write a summary (th)

Chapter I

Introduction

Overview

Leadership is a concept as vast and endless as the ocean. Just as widely as the ocean

spans the earth, leadership spans across multiple social groups, disciplines and fields of study.

Leadership is distinguished by the unique organizational structures in which it is situated, and the

multiple individuals who interact within those structures, akin to the way separate bodies of

water contain their own diverse ecosystems, geophysical patterns, and marine life. Similar to the

way an ocean responds to changes in climate, the ideas of leadership evolve in response to

environmental shifts.

For the past 30 years, the nature of higher education has evolved drastically, which has

affected the structures and overall functions of many colleges and universities. Two resulting

conditions from these changes formulate the context of this inquiry: 1) the rising number of

professional, non-instructional staff (Knapp, Kelly-Reid, & Ginder, 2011) and 2) the way

leadership in higher education is researched and practiced (Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum

1989; Kezar & Carducci, 2009; Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006;). The evolved,

re-conceptualization of leadership is formulated from principles of mutual, democratic power

moving leadership away from being defined as a role one assumes, or set of ingrained traits,

towards viewing leadership as a capacity within all individuals that is demonstrated at all levels

of the organization (Green & McDade, 1991, p. 8; Kezar et al., 2006). The shifted frameworks

of leadership expand the scope for examining leadership not only in the way it is demonstrated,

but in how it is developed.

In an effort to contribute to this evolved discussion of leadership, I will apply a

qualitative, phenomenological approach to explore how non-instructional, professional staff

LEADERSHIP IN ACTION

come to understand leadership and the way their understanding informs their development as

leaders. I focus on non-instructional, professional staff because despite their escalated

membership within higher education, they are largely absent from leadership and leadership

development research (Szekeres, 2004). Yet, in my role as the lead facilitator for a leadership

development program at my institution, the majority of learners I encounter are noninstructional,

professional staff.

In this chapter I outline my problem statement, the research question guiding this inquiry,

as well as provide a rationale for undertaking this inquiry. In addition, I provide a positionality

statement to highlight my personal interests in the issue. Lastly, I discuss symbolic

interactionism, the theoretical framework that grounds this study.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to examine how non-instructional, professional staff conceive

of leadership and develop their capacity to become leaders. The study rests on three premises.

The first premise follows from the understanding that new environmental demands required

colleges and universities to employ alternative ideas, theories and frameworks concerning

academic leadership with an emphasis on collaborative organizational structures that shifts the

focus on relationships and teamwork, rather than results (Bensimon, & Neumann, 1992;

Bruininks, Keeney, & Thorpe, 2010; Woodard, Love & Komives, 2002; Eddy, &

VanDerLinden, 2006). These alternative frameworks are formulated to generate leaders who

advance the organization through their ability to empower others and embrace the challenges as

well as the benefits of diversity (Bess, & Dee, 2008; Kezar, & Carducci, 2007; Komives, Lucas,

& McMahon, 2007; Smith, 2009).

The second premise is recognizing despite the significant growth of non-instructional,

professional and administrative staff employed in higher education, they remain largely excluded

from academic research, specifically research concerning leadership and leadership development

in higher education (Gumport & Pusser, 1995; Rosser, 2000; Szekeres, 2004). One reason for

this exclusion may be the persistence of tension that exists between faculty and staff, reflecting

the perception of mid-level administrators as outsiders and part of the state of new

managerialism, imparting neoliberal values and practices from the private sector onto colleges

and universities (Levin, 2006; Rhoades & Sporn, 2002; Szekeres, 2004). The exclusion of staff

from research is also reflective of the lack of appreciation for staff’s contributions within the

academic enterprise (Johnsrud, Heck, & Rosser, 2000; McInnis, 1998). I posit however, that a

continued exclusion of staff from the discussion of leadership goes against the notions of

leadership that conceive of its existence beyond an individual or role, or that champion the

premise that leadership is enacted by teams (Bensimon & Neumann, 1992). Including staff in

discussions of leadership and leadership development promotes the idea that the quality of the

institution hinges on the quality of all its employees contributions, and when institutions actively

support and invest in professional growth and development opportunities for all employees, it

demonstrates their recognition in the value of the high quality competencies of all its employees

(Whitchurch, Skinner, & Lauwerys, 2009).

The third premise concerns the nature of leadership development as a life cycle

(Brungardt, 1997) and posits that development extends beyond formal training or education, but

exists on a long-term continuum that can include one's encounters with other leaders (DeHart,

1977). This assertion emphasizes the socially constructed nature of leadership and the impact of

the actions of leaders on the organization's culture and the actions of others within organizations

(Birnbaum, 1992; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Clark, 1972; Tierney, 1998). Lessons are gained

through an individual’s ability to reflect and make meaning of their experiences with leadership

in action (Brungardt, 1997; London, 1995).

My goal in this study is to identify how professional staff and former attendees of an

institution sponsored leadership training program continue their own development as leaders. As

well I am interested in identifying professional staff who have not attended the institution’s

leadership program to also elicit their insights about their encounters with leadership, the

meanings they derive and how those meanings also construct their sense of being a leader. Using

transcendental phenomenological methodology, I intend to capture a vast range of leadership

experiences from this population’s unique, yet untapped perspective.

