CC BY
55
WHAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP DO 21st CENTURY SOCIAL WORK PROGRAMS NEED?
ROBYN LUGAR
Indiana State University
This essay will examine various leadership styles’ strengths and weaknesses. This analysis will lead to indications of the type of leadership needed for social work programs. Whatever type of leadership the department chooses, its focus should be on maintaining its autonomy, fighting the battle of providing a quality program with dwindling resources, and not accepting a lower status position than other departments on campus. Judging from the current hiring processes, many program directors have emerged just because they were at the right at the right time, with enough credentials to demonstrate experience in education. With the shortage of experienced faculty and administrators who are «on the market,» programs may be settling for who they can get at the price their university is willing to pay.
In the last decade, social work programs have been faced with pressures of doing more with less from their universities. Funding cuts, downsizing, and pressures to increase workloads have led to complex times and critical issues to face for social work program directors (Rank & Hutchison, 2000; Reinardy & Halter, 1994; Munson, 1994). Munson’s (1994) survey of social work deans, directors and chairs identified three critical issues: limited funding and diminished resources (25%), faculty recruitment to replace retirees (19%), and student enrollment (13%) (Munson, 1994). Funding has been cut in many states during the last decade (Macy, Turner, & Wilson, 2000). In the past two years, at the Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE) annual conference, faculty and administration position openings have far exceeded the available applicants. Yet higher education has continued to decrease monies for adjunct positions. McMurtry and McClelland (1997) noted that most college and university social work departments were struggling with fixed or shrinking resources, increased faculty workloads and larger class sizes. There also has been an overall increase in the number of social work programs, which has added to the struggle in maintaining adequate number and quality of faculty. (Reinardy & Halter, 1994) In this academic environment of change and crisis, what type of leadership is recommended to meet the needs of the 21st century social work program?
Kirst-Ashman (2000) defines social work leadership as «the act of exerting influence on other group members to direct their behavior, activities, attitudes, or interaction» (pg. 236). Skidmore (1995) noted that leadership is defined both by position and by ability. In other words, one who is responsible for the control and guidance as well as the capacity or skill of influencing others to follow the path taken by the leader. A leader can possess reward, coercive, legitimate, referent or expert power and influence (Brody & Nair, 2000; Kirst-Ashman, 2000, Skidmore, 1995). CSWE’s Strategic Plan for 1998-2000 calls for «ex-erting vision and leadership to maintain the highest quality and consistency of social work education in accordance with the values and ethics of the profes-sion» (p. 15). However, this definition provides no clear direction as to what type of leadership a social work program needs to achieve this goal. Videka-Sherman, Allen-Meares, Yegidis, and Yu (1995) recommend strong leadership in social work education. What should this strong leadership look like in the 21st century? This essay will examine various leadership styles’ strengths and weaknesses. This analysis will lead to indications of the type of leadership needed for social work programs.
Types of Leadership Styles
An underlying assumption in this analysis is that the program director and faculty operate from the
same theoretical base. What occurs in departments where multiple theories are at work? Should departments consider explicitly agreeing upon an operating theoretical base, or should the program director tell the faculty the theoretical model they will operate from? Does not the choice of «who decides» clearly identify the style of leadership at work as well as the theoretical base from which the program director operates? People do not live in a vacuum. They operate under assumptive theories (articulated or not) that affect their leadership styles. This leads us to the types of leadership styles needed for the 21st century social work program. What do these various leadership styles bring to the 21st century program director? Is one style more effective than another? Before we can attempt to answer these questions, this essay will look at the various leadership styles.
Machiavellian Leadership: Under this leadership style, the program director assumes that people are basically fallible, uninformed, untrustworthy and weak. They should be treated as impersonal objects and manipulated so that the leader might achieve his goals. This approach is based in utilitarian calculation instead of moral reasoning. The program director does the thinking for the faculty and views himself as a «benevolent dictator» (Crainer, 1998a; Crainer, 1998b; Meenaghan & Gibbons, 2000). This presents a very dismal view of faculty’s contribution to the department. Likert categorized the «Exploitative Authoritarian» as one who leads by fear and the «Be-nevolent Autocrat» who manages from the top down «with carrots, not sticks.» Blake’s «Authority-Obedience» leader has a high level of concern for results but a low concern for people (Kirst-Ashman, 2000) From this style’s viewpoint, faculty are not seen as individuals with much to offer outside of teaching classes as directed by the program director and doing what they are told. The Machiavellian Leadership style would make it difficult to attract and keep experienced faculty who want the challenge of contributing to the vision of the department. However, it may be a style that the university itself encourages if there is not overall support for the empowerment of faculty and faculty-driven governance.
