View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Working Together to Lead the College to Bigger and Better Things: Exploring the Relationship between Academic Deans and Senior Administrative Teams

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Working Together to Lead the College to Bigger and Better Things: Exploring the Relationship between Academic Deans and Senior Administrative Teams
Language: English
Authors: Harris, Nathan F.
Source: New Directions for Higher Education. Spr 2020 (189):41-55.
Availability: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Deans, Higher Education, Administrator Responsibility, Budgeting, Expertise, Administrative Organization, Problem Solving
DOI: 10.1002/he.20353
ISSN: 0271-0560
Abstract: This chapter examines an underexplored way in which deans enact their authority in Responsibility Center Budgeting (RCB)--mobilizing the expertise of administrators in their colleges to establish academic and budgetary priorities. The findings underscore the benefits of deans harnessing the expertise of their senior administrative teams to make sense of complex issues and problems.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1248458
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFo8IdzS2FZ3WZpUNVKMKlSAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIoNw3kAug_6aaocSQIBEICBm4VlaNVNtPe-Y-OUNkgE73kwXGLMB-B2F6WZENqV2EPkNyy7pweDhLmix1AOtpiDe9VEzqZM7MiWaw4lKE32-QNnB5rgnp-JS7ZEFQeb4RtxGfnLlvZite_VEAX6XhOawTj43Q3GdeURYwoeeJ6LMvh6Vh0R7N68uITq9LWM4ngpXuGuiO_tcPO1S7-ehr0JCjiqlMfAZ3erJXwt
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0142439741;ndh01mar.20;2020Mar30.06:29;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0142439741-1">Working Together to Lead the College to Bigger and Better Things: Exploring the Relationship Between Academic Deans and Senior Administrative Teams </title> <p>This chapter examines an underexplored way in which deans enact their authority in Responsibility Center Budgeting (RCB)—mobilizing the expertise of administrators in their colleges to establish academic and budgetary priorities. The findings underscore the benefits of deans harnessing the expertise of their senior administrative teams to make sense of complex issues and problems.</p> <p>Over the past two decades, the academic dean's role has changed at many institutions. Across North America, many universities have replaced centralized, incremental budget models with decentralized, revenue‐centered models (American Academy of Arts & Sciences, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]; Carlson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]; Curry, Laws, & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]; Deering & Lang, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref5">8</reflink>]). These models, which have been assigned numerous monikers, including Responsibility Center Budgeting (RCB) and Responsibility Center Management (RCM), devolve budgetary authority from central administrators such as provosts to deans in academic units (Carlson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]; Hearn, Lewis, Kallsen, Holdsworth, & Jones, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref7">15</reflink>]; