership is that it requires both power over others, and their legitimating approval of that power. The collective approval of a leadership position must be earned. This is a challenge faced by each and every academic leader. It has to be dealt with mainly on the basis of his/her own competence and merits. Holding a managerial position alone cannot guarantee the approval of a leadership position by the staff. Management training and development projects cannot guarantee this either, but at least they can provide the leaders with some solutions, contextual and theoretical knowledge and information needed in their demanding task.

T HE D EVELOPMENT P ROJECT ON L EADERSHIP AND M ANAGEMENT The project developing management and leadership consisted of two parts: (1) General training for all managers and academic leaders (heads of departments, deans and leading administrators), and (2) pilot projects for two departments in cooperation with the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. The initial idea in the latter has been to develop both (a) leadership and management and (b) working ability and health at the workplace. The basic aim has been to find good practices and, especially, simple and working structures for management training. A rather unique feature in Finland is that the systems of occupational healthcare and occupational safety are strong and both of them have an active, preventive orientation and connections to legislation. To my knowl-


289

edge, there have been no development projects combining workplace health and leadership training in the university sector so far, but there is one such project going on in the Finnish communal sector. However, the State Treasury has launched a special programme providing funding for development projects with this kind of orientation. At the university of Joensuu, the project derived its basic orientation from the personnel strategy of the university, in which the aim is to develop simultaneously both (a) leadership, efficiency and quality of work, and (b) health at the workplace, and to find a balance between these broad aims. The project is basically a practical one. The author was responsible for organising the development project. The considerations in the previous section provided a theoretical background for the project. In particular, the idea of the field of possibilities of academic leaders (Kekäle 1998) was crucial. In order to act as thermostat, an academic leader has to know the operational context she/he finds her/himself in. This concerns, among other things, the partly overlapping spheres of the field of possibilities mentioned in the previous section: (1) Economic resources (funding possibilities and regulations), (2) legislation, (3) leadership in the cultural context and leadership of culture, (4) power and authority issues in connection with the leadership position, and (5) human resource management (HRM, including recruitment and management of human competence). The broad aim was to provide the audience with training that would help them to better understand their leadership context and to foster their ability to manage their role: To promote strategic aims and to keep things going and the organisation working by acting as “thermostats” and by working with concrete and symbolic, established and ambiguous aspects of the field of possibilities open to them (Kekäle 1998). The general training The general management/leadership training started in February 2002. All key administrators and the new elected leaders were invited to participate in the training programme. The idea in this first meeting was to screen the hopes and expectations of the participants in relation to the seminars to be arranged. This was done in order to facilitate commitment among academic leaders. As different contexts and circumstances involve different demands, constraints and choices on leaders, the idea was also to bring the local pressures the participants are facing into open discussion. The first meeting started with a task which provided a background for open discussion. The participants were first asked to consider and to define themselves their core (key) tasks as leaders/managers. Then each

290

JOUNI KEKÄLE

TABLE I Leadership/management functions by Mäntyranta et al. (1999) and the number of corresponding proposals for training topics Function or theme

1. Strategic management 2. Financial management 3. Operative leadership/management 4. PR-issues 5. Self-management 6. Personnel management and leadership 7. Transformational leadership and development work

Number of proposals for training topics 12 23 25 19 14 42 –

was asked to list three criteria for successful leadership/management on the basis of their previous understandings. They completed the task in 15 minutes. The next task dealt with the actual leadership/management training: each participant was asked to list three to five (3–5) most important topics for the forthcoming training programme when considering the basic leadership/management tasks they have just listed. The proposals were written on large memo-stickers which were then collected by the organisers. The organisers classified the proposals on the basis of the themes or leadership functions they represented. A large circle divided into seven segments, each named after the pre-selected leadership functions (Mäntyranta et al. 1999) was set on the wall of the lecture hall. The proposals (stickers) were then set on their corresponding segments. These leadership functions and the number of corresponding proposals for leadership/management training topics were those listed in Table I. Obviously, there are overlaps between the categories and leadership functions. It is always possible to argue for different kind of distinctions and categorisations of leadership functions. The classification of leadership functions was used solely as a heuristic tool and as an illustrator of different potential training topics and the wishes by the participants. According to my observation it served well for this purpose. The Universities of Oulu and Helsinki have used it (in a somewhat different manner) for this purpose too. The demonstration allowed the participants to have a concrete picture of the emphases in their proposals for topics in leader-