This study is largely inspired through my own experiences in my role as an

Organizational Development Specialist (OD) and as a facilitator of a leadership development

program, of which non-instructional staff are the participants. I serve in this capacity in the

Human Resource division of a large, urban, Research University (RU/VH) in the Northeast. The

leadership training series is open to all the institution’s non-instructional staff and faculty who

are either in positions of management or are simply interested in developing leadership skills.

While the program is open to faculty, they rarely participate. My goal is to conduct semistructured,

three part interviews with former participants as a means of conducting (and in some

cases, continuing) discussions with them about their ongoing development as leaders as they

reflect on their own encounters with the institution's leadership. In addition, I will also interview

non-instructional, professional staff who have not attended the institution’s leadership

development program to open the study for varied understandings of leadership the meanings

made by this specific population. In studying this population, my intent is to turn the attention to

an understudied population in higher education literature, with the hopes of increasing their

visibility and identifying the value of this populations’ contributions to the academic enterprise.

Research Question

The following question guides this study:

How does non-instructional, professional staff conceive of leadership and their capacity

to be leaders in higher education?

This question is framed to reflect the aforementioned premises, also based on Green &

McDade’s (1991) assertions that development is a shared responsibility between an individual

and the institution and that leadership development includes the individual’s everyday

experiences. This idea is also reflected in the theoretical framework framing this study, symbolic

interactionism, which asserts that the actions in which individuals engage construct human

society. Symbolic interactionism then pursues the meanings individuals convey of the behaviors

they encounter, attentive to the individual as the agent of their interpretations of that meaning

(Blumer, 1969).

In addition this question reflects the research paradigm of social constructivism, which

believes one's reality is socially and culturally constructed through the individual's interpretations

(Kezar et al., 2006). Leadership research centered in a social constructivist ontology seeks to

understand the engagement between leaders and other stakeholders, and the connections between

leadership and people's perceptions of their departmental culture and the broader institutional

culture (Meek, 1988; Tierney, 1989/2010).

This study applies the ideas of symbolic interactionism and social constructivism to

explore how staff come to make meaning of their own leadership experiences, the demonstration

of leadership within their organizational group life (Blumer, 1969), and how they identify their

own capacity to be leaders in the context of higher education.

Significance of Study

This study is significant because it supports new notions about leadership and the

capacity for recognizing staff as academic leaders (Jones, Applebee, Hervey, & Lefoe, 2010).

Johnsrud et al. (2000) notes among the main frustrations of mid-level administrators in higher

education is a lack of opportunities for growth and advancement. Several national leadership

programs such as the American Association of Community Colleges Future Leaders Institute,

Higher Education Resources Services (HERS), and the American Council on Education (ACE)

Fellows, target faculty and senior level administrative staff who are advancing into senior

administrative roles as presidents, provosts, and deans (Brown, 2010; Eddy& VanDerLinden,

2006; Gangone, 2009). Maintaining development opportunities solely at these ranks continues to

support the notion that leadership is a position that one attains, rather than as a process shared by

all. Providing development opportunities throughout all ranks demonstrates to employees the

willingness of the institution to invest in their career growth, which in turn increases the

likelihood of employee engagement and productivity (Alfano, 1993; DeHart, 1977; Julius, 2000).

Investing in development also demonstrates an institution's value for increasing the competence

of all employees, by promoting opportunities for ongoing learning to occur (Green & McDade,

1991). Leadership development is especially crucial in the changing environment of academia in

which there is an increased need for leadership at all levels of the institution, but when there is

also recognition for leadership as the way people relate to each other when working toward

common goals (Ramsden, 1998). Expanding the discussion and research on leadership to include

staff endorses collaborative, distributed leadership and the view that governance in higher

education can be a shared endeavor (Bensimon & Neumann, 1992; Eddy & VanDerLinden,

2006).

Rationale

The changing nature of higher education has produced intersecting dynamics, resulting in

significant changes that are of interest to this inquiry. The first is a revolutionized discourse in

academic research that is re-conceptualizing leadership and identifying how leaders are effective

given the significant shift in the organizational structures and cultures of colleges and

universities in the 21st century (Bensimon et al., 1989; Bess & Dee, 2008; Kezar et al., 2006).

The other is the rising numbers of non-instructional, professional staff and administrators

employed in colleges and universities. Despite their invisibility from research and the tensions

that arise from their increasing membership, (Levin, 2006; Szekeres, 2004) staff and

administrators are positioning themselves within occupational "third spaces" which has

established new perspectives, viewing staff as essential partners in the academic endeavor, rather

than as manifestations of invading managerialism (Whitchurch, 2008).

New paradigmatic frameworks such as, social constructivism, critical theory, and postmodernism

are also responsible for the expanded discourse on leadership to recognize the

potential for shared leadership, team leadership, and the value in exploring the leadership

experiences of diverse populations once overlooked in research, such as women and people of

color (Bensimon & Neumann, 1992; Kezar & Carducci, 2009). Similarly, the use of new

paradigms supports the value in exploring the experiences and capacity for leadership among

non-instructional, professional staff in higher education.

In the following sections I provide the context of the changing conditions that have

confronted higher education and facilitated massive organizational changes over the past thirty

years. I also identify how professional staff in academia are addressed within literature, and

provide a rationale for including this understudied population within these evolved discussions

concerning leadership and the cultivation of new leaders.

