EDUCATION
BRIDGE 3: DEVELOPING INFORMED SENSITIVITY TO SOCIO-POLITICAL RELATIONSHIPS
researchers can balance quantitative research strategies with ways to acquire and evaluate qualitative information about a complex culture and its ac- tivities (interactive continuum inNewman & Benz, 1998). Constructing this intellectual bridge allowed the author to move away from using self-taught research strategies based on descriptive input/output data. Accessing pro- fessional research terminology and techniques enabled her strengthen a goal- appropriate educational research design. With increased knowledge about assessment and research, she reports increased confidence in selecting library research projects appropriate to her skill set and with higher design quality.
BRIDGE 3: DEVELOPING INFORMED SENSITIVITY
leaders sometimes can encourage networking where participants enjoy equity, collective authority and responsibility, and build new meanings through consideration of their differences (Dachler & Hosking, 1995). Re- gardless of approach, effective academic leaders are self-aware and proac- tive in their approaches to change.
The following portion of this paper describes the socio-political theories that can contribute to increased sensitivity to socio-political relationships and interest in the dynamics of organizational leadership. These theories include the role of precise language in communication, cognitive resource theory (CRT), social cognition theory, and the dominance of socio-political motivators in human interactions. Exposure to these theoretical concepts can increase the number of ways to analyze a situation; agreement with the theories is not required.
First, sensitivity to socio-political context increases when one understands that words and language depend on personal context and can be a barrier in processes of leadership and change. Precisely defined terminology is essen- tial to improved critical thinking and analysis and to communication. To illustrate, consider the following common terms. In theory, there are differ- ences between the terms leadership(creating vision and setting direction in an organization) andmanagement (implementing vision and sustaining di- rection) (Hanson, 1996; Kotter, 1990, 1995). There also can be separate leadership and management structures and processes within one organiza- tion. Then, there are differences between the termsleader(person who per- forms leadership functions) andleadership(functions such as creating vision and setting direction of an organization, not necessarily tied to specific individuals) (Kotter, 1990; Schruijer & Vansina, 2002). In practice, these terms often are used interchangeably, laden with unspoken assumptions and conflicting expectations that can obstruct communication. In this single il- lustration, understanding theory elevates the importance of precise language as a tool for improving practice.
The terms manager, management, leader, and leadership just described are important to understanding expectations and responsibilities in aca- demic activities. For example, the author discovered that she needed mul- tiple types of power to fulfill dual roles as manager and leader in the progress report process (Yukl, 2002). She needed positional power to man- age the progress report itself. At the same time, the report process offered an opportunity to help shape or facilitate the development of assessment proc- esses, a leadership function.
For the 2003 report process, she had almost no positional power. As the president’s appointee to the task, she could claim only that tenuous political JEAN MULHERN 66
tie and some small control of the flow of information (Yukl, 2002). Without sufficient positional power, such a project would be difficult to accomplish as a high-quality process and timely product. Ultimately, she bolstered support for project management through alliances with three administrators with sufficient positional management power. To assert leadership in as- sessment process development, she relied on her own expert and referent power developed from previous successes with other accreditation-driven activities.
Immersion in these problems of assessing leadership and management power and authority in a specific project provided the author a personal reference point for integrating socio-political theory with library practice.
This experience also informed her consideration of leadership, power, and decision-making in non-traditional organizations such as library consortia, which figure prominently in the daily practice of most academic library directors today and where relational perspectives may prevail.
Another pertinent socio-political concept studied was Fiedler’s cognitive resource theory (cited inHanson, 1996, pp. 168–175). Fiedler contends that high-stress situations, as commonly experienced in organizations enduring budget and personnel reductions, call for relationship-motivated leadership (Hanson, 1996). Wildavsky (1997)might have said that a task orientation depends too much on pure intellect (p. 27), neglects social relationships, and expends energy without gaining value for the organization (Huxham, 1993).
Dachler and Hosking (1995), Fiedler (Hanson, 1996);Vangen and Huxham (2003)andWildavsky (1997)all call for much more leadership emphasis on building and sustaining productive human relationships, especially in com- plex organizations operating in a turbulent environment, thus, in perpetual high stress.
The author perceived personal growth as she consciously tested in prac- tice two additional socio-political theories introduced in her studies: the interpersonal relationship implications of the theory of social cognition and the dominance of socio-political factors in interpersonal relationships.
Interpersonal Relationships and the Theory of Social Cognition Briefly, the theory of social cognition suggests that each person’s complex environment and social experiences influence how and what they know (Henson, 2003). Language, perceptions, judgments, and influences all have social origins. Knowledge, according to this theory, is constructed at a per- sonal level through social experiences. This general theory of social knowl- edge construction was developed by such influential constructivist theorists
as John Dewey and Lev Vygotsky (Dewey, 1938;Henson, 2003) and informs modern education. This theory provides a basis for such current academic leadership concepts as critical self-reflection, cooperative learning, learning communities as a medium for personal and institutional change, and the importance of such personal and institutional values as caring and justice (Kezar, 2001; Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Mayeroff, 1971; Smeyers, 1999;
University of Dayton, 2004). In light of the theory of social cognition, in a multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary academic environment, one should anticipate the diversity of knowledge and viewpoints likely represented among the stakeholders. One way academic and library leaders can antic- ipate and work with diversity is by supporting inclusive group processes.
