126 Strategic Leadership
analysis of collegiate strategic plans shows the dual emphasis, although sometimes
the language used to describe the conflict is formulaic. In Presidential Essays:
Success Stories (Splete 2000), a collection of essays focusing on issues of strategic
change by the presidents of thirteen small colleges and universities, one can see
clearly the tension between tradition and innovation. Especially as the presidents
deal with broader strategic questions, rather than circumscribed innovations in
management, the need to relate change to the organization’s story is consistently
evident. In the words of one president, “Perhaps most important to bringing [the
university] community on board with our vision is a continuing commitment to
link the accomplishments of the present with the traditions of the past” (Argnese
2000, 13). Or, as put by another, “It was very important to respect tradition even
as dramatic change was being undertaken because that tradition was a major
source of the college’s pride and identity” (Barazzone 2000, 22).
In a similar way, a collection of twenty-four commentaries on the presidency by
the heads of many large and complex institutions presents similar themes about
legacy and change as they focus on the moral dimensions of leadership (D. G.
Brown 2006). The presidents describe the tasks of leadership, especially during
crises, in many ways, but they often mention the critical importance of knowing
intimately the values and culture of the organization. Presidents should be teachers
who are always looking below the surface of events to find the currents that are
shaping the future of the university and the larger society. In finding the right
symbols and metaphors, they are able to tell their organization’s story to create
a “bridge from where we are to where we might be” (Penley 2006, 180).
These examples of the significance of narratives in leadership find support in
large-scale empirical studies. Birnbaum (1992) concludes that presidents who are
judged to be exemplary by their key constituencies (faculty, staff, and trustees)
are distinguished by their strong interpretive skills, their ability to embody the
institution’s values and to affirm its strengths. They are able to relate their lead-
ership to the norms and values of the organization’s culture “by articulating a
vision of the college... that captures what others believe but have been unable to
express” (Birnbaum 1992, 154).
The University of Minnesota
To add further definition to this point, Simsek and Louis (2000) and Simsek
(2000) have shown the centrality of narratives, metaphors, myths, and paradigms
in charting what they see as transformational change at one of America’s largest
land-grant universities.
By the early 1980s several planning processes and state budget cuts had made
it clear that the University of Minnesota’s constant and unfocused growth was
stretching it beyond its resources and compromising its quality. Teaching loads
were rising, open admissions were the norm in many programs, and resources for
research and graduate study were in relative decline. In offering his own interpre-
tation of these developments, the interim (and later) president Kenneth Keller
proposed a strategy called Commitment to Focus. It suggested the development of