Assignments Needed due by tomorrow. Assignment 1: This comes from class GS 102: Discuss the similarities and differences between organisms in the domains Bacteria and Archaea. Your assignment should be 250-500 words in length. Assignment 2: Ah111 Introduction to Health Information Management ACA In a two to three page paper, examine the main components of the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, identify how the ACA addresses the issues of quality, cost, and access to healthcare in the United States. Lastly, summarize if the ACA is meeting its objectives. You may need to refer to the Affordable Care Act government website as listed in your supplement materials. Be sure to cite your references. Assignment 3 EN 101: This week’s assignment is intended to help get you started on the persuasive essay we will be working on throughout the remainder of this course. Before getting started on this assignment, it might be beneficial for you to read the criteria for the Week Six Persuasive Essay. For this week, we will be practicing topic selection and outlining. Because this is preparation for next week’s persuasive essay, you will need to start by picking a topic that is persuasive. This topic must meet the following criteria: Arguable (are there at least two logical, yet opposite ways to look at the issue? Are there at least two sides?) Solvable (i.e. avoid religious, moral, or politically charged topics) Manageable (keep your topic focused and specific) Think of a specific problem or issue that you are interested in researching and writing an essay about. This issue should be argumentative in nature, so the topic that you choose should have an equally valid opposing viewpoint. An example of an appropriate topic would be this: A specific community is debating an ordinance banning the ownership of pit bulls. Some residents agree that pit bulls should be banned, while others disagree with this position (there is plenty of research to back up either side of the argument). Your job from there will be to explore the issue, look at both sides of the argument as completely as you can, and take a side. Your essay will be an attempt to convince others to join you in your decision. Directions Look up and read the following article in the EBSCOhost Database: Step-by-step through the writing process. (2007). Writing, 30. 1-8. (Note: You do not need to answer any of the questions from the reading in your assignment). Read and respond to EACH of the following questions and submit them and your outline in a single document (both parts must be completed). Part One: Topic Search For the first part of this assignment, consider the following three questions: What issue or problem would you like to write about? Choose a side. What is your view on the issue? What is the opposing view? What specific change might fix this issue? Then, freewrite for 10-15 minutes about the topic you have chosen. Share all of the reas ...

1. Assignments Needed due by tomorrow.
Assignment 1: This comes from class GS 102: Discuss the
similarities and differences between organisms in the domains
Bacteria and Archaea. Your assignment should be 250-500
words in length.
Assignment 2: Ah111
Introduction to Health Information Management
ACA
In a two to three page paper, examine the main components of
the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, identify how the ACA
addresses the issues of quality, cost, and access to healthcare in
the United States. Lastly, summarize if the ACA is meeting its
objectives. You may need to refer to the Affordable Care Act
government website as listed in your supplement materials.
Be sure to cite your references.
Assignment 3 EN 101: This week’s assignment is intended to
help get you started on the persuasive essay we will be working
on throughout the remainder of this course. Before getting
started on this assignment, it might be beneficial for you to read
the criteria for the Week Six Persuasive Essay.
For this week, we will be practicing topic selection and
outlining. Because this is preparation for next week’s
persuasive essay, you will need to start by picking a topic that
is persuasive. This topic must meet the following criteria:
Arguable (are there at least two logical, yet opposite ways to
look at the issue? Are there at least two sides?)

2. Solvable (i.e. avoid religious, moral, or politically charged
topics)
Manageable (keep your topic focused and specific)
Think of a specific problem or issue that you are interested in
researching and writing an essay about. This issue should be
argumentative in nature, so the topic that you choose should
have an equally valid opposing viewpoint.
An example of an appropriate topic would be this:
A specific community is debating an ordinance banning the
ownership of pit bulls. Some residents agree that pit bulls
should be banned, while others disagree with this position
(there is plenty of research to back up either side of the
argument).
Your job from there will be to explore the issue, look at both
sides of the argument as completely as you can, and take a side.
Your essay will be an attempt to convince others to join you in
your decision.
Directions
Look up and read the following article in the EBSCOhost
Database:
Step-by-step through the writing process. (2007). Writing,
30. 1-8.
(Note: You do not need to answer any of the questions from
the reading in your assignment).
Read and respond to EACH of the following questions and
submit them and your outline in a single document (both parts
must be completed).

3. Part One: Topic Search
For the first part of this assignment, consider the following
three questions:
What issue or problem would you like to write about?
Choose a side. What is your view on the issue? What is the
opposing view?
What specific change might fix this issue?
Then, freewrite for 10-15 minutes about the topic you have
chosen. Share all of the reasons you can think of for why your
problem needs to be fixed. Do not worry about grammar,
spelling, or format. Do not edit. Write what comes to mind. Do
not research yet. If you are stumped and cannot write what you
know for 10-15 minutes, go back to #1 and start with a new
topic.
Part Two: The Outline
Draft an informal outline for your upcoming persuasive paper.
Do not include quotations or paraphrased material. Your outline
should be built from your current knowledge of the topic. You
can refine this later when you conduct your research.
Basic Outline for a Five Paragraph Essay
Introductory Paragraph (five to seven sentences that include
a hook, background information, and a thesis)
Body Paragraphs
First Topic Sentence
Supporting Point
Supporting Point
Supporting Point
Second Topic Sentence

4. Supporting Point
Supporting Point
Supporting Point
Third Topic Sentence
Supporting Point
Supporting Point
Supporting Point
Closing paragraph (five to seven sentences that include a
restatement of the thesis, summary of the main ideas, and a
closing thought)
If you are having trouble with your outline, the following link
leads to a video that should help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXWMPbfKtUI
Assignment: 3 In a two to three page paper, examine the impact
health has on the population as a whole. Address the benefits of
a healthy population as well as the costs of an unhealthy
population. Be sure to also include a discussion as to if the
development of our current healthcare system over time has
increased population health or has had no effect. Lastly,
research another country’s healthcare system. How does it
compare to the system currently place in the United States? Is
the population healthier as a result of their system?
Be sure to cite your references.
Assignment: 4 Write a Business Letter/ CS 105
Write a letter using Microsoft Word asking a local business
(real or imagined) to hold an event or to donate funds for your
charity (real or imagined). In the body of the letter ensure you
name your charity, what the donation will be used for, the
benefits your charity offers to the local community and your
contact information. Please read through the remaining
directions and information. View the following links to learn
about the setup up of a business letter