Higher education's new normal. For over thirty years a sea change has confronted

academia (Tierney, 1998; Zusman, 2005). Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) describe this change

through the lens of academic capitalism, a state of internal and external environmental factors

that has contributed to institutions operating with "market-like" behaviors within an expanding,

global economy in which knowledge is treated as a commodity; raw material to be owned,

consumed, with the purpose of generating profit and furthering the institution’s prestige (p. 15).

This new global economy, or neoliberal state, has gradually affected the way in which

institutions divert their resources in favor of research production, thus drifting from the original

focus; the social welfare of education for all often referred to as "the common good" (Slaughter

& Rhoades, 2004, p. 21).

For the past decade, key social and economic conditions have added to these challenges

of neoliberalism on a global scale, creating what Bruininks et al. (2010) call a "new normal,"

requiring colleges and universities to further reexamine and adapt their practices, and reluctantly

evolve their governance structures in response to internal and external socio-economic, and

socio-political demands. This new normal includes wide-spread local and global competition and

massification, drastic decreases in state and federal funding, and the escalated public demand for

institutions to justify their elevating operating costs (Bruininkis et al., 2010; Woodard et al.,

2002; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). As higher education continues to evolve, colleges and

universities find themselves in a perpetual state of, “restratifying, restructuring, and

reconfiguring” their operations from the way they serve the diverse needs of students, to

alternative means of delivering instruction, and changing ways research is conducted and

marketed (Woodard et al., 2002; Rhoades & Slaughter, 1997, p.9).

New realities. From the post-Second World War era through the 1970's, higher

education was once considered an essential component for both social and personal economic

elevation in the United States (Lucas, 2006; Newfield, 2008; Thelin, 2004). The passage of key

legislative measures attempted to expand access to post-secondary education for individuals

previously excluded. This includes such efforts as the G.I Bill for returning veterans, the Higher

Education Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act for African-Americans and other ethnically

under-represented students. Additional efforts towards inclusion continued with measures such

as Title IX to enable the participation of women, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to ensure

educational opportunities for people with disabilities (Bruininkis et al., 2010; Lucas, 2006;

Thelin, 2004). Legislative efforts and their resulting structural practices have played a role in

facilitating the growth of the American, middle class and, at one time, inspired positive public

perceptions about the outcomes of college education (Woodard et al., 2002). As Newfield (2008)

states, "College was interwoven with the mainstream and politically powerful ideal that this

majority was to have interesting work, economic security, and the ability to lead satisfying and

insightful lives in which personal and collective social development advanced side by side" (p.

3).

The impact of decreased public opinion. This once heartened public view of education

significantly waned during the late 1960's, and onwards into the 21st century. The rising

diversification of students led to the incorporation of new curriculums and majors centered in

studying the experiences of women and underrepresented groups (Lucas, 2006). At the same

time, academic critics raised questions concerning the purpose of academia, whether it was to

provide general, liberal, humanities based scholarship or specialized vocational training given as

analysis revealed, "a college degree could bestow some measure of prestige and social reward to

an individual without assuring affluence" (Thelin, 2004, p. 315). Such questions addressing the

purpose of education culminated in light of escalated campus riots of 1968 around the nation,

which exacerbated concerns about who was in charge in academia, and what was being taught in

its schools (Lucas, 2006).

Newfield (2008) attributes the transition of public attitudes to the realization that the

ranks of this newly educated middle class was also multicultural, therefore the system of

education no longer functioned to privilege the interests of solely advancing a white, middle

class. Such realizations generated backlash among academic critics, which Newfield identifies as

cultural wars in which the aforementioned progressive, legislative efforts that functioned to

establish inclusion and education as a greater good were systemically and legally challenged.

The public willingness to support public universities with their taxes steadily declined, thus

leaving public institutions to pursue additional financial resources in the same arenas as private

institutions (Newfield, 2008). Additionally, private interests within the federal political arena

severely altered financial aid policies, resulting in redistributing the burden of payment from the

federal government onto families. Redesigned financial aid packages drastically reduced the

allocation of grants and inflated the distribution of student loans. Private institutions such as the

Committee on Economic Development and the Carnegie Institute advocated for policies

supporting such redistribution of federal loans, widening the gap of fiscal inequity between

public, state run institutions and private, research institutions (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).

Albeit the large endowments, rankings, and reputations of private institutions continue to entice

families, attendance for many families remains either out of reach, or saddles them with larger

financial aid packages, leaving additional expenses uncovered and families and students in

massive debt (Newfield, 2008; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Funding for state institutions has

dropped to the extent that in spite of their enrollment growth, they continue to receive only 1/3 or

their funding from state governments (Zusman, 2005).

The culmination of these new realities, the escalation of access, combined with the

reduction of public support and political investment, created this state of neoliberalism, which

Levin (2006) describes as "a political project that relies upon institutions for social and economic

change," as expressed through the actions and structures institutions inherit (p. 65). Academic

capitalism and the neoliberal state are further amplified as institutions are currently responding to

the rising socio-political and socio-economic outcomes imposed by globalization and the global

economic crisis of 2008 (Hazelkorn, 2012; Vargese, 2009). Overall these events exert continued

pressure for institutions to demonstrate their relevance to society, despite ongoing demands to

meet the challenges of rising enrollment, especially as individuals are increasingly required to

attain the knowledge and skills to compete within a knowledge-based economy (Hazelkorn,

2012; Vargese, 2009).