291

ship training, and provided the seminar a good starting point for further discussion of the forthcoming training programme. Two striking issues arose on the basis of this demonstration: (1) No direct and concrete proposals were made in relation to transformational leadership (Birnbaum 1989; Middlehurst 1993) and (2) personnel management and, especially, leadership received most of the votes. The absence of direct proposals for transformational leadership as a theme for common leadership training might have to do with the categorisation and classification of the proposals, but in hindsight and when viewed from another angles, the interpretation remains that this particular perspective was not directly stressed in the short proposals. However, transformational leadership was stressed in an indirect manner. It can be interpreted that at least part of the proposals which dealt with personnel leadership had to do with leading towards change and new values – in other words, transformational leadership. This is, of course, an issue of great importance at the University of Joensuu and in other institutions of higher education also. As noted, personnel management and leadership issues have become more important with the increased accountability and delegation of decisionmaking powers to local leaders. The heads of departments may indeed find themselves in the role of a mediator – or a thermostat - between the academic departmental culture and the current managerial demands, set in the spirit of management by objectives. A thorough general discussion followed the classification of proposals for training topics made at the first meetings. This discussion lasted for a couple of hours; the author continued as a chairman and consultant responsible for the seminar. The participants gave more feedback, clarifications and ideas within the basic framework of their previous proposals. It was agreed that the proposals would be taken fully into consideration in the training programme, but also the strategic needs and considerations of the University would be taken into account during the forthcoming seminars. By following this principle, the personnel administration then classified the proposals on a new basis, namely according to the areas of competence and responsibility of the administrative professionals at the university. The general training programme was to be run mainly by internal experts – with the help of some external consultants, when needed. After some initial discussions within a central management team of the University the following outline for the seminars was agreed (compare to Walker 1998): 1. Internal and external communications at the university 2. Legal grounds for action and leadership roles; supporting database management systems

292

JOUNI KEKÄLE

3. The university’s strategy. The management of – and the support services for – core tasks: research and instruction (including funding possibilities) 4. Financial management (including relevant regulations) 5. Personnel management and leadership (including HRM issues and leadership in the contexts of disciplinary and departmental cultures; Kekäle 2001) It was ensured that the seminars, as a whole, covered key contextual aspects of leadership (Kekäle 1998), emphasised both the aspects of leadership and management, and also dealt with general issues and tasks of the managers. The logic in this schedule was basically to move from general aspects of the leadership environment towards more specific and practical regulations and tools – in the following manner: The director of communications started, as the area represented a current emphasis of the University and he had materials for the seminar ready. After this, the participants were provided with an overview of the underlying legislation (by the vice-rector) and the means for finding more information from the university information systems. Then the University’s own strategies and priorities were discussed by the rector; the support services from the central administration provided their contributions in financial and personnel management. Each organiser paid special attention to the original proposals from the first meeting. The seminars typically lasted for one working day each. The seminars were mainly organised around lectures and open discussions. All the seminars were held by the end of April. Some of the participants gave written feedback after the seminars. The feedback was mainly positive: the structure and the organisation of the general training were considered as good. The main complaint was that some of the leaders found it difficult to find time for participation in the seminars. It was proposed that the training should be arranged over a period of few days outside the university. Leadership and personnel management were still the most frequently mentioned themes for further seminars, but also financial and legal matters were considered as areas worth further personnel training. More training was expected in the future. Consequently, the university started a series of seminars during the autumn 2002. This time the training was open for the whole staff. The broader scope in training is based on the educational plan of the University of Joensuu and on the demands by the staff. However, also direct leadership training will be continued as a part of the educational plan.