5. Parts of a business
letter:https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/653/01/
Sample Letters:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/653/02/
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/media/pdf/20090417021603_653.
pdf
NOTE: No templates are to be used for this assignment
The content (body) of the letter is two paragraphs. The
second paragraph would include contact information.
No templates can be used for this assignment. You need to
start from a blank word document and complete the letter
without the use of a template.
Include sender’s address, date, inside address (is the address
for the person to whom you are sending the letter and is right
before the salutation - see the links above), salutation, body of
the letter, and signature block.
Include a bulleted or numbered list of at least three items in
the body of the letter. For instance, this could be for how the
donation will be used, benefits of your charity, or ideas for an
event.
Change the font of the signature in the signature block of the
letter so that it is a different font than that used in the rest of
the letter.
Use at least two other font features like font size, bold, or
underline in the letter. For instance, you might italicize the
signature or contact information, change the font size of the
bulleted list, underline the phone number, bold the name of the
charity, etc.
Save your file as CS105_Week1_LastnameFirstInitial.
Assignment : 5 Ah111 : Impact of Health
In a two to three page paper, examine the impact health has on

6. the population as a whole. Address the benefits of a healthy
population as well as the costs of an unhealthy population. Be
sure to also include a discussion as to if the development of our
current healthcare system over time has increased population
health or has had no effect. Lastly, research another country’s
healthcare system. How does it compare to the system currently
place in the United States? Is the population healthier as a
result of their system?
Assignment 6: CS 105
Write a Business Letter
Write a letter using Microsoft Word asking a local business
(real or imagined) to hold an event or to donate funds for your
charity (real or imagined). In the body of the letter ensure you
name your charity, what the donation will be used for, the
benefits your charity offers to the local community and your
contact information. Please read through the remaining
directions and information. View the following links to learn
about the setup up of a business letter
Parts of a business
letter:https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/653/01/
Sample Letters:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/653/02/
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/media/pdf/20090417021603_653.
pdf
NOTE: No templates are to be used for this assignment
The content (body) of the letter is two paragraphs. The
second paragraph would include contact information.
No templates can be used for this assignment. You need to
start from a blank word document and complete the letter
without the use of a template.
Include sender’s address, date, inside address (is the address

7. for the person to whom you are sending the letter and is right
before the salutation - see the links above), salutation, body of
the letter, and signature block.
Include a bulleted or numbered list of at least three items in
the body of the letter. For instance, this could be for how the
donation will be used, benefits of your charity, or ideas for an
event.
Change the font of the signature in the signature block of the
letter so that it is a different font than that used in the rest of
the letter.
Use at least two other font features like font size, bold, or
underline in the letter. For instance, you might italicize the
signature or contact information, change the font size of the
bulleted list, underline the phone number, bold the name of the
charity, etc.
Save your file as CS105_Week1_LastnameFirstInitial.
Chapter I
Introduction
Overview
Leadership is a concept as vast and endless as the ocean. Just as
widely as the ocean
spans the earth, leadership spans across multiple social groups,
disciplines and fields of study.
Leadership is distinguished by the unique organizational
structures in which it is situated, and the
multiple individuals who interact within those structures, akin
to the way separate bodies of
water contain their own diverse ecosystems, geophysical
patterns, and marine life. Similar to the
way an ocean responds to changes in climate, the ideas of
leadership evolve in response to

8. environmental shifts.
For the past 30 years, the nature of higher education has
evolved drastically, which has
affected the structures and overall functions of many colleges
and universities. Two resulting
conditions from these changes formulate the context of this
inquiry: 1) the rising number of
professional, non-instructional staff (Knapp, Kelly-Reid, &
Ginder, 2011) and 2) the way
leadership in higher education is researched and practiced
(Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum
1989; Kezar & Carducci, 2009; Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-
McGavin, 2006;). The evolved,
re-conceptualization of leadership is formulated from principles
of mutual, democratic power
moving leadership away from being defined as a role one
assumes, or set of ingrained traits,
towards viewing leadership as a capacity within all individuals
that is demonstrated at all levels
of the organization (Green & McDade, 1991, p. 8; Kezar et al.,
2006). The shifted frameworks
of leadership expand the scope for examining leadership not
only in the way it is demonstrated,
but in how it is developed.
In an effort to contribute to this evolved discussion of
leadership, I will apply a
qualitative, phenomenological approach to explore how non-
instructional, professional staff
LEADERSHIP IN ACTION
come to understand leadership and the way their understanding
informs their development as
leaders. I focus on non-instructional, professional staff because
despite their escalated
membership within higher education, they are largely absent
from leadership and leadership
development research (Szekeres, 2004). Yet, in my role as the

9. lead facilitator for a leadership
development program at my institution, the majority of learners
I encounter are noninstructional,
professional staff.
In this chapter I outline my problem statement, the research
question guiding this inquiry,
as well as provide a rationale for undertaking this inquiry. In
addition, I provide a positionality
statement to highlight my personal interests in the issue. Lastly,
I discuss symbolic
interactionism, the theoretical framework that grounds this
study.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to examine how non-instructional,
professional staff conceive
of leadership and develop their capacity to become leaders. The
study rests on three premises.
The first premise follows from the understanding that new
environmental demands required
colleges and universities to employ alternative ideas, theories
and frameworks concerning
academic leadership with an emphasis on collaborative
organizational structures that shifts the
focus on relationships and teamwork, rather than results
(Bensimon, & Neumann, 1992;
Bruininks, Keeney, & Thorpe, 2010; Woodard, Love &
Komives, 2002; Eddy, &
VanDerLinden, 2006). These alternative frameworks are
formulated to generate leaders who
advance the organization through their ability to empower
others and embrace the challenges as
well as the benefits of diversity (Bess, & Dee, 2008; Kezar, &
Carducci, 2007; Komives, Lucas,
& McMahon, 2007; Smith, 2009).
The second premise is recognizing despite the significant
growth of non-instructional,

10. professional and administrative staff employed in higher
education, they remain largely excluded
from academic research, specifically research concerning
leadership and leadership development
in higher education (Gumport & Pusser, 1995; Rosser, 2000;
Szekeres, 2004). One reason for
this exclusion may be the persistence of tension that exists
between faculty and staff, reflecting
the perception of mid-level administrators as outsiders and part
of the state of new
managerialism, imparting neoliberal values and practices from
the private sector onto colleges
and universities (Levin, 2006; Rhoades & Sporn, 2002;
Szekeres, 2004). The exclusion of staff
from research is also reflective of the lack of appreciation for
staff’s contributions within the
academic enterprise (Johnsrud, Heck, & Rosser, 2000; McInnis,
1998). I posit however, that a
continued exclusion of staff from the discussion of leadership
goes against the notions of
leadership that conceive of its existence beyond an individual or
role, or that champion the
premise that leadership is enacted by teams (Bensimon &
Neumann, 1992). Including staff in
discussions of leadership and leadership development promotes
the idea that the quality of the
institution hinges on the quality of all its employees
contributions, and when institutions actively
support and invest in professional growth and development
opportunities for all employees, it
demonstrates their recognition in the value of the high quality
competencies of all its employees
(Whitchurch, Skinner, & Lauwerys, 2009).
The third premise concerns the nature of leadership
development as a life cycle
(Brungardt, 1997) and posits that development extends beyond