Globalization and global crisis. While the availability of state and federal funding

sources decreased, competition among institutions escalated to support scientific research, which

created cultures where knowledge became a commodity generated for profit, rather than a means

to solve global issues (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Since the 1990’s, colleges and universities

in the United States have grappled with an imbalance of fiscal demands while meeting

increasingly diverse learning and developmental needs of students, and ensuring that graduates

attain sufficient skills and expertise to function within an increasingly privatized global

marketplace (Vargese, 2009). As the 21st century emerged institutions confronted the vast socioeconomic,

socio-cultural, and technological realities of globalization. After the economic crisis

of 2008, competition on an international scale surprisingly increased (Woodard et al., 2002;

Vargese, 2009). In examination of recent UNSECO data, Vargese (2009) notes a significant

expansion of college students worldwide, from 68 million students in 1991, to138 million by

2005. In order to accommodate these rising populations, or massification, institutions branched

out to establish international satellite campuses in foreign countries. As of 2009, India hosted

131 foreign affiliated campuses in partnership with universities in the United States and the

United Kingdom (Vargese, 2009). This marked the first time many institutions in the United

States faced competition from top-ranked colleges and universities in Asia and the Middle East,

all who are actively recruiting talented faculty and students to their institutions and their nations

(Staley & Trinkle, 2011). This new phase of academic mobility is not only physical but virtual,

with rapidly advancing technology that can facilitate the instantaneous transmission of

knowledge through the innovation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS) (Daniel, 2012),

and the ability to span distance, space and time to collaborate with colleagues within the United

States. and across the globe (Vargese, 2009).

American institutions not only find themselves confronting the demands of elevated

global competition, but also encounter emerging competitive challenges from for-profits

institutions that are permeating the national market, grabbing the attention of students from

predominantly lower socio-economic backgrounds with promises of quick degree attainment and

post-academic career opportunities. Their growing presence and competitive gains brings the

question of education for the greater good back full circle (Woodard et al., 2002; Newfield,

2008).

The new realities listed above have established new discussions in higher education

research, identifying the need for institutions to adapt new structures, behaviors, and

relationships that enable them to effectively function within the imposition of these internal and

external changes and ensure successful outcomes despite their challenges (Berger & Luckmann,

2002; Green, 2003; Smart, Kuh, & Tierney, 1997).

Rethinking operations. For many institutions, the ongoing challenges of increasing

access, the state of neoliberalism, and the circumstances of globalization requires them to

holistically rethink the way they operate, from the way teaching and learning occur, the

allocation of resources, and the ways in which research is funded and conducted (Woodard et al.,

2002, p. 9). For some institutions this rethinking includes considering how to function effectively

within an increasingly diverse and vastly global society in which notions of traditional students

or faculty members have transitioned (Woodard et al., 2002; Staley & Trinkle, 2011). Overall,

these changes require a new direction away from the traditional practices in conducting business

in academia (Kezar & Carducci, 2009).

Borrowing from Minztberg's (1980) organizational typologies, Green (2003) describes

this reengineering of academia as an intermingling between three organizational paradigms: The

first is the machine paradigm or the incorporation of traditional business practices, vertical,

centralized structures of power and authority, and lateral division of labor, The second, the

professional paradigm, which describes the continuity of traditional university practices of

decentralized power and authority, loosely-coupled systems, and the autonomy of highly trained,

specialized professionals. Lastly, the innovative paradigm or adhocracy, formulated from post

bureaucratic management designs, incorporates practices of highly decentralized power

structures, multidisciplinary projects and teams and blurred lines of authority and power (Green,

2003, p. 199). As Green (2003) explains, "These strategies are premised on an alleged need to

replace rigidly hierarchical and functionally organized bureaucracies with flatter and more

flexible organizations, cross-functional project teams, matrix management, and to use the term in

large part to strategically counter the stereotypical attributes of bureaucracy-adhocracy" (p. 199).

Derived from similar organizational conceptions as transformational leadership, the allure

of adhocracy in higher education is its receptivity to complex and dynamic environments (Kezar

& Carducci, 2009). Rarely, however, do institutions operate within a singular structure; instead,

as Green (2003) proposes, they assume a variety of cultural orientations that intertwine the

structures, and the organizations actors and their interactions. Incorporating new structures

becomes problematic as actors who are loyal to any one paradigm may demonstrate resistance to

adaptation and resistance to collaboration (Green, 2003). Studies identified that institutions

which adopt cohesive, decision making processes are found to have higher organizational

effectiveness and better organizational outcomes than those which maintain bureaucratic,

hierarchical structures (Bess & Dee, 2008; Smart et al., 1997).

Expanding on Cameron's (1986) concept of organizational effectiveness, Smart et al.

(1997) discern key dimensions which they identify as missing from Cameron's framework:

decision making and approaches, institutional culture, and the relationships between faculty,

administrators, and students. By adding these dimensions to Cameron's framework, Smart et al.

(1997) created a causal model to measure institutional effectiveness based on these dimension’s

capacity to empower institutional actors’ ability to confront unpredictable external challenges

and systemic changes. Smart et al. (1997) also reveal a combination of external factors, such as

the institution's financial health and enrollment health, in conjunction with the institution's

internal organizational culture, in influencing organizational effectiveness (Smart et al, 1997).

