Emerging Definitions of Leadership in Higher Education

The article by Eddy and VanDerLinden (2006) looks at how alternative definitions of leadership are replacing traditional leadership concepts. Specifically, the authors assess emerging definitions of leadership in terms of how community college administrators self-identify as leaders. Using a survey method to collect data, the researchers asked respondents to identify their definition of leadership. The purpose was to see if they viewed leadership in terms of their position at the college or in terms of other variables.
The researchers noted that, traditionally, these colleges have been described as bureaucratic in nature, with positional leadership serving as the main type, but today administrators in these colleges self-identify using a variety of different leadership ideas. These leaders are in fact thinking more complexly about leadership instead of linking leadership to position or to a single characteristic. The authors make the point that it is important to nurture these alternative definitions of leadership by providing additional leadership development and training opportunities.
However, Eddy and VanDerLinden (2006) also show that a large percentage of community college administrators still see themselves as having their leadership tied to their position or role within the college. The authors note that the encouraging finding is that for half of the respondents they did use different terms and variables to define their sense of leadership, instead of just referring to their position in the college as being the source of definition for leadership.
The researchers sampled 682 respondents across a variety of position codes for the survey, so the sample size was large enough and generally representative of the population that the study contains internal validity and its findings can be said to be generalizeable. The only evident bias in the study is the researchers assume to some extent that the traditional way of thinking about leadership is inadequate to meet today’s challenges and demands of administrators at community colleges. No justification for this belief is fully given, so it is an assumption that the reader can either accept or reject on his own. The researchers do provide a substantial literature review of what leadership theories have developed over the years, from theories of women’s leadership (Chliwniak, 1997; Townsend & Twombly, 1998) to theories of multidimensional leadership (Peterson, 1997) and learning organization (O’Bannion, 1997).
Overall, however, the review of leadership trends does not provide an adequate justification for why new leadership definitions are required. The researchers appear to suggest that leadership should be more democratic in style—but the reason for this implicit assumption is unclear. Thus, while the stated goals of the research—to obtain a better understanding of how leaders in community colleges define leadership among themselves and whether there are any differences between male and female senses of leadership—are made evident, the reason for their relevance is not as explicitly made in the study.
The relevance of the source material to my own doctoral research is that for me leadership depends upon numerous factors, from the circumstances in which one finds oneself to the challenges one is presented to the needs of one’s followers to the style of leadership that one is best suited for based on personality and inclination. Each of these factors determines how leadership is developed, in my opinion, and what the study by Eddy and VanDerLinden (2006) helps to show is that leadership is far from being a one size fits all concept. In my experience leaders have to be flexible and able to adapt to different situations, environments, needs of followers and challenges. They should be able to use emotional and social intelligence, they should be strong communicators, and they should be capable of expressing a vision.
But beyond those most basic parameters for leadership, I have not found in my own research that any one definition of leadership or way of thinking about leadership is necessarily better or worse than others. The primary important factor in leadership is the ability to build strong relationships with others because without these there will be no way to earn the trust and respect of followers. But, again, how those relationships are defined will depend upon the setting, the leader and the followers. Obviously, it will be different for an Army sergeant than it will be for a member of a Congress. The study by Eddy and VanDerLinden (2006) at least makes it clear that critical thinking about leadership is taking place among roughly half of today’s community college administrators, which is a sign that leadership is not being taken for granted. As I move forward with my doctoral research, I am to explore ideas in leadership in much the same manner.
References
Chliwniak, L. (1997). Higher education leadership: Analyzing the gender gap, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 25 (4). Washington DC: ASHE.
Eddy, P. L., & VanDerLinden, K. E. (2006). Emerging Definitions of Leadership in Higher Education: New Visions of Leadership or Same Old “Hero” Leader? Community College Review, 34(1), 5–26.
O'Banion, T. (1997). A learning college for the 21st century. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education Oryx Press Series on Higher Education.
Peterson, M. (1997). Using contextual planning to transform institutions. In M. Peterson, D. Dill, L. A. Mets, & Associates (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment, 127-157. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Townsend, B. K., & Twombly, S. B. (1998). A feminist critique of organizational change in the community college. In. J. S. Levin (Ed.), Organizational change in the community college: A ripple or a sea change?, pp. 77-85. New Directions for Community Colleges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.