11. formal training or education, but
exists on a long-term continuum that can include one's
encounters with other leaders (DeHart,
1977). This assertion emphasizes the socially constructed nature
of leadership and the impact of
the actions of leaders on the organization's culture and the
actions of others within organizations
(Birnbaum, 1992; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Clark, 1972; Tierney,
1998). Lessons are gained
through an individual’s ability to reflect and make meaning of
their experiences with leadership
in action (Brungardt, 1997; London, 1995).
My goal in this study is to identify how professional staff and
former attendees of an
institution sponsored leadership training program continue their
own development as leaders. As
well I am interested in identifying professional staff who have
not attended the institution’s
leadership program to also elicit their insights about their
encounters with leadership, the
meanings they derive and how those meanings also construct
their sense of being a leader. Using
transcendental phenomenological methodology, I intend to
capture a vast range of leadership
experiences from this population’s unique, yet untapped
perspective.
This study is largely inspired through my own experiences in
my role as an
Organizational Development Specialist (OD) and as a facilitator
of a leadership development
program, of which non-instructional staff are the participants. I
serve in this capacity in the
Human Resource division of a large, urban, Research University
(RU/VH) in the Northeast. The
leadership training series is open to all the institution’s non-
instructional staff and faculty who

12. are either in positions of management or are simply interested
in developing leadership skills.
While the program is open to faculty, they rarely participate.
My goal is to conduct semistructured,
three part interviews with former participants as a means of
conducting (and in some
cases, continuing) discussions with them about their ongoing
development as leaders as they
reflect on their own encounters with the institution's leadership.
In addition, I will also interview
non-instructional, professional staff who have not attended the
institution’s leadership
development program to open the study for varied
understandings of leadership the meanings
made by this specific population. In studying this population,
my intent is to turn the attention to
an understudied population in higher education literature, with
the hopes of increasing their
visibility and identifying the value of this populations’
contributions to the academic enterprise.
Research Question
The following question guides this study:
How does non-instructional, professional staff conceive of
leadership and their capacity
to be leaders in higher education?
This question is framed to reflect the aforementioned premises,
also based on Green &
McDade’s (1991) assertions that development is a shared
responsibility between an individual
and the institution and that leadership development includes the
individual’s everyday
experiences. This idea is also reflected in the theoretical
framework framing this study, symbolic
interactionism, which asserts that the actions in which
individuals engage construct human
society. Symbolic interactionism then pursues the meanings

13. individuals convey of the behaviors
they encounter, attentive to the individual as the agent of their
interpretations of that meaning
(Blumer, 1969).
In addition this question reflects the research paradigm of social
constructivism, which
believes one's reality is socially and culturally constructed
through the individual's interpretations
(Kezar et al., 2006). Leadership research centered in a social
constructivist ontology seeks to
understand the engagement between leaders and other
stakeholders, and the connections between
leadership and people's perceptions of their departmental
culture and the broader institutional
culture (Meek, 1988; Tierney, 1989/2010).
This study applies the ideas of symbolic interactionism and
social constructivism to
explore how staff come to make meaning of their own
leadership experiences, the demonstration
of leadership within their organizational group life (Blumer,
1969), and how they identify their
own capacity to be leaders in the context of higher education.
Significance of Study
This study is significant because it supports new notions about
leadership and the
capacity for recognizing staff as academic leaders (Jones,
Applebee, Hervey, & Lefoe, 2010).
Johnsrud et al. (2000) notes among the main frustrations of mid-
level administrators in higher
education is a lack of opportunities for growth and
advancement. Several national leadership
programs such as the American Association of Community
Colleges Future Leaders Institute,
Higher Education Resources Services (HERS), and the
American Council on Education (ACE)
Fellows, target faculty and senior level administrative staff who

14. are advancing into senior
administrative roles as presidents, provosts, and deans (Brown,
2010; Eddy& VanDerLinden,
2006; Gangone, 2009). Maintaining development opportunities
solely at these ranks continues to
support the notion that leadership is a position that one attains,
rather than as a process shared by
all. Providing development opportunities throughout all ranks
demonstrates to employees the
willingness of the institution to invest in their career growth,
which in turn increases the
likelihood of employee engagement and productivity (Alfano,
1993; DeHart, 1977; Julius, 2000).
Investing in development also demonstrates an institution's
value for increasing the competence
of all employees, by promoting opportunities for ongoing
learning to occur (Green & McDade,
1991). Leadership development is especially crucial in the
changing environment of academia in
which there is an increased need for leadership at all levels of
the institution, but when there is
also recognition for leadership as the way people relate to each
other when working toward
common goals (Ramsden, 1998). Expanding the discussion and
research on leadership to include
staff endorses collaborative, distributed leadership and the view
that governance in higher
education can be a shared endeavor (Bensimon & Neumann,
1992; Eddy & VanDerLinden,
2006).
Rationale
The changing nature of higher education has produced
intersecting dynamics, resulting in
significant changes that are of interest to this inquiry. The first
is a revolutionized discourse in
academic research that is re-conceptualizing leadership and

15. identifying how leaders are effective
given the significant shift in the organizational structures and
cultures of colleges and
universities in the 21st century (Bensimon et al., 1989; Bess &
Dee, 2008; Kezar et al., 2006).
The other is the rising numbers of non-instructional,
professional staff and administrators
employed in colleges and universities. Despite their invisibility
from research and the tensions
that arise from their increasing membership, (Levin, 2006;
Szekeres, 2004) staff and
administrators are positioning themselves within occupational
"third spaces" which has
established new perspectives, viewing staff as essential partners
in the academic endeavor, rather
than as manifestations of invading managerialism (Whitchurch,
2008).
New paradigmatic frameworks such as, social constructivism,
critical theory, and postmodernism
are also responsible for the expanded discourse on leadership to
recognize the
potential for shared leadership, team leadership, and the value
in exploring the leadership
experiences of diverse populations once overlooked in research,
such as women and people of
color (Bensimon & Neumann, 1992; Kezar & Carducci, 2009).
Similarly, the use of new
paradigms supports the value in exploring the experiences and
capacity for leadership among
non-instructional, professional staff in higher education.
In the following sections I provide the context of the changing
conditions that have
confronted higher education and facilitated massive
organizational changes over the past thirty
years. I also identify how professional staff in academia are
addressed within literature, and