With this in mind, the authors conclude that adhocracy cultures have a higher potential for

helping organizations adapt to external and internal pressures because they implement decision

making approaches that support proactive leadership that is focused on long term impact.

Researchers who study current forms of leadership recognize that changes imposed by

external conditions are constant and require different responses, especially in ways of practicing

and enacting leadership (Eddy & VanDerLinden, 2006; Kezar & Carducci, 2009). Gallant and

Getz (2009) assert that transitioning to new organizational structures or practices of leadership,

must be implemented creatively by balancing the need for change while fully acknowledging the

possibility for tensions to arise from individual's loyalty to old structures and practices, while

also honoring the institution's integrity (p. 93).

In this study I propose that within new discussions of leadership and the ideas of

organizational effectiveness in academia, is the potential for including the experiences of a

population who also impacts the organizational structures, yet whose experiences are largely

missing from academic research. That population is the growing number of non-instructional,

professional academic staff and administrators who are employed in colleges and universities

and who take on the administrative and support duties necessary for institutions to meet the

demands of these changing environments (Clery & Lee, 1999; Dobson, 2000; Szekeres, 2004).

The following sections further explore the dynamics between the increasing membership

of professional staff and the evolved discussion of leadership in an effort to champion for

integrating staff experiences as they support the reframing of organizational environments and

leadership models which proactively engages their participation in academic structures. The

inclusion of staff acknowledges the value of their contributions supporting Julius’s (2000) notion

that “fully developed institutions are attentive to the needs of all employee groups” (p. 45).

Institutions can satisfy the need for staff to feel a sense of value by establishing cultures

that welcome their contribution and by investing in their development as leaders (DeHart, 1977;

London, 1995; Ramsden, 1998). Tuning into staff’s experiences with leadership may also reveal

whether such alternative frameworks, theories or models such as transformational leadership

(Komives & Dugan, 2010) team leadership (Bensimon & Neumann, 1992) or relational

leadership (Komives et al., 2009; Uhl-Bien, 2006) are enacted and, if so, how they inform staff

to engage in similar behaviors and practices. Overall I seek to identify the influence of these

dynamics as an extension of staff's ongoing development as they come to understand their own

capacity to be effective, academic leaders despite their status and roles.

The influx of staff in higher education. As a result of global and national challenges,

an increased competition for funding and the demand for accountability, the number of

professionalized staff employed in higher education is rising (Knapp et al., 2011). Out of the 1.4

million people employed full time in Title IV degree granting institutions (excluding medical

schools), 46% reported to have faculty status, while 54% are professional and non-professional

staff reported to serve in non-instructional roles (Knapp et al., 2011). The number of professional

staff and "other professionals" employed full time in higher education increased by 17% between

2004 and 2009 (U. S. Census Bureau, 2012). Despite their increased employment, literature

concerning the contributions, their work lives, and their experiences is minimal, to the extent that

Szekeres (2004) identifies them as “the invisible workers," or as Rosser (2000) calls midlevel

administrators, the "unsung professionals."

In the few studies that do exist, researchers apply various terms when describing this

group of employees, which can cause confusion as to which academic employees are being

referenced. For instance, in Europe and Asia researchers employ the term academic staff in

reference to faculty (Egginton, 2010; Elton, 2009), while Australian researchers provide clearer

distinctions between faculty and the other employees whom they call general staff (Castleman &

Allen, 1995; Smyth, 2003; Szekeres, 2004). In the U.S., staff are discussed using descriptions

and classifications from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Fall Staff report,

which categorizes employees who are not faculty as non-instructional or professional staff

(Clery & Lee, 1999). According the NCES definitions, this broad category of non-instructional

staff entails two sub-categories: executive administrators and those deemed other professionals,

employees that hold baccalaureate degrees yet who are not administrators (Knapp et al., 2010).

Rosser (2011) further clarifies four additional subcategories of staff whom she classifies as

Education Support Professionals including: clerical/secretarial, service and maintenance,

technical and paraprofessional, and skilled craft.

The classification of midlevel administrators may be based on their functional

specializations and the departmental units where they work. Rosser (2000) breaks these units into

three key categories: student services, which includes admissions, financial aid, and advising;

business and administration, including finance and accounting, human resources and facilities

and maintenance, and external affairs or advancement, which includes public relations, alumni

affairs, communication, and fundraising.

While there are an array of classifications, Gumport and Pusser (1995) observe there is a

lack of consistent definitions for administrators as their roles are often determined at the

institutional level. Some researchers will merge professional staff and administrators into a

singular, nebulous category of "university management," which is then attributed to the ideology

of new managerialism; the adoption of private sector managerial practices, technologies and

organizational forms implemented solely for measuring quality, performing assessment and

appealing to the internal requirements of senior administrators (Deem, 1998; Szekeres, 2004).