Failing to recognize or even denying one’s own unique cognitive lens can impede the work of an educator/librarian (Fine, 1994; Kezar, 2001). The author’s own lens was problematic in both her studies and in her library practice. As a student, she was an older college administrator and librarian among mostly K-12 educators. Professionally, she was a white, female, Ohio born and educated librarian with 21 years of experience working in a his- torically black college administered by black males, most of whom were newcomers educated in other states and countries, primarily in fields other than education. She needed to acknowledge the implications of her own perspective in order to share in and benefit from their viewpoints. At the same time, given the diversity of the environment, the opportunities were great for learning from one another, for synergy to develop (Dewey, 1938;
Sergiovanni, 1994). For example, as a former junior high teacher, the author appreciated being able to reconnect with K-12 teachers and their issues and then to apply that knowledge to the college’s progress report as it related to basic skills deficits and remedial skills courses.
With regard to facilitating the progress report process, the author needed to consider that each individual to be involved in the project likely had a different understanding of assessment and the accreditation process, of the subtext of local politics and curriculum control, and even of interpersonal relationships. Instead of seeing a homogeneous group of dutiful college employees, the author consciously considered that the dozen distinct indi- viduals, all dedicated professionals, were mostly multi-tasking to fulfill multiple roles. Their individual viewpoints on assessment would be shaped by their varying lengths of service in current positions, previous positive or negative experiences with accreditation issues, levels of morale depending on their professional and financial stability, cognitive approaches honed in specialty research, and differences based on age and gender. Awareness of differences grounded in race, nationality, and economic status could be JEAN MULHERN 68
relevant. In addition, home and health issues could be active. These same or similar considerations also are relevant when facilitating internal or campus- wide library or information literacy projects. Given such diversity, the goal is to identify relevant points and to acknowledge but set aside personal issues to envision a group hologram of a project or problem. The varied underlying assumptions, interpretation of data, and valuing of any project always need careful examination to assure valid positioning and acceptance within the organization.
During her intellectual journey, then, the author learned to tap into the creative synergy that exists within any group of people presenting rich and varied ways of knowing and different points of view. She learned that a project created autonomously lacks organizational authenticity but that obtaining complete consensus in any project is unrealistic. Instead she now values working toward inclusiveness, broad ownership, and mutual under- standing balanced with timely decision-making and project completion.
Interpersonal Relationships Translated through Socio-Political Theory It is on the concept of organization as social process that such authors as Dachler and Hosking (1995),Kezar (2001),Tsoukas and Chia (2002), and Wildavsky (1997) intersect. These authors assert the dominance of socio- political relationships in human endeavors. Acknowledging these socio- political relationships as a powerful force in academic organizations was a critical learning experience for the author.
The following four examples illustrate the broad range and significant impact of dominating socio-political relationships on the 2003 progress re- port process. As a first example, the author identified functional silos as a barrier to effective communication on assessment. One writer called them chimneys (Helgesen, 1995, p. 34), spewing evidence of independent, closely held operations. Various participants will view key events differently based on their position in the organization and their sources of information and knowledge (Hanson, 1996, p. 52). With skill, however, a proactive leader can direct attention and energy toward finding the common goals of the organization. Instead of allowing the academic grapevine to announce changes along with highly embellished interpretations of these changes, change leaders can use positional, expert, or referent power to communicate vision directly (see Hanson, 1996, pp. 50–52;Kezar, 2001;Yukl, 2002).
Second, cognitive differences can be revealed in the different strategies for research and problem solving offered by faculty and librarians from various academic disciplinary backgrounds (Boorstin, 1983; Brubacher & Rudy,
1997). In the progress report process, science faculty associated assessment with standardized achievement tests and enrollment and retention statistical trends. Taking a quantitative approach to learning assessment, the science faculty agreed to and implemented their assessment plan much more quickly than other areas. Faculty teaching in the social sciences and the arts con- nected assessment with an array of assessment tools including complex personal narratives, portfolios, and career path achievements. Their plan- ning progress was slower because of the complexity of their assessment choices and their projected higher assessment expenses in terms of cost and time. Taking note of the variety of cognitive approaches active in academe, librarians can plan for working in an environment of intellectual diversity, whether on campus or among other librarians in consortia.
Third, any hope for modeling a learning community as part of the report process was tempered by the cautions provided by Lenning and Ebbers (1999, pp. 96–97). They concluded that learning communities at the faculty level have been given lip service but few communities have been realized given the pressures of the faculty reward systems and their focus on activities within their disciplines. For any particular institution, there also may be heavy teaching loads acting as barriers to focusing faculty interest and energy on planning for student learning assessment or collaborating with librarians.
In the final example, socio-politics need not impede change initiatives (Helgesen, 1995). The author developed a positive working relationship with a key administrator who expedited the project. In cultivating this new and essential relationship, she was guided by a study of the theory of self- fulfilling prophecy, also known as the Pygmalion effect (Mulhern, 2002d).
According to this theory, one’s positive expectations often are met in human relationships.
As suggested by this review of the socio-political theories that can impact practice, acknowledging their significance obviously is important to every administrator (Hanson, 1996;Kezar, 2001;Wildavsky, 1997). Especially in academe and in the field of library and information science, the rational mind is idealized and classical theory has deep cognitive roots (Boorstin, 1983). The important role of social negotiation, assertion of power (politics), and complex ethical choices in the development of academic policy or li- brary decision-making can go unacknowledged or denied in favor of what Wildavsky termed ‘‘pure intellect’’ (p. 27). Instead, research demonstrates that socio-political relationships dominate over the factor of intellectual rationality in the leadership of change in academe (Dachler & Hosking, 1995; Wildavsky, 1997, p. 32). In research for a course paper, the author JEAN MULHERN 70
observed how W. E. B. Du Bois revised his doctrine of the Talented Tenth later in his life as he moved from a speculative mode to his own life ex- perience with the power of socio-politics (Mulhern, 2000b). As a result of this intellectual journey toward better understanding of socio-political fac- tors, the author gained access to additional broadly useful critical thinking and leadership tools.