16. provide a rationale for including this understudied population
within these evolved discussions
concerning leadership and the cultivation of new leaders.
Higher education's new normal. For over thirty years a sea
change has confronted
academia (Tierney, 1998; Zusman, 2005). Slaughter and
Rhoades (2004) describe this change
through the lens of academic capitalism, a state of internal and
external environmental factors
that has contributed to institutions operating with "market-like"
behaviors within an expanding,
global economy in which knowledge is treated as a commodity;
raw material to be owned,
consumed, with the purpose of generating profit and furthering
the institution’s prestige (p. 15).
This new global economy, or neoliberal state, has gradually
affected the way in which
institutions divert their resources in favor of research
production, thus drifting from the original
focus; the social welfare of education for all often referred to as
"the common good" (Slaughter
& Rhoades, 2004, p. 21).
For the past decade, key social and economic conditions have
added to these challenges
of neoliberalism on a global scale, creating what Bruininks et
al. (2010) call a "new normal,"
requiring colleges and universities to further reexamine and
adapt their practices, and reluctantly
evolve their governance structures in response to internal and
external socio-economic, and
socio-political demands. This new normal includes wide-spread
local and global competition and
massification, drastic decreases in state and federal funding,
and the escalated public demand for
institutions to justify their elevating operating costs (Bruininkis
et al., 2010; Woodard et al.,

17. 2002; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). As higher education
continues to evolve, colleges and
universities find themselves in a perpetual state of,
“restratifying, restructuring, and
reconfiguring” their operations from the way they serve the
diverse needs of students, to
alternative means of delivering instruction, and changing ways
research is conducted and
marketed (Woodard et al., 2002; Rhoades & Slaughter, 1997,
p.9).
New realities. From the post-Second World War era through the
1970's, higher
education was once considered an essential component for both
social and personal economic
elevation in the United States (Lucas, 2006; Newfield, 2008;
Thelin, 2004). The passage of key
legislative measures attempted to expand access to post-
secondary education for individuals
previously excluded. This includes such efforts as the G.I Bill
for returning veterans, the Higher
Education Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act for African-
Americans and other ethnically
under-represented students. Additional efforts towards inclusion
continued with measures such
as Title IX to enable the participation of women, and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to ensure
educational opportunities for people with disabilities
(Bruininkis et al., 2010; Lucas, 2006;
Thelin, 2004). Legislative efforts and their resulting structural
practices have played a role in
facilitating the growth of the American, middle class and, at one
time, inspired positive public
perceptions about the outcomes of college education (Woodard
et al., 2002). As Newfield (2008)
states, "College was interwoven with the mainstream and
politically powerful ideal that this

18. majority was to have interesting work, economic security, and
the ability to lead satisfying and
insightful lives in which personal and collective social
development advanced side by side" (p.
3).
The impact of decreased public opinion. This once heartened
public view of education
significantly waned during the late 1960's, and onwards into the
21st century. The rising
diversification of students led to the incorporation of new
curriculums and majors centered in
studying the experiences of women and underrepresented groups
(Lucas, 2006). At the same
time, academic critics raised questions concerning the purpose
of academia, whether it was to
provide general, liberal, humanities based scholarship or
specialized vocational training given as
analysis revealed, "a college degree could bestow some measure
of prestige and social reward to
an individual without assuring affluence" (Thelin, 2004, p.
315). Such questions addressing the
purpose of education culminated in light of escalated campus
riots of 1968 around the nation,
which exacerbated concerns about who was in charge in
academia, and what was being taught in
its schools (Lucas, 2006).
Newfield (2008) attributes the transition of public attitudes to
the realization that the
ranks of this newly educated middle class was also
multicultural, therefore the system of
education no longer functioned to privilege the interests of
solely advancing a white, middle
class. Such realizations generated backlash among academic
critics, which Newfield identifies as
cultural wars in which the aforementioned progressive,
legislative efforts that functioned to

19. establish inclusion and education as a greater good were
systemically and legally challenged.
The public willingness to support public universities with their
taxes steadily declined, thus
leaving public institutions to pursue additional financial
resources in the same arenas as private
institutions (Newfield, 2008). Additionally, private interests
within the federal political arena
severely altered financial aid policies, resulting in redistributing
the burden of payment from the
federal government onto families. Redesigned financial aid
packages drastically reduced the
allocation of grants and inflated the distribution of student
loans. Private institutions such as the
Committee on Economic Development and the Carnegie
Institute advocated for policies
supporting such redistribution of federal loans, widening the
gap of fiscal inequity between
public, state run institutions and private, research institutions
(Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).
Albeit the large endowments, rankings, and reputations of
private institutions continue to entice
families, attendance for many families remains either out of
reach, or saddles them with larger
financial aid packages, leaving additional expenses uncovered
and families and students in
massive debt (Newfield, 2008; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).
Funding for state institutions has
dropped to the extent that in spite of their enrollment growth,
they continue to receive only 1/3 or
their funding from state governments (Zusman, 2005).
The culmination of these new realities, the escalation of access,
combined with the
reduction of public support and political investment, created
this state of neoliberalism, which
Levin (2006) describes as "a political project that relies upon

20. institutions for social and economic
change," as expressed through the actions and structures
institutions inherit (p. 65). Academic
capitalism and the neoliberal state are further amplified as
institutions are currently responding to
the rising socio-political and socio-economic outcomes imposed
by globalization and the global
economic crisis of 2008 (Hazelkorn, 2012; Vargese, 2009).
Overall these events exert continued
pressure for institutions to demonstrate their relevance to
society, despite ongoing demands to
meet the challenges of rising enrollment, especially as
individuals are increasingly required to
attain the knowledge and skills to compete within a knowledge-
based economy (Hazelkorn,
2012; Vargese, 2009).
Globalization and global crisis. While the availability of state
and federal funding
sources decreased, competition among institutions escalated to
support scientific research, which
created cultures where knowledge became a commodity
generated for profit, rather than a means
to solve global issues (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Since the
1990’s, colleges and universities
in the United States have grappled with an imbalance of fiscal
demands while meeting
increasingly diverse learning and developmental needs of
students, and ensuring that graduates
attain sufficient skills and expertise to function within an
increasingly privatized global
marketplace (Vargese, 2009). As the 21st century emerged
institutions confronted the vast socioeconomic,
socio-cultural, and technological realities of globalization.
After the economic crisis
of 2008, competition on an international scale surprisingly
increased (Woodard et al., 2002;