From this perspective, staff are viewed as a consequence of the state of new managerialism in

which middle managers or “managerial professionals” (Rhoades & Slaughter, 1997, p. 26) are

charged with regulating the work of faculty, resulting in increasing resentment from faculty

(Leicht & Fennell, 2008). While administrator numbers increase, the number of faculty have

decreased as institutions continually hire adjuncts and non-tenured faculty, leading to a residual

effect of displacement among tenure-track faculty (Kezar & Maxey, 2012; Leicht & Fennell,

2008). The paradox is that while faculty are increasingly engaged in the entrepreneurial

behaviors of research and tech transfer, universities continue to expand the ranks of professionals

who bring their specific academic and nonacademic expertise to mediate between the business

interests of senior administration and the academic interests of faculty, while also focusing on

the learning needs of students (Rhoades & Slaughter, 1997; Rosser, 2000). Resounding frictions

between staff and faculty may be representative of the overall dynamic tension in academia

between the "forces of social mobility and social reproduction and between social justice and

capitalistic production" (Levin, 2006, p. 63). Rather than simply embracing staff's increasing

membership as a circumstance of change, the contributions of professional staff are overlooked

and, at times, dismissed as “non-academic," generating an “us vs. them” attitude throughout

academia (Dobson, 2000). Dale (2010) states, in her response to criticism connecting staff to the

state of managerialism,

As we all face up to the implications of reduced funding, a more effective way

forward would be to recognize that there are many different professional groups

to be found in higher education. Each of these groups has its own distinct

strengths, which must be harnessed to ensure that universities and colleges

continue to be well-run and successful organizations. (p. 1)

Part of the value of staff's contributions resides in their jurisdiction, or the nonacademic

specializations that staff provide as necessitated by specific tasks and

responsibilities (Applegate, 2010). Such examples includes the expertise of fundraising or

engaging with the community and alumni in order to raise funds, the expertise of

technology systems to maintain safe and secure technological interfaces, or the

accounting precision required to ensure the institution's fiscal security (Julius, 2000;

Kozobarich, 2000; Lassner, 2000; Rosser, 2000). Staff encompass unique specializations

that faculty may not possess and so their inclusion, their roles, and the tasks they enact,

serve to enable faculty to engage in their own specializations.

The relevance of staff. The lack of staff's perceived value does not eliminate their

relevance as employees of higher education. Whether as administrators or "other professionals,"

staff make indirect, yet essential contributions in the support they provide to the primary

functions of teaching and research and occupy roles in the multiple facets of their institutions

(Rosser, 2000; Szekeres, 2004). Inherit to their position is the engagement in front line

relationships with students, families, as well as faculty and the community. Quite often staff are

the first encounter students and families have with an institution and the outcomes of those

relationships can affect their perceptions of the entire institution (Etzioni, 1964/2010; Rosser

2000; S. J. Waterman, personal communication, April 6, 2010). Much of the literature that

recognizes the essential role of staff is conducted in the U.K and Australia, which focuses on the

challenges of staff’s membership and identity, whether they are deemed invisible (Szekeres,

2004) or as non-academic (Dobson, 2000; McInnis, 1998; Szekeres, 2011).

In examining the actual work lives of staff, Graham (2013) seeks to identify the aspects

of staff's work that contributes to positive student outcomes within the following domains that

provide both a welcoming sense to students and efficiency in staff's work, including: behaviors,

environments, and processes. Four sub-dimensions support these domains: technology, staff

knowledge, colleagues and supervisors, and job satisfaction (Graham, 2013k.

Technology. Technology provides staff with the ability to extend much needed support

to their constituents and stakeholders. Having access to learning management systems and

human resource management systems, technology allows for processes to be streamlined and

contributes to the efficiency of job performance. Technological efficiency empowers staff to

assist students and faculty with learning outcomes and other business needs (Graham, 2013).

Staff knowledge. Staff in Graham's (2013) study recognized the limitations in their

ability to serve students when they experienced a lack of efficiency in their tasks and processes,

or lacked the ability to upgrade their own competencies. This realization reinforces the need for

organizations to promote a culture of learning and professional development, which

demonstrates the value of employees to the organization, and guarantees the provision of high

quality services (Kezar, 2005; O'Banion, 1977).

Colleagues and supervisors. In an examination of the impact of organizational structures

and outcomes, Berger and Luckmann (2002) acknowledge that the organization itself does not

"act,” rather it is the behaviors of the actors that affects the outcomes of the organization. Staff's

interdependence with their fellow actors directly impacts the effectiveness of performance on

their activities thus reflected on the perceived quality of the institution (Graham, 2013).

Job satisfaction. Attitude and motivation are also factors that can affect the quality of

service. Green (2003) divides these into two categories: intrinsic motivators (need for autonomy,

sense of competence, and relatedness to others) and extrinsic motivators (being thanked by

students, receiving feedback from supervisors, and leadership support of a positive work

environment). Such factors connect to the key frustrations that Johnsrud (1999) addresses, results

in low job satisfaction and high rates of turnover among midlevel administrators. The first

frustration is the midlevel nature of their role, the second, a lack of recognition of their

contributions, and the last is the lack of opportunities for career development and advancement.

All three factors contribute to feelings among staff as though they are the "unsung professionals"

despite the commitment and skills they provide within their areas of expertise (Rosser, 2000).

Julius (2000) illustrates an example of these challenges using the Human Resources (HR)

function in higher education. Whether institutions need to recruit, hire or retain employees, HR

professionals provide the expertise to execute these tasks, yet they remain an undervalued

resource given that the practice of HR is rooted in organizational theory derived from industry.