Bureaucratic Leadership: Problems are defined and resolved at the top with little faculty input. The program director maintains tight control over all decisions, strict control over the budget, and shoulders responsibility to keep order in the department (Edwards & Baskind, 1995). Peters and Waterman (1982) call this the Rational Model, which is found in higher education during times of outside pressure, fiscal problems and other crises. The program director assumes that there is a right answer to the prob-
lem at hand. The program director also assumes that the way to resolve problems is to rationally analyze the situation and make a swift and tough decision. The program director assumes personal responsibility for making decisions and for orchestrating the department to accomplish those decisions. (Brody & Nair, 2000) A program director who uses this directive style is very task-oriented and demands faculty obedience and dependency with little concern for faculty members’ feelings (Skidmore, 1995). In many colleges and universities, this style of management is seen from the presidency down to the department level. Under this style, it takes less time to make a decision than waiting for a consensus. If a department is facing a crisis, the program director often does not have the luxury of time to determine a course of action. Many faculty are notorious for not making group decisions quickly. Although this directive style may be effective through a «crisis period» for the department, over time the disadvantages of this style will likely hamper the department’s progress, which in turn may diminish the overall effectiveness of the program director. The department may lose the ability to meet new challenges through innovation and creativity that come from diverse faculty involved in a more cooperative, people-oriented environment. Another shortcoming of this leadership style is that it may lead to low morale in faculty who want autonomy and the ability to be creative, and who wish to contribute to the department’s overall direction. Distrust of the program director may develop as faculty see results of decisions not necessarily made in their own best interest. These shortcomings may erode the authority of the program director, who may or may not eventually recognize that the faculty are the ones who must implement the changes. If faculty do not own the new ideas, there is increased likelihood of non-implementation and sabotage. (Edwards & Baskind, 1995)
Participative Leadership: The program director is group-centered, encouraging a two-way communication with faculty. In this form of leadership, the director presents ideas and invites feedback and alternative suggestions from the faculty. Faculty are encouraged to cooperate and participate. The program coordinator takes into consideration the faculty’s reactions and opinions. (Brody & Nair, 2000; Skidmore, 1995). There is open information, a shared mission, delegation, and involvement in policy formulation. However, this should not be mistaken for completely open and democratic leadership for the final decision-making authority rests with the program director (Edwards & Baskind, 1995). This leadership style allows for faculty input but does not
rely on consensus before a decision can be made. Burns’ Transformational Leadership is similar as it is concerned with a program director who can create a departmental vision and bring the faculty along with them toward this mission. (Crainer, 1998a; Edwards & Baskind, 1995). The program director is the person who determines those issues that are best centralized and kept under his control and those in which faculty may have input. It is the program director’s responsibility to coordinate faculty efforts within the department and external relations with the university and community (Streeter, Sherraden, Gillespie, & Zakour, 1986). Lewis, Lewis, Packard and Souflee (2001) report mounting evidence that participative decision making is effective with those who are motivated and skilled. A shortcoming with this approach, however, is related to the fact that the program director only allows certain decisions to be made by the faculty. The faculty may not agree to the scope of the program director’s authority. This style may give rise to faculty resentment as they suspect their input is only token.
Collaborative Leadership: The program director’s and faculty’s roles are blurred. All dialogue is employed to develop common experiences and understanding to create a shared mission and language that allows for consensus to make departmental decisions (Meenaghan & Givvons, 2000). This type of leadership assumes that all faculty will «check their egos at the door.» Collaborative leadership can be a very slow and tedious process. The question becomes how the department will meet deadlines and make decisions in crisis situations when the group cannot achieve a consensus. The larger the department, the more difficult consensus may be to attain, even when faculty are motivated and committed to working as an integrative team. Edwards and Baskind (1995) believe that the use of a completely open and democratic leadership style is not an effective model. Skidmore (1995) identifies this free-rein style as encouraging autonomy and individual performance that allows almost complete independence. Brody and Nair (2000) refer to this as a «laissez faire» delega-tive style in which the program director relies on the faculty members to determine and carry out their responsibilities. The program director becomes a coach and mentor, allowing faculty to determine the direction of the department (Crainer, 1998a). This may be difficult to achieve when trying to implement an integrated curriculum model. If each faculty member is allowed to make his or her own decisions, the program director has only the faculty members’ selfcontrol and willingness to work on the team to ensure that integration will occur.
Situational Leadership: Program directors may operate from the assumption that effective leadership varies from situation to situation. Hersey and Blanchard suggest that task behavior and relationship behaviors are the key factors (Lewis, Lewis, Packard & Souflee, 2001). The willingness of the faculty as well as their confidence in the program director are considerations in this style of leadership. Decision making moves between program director alone; program director alone, with the decision based on input from faculty; program director and faculty jointly making the decision; and faculty only making the decision. Accordingly, the program director should adapt his/her style based on the faculty’s needs and the type of problem at hand. Contingency leadership is similar in that the program director considers all relevant factors regarding the faculty, the situation, and his/her own type of leadership preferences as well as strengths.
