The Ambiguities and Possibilities of Leadership in Higher Education 25
own image about what they can expect leaders to do and use it to evaluate the
president’s performance, whether the attribution is relevant or irrelevant, accurate
or inaccurate (Birnbaum 1988, 1989; Hollander 1993).
Shared Governance
Many of the challenges to strong presidential leadership are summed up in
the practices of shared governance. The classic statement that often is taken to
be its charter is the 1967 “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universi-
ties.” Ironically, the phrase “joint effort” is the touchstone of the document,
not “shared authority” or “shared governance.” The statement defines expecta-
tions for joint effort on central matters of institutional purpose, direction, and
program. The notions of advice, consent, consultation, initiation, and decision
are the variable forms of shared authority depending on the type of question
under consideration. The initiation and approval of decisions differ in various
spheres of decision making, from academic areas, where the faculty will have
primacy, but not total control, to different administrative issues (facilities,
budgets, planning) where faculty members advise and, sometimes, also consent.
Institutions should determine “differences in the weight of each voice, from
one point to the next... by reference to the responsibility of each component
for the particular matter at hand” (American Association of University Profes-
sors, 1991; Association of Governing Boards, American Council on Education,
1967, p. 158).
Whatever else, the statement establishes the expectation that the faculty’s
voice will be heard on all issues of consequence, even as it affirms the president’s
ultimate managerial responsibility. The document portrays the president primarily
as a “positional,” leader not as an intellectual and educational partner with the
faculty (Keller 2004).
The theory and the practice of shared governance are often at variance, since
faculty and administrative expectations about its meaning are in constant flux
and are often clouded by distrust (Association of Governing Boards of Universi-
ties and Colleges 1996; Tierney 2004; Tierney and Lechuga 2004). When decisions
are considered to be important regardless of their content, the expectation for
broad consultation is often stressed by faculty, and increasingly by staff members.
Failure to consult with all interested parties is perceived as arbitrary, even when
decisions are made by well-established protocols that include representatives from
various groups. As the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges’ report Renewing the Academic Presidency puts it, “ ‘Consultation’ is often
a code word for consent.... Any one of the three groups [faculty, president, board]
can effectively veto proposals for action” (1996, 8). This leads to the conclusion
that “At a time when higher education should be alert and nimble, it is slow
and cautious.... The need for reform [in shared governance] is urgent” (1996, 7).
Many analysts and practitioners offer similar views of the challenges of shared