21. Vargese, 2009). In examination of recent UNSECO data,
Vargese (2009) notes a significant
expansion of college students worldwide, from 68 million
students in 1991, to138 million by
2005. In order to accommodate these rising populations, or
massification, institutions branched
out to establish international satellite campuses in foreign
countries. As of 2009, India hosted
131 foreign affiliated campuses in partnership with universities
in the United States and the
United Kingdom (Vargese, 2009). This marked the first time
many institutions in the United
States faced competition from top-ranked colleges and
universities in Asia and the Middle East,
all who are actively recruiting talented faculty and students to
their institutions and their nations
(Staley & Trinkle, 2011). This new phase of academic mobility
is not only physical but virtual,
with rapidly advancing technology that can facilitate the
instantaneous transmission of
knowledge through the innovation of Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCS) (Daniel, 2012),
and the ability to span distance, space and time to collaborate
with colleagues within the United
States. and across the globe (Vargese, 2009).
American institutions not only find themselves confronting the
demands of elevated
global competition, but also encounter emerging competitive
challenges from for-profits
institutions that are permeating the national market, grabbing
the attention of students from
predominantly lower socio-economic backgrounds with
promises of quick degree attainment and
post-academic career opportunities. Their growing presence and
competitive gains brings the
question of education for the greater good back full circle

22. (Woodard et al., 2002; Newfield,
2008).
The new realities listed above have established new discussions
in higher education
research, identifying the need for institutions to adapt new
structures, behaviors, and
relationships that enable them to effectively function within the
imposition of these internal and
external changes and ensure successful outcomes despite their
challenges (Berger & Luckmann,
2002; Green, 2003; Smart, Kuh, & Tierney, 1997).
Rethinking operations. For many institutions, the ongoing
challenges of increasing
access, the state of neoliberalism, and the circumstances of
globalization requires them to
holistically rethink the way they operate, from the way teaching
and learning occur, the
allocation of resources, and the ways in which research is
funded and conducted (Woodard et al.,
2002, p. 9). For some institutions this rethinking includes
considering how to function effectively
within an increasingly diverse and vastly global society in
which notions of traditional students
or faculty members have transitioned (Woodard et al., 2002;
Staley & Trinkle, 2011). Overall,
these changes require a new direction away from the traditional
practices in conducting business
in academia (Kezar & Carducci, 2009).
Borrowing from Minztberg's (1980) organizational typologies,
Green (2003) describes
this reengineering of academia as an intermingling between
three organizational paradigms: The
first is the machine paradigm or the incorporation of traditional
business practices, vertical,
centralized structures of power and authority, and lateral
division of labor, The second, the

23. professional paradigm, which describes the continuity of
traditional university practices of
decentralized power and authority, loosely-coupled systems, and
the autonomy of highly trained,
specialized professionals. Lastly, the innovative paradigm or
adhocracy, formulated from post
bureaucratic management designs, incorporates practices of
highly decentralized power
structures, multidisciplinary projects and teams and blurred
lines of authority and power (Green,
2003, p. 199). As Green (2003) explains, "These strategies are
premised on an alleged need to
replace rigidly hierarchical and functionally organized
bureaucracies with flatter and more
flexible organizations, cross-functional project teams, matrix
management, and to use the term in
large part to strategically counter the stereotypical attributes of
bureaucracy-adhocracy" (p. 199).
Derived from similar organizational conceptions as
transformational leadership, the allure
of adhocracy in higher education is its receptivity to complex
and dynamic environments (Kezar
& Carducci, 2009). Rarely, however, do institutions operate
within a singular structure; instead,
as Green (2003) proposes, they assume a variety of cultural
orientations that intertwine the
structures, and the organizations actors and their interactions.
Incorporating new structures
becomes problematic as actors who are loyal to any one
paradigm may demonstrate resistance to
adaptation and resistance to collaboration (Green, 2003).
Studies identified that institutions
which adopt cohesive, decision making processes are found to
have higher organizational
effectiveness and better organizational outcomes than those
which maintain bureaucratic,

24. hierarchical structures (Bess & Dee, 2008; Smart et al., 1997).
Expanding on Cameron's (1986) concept of organizational
effectiveness, Smart et al.
(1997) discern key dimensions which they identify as missing
from Cameron's framework:
decision making and approaches, institutional culture, and the
relationships between faculty,
administrators, and students. By adding these dimensions to
Cameron's framework, Smart et al.
(1997) created a causal model to measure institutional
effectiveness based on these dimension’s
capacity to empower institutional actors’ ability to confront
unpredictable external challenges
and systemic changes. Smart et al. (1997) also reveal a
combination of external factors, such as
the institution's financial health and enrollment health, in
conjunction with the institution's
internal organizational culture, in influencing organizational
effectiveness (Smart et al, 1997).
With this in mind, the authors conclude that adhocracy cultures
have a higher potential for
helping organizations adapt to external and internal pressures
because they implement decision
making approaches that support proactive leadership that is
focused on long term impact.
Researchers who study current forms of leadership recognize
that changes imposed by
external conditions are constant and require different responses,
especially in ways of practicing
and enacting leadership (Eddy & VanDerLinden, 2006; Kezar &
Carducci, 2009). Gallant and
Getz (2009) assert that transitioning to new organizational
structures or practices of leadership,
must be implemented creatively by balancing the need for
change while fully acknowledging the
possibility for tensions to arise from individual's loyalty to old

25. structures and practices, while
also honoring the institution's integrity (p. 93).
In this study I propose that within new discussions of leadership
and the ideas of
organizational effectiveness in academia, is the potential for
including the experiences of a
population who also impacts the organizational structures, yet
whose experiences are largely
missing from academic research. That population is the growing
number of non-instructional,
professional academic staff and administrators who are
employed in colleges and universities
and who take on the administrative and support duties necessary
for institutions to meet the
demands of these changing environments (Clery & Lee, 1999;
Dobson, 2000; Szekeres, 2004).
The following sections further explore the dynamics between
the increasing membership
of professional staff and the evolved discussion of leadership in
an effort to champion for
integrating staff experiences as they support the reframing of
organizational environments and
leadership models which proactively engages their participation
in academic structures. The
inclusion of staff acknowledges the value of their contributions
supporting Julius’s (2000) notion
that “fully developed institutions are attentive to the needs of
all employee groups” (p. 45).
Institutions can satisfy the need for staff to feel a sense of value
by establishing cultures
that welcome their contribution and by investing in their
development as leaders (DeHart, 1977;
London, 1995; Ramsden, 1998). Tuning into staff’s experiences
with leadership may also reveal
whether such alternative frameworks, theories or models such as
transformational leadership