The underlying assumption among faculty and senior administrators is that while HR

professionals may work in academia, they do not understand the needs of academia (Gordon &

Whitchurch, 2007; Julius, 2000). Julius (2000) notes the HR function is then considered

"tangential" to the institutional mission, while senior administrators and faculty leaders believe

they alone know what is best for faculty and the interests of their departments and attempt to

perform the HR function themselves (p. 45). Tensions arise when HR practitioners are required

to interject and disrupt actions that may jeopardize the institution because they were undertaken

without consideration of the legal ramifications. The HR role is then perceived to police actions,

rather than function in collaborative, strategic partnerships, with the possibility of sharing the

interests of the department and the institution (Buyens & DeVos, 2001; Julius, 2000).

Professional staff have significantly different work life experiences than faculty. Staff do

not have similar components of job security, like tenure or sabbatical (Johnsrud et al., 2000).

Neither do staff experience participation in shared governance structures, like faculty senates.

Instead they tend to be at the whim of decisions about policies and processes that are often made

without consideration to the potential constraints on staff's ability to provide effective service

(Etzioni, 1967; Rosser, 2000). It is also important to note that the ethnic and racial composition

of midlevel administrators is more reflective of the diversity among students and the local

community than faculty or senior administrative groups (Rosser, 2000, p. 6). This dynamic

reveals the tendency within institutional practices to recruit and hire locally for staff positions,

but to recruit nationally when filling faculty and senior administrator roles (Rosser, 2000).

While these differences are relevant to understanding the various work lives of academic

employees, what is also essential to recognize is the interdependence between staff,

administration and faculty (Levin, 2006). Institutions that embrace this interdependence allow

for staff to function within a "third space," where collaborative partnerships between staff and

faculty expands the roles and responsibilities of staff and expands their credibility within the

academic community (Ooro, 2013; Whitchurch, 2008; Whitchurch et al., 2009).

Occupying a third space. Whitchurch (2008) describes the concept of third space as

new spaces in which staff navigate the territory in between the academic and the professional

domains. Such spaces are characterized by the permeability of boundaries between the functional

areas of internal and external constituencies that allows staff to engage in projects such as

community partnerships, or diversity recruitment (Whitchurch, 2008, p. 3). Applegate (2010)

identifies the idea of third space in the permeability of multiple boundaries encompassed in

librarianship. Based on their level of professionalism, academic librarians take on a range of

responsibilities such as data management, curation, preservation, instructional technology,

administration, organizational management, and specialized subject knowledge (p. 288). Also

encompassed in these responsibilities are opportunities for expanding one’s professional

development and growth within third spaces by entrusting staff to undertake tasks deemed

"quasi-academic" such as conducting study skill sessions or speaking at outreach events

(Whitchurch, 2008).

In examining institutional efforts to improve the relationships between faculty and

academic librarians, Kotter (1999) reviews programs in which improving relations was one of

many goals. He defines good relations as a practice in which actions support active and positive

collaboration and contribute to a reciprocal sense of service and support and posits that improved

relations entail an exchange of mutual support (p. 297). The intent however is not to equate good

relations as friendships, but to establish a sense of interdependence structured from the mutual

investment in achieving institutional goals. Kotter (1999) notes institutional programs in which

improved relations was a goal includes: honoring faculty by celebrating their scholarship,

providing improved services either by improving existing services or offering services never

before offered, involving librarians in classroom, faculty activities, increasing communication

channels to update faculty on library resources, embedding library liaisons within departments

and proactively fostering and supporting faculty research. Kotter (1999) finds that when

institutions sponsor such programs they also signal their support of the ongoing partnerships

established by faculty and librarians, which in return extends credibility to the profession and

competencies librarians provide, and generates positive perceptions among faculty that inspires

them to promote academic libraries as viable resources (p. 301). Kotter (1999) acknowledges

there is a surprising gap in institutions incorporating any form of program evaluation to measure

the outcomes of these programs, not only to identify their value to improving relations, but more

importantly to provide evidence that would substantiate the invested costs for continuing fiscal

support. When the quality of the staff is deemed a valuable investment, staff will function to

uphold the quality of the institution (DeHart, 1977). As Mintzberg (1998) eloquently states,

"Professionals require very little supervision and direction. What they do require is protection

and support" (p. 146). While this desire for autonomy and trust is often a repeated plea among

faculty, it is also a strong desire of professional staff.

The exploration of alternative organizational cultures such as adhocracy, and the

examination of third spaces, substantiates the notion that organizational conditions can generate

cohesion and trust among staff, administrators, and faculty, which can result in positive

outcomes (Ooro, 2013; Whitchurch, 2008). Studies also show that when environments of

collaboration, cohesion, autonomy and trust are supported within the organizational systems of

higher education the potential to move staff and administrators away from the framework of

managerialism can produce different understandings about the essential roles professional staff

play in the institution. Staff who occupy third spaces are able to establish flexibility within their

specializations that also proves their value as organizational partners who can function

effectively within the dynamic context of higher education (Bryman, 2007; Whitchurch, 2008).

These new conceptions are further emphasized within alternative paradigms, frameworks

and models that have emerged to re-define effective academic leadership in the 21st century

(Kezar et al., 2006). As Bryman (2007) summarizes, for leaders to be effective in the higher

education context, they must first acknowledge that they lead "internally motivated employees."

