Leading in a Time of Crisis

In 2009, my husband and I needed to sell our home in the Atlanta, Georgia area. As some of you may be painfully aware, this was during the height of the housing bubble. There were many homes near our Avondale Estates neighborhood facing foreclosure. To make matters worse, our home did not have the updated kitchen with granite counters and stainless appliances. Further, it was on a busy street. We chose the same realtor who had sold us the home – a friend from church. She was a sweet person and an adequate realtor under normal circumstances. However, these were not normal circumstances. She suggested a listing price that would ultimately be about $100K more than we would get. The house sat for months – those critical spring months – with few lookers and no interest. To try to get traction in the market, she determined that we needed a new roof, so we paid dearly for a new roof. She then determined that we needed new toilets, and so we replaced four toilets. Next, she felt new carpet would make a difference, so we also replaced the carpet in the game room, but still no interest.

After several months with no success, we changed realtors and worked with a company that specialized in short sales and selling homes in difficult circumstances. The company had a team of realtors working with us – each with a specific area of expertise. Before the sign went into the front of the house, we “neutralized” all the walls and made other changes that would influence buyers. While we still had to bring $50K to closing to avoid short selling our home, we were able to sell it quickly once we worked with the new realtor.

I think of this experience often – not simply because the “cost” of moving at that time was so high, but also because it was clear that during times of housing crisis, you need realtors who know how to handle crises. The team we ultimately worked with saw the trends and learned from a variety of sources how to handle the housing bubble. They had a great leader in the firm who put realtors into effective teams to serve their clients. Our first realtor, the friend, managed her work well enough when there were no challenges, but she was wholly unprepared for the challenges facing the housing market in Atlanta in 2009.

I believe we’ve all encountered administrators who, like the realtor friend, may do an adequate job leading under normal circumstances, but in times of change and crisis, they fall short. This is important to consider when we see so much change in higher education. While there are countless elements I could address regarding leading in times of crisis, I believe the following two (along with responses related to them) help capture much of the challenge in universities today.

Recognize Organizational Complexity

Leaders in higher education must recognize that universities are complex organizations. They operate, by and large, as loosely coupled units. Even though most organizational units can operate with a certain level of autonomy, many of their decisions impact others. Particularly when considering the relationship between academic units and enrollment management units, performance measures within the latter can threaten the integrity of the former. For example, in one institution, a provost determined that the dates for registration needed to be moved forward two weeks to increase enrollment. She believed offering a longer span of time earlier would encourage more students to enroll. However, the internal registration systems that were changed then prevented students from enrolling themselves in classes in the B term of the current semester. Students would receive error messages that they were not eligible for registering. The system could not be changed, so whatever potential gains the provost hoped to achieve by moving the dates up would inevitably hurt enrollment by adding barriers for an entire term’s registration. This incident illustrates how important it is for leaders to recognize how the work of one unit impacts the work of another. This is particularly critical when crises emerge and solutions are needed.

Recognizing the Complexity of Human Nature

While many who enter academic administration in colleges and universities do not have deep, academic knowledge of organizational theory, even fewer have a deep understanding of the complexity of human nature. Instead, leaders often address the human factor of their roles much like they address organizational issues: based exclusively upon anecdotes. What has or has not worked in the past? How does this individual’s behavior remind the leader of another individual’s behavior in the past? Unfortunately, leading by anecdotes often results in reactive leading. In other words, simply responding to a similar issue with a different individual or even changing one’s response from one situation to the next based upon similarities experienced with an individual will not necessarily yield positive results.

This can be particularly problematic depending upon the assumptions the leader holds related to the human spirit. This is more than simply considering the antiquated “Theory X” and “Theory Y” characterizations of leadership (although, sadly, this simplistic characterization from the 1960's is still evident in the behaviors of some leaders). This also involves how an individual responds to differences. What assumptions does the leader maintain regarding women? How does the leader feel about individuals who are different from himself or herself? Equally as important, to what degree can a leader encounter difference, including difference of opinion, and not internalize the tensions that inevitably rise from those differences? In other words, can the leader recognize that it is not about him/her? The ever-looming ego, unfortunately, can get in the way when a leader internalizes problems and/or responses from others.

Having worked in multiple institutions, I’ve witnessed the fall-out of leaders who try to force their will upon faculty. At one institution, the dean would gather his “leadership team” of department chairs, committee heads, etc. weekly for a leadership meeting feigning collaborative leadership. Instead, it was a series of didactic statements about how things were going to be run delivered with an ominous scowl and followed by, “Does anyone have any questions?” You would have thought he was Medusa, not the Dean of a College of Education, considering how quickly attendees avoided eye contact.