Conclusion
Whatever type of leadership the department chooses, its focus should be on maintaining its autonomy, fighting the battle of providing a quality program with dwindling resources, and not accepting a lower status position than other departments on campus. The answer is not a passive and leaderless stance on this issue. Macy, Turner, and Wilson recommend a program director who is «visionary.» Wheeler and Gibbons (1992) call for assertive leadership and «professional discretion in knowing where to take hold and where to let go.» Moran, Fans and Gibson’s (1995) study suggests that effective program directors should demonstrate professional values and standards. They also should be strong advocates for faculty and students. Mokuau, Hull, and Burkett (1993) note that program directors have multiple roles, which include administrator, teacher, and scholar. They recommend that the program director’s scholarly efforts be broad to match these multiple roles, and encourages knowledge of curriculum building, pedagogy, and accreditation. Hasenfeld (1992) recommends a decentralized authority structure that is externally oriented in turbulent and uncertain environments where there is a struggle for power. This example could be a description of the typical social work department in the 21st century with fiscal cutbacks, changes in CSWE standards, and university pressures to do more with less. (Macy, Turner, & Wilson, 2000)
What is lacking in the social work literature is a body of evidence demonstrating the types of program director leadership styles that are most effective for
social work departments. Judging from the current hiring processes at most universities many program directors have emerged just because they were at the right place (i.e. at the CSWE annual conference) at the right time, with enough credentials to demonstrate experience in education. With the shortage of experienced faculty and administrators who are «on the market,» programs may be settling for who they can get at the price their university is willing to pay. If this is the case, what can social work education do to help cultivate and strengthen those chosen for the program director position? CSWE should do a minimum of three things to address this situation: First, CSWE should call for research studies on leadership styles linked to effective programs. Second, CSWE should develop and offer ongoing well-designed training for all program directors, not just the newly hired. Finally, CSWE should build into their strategic plan for the 21st century a rigorous program to identify potential future leaders and groom them for future directorship positions. Given the profound impact of the quality of leadership in programs, it is no longer wise to continue to leave the program director’s leadership effectiveness to chance. We need to identify what leadership style works in the diverse social work departments. We should remember Reamer’s recommendation for CSWE as the editor of the Journal of Social Work Education (1993) to make an effort to cultivate these types of leadership styles in a «deliberate and systematic way.»
Bibliography
Brody, R., & Nair, M.D. (2000). Macropractice: A generalist approach (5th Ed.). Wheaton, IL: Gregory Publishing Company.
Crainer, S. (1998a). Key management ideas: Thinkers that changed the management world. New York: Freeman Publishing.
Crainer, S. (1998b). The ultimate book of business gurus: 110 thinkers who really made a difference. New York: American Management Associates.
Council on Social Work Education Strategic Plan: 1998-2000. (1998). Social Work Education Reporter, 46(1), 15-18.
Edwards, R.L., & Baskind, F.R. (1995). Providing leadership. In F. Raymond (Ed.), The administration of social work education programs: The role of deans and directors. Columbia, SC: National Association of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work. Washington, DC: NASW Press, 51-63.
Hasenfeld, Y. (Ed.) (1992). Human services as complex organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kirst-Ashman, K.K. (2000). Human behavior, communities, organizations & groups in the macro social en-
vironment: An empowerment approach. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning.
Lewis, J.A., Lewis, M.D., Packard, T. & Souflee, F. (2001). Management of human service programs (3rd Ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning.
Macy. H. J., Turner, R., & Wilson, S. (2000). Directing the baccalaureate social work education program (2nd Ed.). Dubuque, IA: Eddie Bowers Publishing.
McMurtry, S.L., & McClelland, R.W. (1997, Spring/Summer). Class sizes, faculty workloads, and program structures: How MSW programs have responded to changes in their environments. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(2), 307-320.
Meenaghan, T. M., & Gibbons, W.E. (2000). Generalist practice in larger settings: Knowledge and skill concepts. Chicago, IL: Lyceum.
Mokuau, N., Hull, G.H., & Burkett, S. (1993, Spring/Summer). Development of knowledge by undergraduate program directors. Journal of Social Work Education, 29(2), 160-170.
Moran, J.R., Frans, D., & Gibson, P.A. (1995, Winter). A comparison of beginning MSW and MBA students on their aptitudes for human service management. Journal of Social Work Education, 31(1), 95-105.
Munson, C.E. (1994, Spring/Summer). A survey of deans of schools of social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 30(2), 153-162.
Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Rank, M.G., & Hutchison, W.S. (2000, Fall)An analysis of leadership within the social work profession. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(3), 487-505.
Reamer, F.G. (1993, Spring/Summer). Cultivating leadership in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 29(2), 139-141.
Reinardy, J., & Halter, A. (1994, Fall). Social work in academia: A case study of survival. Journal of Social Work Education, 30(3), 300-309.
Skidmore. R.A. (1995). Social work administration: Dynamic management and human relationships (3rd Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Streeter, C. L., Sherraden, M.W., Gillespie, D.F., & Zakour, M.J. (1986, Winter). Curriculum development in interorganizational coordination. Journal of Social Work Education, 22(1), 32-40.
Videka-Sherman, L. Allen-Meares, Pl, Yegidis, B., & Yu, Y. (1995). Social work deans in the 1990s: Survey findings. In F. Raymond (Ed.), The administration of social work education programs: The role of deans and directors. Columbia, SC: National Association of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work. Washington, DC: NASW Press, 1-23.
Wheeler, B.R., & Gibbons, W.E. (1992, Fall). Social work in academia: Learning from the past and acting on the present. Journal of Social Work Education, 29(3), 300-311.