26. (Komives & Dugan, 2010) team leadership (Bensimon &
Neumann, 1992) or relational
leadership (Komives et al., 2009; Uhl-Bien, 2006) are enacted
and, if so, how they inform staff
to engage in similar behaviors and practices. Overall I seek to
identify the influence of these
dynamics as an extension of staff's ongoing development as they
come to understand their own
capacity to be effective, academic leaders despite their status
and roles.
The influx of staff in higher education. As a result of global and
national challenges,
an increased competition for funding and the demand for
accountability, the number of
professionalized staff employed in higher education is rising
(Knapp et al., 2011). Out of the 1.4
million people employed full time in Title IV degree granting
institutions (excluding medical
schools), 46% reported to have faculty status, while 54% are
professional and non-professional
staff reported to serve in non-instructional roles (Knapp et al.,
2011). The number of professional
staff and "other professionals" employed full time in higher
education increased by 17% between
2004 and 2009 (U. S. Census Bureau, 2012). Despite their
increased employment, literature
concerning the contributions, their work lives, and their
experiences is minimal, to the extent that
Szekeres (2004) identifies them as “the invisible workers," or as
Rosser (2000) calls midlevel
administrators, the "unsung professionals."
In the few studies that do exist, researchers apply various terms
when describing this
group of employees, which can cause confusion as to which
academic employees are being
referenced. For instance, in Europe and Asia researchers employ

27. the term academic staff in
reference to faculty (Egginton, 2010; Elton, 2009), while
Australian researchers provide clearer
distinctions between faculty and the other employees whom they
call general staff (Castleman &
Allen, 1995; Smyth, 2003; Szekeres, 2004). In the U.S., staff
are discussed using descriptions
and classifications from the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) Fall Staff report,
which categorizes employees who are not faculty as non-
instructional or professional staff
(Clery & Lee, 1999). According the NCES definitions, this
broad category of non-instructional
staff entails two sub-categories: executive administrators and
those deemed other professionals,
employees that hold baccalaureate degrees yet who are not
administrators (Knapp et al., 2010).
Rosser (2011) further clarifies four additional subcategories of
staff whom she classifies as
Education Support Professionals including: clerical/secretarial,
service and maintenance,
technical and paraprofessional, and skilled craft.
The classification of midlevel administrators may be based on
their functional
specializations and the departmental units where they work.
Rosser (2000) breaks these units into
three key categories: student services, which includes
admissions, financial aid, and advising;
business and administration, including finance and accounting,
human resources and facilities
and maintenance, and external affairs or advancement, which
includes public relations, alumni
affairs, communication, and fundraising.
While there are an array of classifications, Gumport and Pusser
(1995) observe there is a
lack of consistent definitions for administrators as their roles

28. are often determined at the
institutional level. Some researchers will merge professional
staff and administrators into a
singular, nebulous category of "university management," which
is then attributed to the ideology
of new managerialism; the adoption of private sector managerial
practices, technologies and
organizational forms implemented solely for measuring quality,
performing assessment and
appealing to the internal requirements of senior administrators
(Deem, 1998; Szekeres, 2004).
From this perspective, staff are viewed as a consequence of the
state of new managerialism in
which middle managers or “managerial professionals” (Rhoades
& Slaughter, 1997, p. 26) are
charged with regulating the work of faculty, resulting in
increasing resentment from faculty
(Leicht & Fennell, 2008). While administrator numbers
increase, the number of faculty have
decreased as institutions continually hire adjuncts and non-
tenured faculty, leading to a residual
effect of displacement among tenure-track faculty (Kezar &
Maxey, 2012; Leicht & Fennell,
2008). The paradox is that while faculty are increasingly
engaged in the entrepreneurial
behaviors of research and tech transfer, universities continue to
expand the ranks of professionals
who bring their specific academic and nonacademic expertise to
mediate between the business
interests of senior administration and the academic interests of
faculty, while also focusing on
the learning needs of students (Rhoades & Slaughter, 1997;
Rosser, 2000). Resounding frictions
between staff and faculty may be representative of the overall
dynamic tension in academia
between the "forces of social mobility and social reproduction

29. and between social justice and
capitalistic production" (Levin, 2006, p. 63). Rather than simply
embracing staff's increasing
membership as a circumstance of change, the contributions of
professional staff are overlooked
and, at times, dismissed as “non-academic," generating an “us
vs. them” attitude throughout
academia (Dobson, 2000). Dale (2010) states, in her response to
criticism connecting staff to the
state of managerialism,
As we all face up to the implications of reduced funding, a more
effective way
forward would be to recognize that there are many different
professional groups
to be found in higher education. Each of these groups has its
own distinct
strengths, which must be harnessed to ensure that universities
and colleges
continue to be well-run and successful organizations. (p. 1)
Part of the value of staff's contributions resides in their
jurisdiction, or the nonacademic
specializations that staff provide as necessitated by specific
tasks and
responsibilities (Applegate, 2010). Such examples includes the
expertise of fundraising or
engaging with the community and alumni in order to raise
funds, the expertise of
technology systems to maintain safe and secure technological
interfaces, or the
accounting precision required to ensure the institution's fiscal
security (Julius, 2000;
Kozobarich, 2000; Lassner, 2000; Rosser, 2000). Staff
encompass unique specializations
that faculty may not possess and so their inclusion, their roles,
and the tasks they enact,
serve to enable faculty to engage in their own specializations.

30. The relevance of staff. The lack of staff's perceived value does
not eliminate their
relevance as employees of higher education. Whether as
administrators or "other professionals,"
staff make indirect, yet essential contributions in the support
they provide to the primary
functions of teaching and research and occupy roles in the
multiple facets of their institutions
(Rosser, 2000; Szekeres, 2004). Inherit to their position is the
engagement in front line
relationships with students, families, as well as faculty and the
community. Quite often staff are
the first encounter students and families have with an institution
and the outcomes of those
relationships can affect their perceptions of the entire
institution (Etzioni, 1964/2010; Rosser
2000; S. J. Waterman, personal communication, April 6, 2010).
Much of the literature that
recognizes the essential role of staff is conducted in the U.K
and Australia, which focuses on the
challenges of staff’s membership and identity, whether they are
deemed invisible (Szekeres,
2004) or as non-academic (Dobson, 2000; McInnis, 1998;
Szekeres, 2011).
In examining the actual work lives of staff, Graham (2013)
seeks to identify the aspects
of staff's work that contributes to positive student outcomes
within the following domains that
provide both a welcoming sense to students and efficiency in
staff's work, including: behaviors,
environments, and processes. Four sub-dimensions support these
domains: technology, staff
knowledge, colleagues and supervisors, and job satisfaction
(Graham, 2013k.
Technology. Technology provides staff with the ability to
extend much needed support