Thus, by supporting environments that are conducive to collegiality, autonomy, and shared

decision making, academic leaders entice the commitment of both academics and professional

staff (p. 707). Whitchurch et al. (2003) add when collaborative environments includes the

formation of multi-professional teams and the potential for cultivating leadership among

professional staff through professional development, staff are further empowered to span the

boundaries of their roles and embed themselves as contributing members to the academic

endeavor, rather than as internal invaders. Engaging the potential for leadership among

professional staff also supports alternative notions about leadership that shape leadership as a

process, rather than as a position. As Kezar and Carducci (2009) states, "There is a great

opportunity to diversify the higher education administration workforce by providing exposure,

experience, and support to an increasingly diverse group of higher education leaders" (Kezar &

Carducci, 2009, p. 79). The following sections discuss the changing conceptions of leadership in

academia and offers examples that emphasizes the potential for including professional staff

within the discourse on leadership in higher education. The section also addresses specific

models of new leadership that support cohesion and collaboration, and provides a rational for

understand leadership from the perspective of professional staff in academic environments.

Revolutionizing Leadership

The changing mindset about who can be a leader, the application of alternative research

paradigms such as social constructivism, critical theory, and postmodernism, and the

development of new representations of effective academic leadership are three significant

changes that have "revolutionized" or reconceptualized leadership in higher education (Kezar et

al. 2006). The scope of leadership research has broadened as the experiences of leadership

among previously understudied populations are explored through the paradigmatic lenses of

critical theory and postmodernism, challenging the traditional theoretical constructs of leadership

and structures of power (Kezar & Carducci, 2009; Tierney, 1996). Academic leadership research

has shifted the earlier conceptions of leadership inherent in the role of college presidents

(Bensimon, 1989; Birnbaum, 1989; Birnbaum, 1992; Eddy, 2003; Fisher, 1984; Tierney,

1989/2010; Sample, 2002;), to now include the experiences of key decision makers such as

deans, faculty, directors, and department chairs, as well as leadership demonstrated within teams.

Overall new notions of leadership conceive it now as a practice that can be enacted and

perpetually developed by anyone (Abowitz, Jayanandhan, & Woteshek, 2009; Kezar &

Carducci, 2009).

As Birnbaum (1988) establishes, portraying leaders in the romanticized image of the lone,

power wielding hero “doesn't cut it” in academia anymore because it is not accurate. Research

has replied by redefining effective leadership to include any individual “who works for the

shared good of their organization by collaborating with others and sharing power, balancing their

orientation to people and tasks, and working to interpret and make meaning in the organization”

(Kezar et al., 2006, p. 102). This mindset continues to guide the current direction of academic

leadership research and establish an applied, rather than theoretical foundation of leadership

(Bess & Dee, 2008; Eddy & VanDerLinden, 2006; Kezar et al., 2006).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism provides a framework for examining human interaction within

what Blumer (1969) calls "the human group life" (p. 6), or human society. It is commonly

attributed to the Chicago school, a group of sociological contemporaries whose research centered

on the idea that people are actors who make meaning of their social settings derived of from an

individual's internal dialogue, rather than as response to stimulus (Blumer, 1969; Paul, 1996).

Three premises structure symbolic interactionism around the actor's point of view and consider:

1) An individual will act towards objects (physical, social and abstract) based on the meaning

he/she has connected to that object; 2) The meanings that are given to objects are generated from

the social interaction the individual has with their fellow humans; and 3) The meanings are

formed, and changed according to the individual's process of interpretation, dealing with the

objects he/she encounters (Blumer, 1969; Paul, 1996).

In his study on the interactions between leaders and followers, Paul (1996) elaborates on

these premises, establishing an interactionist view of leadership as a social phenomenon (p. 85).

Following the premises of symbolic interactionism, leadership and leadership behaviors are

described as social objects where the effectiveness of leadership is related to the symbolic

interpretations of a leader's actions (Paul, 1996, p. 86). Both Tierney (1989/2010) and Clark

(1987) view colleges and universities as organizations by which members make meaning of the

institution through the use of cultural artifacts; symbols, rituals, stories. Clark's (1987) concept of

organizational sagas describes the use of artifacts to align an institution's history with its culture.

Yet the engagement of sagas is also dependent on the interpretation of all social elements

involved in the institution. Thinking of a leader's actions as social objects relates to the symbolic

nature of leadership and the existence of symbols as "message units," which conveys multiple

interpretations of the organization (Tierney, 1989/2010, p. 381). Thus, organizations exist as

patterns of symbolic discourse by which a leader's actions are loosely coupled to individuals'

meanings (Axelson, Kullén-Engstrom, & Edgren, 2000).

The framework of symbolic interactionism establishes a foundation of understanding that

meaning arises from social interaction, meaning is not automatic but is contextually shaped as

individuals construct meaning through their internal dialogues (Blumer, 1969; Jacob, 1998; Paul,

1996). The approach of this study is to 1) understand the internal dialogues of non-instructional

staff as they construct their meanings of leadership based on their experiences, and 2) identify

how their meanings of leadership reveal their understanding of how they can be leaders within

the dynamics of organizational culture in higher education. By applying symbolic interactionism

as a framework, emphasizes exploring the viewpoints from staff as actors, with the hope in

establishing the importance for their inclusion in academic research and recognition for their

membership within the academic enterprise.