Truth be told, “Because I said so,” works as effectively in higher education as it does in families. Recipients of the mandates may comply, but the damage is done. Trust is lost. The likelihood that the individual will disengage or sabotage the initiative in question increases each time a leader abuses his or her power in this manner. This creates a vicious cycle. A leader who leads with his or her ego tries to force his or her will on faculty and staff. Faculty and staff comply minimally or, after a history of abuse of power, choose strange “hills” upon which to take a stand and refuse. The leader interprets this as proof that faculty are lazy, etc. and feels justified in making more demands. The conditions continue to deteriorate.

Be Adept at Using Data to Support the Former

Understanding organizational theory is a first step, but it alone isn’t sufficient. It’s critical to have a data-based understanding of one’s organizational reality. It takes an understanding of organizations – the connections between units, etc. – to understand the kinds of questions to ask to collect data, and then it takes resources to ensure the data is collected accurately and regularly. Otherwise, organizational understanding plus anecdotes/hunches does not equal wise decisions. Similarly, data without organizational understanding can lead to overconfidence in bad decisions.

At a previous institution, I was concerned about enrollment in graduate programs. The numbers were low, and there seemed to be very little strategic effort to change this. When I asked various internal stakeholders about my concerns, I was repeatedly told that when the State stopped requiring teachers to get master’s degrees, everyone lost enrollment. Faculty indicated that the institution used to have very high numbers in their graduate programs, but they lost enrollment just like everyone else in the State. It only took a few minutes playing with IPEDS data to see that this was not the case. Other programs in the State had strong graduate programs. The Institution in which I was working never had more than five of six percent of the graduate market in education, and the numbers remained consistent for decades – consistently low. Sadly, for years the College functioned with a sense of helplessness when it came to graduate education, and this helplessness was based upon anecdotes, not data. While this State institution could continue to function without focusing efforts on growing graduate markets, universities facing financial crises do not have the same luxury. Without data driving crucial decisions, they are at risk of placing themselves in even more financially precarious situations.

Create Relationships and Networks to Address the Latter

Leaders, particularly those in crisis, need to deeply understand the relationship between community, communication, and the common good. Perhaps this is just my admiration of all things John Dewey, but these links are essential to prompt stakeholders to work together to solve problems. If the relationships do not exist before a crisis hits, then university leaders are often handicapped to the point of uselessness. When a university is facing fiscal crisis, it is essential that stakeholders can share commonly felt needs and work together to address those needs. While it may defy logic, faculty are as likely or more likely to sabotage desperate measures to save an institution although it might mean their own personal demise. Leaders cannot expect faculty to simply accept statements about how grim circumstances are. Even if evidence points to the possibility of dire consequences, faculty are likely to fight symbolic battles rather than come to the table to help find solutions.

Many institutions – particularly those relying on programming as the primary source of revenue – struggle because they are not sufficiently nimble to respond to market needs. They are competing with new academic organizations that are not restricted by faculty governance. Without communication, community, and common goods, they are not able to address market demands, and trying to force change is met with resistance (See “Because I told you so” paragraph above.). If an institution does not bring faculty and staff to the table to work together to understand needs and solve problems, then they cannot expect those same stakeholders to simply trust them to do the right thing.

I recommend that every university, particularly private universities, maintain a council responsible for understanding the higher education market, recognizing how it impacts the current financial status of the institution, and then using this information along with the institutional mission to make recommendations regarding the future of the institution. While maintaining no administrative power, this council would communicate with others and challenge those resistant to change by pointing out the potential costs for refusing to change. Without this collectively achieved sense of felt need, universities will continue to try to govern according to “trust us,” or “because I said so” leadership, and they will fail.

Leaders who are not prepared for crisis do not see the need to create these relational networks during calmer times to avoid or withstand times of crisis. They rely on general collegiality or surface likability, and then they seem perplexed when that likability is not sufficient to address areas of critical need during a crisis. It is much easier for a leader to be liked than to be trusted. Particularly when a leader is new, faculty and staff typically want to like him or her. We often refer to this as the honeymoon period, and leaders who are not prepared to handle crises rely too heavily on the honeymoon. Trust cannot be assumed. It must be achieved, and it can never be taken for granted. If a leader enters an institution during calm times, he or she may not see a need to take the measures required to build these networks of trust and transparency. When crises come, it’s too late.

Conclusion

I don’t think there are many individuals who actively seek universities in crisis when they plan their careers. As Allison Villiancourt describes in her article, “Stuck with Someone Else’s Mess,” most individuals seeking leadership positions in universities work hard to avoid walking into an institution in crisis. There are no guarantees. Crises can erupt anywhere at any time. I believe the two key elements outlined here are essential to ensure that a leader is prepared for crisis: (1) understanding complexity and using data to respond to the complexity, and (2) Recognizing the complexity of human nature and creating relationships and networks to respond to those complexities. Possessing capacity in relation to these elements does not necessarily mean that a leader is effective overall, but without them, all the other positive qualities a leader may possess will not sustain himself/herself or the university.