31. to their constituents and stakeholders. Having access to learning
management systems and
human resource management systems, technology allows for
processes to be streamlined and
contributes to the efficiency of job performance. Technological
efficiency empowers staff to
assist students and faculty with learning outcomes and other
business needs (Graham, 2013).
Staff knowledge. Staff in Graham's (2013) study recognized the
limitations in their
ability to serve students when they experienced a lack of
efficiency in their tasks and processes,
or lacked the ability to upgrade their own competencies. This
realization reinforces the need for
organizations to promote a culture of learning and professional
development, which
demonstrates the value of employees to the organization, and
guarantees the provision of high
quality services (Kezar, 2005; O'Banion, 1977).
Colleagues and supervisors. In an examination of the impact of
organizational structures
and outcomes, Berger and Luckmann (2002) acknowledge that
the organization itself does not
"act,” rather it is the behaviors of the actors that affects the
outcomes of the organization. Staff's
interdependence with their fellow actors directly impacts the
effectiveness of performance on
their activities thus reflected on the perceived quality of the
institution (Graham, 2013).
Job satisfaction. Attitude and motivation are also factors that
can affect the quality of
service. Green (2003) divides these into two categories:
intrinsic motivators (need for autonomy,
sense of competence, and relatedness to others) and extrinsic
motivators (being thanked by
students, receiving feedback from supervisors, and leadership

32. support of a positive work
environment). Such factors connect to the key frustrations that
Johnsrud (1999) addresses, results
in low job satisfaction and high rates of turnover among
midlevel administrators. The first
frustration is the midlevel nature of their role, the second, a
lack of recognition of their
contributions, and the last is the lack of opportunities for career
development and advancement.
All three factors contribute to feelings among staff as though
they are the "unsung professionals"
despite the commitment and skills they provide within their
areas of expertise (Rosser, 2000).
Julius (2000) illustrates an example of these challenges using
the Human Resources (HR)
function in higher education. Whether institutions need to
recruit, hire or retain employees, HR
professionals provide the expertise to execute these tasks, yet
they remain an undervalued
resource given that the practice of HR is rooted in
organizational theory derived from industry.
The underlying assumption among faculty and senior
administrators is that while HR
professionals may work in academia, they do not understand the
needs of academia (Gordon &
Whitchurch, 2007; Julius, 2000). Julius (2000) notes the HR
function is then considered
"tangential" to the institutional mission, while senior
administrators and faculty leaders believe
they alone know what is best for faculty and the interests of
their departments and attempt to
perform the HR function themselves (p. 45). Tensions arise
when HR practitioners are required
to interject and disrupt actions that may jeopardize the
institution because they were undertaken
without consideration of the legal ramifications. The HR role is

33. then perceived to police actions,
rather than function in collaborative, strategic partnerships,
with the possibility of sharing the
interests of the department and the institution (Buyens &
DeVos, 2001; Julius, 2000).
Professional staff have significantly different work life
experiences than faculty. Staff do
not have similar components of job security, like tenure or
sabbatical (Johnsrud et al., 2000).
Neither do staff experience participation in shared governance
structures, like faculty senates.
Instead they tend to be at the whim of decisions about policies
and processes that are often made
without consideration to the potential constraints on staff's
ability to provide effective service
(Etzioni, 1967; Rosser, 2000). It is also important to note that
the ethnic and racial composition
of midlevel administrators is more reflective of the diversity
among students and the local
community than faculty or senior administrative groups (Rosser,
2000, p. 6). This dynamic
reveals the tendency within institutional practices to recruit and
hire locally for staff positions,
but to recruit nationally when filling faculty and senior
administrator roles (Rosser, 2000).
While these differences are relevant to understanding the
various work lives of academic
employees, what is also essential to recognize is the
interdependence between staff,
administration and faculty (Levin, 2006). Institutions that
embrace this interdependence allow
for staff to function within a "third space," where collaborative
partnerships between staff and
faculty expands the roles and responsibilities of staff and
expands their credibility within the
academic community (Ooro, 2013; Whitchurch, 2008;

34. Whitchurch et al., 2009).
Occupying a third space. Whitchurch (2008) describes the
concept of third space as
new spaces in which staff navigate the territory in between the
academic and the professional
domains. Such spaces are characterized by the permeability of
boundaries between the functional
areas of internal and external constituencies that allows staff to
engage in projects such as
community partnerships, or diversity recruitment (Whitchurch,
2008, p. 3). Applegate (2010)
identifies the idea of third space in the permeability of multiple
boundaries encompassed in
librarianship. Based on their level of professionalism, academic
librarians take on a range of
responsibilities such as data management, curation,
preservation, instructional technology,
administration, organizational management, and specialized
subject knowledge (p. 288). Also
encompassed in these responsibilities are opportunities for
expanding one’s professional
development and growth within third spaces by entrusting staff
to undertake tasks deemed
"quasi-academic" such as conducting study skill sessions or
speaking at outreach events
(Whitchurch, 2008).
In examining institutional efforts to improve the relationships
between faculty and
academic librarians, Kotter (1999) reviews programs in which
improving relations was one of
many goals. He defines good relations as a practice in which
actions support active and positive
collaboration and contribute to a reciprocal sense of service and
support and posits that improved
relations entail an exchange of mutual support (p. 297). The
intent however is not to equate good

35. relations as friendships, but to establish a sense of
interdependence structured from the mutual
investment in achieving institutional goals. Kotter (1999) notes
institutional programs in which
improved relations was a goal includes: honoring faculty by
celebrating their scholarship,
providing improved services either by improving existing
services or offering services never
before offered, involving librarians in classroom, faculty
activities, increasing communication
channels to update faculty on library resources, embedding
library liaisons within departments
and proactively fostering and supporting faculty research.
Kotter (1999) finds that when
institutions sponsor such programs they also signal their support
of the ongoing partnerships
established by faculty and librarians, which in return extends
credibility to the profession and
competencies librarians provide, and generates positive
perceptions among faculty that inspires
them to promote academic libraries as viable resources (p. 301).
Kotter (1999) acknowledges
there is a surprising gap in institutions incorporating any form
of program evaluation to measure
the outcomes of these programs, not only to identify their value
to improving relations, but more
importantly to provide evidence that would substantiate the
invested costs for continuing fiscal
support. When the quality of the staff is deemed a valuable
investment, staff will function to
uphold the quality of the institution (DeHart, 1977). As
Mintzberg (1998) eloquently states,
"Professionals require very little supervision and direction.
What they do require is protection
and support" (p. 146). While this desire for autonomy and trust
is often a repeated plea among

