EDLP 702 Class Assignment #2

Good actors or good soldiers?1

Philip W. Holmes

Virginia Commonwealth University – EdD (Leadership) Cohort 4

EDLP 702 Class Assignment #2

The article “Good Soldiers or Good Actors?” is discussed within the leadership frames of Bolman & Deal and the leadership principles of Drath. While certain frames or principlesmay influence the likelihood of ethical behavior, the author concludes that individuals are responsible for ethical behavior, and the leader’s role in promulgating an ethical environment is paramount.

Bolman & Deal’s Structural Frame

In their discussion of the structural frame, Bolman & Deal (2008) stated that its assumptions include “a faith that a suitable array of formal roles and responsibilities will minimize distracting personal static and maximize people’s performance on the job” (p. 47). Even laypeople will understand the structural components of the tenure system: specific committees for tenure decisions, guidelines regarding the expectations of tenured professionals, and the “plethora of articles and university workshops dedicated to teaching, research, and service,” through which “the rules of fit are explained” (Cyprès, 2013, p. 2).

That some applicants for tenure work their way around these structural components does not mean that the structural frame has no place in the tenure awarding process. Rather, a strengthening of the structure around tenure should be encouraged.

Bolman & Deal’s Human Resources Frame

Bolman & Deal (2008) explained that the human resources frame rests on the proposition that “organizations exist to serve human needs rather than the converse,” and that a “good fit” between individuals and their organizations is beneficial to all (p. 122). Thus, the connection between the human resources frame and the tenure selection process is clear: the tenure selection ensures that the professor is the best match (fit) for the department and university, and that the department and the university will benefit from a lifelong relationship with the professor. Thus, the human resources frame provides the “why” to the structural frame’s “how.”

The human resources frame does not prevent the political frame from erupting into the tenure selection process. It hopes and expects that the players in the tenure selection process will focus on the good of both the tenure candidate and the university. The guidelines, rules, and checks that are the hallmark of the structural frame can be seen as attempts to defend the ideal goals of the human resources frame.

Bolman & Deal’s Political Frame

In their description of the political frame of leadership reference, Bolman & Deal (2008) stated that organizations are “coalitions of associated individuals and interest groups”whose members have inherently and unavoidably different goals and ways of looking at the world, and who compete with each other to obtain limited resources (p. 194). Thus, the political frame should not be seen as an unfortunate intrusion into the usual process, like a sort of organizational head cold that ought to have been avoided. Rather, it should be seen as the inevitable byproduct of the reality of human striving and human difference, which must be managed.

Political actions are not always unethical; however, in the jousting and jostling over scarce resources, the temptation to cross into unethical actions can be difficult to withstand. While the structural frame can curb or limit the excesses of the political frame, no organizational structure or leadership principle will ever replace the power of responsible individuals wrestling with the ethical implications of their behavior.

Bolman & Deal’s Symbolic Frame

At first glance, the rewards of tenure may seem primarily tangible, and so the symbolic frame might seem secondary in importance in this discussion. But tenure is itself a powerful symbolof personal and academic success. Beyond that, the inducements that the players in the tenure granting process might offer or withhold (the opportunity to participate in certain kinds of research, to attend a seminar or a conference, or to partner with a more senior or more well-connected faculty member) have symbolic resonances. As with the political frame, the issue is not whether some of the tools or inducements at play during the tenure process are or should be powerful symbols, but rather how these tools and inducements are wielded.

Drath’s Leadership Principles – Personal Dominance

Of the three Drath principles, personal dominance is the most immediately relevant to this discussion. Dr. Jones in the Cyprès articlehas the hallmarks of the personally dominant leader, and his behaviors prove that leaders who display personal dominance are not always as positive or beneficent as Mr. Karl in Drath’s narrative. Jones has “earned a reputation for being a bully and confrontational,” and has “a history of leaning on junior faculty” (Cyprès 2013, p.5).

Note that it is not Jones’ status as a personally dominant leader that is problematic; rather, it is how he wields that personal dominance. He could as easily have used his personal dominance to drive toward more fair, balanced, and appropriate decisions in the Tenure and Promotions Committee. And, while his attempt to enforce an unethical quid pro quo with Dr. Sharon was supported by his personally dominant demeanor, that attempt could have been made in less direct (but equally unethical) ways by leaders who are not personally dominant.

Drath’s Leadership Principles – Interpersonal Influence

While Cyprès did not explore the actual workings of the Tenure and Promotions Committee in detail, implicitin her article is the sense that, ideally, committee members will use the tenets of Drath’s principle of interpersonal influence in their process. They will argue over candidates for tenure, and during that give and take, leadership will arise “when someone [makes the best case for one tenure candidate over another] and thus claims the role of leader” (Drath, 2001,p 13). Again, this is the ideal case. Drath (2001) argued that interpersonal influence arises when there is no personally dominant leader, and leadership must be created; however, that does not mean that some of the participants in the tenure selection process might not attempt to exert personal dominance influence during the proceedings.

Drath’s Leadership Principles – Relational Dialogue

Unlike the principle of interpersonal influence, relational dialogue suggests that an individual leader in some situations cannot emerge from the process of discussion, argument, and negotiation. Instead, leadership is a kind of ephemeral and unpredictable result of intentional human interactivity that happens when people of equal status and power “participate in collaborative forms of thought and action” (Drath, 2001, p. 15). Thus, leadership occurs not when individuals exert agreed-upon influence (as with personal dominance), or when individuals emerge as leaders after having received and incorporated feedback from followers (as with interpersonal influence), but when equal partners operate concurrently in the same direction.

In an ideal Tenure and Promotions Committee, the work would be accomplished through relational dialogue. Decisions would result not from one person’s immediate direction, or from the direction of an individual after input from followers, but from the collaboration and agreement of equal partners in the room. Yet, even here we are not on safe ground, as there is no reason to suppose that a room full of equal partners will have benign or neutral intentions. Ten unethical and equal partners could still collaborate, agree, and create bad leadership decisions.

The Importance of the Individual Actor

Cyprès (2013) posited an ambiguous answer to the question of how to deal with the gulf between actually good players in the tenure game (good soldiers) and those who are just bluffing to get along (good actors). She asked at first for “an impassioned call for self-reflection, and… accountability,” and then immediately wondered if “everyday politics has rendered such efforts banal”(p. 6). But, no review of the leadership frames and principles discussed this semester will result in any better answer to this ethical quandary than the responsibility of the individual to operate in an ethical fashion, whatever the inducements to the contrary.

Questions about ethical behavior have been around for a long time, and while it is currently in vogue to question the ethics of our institutions, the truth is that the ethical road has never been very clear or wide. Currently, our financial and political institutions arefully in the glare of angry public cynicism; however, academia is not in the shadows either, as recent dust-ups at the University of Virginia and Henrico County Public Schools attest. No decisions about ethical behavior should be made lightly in any field or industry.

Ethical behavior is a central thread in the fabric of trust, and trust is the most essential component of a successful team (and by extrapolation, a successful organization). Lencioni (2001) believed that leaderscan play a central role in establishing a trusting environmentby modeling trust-building behaviors such as personal vulnerability and acceptance of the weaknesses of others. Though it will always be easy to lampoon efforts to behave ethically as naïve or childish, we must also conclude that leaders play a central and crucial role in establishing an ethical environment in their teams and larger organizations.

References

Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cyprès, A. (2013). Good soldiers or good actors? Fit, turning a blind eye, and the politics of obligation in academia. Teachers College Record. Date published: March 1, 2013. ID Number 17040.

Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.