24 Strategic Leadership
(1986) call “organized anarchy,” that explain these sobering appraisals of
presidential authority and leadership. To begin, presidents preside over two sepa-
rate systems of authority within the same institution, one for academic affairs and
one for administration. The administrative system is organized hierarchically
and operates with many of the same patterns of managerial authority, control,
and coordination that one finds in other organizations. In today’s world, the
span of administrative authority itself includes an ever-expanding set of com-
plex operations, from technology to athletics, from venture capital spin-offs to
arts centers. These activities may themselves be only loosely and incidentally
tied to one another, heavily complicating the contemporary tasks of university
management.
The academic system of governance is loosely coupled both within itself and
with the world of administration. The two systems have episodic, complicated,
and often controversial connections around issues like financial and physical
resources that are of critical importance in both spheres. The academic domain
functions through highly decentralized departments and programs that are largely
governed independently by academic professionals. The units embody intellec-
tual and professional norms as well as territorial boundaries. Most academic units
do not need each other to do their work, and most faculty members do most of
their teaching and much of their research independently of one another. The
interaction of academic professionals in carrying out their tasks is unpredictable,
uncertain, and infrequent, the epitome of loose coupling (Birnbaum 1988, 1992;
Weick 1991).
Presidential authority over the academic system is usually a form of oversight
and is filtered through several layers of faculty committees and other protocols
of collegial decision making. Usually these collegial mechanisms themselves are
weakly related to one another, and they typically resist efforts to be more closely
connected.
In much of the president’s work, responsibility is split from authority (cf. Birn-
baum 1989). Presidents are often perplexed or frustrated because they are held
responsible for decisions or events over which they have little authority and no
control. For instance, they do not hire and cannot fire the faculty, most of whom
hold permanent appointments. The most important decisions about everything
from finances to student discipline are made through some type of participatory
process, which often gives the president little margin for independent action.
Faculty members who scuttle a worthy new academic proposal, sometimes work-
ing in the shadows, do not have to answer personally for their decisions, while
presidents seeking change without the authority to enact it are held responsible
for failing to achieve it. Presidents may be blamed by the trustees for the failures
of an academic program, by legislators for the offensive comments of a faculty
member, or by neighbors for the crude behavior of intoxicated students.
Leadership scholars can help presidents to understand, though not alter, these
circumstances. They suggest that most stakeholders and participants hold their