293

The pilot projects After the general leadership/management training, two pilot development projects with volunteer departments were started in cooperation with Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (see also Pirttilä 2002). As noted, the initial idea in these pilots has been to dig deeper and to develop both (1) leadership and management and (2) division of work, work ability and workplace health. This idea is in line with the personnel strategy of the University of Joensuu, which emphasises both quality and efficiency of working teams and the well-being of the employees. Two departments – which I shall not name here for the sake of potentially confidential information – volunteered to participate in the project. It was agreed that the participating departments would be able to bring their own priorities to the development work and that the development work would be carried out in the manner – and on the conditions – that suit the departments. The ongoing projects started in the beginning of June 2002. They were considered as processes (see Walker 1998). The consultants have acted in the spirit of process consultation, mainly in the roles of trainers and facilitators. The project started in the first department (department A) with a light version of the method called “future workshop” (Zukunftwerkstätten; Jungk & Müllert 1989). First, the participants were asked to list problems in the functioning of the department. The participants wrote down the problems they considered as important and attached the papers to the wall (the participants were allowed to write only one problem per paper). No further discussion was allowed at this point, just the brief listings by each individual (one person tried to give the audience a lecture on the problems he considered as crucial). The idea was to facilitate democratic assessment of the situation in the department so that no individual voices would be emphasised nor silenced. After the papers indicating the problems experienced by the staff were attached on the wall, the participants were provided with a list of the problems identified, and they were asked to vote for the (eight) most important problems. The results were then announced. The problems considered as the most important dealt with issues which are generally considered as problematic in many organisations, such as (insufficient) flow of information, (insufficient) induction of new members of the staff, temporary contracts of employment, and imbalances in division of labour. It was also felt that it would be useful to strengthen the spirit of community among the staff. The participants were then divided into groups which gathered brainstorming solutions for the problems identified. Each group presented their ideas about the development programme needed, while others commented

294

JOUNI KEKÄLE

on the development ideas. After this, a working group (which was to develop the programme further) was established. The working group consisted of representatives of the department’s management, members of the staff and personnel administration. The members of the working group from department A have met several times. Concrete actions have been agreed and taken and most of the problems identified in the ‘future workshop’ have now been resolved. However, some contrasting views among certain central members of staff were still remaining (this is not a new phenomenon in the department). The contrasting viewpoints have been basically connected to a “sufficient” degree of openness in certain decisions that are, according to the university’s internal regulations, currently for the departmental head to decide. Meetings have been arranged in order to solve these disagreements. It was apparent that the knowledge of internal regulations was still not deep enough among some members of staff, but there also seem to be different ideals about good ways of taking decisions. Central administration has clarified the issues and has provided consultancy for the departmental leaders. Key members of the staff participated in an open seminar which was arranged by the organisers. At this point, the disagreements seem to have resolved to some extent, but not completely. The project has started in department B in a different way. In June 2002 the department had an internal meeting in which the staff discussed departmental strategies. The workshop started with a short lecture on strategic management. During the workshop, two exercises were carried out: First, the participants were divided into groups which were asked to consider the (internal) strengths and weaknesses and (external) opportunities and threats (the so-called SWOT method). The analyses by different groups were then discussed together so that different viewpoints could be taken into consideration. The general discussion was followed by another short lecture, this time dealing with social-psychological dynamics within organisations, especially in relation to decision-making precesses and the development of a shared vision for the future. The second group-task dealt with different scenarios for the future. The participants were encouraged to consider potential changes in the relevant working environment of the department. The groups would then have to come up with strategies that would work in every context and that would provide the department with some guidelines in achieving their goals in the uncertain future. It was stressed that these exercises are a part of an ongoing development project and that the work will be continued and made more specific during the later sessions and “future workshop”.