36. faculty, it is also a strong desire of professional staff.
The exploration of alternative organizational cultures such as
adhocracy, and the
examination of third spaces, substantiates the notion that
organizational conditions can generate
cohesion and trust among staff, administrators, and faculty,
which can result in positive
outcomes (Ooro, 2013; Whitchurch, 2008). Studies also show
that when environments of
collaboration, cohesion, autonomy and trust are supported
within the organizational systems of
higher education the potential to move staff and administrators
away from the framework of
managerialism can produce different understandings about the
essential roles professional staff
play in the institution. Staff who occupy third spaces are able to
establish flexibility within their
specializations that also proves their value as organizational
partners who can function
effectively within the dynamic context of higher education
(Bryman, 2007; Whitchurch, 2008).
These new conceptions are further emphasized within
alternative paradigms, frameworks
and models that have emerged to re-define effective academic
leadership in the 21st century
(Kezar et al., 2006). As Bryman (2007) summarizes, for leaders
to be effective in the higher
education context, they must first acknowledge that they lead
"internally motivated employees."
Thus, by supporting environments that are conducive to
collegiality, autonomy, and shared
decision making, academic leaders entice the commitment of
both academics and professional
staff (p. 707). Whitchurch et al. (2003) add when collaborative
environments includes the
formation of multi-professional teams and the potential for

37. cultivating leadership among
professional staff through professional development, staff are
further empowered to span the
boundaries of their roles and embed themselves as contributing
members to the academic
endeavor, rather than as internal invaders. Engaging the
potential for leadership among
professional staff also supports alternative notions about
leadership that shape leadership as a
process, rather than as a position. As Kezar and Carducci (2009)
states, "There is a great
opportunity to diversify the higher education administration
workforce by providing exposure,
experience, and support to an increasingly diverse group of
higher education leaders" (Kezar &
Carducci, 2009, p. 79). The following sections discuss the
changing conceptions of leadership in
academia and offers examples that emphasizes the potential for
including professional staff
within the discourse on leadership in higher education. The
section also addresses specific
models of new leadership that support cohesion and
collaboration, and provides a rational for
understand leadership from the perspective of professional staff
in academic environments.
Revolutionizing Leadership
The changing mindset about who can be a leader, the
application of alternative research
paradigms such as social constructivism, critical theory, and
postmodernism, and the
development of new representations of effective academic
leadership are three significant
changes that have "revolutionized" or reconceptualized
leadership in higher education (Kezar et
al. 2006). The scope of leadership research has broadened as the
experiences of leadership

38. among previously understudied populations are explored
through the paradigmatic lenses of
critical theory and postmodernism, challenging the traditional
theoretical constructs of leadership
and structures of power (Kezar & Carducci, 2009; Tierney,
1996). Academic leadership research
has shifted the earlier conceptions of leadership inherent in the
role of college presidents
(Bensimon, 1989; Birnbaum, 1989; Birnbaum, 1992; Eddy,
2003; Fisher, 1984; Tierney,
1989/2010; Sample, 2002;), to now include the experiences of
key decision makers such as
deans, faculty, directors, and department chairs, as well as
leadership demonstrated within teams.
Overall new notions of leadership conceive it now as a practice
that can be enacted and
perpetually developed by anyone (Abowitz, Jayanandhan, &
Woteshek, 2009; Kezar &
Carducci, 2009).
As Birnbaum (1988) establishes, portraying leaders in the
romanticized image of the lone,
power wielding hero “doesn't cut it” in academia anymore
because it is not accurate. Research
has replied by redefining effective leadership to include any
individual “who works for the
shared good of their organization by collaborating with others
and sharing power, balancing their
orientation to people and tasks, and working to interpret and
make meaning in the organization”
(Kezar et al., 2006, p. 102). This mindset continues to guide the
current direction of academic
leadership research and establish an applied, rather than
theoretical foundation of leadership
(Bess & Dee, 2008; Eddy & VanDerLinden, 2006; Kezar et al.,
2006).
Symbolic Interactionism

39. Symbolic interactionism provides a framework for examining
human interaction within
what Blumer (1969) calls "the human group life" (p. 6), or
human society. It is commonly
attributed to the Chicago school, a group of sociological
contemporaries whose research centered
on the idea that people are actors who make meaning of their
social settings derived of from an
individual's internal dialogue, rather than as response to
stimulus (Blumer, 1969; Paul, 1996).
Three premises structure symbolic interactionism around the
actor's point of view and consider:
1) An individual will act towards objects (physical, social and
abstract) based on the meaning
he/she has connected to that object; 2) The meanings that are
given to objects are generated from
the social interaction the individual has with their fellow
humans; and 3) The meanings are
formed, and changed according to the individual's process of
interpretation, dealing with the
objects he/she encounters (Blumer, 1969; Paul, 1996).
In his study on the interactions between leaders and followers,
Paul (1996) elaborates on
these premises, establishing an interactionist view of leadership
as a social phenomenon (p. 85).
Following the premises of symbolic interactionism, leadership
and leadership behaviors are
described as social objects where the effectiveness of leadership
is related to the symbolic
interpretations of a leader's actions (Paul, 1996, p. 86). Both
Tierney (1989/2010) and Clark
(1987) view colleges and universities as organizations by which
members make meaning of the
institution through the use of cultural artifacts; symbols, rituals,
stories. Clark's (1987) concept of
organizational sagas describes the use of artifacts to align an

40. institution's history with its culture.
Yet the engagement of sagas is also dependent on the
interpretation of all social elements
involved in the institution. Thinking of a leader's actions as
social objects relates to the symbolic
nature of leadership and the existence of symbols as "message
units," which conveys multiple
interpretations of the organization (Tierney, 1989/2010, p. 381).
Thus, organizations exist as
patterns of symbolic discourse by which a leader's actions are
loosely coupled to individuals'
meanings (Axelson, Kullén-Engstrom, & Edgren, 2000).
The framework of symbolic interactionism establishes a
foundation of understanding that
meaning arises from social interaction, meaning is not
automatic but is contextually shaped as
individuals construct meaning through their internal dialogues
(Blumer, 1969; Jacob, 1998; Paul,
1996). The approach of this study is to 1) understand the
internal dialogues of non-instructional
staff as they construct their meanings of leadership based on
their experiences, and 2) identify
how their meanings of leadership reveal their understanding of
how they can be leaders within
the dynamics of organizational culture in higher education. By
applying symbolic interactionism
as a framework, emphasizes exploring the viewpoints from staff
as actors, with the hope in
establishing the importance for their inclusion in academic
research and recognition for their
membership within the academic enterprise.