Conclusion 265
can be taught and learned both practically and theoretically, from the insights
needed to understand institutional cultures, to the development and interpreta-
tion of strategic indicators, to knowing and telling the institution’s story. To be
sure, some practitioners of the discipline will be far more skilled than others in
using it. But that is always the case in every field or discipline, especially those
that involve various forms of practice. Talent and skill are indispensable. They
weigh very heavily in the leadership equation. Yet few of us will ever qualify
as transforming leaders or brilliant strategists, and fewer still will do so by the
possession of exceptional natural gifts. Nonetheless, most of us can learn a process
and discipline that substantially expands our given abilities to provide direction
for an organization or some part of it. As a discipline and systematic process it is
able to institutionalize effective practices of leadership that otherwise are subject
to the vagaries of circumstance.
In making these claims, we assume that organizations use some wisdom in
selecting various individuals to serve in formal positions of leadership and respon-
sibility, whether as the chair of a committee or as president. Many of the skills,
attributes, and values that we reviewed briefly early in our study are precisely
the characteristics that drive the choice of certain individuals for these various
responsibilities of leadership. It is fair to assume that many of the qualities that we
associate with leadership are spread quite widely though not evenly through the
population. Finding a person with the qualities and skills that match the needs
of a position at various times and under different circumstances is a crucial and
demanding task. At the same time, we are often surprised and pleased to see how
most people rise to the challenges of the responsibilities that they are given.
As individuals come into leadership roles, from president on down the hierarchy,
the question they often ask themselves silently in the dark of night is, “What am
I doing here? How am I supposed to run this committee, or this department, or this
organization? Do I have the tools to do this work? Are my authority, experience,
and skill adequate to the task?”
When the inevitable challenges to the individual’s leadership first arrive, the
haunting questions intensify, sometimes in a form that is less helpful and relevant
than it might appear to be. Under pressure leaders may become fixated on whether
they have the repertoire of insights, qualities, and abilities needed for the job,
even though most of those are not quickly or easily subject to modification. Or
they may turn to detailed analyses of the formal powers and prerogatives of their
office, as they wonder whether and how to assert their authority. Although these
queries may be authentic and conscientious and are sometimes relevant, they are
often misplaced. The more authentic questions usually are “How do I use the tal-
ents, methods and authority that I already have to do the job?” and “How do I best
go about the task of exercising leadership in systematic ways that both respond to
and motivate others?” It is in response to precisely these questions that the process
and methods of strategic leadership present themselves as a coherent and promis-
ing alternative. It offers a structured and integrative discipline of decision making
that can be learned through experience and reflection, by practice and study.