The System and Culture of Academic Decision Making 45
Drawing from our earlier discussion of organized anarchies, the frames of leader-
ship, and shared governance, we can suggest several different ways in which lead-
ership can be understood and practiced in terms of how the basic form of conflict
is interpreted. Many would suggest, for instance, that responding effectively to
the conflicting interests of a college or a university’s multiple constituencies is the
essence of leadership. In a number of cases—consider large public institutions—it
appears that balancing the demands of the intricate network of campus and public
interests and expectations is the sine qua non of effective leadership. Political
skills move to the top of the leader’s repertoire. The dean-elect has already learned
that she will need to sharpen her skills of negotiation and conflict resolution, even
though she has always been gifted in balancing the needs of different groups and
individuals.
In other contexts—the small, selective college comes to mind—there are ele-
vated expectations for participatory governance. Everything from the institutional
operating budget to the schedules of athletic teams is a matter for shared faculty
and administrative deliberation. If and when the protocols of shared governance
begin to falter and conflict intensifies, a proper task of leadership is to redefine
the methods and structures of collaborative decision making. In the name of col-
legial norms, the institution may reexamine the responsibilities of its faculty, the
authority of its administration, and the content of its board’s bylaws. As suggested
earlier, the aim is to bring greater definition and legitimacy to the exercise of vari-
ous forms of authority. Behind the effort is a belief in collegiate constitutionalism,
the assumption that improving the forms and mechanisms of governance is the
way to deal with conflicts. As a case in point, our dean-elect has been quick to
suggest to her colleagues that a review of the methods for setting budgetary priori-
ties is in order.
We also have seen how conflict is handled in organized anarchies. In the hands
of seasoned administrators, conflict is disarmed through tactical maneuvers such
as delay and deflection. Tactical leaders get things done by playing the system
against itself, by knowing, for instance, that faculty interest and participation in
governance is episodic and fluid. They provide opportunities (garbage cans) for
people to deliberate on big issues like strategic plans that may not lead to action
but will give them a feeling of importance. Our dean-elect is clearly aware of the
need for tactical skill as she tries to deflect the substance of the issue that her col-
leagues have brought to her. As a longtime member of the community, she also
knows that she must find ways to connect her work with the norms and symbols
of the organization’s identity and traditions, so symbolic sensitivities will be a
critical part of her leadership.
To be sure, it is appropriate and helpful to understand various dimensions of
conflict and their resolution by drawing on different sources of knowledge and
frames of analysis. Any academic officer, new to the post or otherwise, must con-
stantly attend to all these facets of a complex system of decision making. The
problem is that each of these diagnoses and proposed resolutions fails to penetrate