295

The “future workshop” was carried out in the department B in a similar manner to that in the other department. The analysis brought in the forefront problems such as temporary contracts of employment, too little time for research, and generally, the need for direction for the recently established unit. It was rather commonly held that the department is going to have to continue its strategic work in order to gain a respected place and a niche within its operational environment and in order to secure its future. Once the common direction becomes clearer there is less potential for confusion and conflict, and more energy left for finding solutions to problems in division of labour and similar practical issues. The work has been carried out over several internal sessions later on. The project has organised seminars and meetings for the department. In the discussions many issues become clearer for the participants. The relatively recently established unit has grown rapidly, but it seems that the public funding of the unit will decrease somewhat during the year 2003. Therefore, strategic choices will indeed become necessary in the near future and the process of strategic development of the department will have to be continued. Along these seminars and workshops, different seminars and occasions dealing directly with workplace health have been arranged for the pilot departments. The aim has been to facilitate both physical and psychological well-being in the workplace. The meetings have been organised around exercises and short lectures as a part of health services provided by the University of Joensuu. The project also aims at providing better conditions for workplace health by improving internal cooperation, division of labour and leadership, and by solving practical problems which otherwise cause an unnecessarily heavy drain on energy and human resources. C ONCLUDING R EMARKS So far the development processes described have shown rather good results. They have been run at relatively low cost. During the general leadership training, the participant generally seemed to prefer local experts as lecturers. The impression remains that the training made it possible to deal with several problematic issues which would have had to be dealt with sooner or later in any case – in some cases maybe too late and perhaps with severe consequences. The knowledge of where to find help in managerial and leadership problems has also increased. The pilot projects are estimated to last for two years (2002–2004). The Finnish Institute of Occupational Health will carry out a follow-up on the pilot projects by interviewing staff in each department in the beginning and at the end of the project. Therefore, it is not possible to draw too

296

JOUNI KEKÄLE

far-reaching conclusions at this point. Still, the methods of consultancy (used for deciding on the areas to be developed) seem to work rather well. The general impression has been that it is fruitful to start the development project with strategy work, as it helps to focus the process towards the most important issues from the department’s point of view. The strength of the “future workshop” is that it gives each person a right to affect the process, therefore potentially increasing the commitment of the staff. The process can also help to maintain a certain realism, in the sense that it keeps the otherwise dominating persons in line with others. In this kind of development processes much depends on the activity of the participating departments and departmental leaders. Lack of time and various other commitments seem to limit the possibilites of the staff to participate fully in the development work. Central administration and external consultants can only provide support and help in the demanding development tasks of the departments. In this article my assumption has been that in universities – and other organization dealing so much with creativity – it is only reasonable to construct leadership and management systems and structures in order to support the continuous flow of basic functions and in order to avoid severe problems in these. If the scope of leadership and management is extended too far, the results can prove to be counter-productive. In practice, a great many leadership problems remain to be solved when they appear – and sometimes they have to be tolerated as a suitable solution is not at hand. Each academic leader has to find his/her way to gain competence and respect in supporting his/her unit’s basic operations within the current and potentially changing field of possibilities (Kekäle 1998). However, positive development can be supported by the means of leadership training. On a whole, the idea of academic leaders as thermostats and the basic leadership philosophy seem to be fruitful. As noted, leadership is perhaps best assessed on the basis of how well the basic work is carried out and on the basis of evaluations by the staff (Hogan, Curphy & Hogan 1994). While these are complex issues to assess, it can be noted that the university has continuously reached higher outcomes in terms of annual degree production. According to an annual questionnaire, which is a part of the annual personnel report of the university, and which has been responded to by a large part of the staff at the University of Joensuu, the staff has expressed positive development three years in succession in the vast majority of the sections of the study, including working athmosphere, leadership, flow of information and internal cooperation. Knowledge gained from the personnel reports and the surveys is taken fully into account when future priorities in development work and leadership training are considered.


297

R EFERENCES Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories. Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Suffolk: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Becher & Trowler (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories (2nd edn.). Suffolk: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Birnbaum, R. (1989). How Colleges Work. The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co. Blau, P.M. (1974). Exchange Theory. (First published in 1964.) In O. Grusky & G.A. Miller (eds), The Sociology of Organizations. New York: Basic Studies. The Free Press. Bush, T. (1995). Theories of Educational Management. Gateshead: Paul Chapman Publishing. Clark, B.R. (1983). The Higher Education System. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clark, B.R. (1997). Common Problems and Adaptive Responses in the Universities of the World: Organizing for Change, Higher Education Policy 10(3/4), 291–295. Dearlove, J. (1995). The Deadly Dull Issue of University ‘Administration’? Good Governance, Managerialism, and Organising Academic Work. A Paper Presented at SRHE Conference, 12–14 December. Edinburgh. Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1982). Management of Organizational Behaviour. Utilizing Human Resources. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J. & Hogan, J. (1994). What We Know About Leadership. Effectiveness and Personality, American Psychologist 49(6), 493–504. Hölttä, S. & Pulliainen, K. (1996). The Changing Regional Role of Universities, Tertiary Education and Management 2(2), 119–126. Kekäle, J. (1998). Academic Leaders and the Field of Possibilities, International Journal of Leadership in Education 1(1), 237–255. Kekäle, J. (2001). Academic Leadership. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Jungk, R. & Müllert, R. Tulevaisuusverstaat [Future Workshops]. Kerava: Helsingin Yliopiston Ylioppilaskunta, Kansan Sivistystyön Liitto ja Ruohonjuuri Oy. Middlehurst, R. (1993). Leading Academics. Suffolk: SRHE & Open University Press. Middlehurst, R. (1995). Changing Leadership in Universities. In T. Schuller (ed.), The Changing University? Suffolk: SRHE & Open University Press. Middlehurst, R. & Kennie, T. (1995). Leadership and Professionals: Comparative Frameworks, Tertiary Education and Management (TEAM) 1(2), 120–130. Miller, H.D.R. (1995). The Management of Change in Universities. Universities, State and Economy in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Suffolk: SRHE & Open University Press. Moses, I. (1985). The Role of Head of Department in the Pursuit of Excellence, Higher Education 14(4), 337–354. Mäntyranta, T., Tuulonen, A., Rantamäki, J., Tähtinen, J., Halonen, K., Martikainen, A., Rajamäki, J. & Aaltonen, M. (1999). Portfolio johtamisen välineenä [Portfolios as a Management Tool]. Raportti työpajatyöskentelystä opetuksen meritoinnin talvipäiviltä 26–27.11.1998. Pirttilä, I. (2002). The Enhancing of Well Being in Academic Work: A Case Study 2002– 2004. A Poster Presentation at 24th Annual EAIR Forum, 8–11 September. Prague.

298

JOUNI KEKÄLE

Prichard, C. (2000). Making Managers in Universities and Colleges. Suffolk: SRHE & Open University Press, Rekilä, E. (1995). Contracts as a Management Instrument: New Policies in Relationships between the Universities and the Ministry of Education, Tertiary Education and Management 1(1). Sims, H.P. & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The New Leadership Paradigm. Social Learning and Cognition in Organizations. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Smith, P.B & Peterson, M.F. (1988). Leadership, Organizations and Culture. London: Sage Publications. Tight, M. (2000). The Higher Education Management Literature: An Analysis and Critique. A Paper Presented at EAIR Forum, 6–9 September. Berlin. Tucker, A. (1993). Chairing the Academic Department. Leadership among Peers. American Council on Education. Series on Higher Education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Walker, E. (1998). Developing Managers. In D. Warner & E. Crosthwaite (eds), Human Resource Management in Higher Education. Suffolk: SRHE & Open University Press.

University of Joensuu P.O. Box 111 80101 Joensuu Finland E-mail: [email protected]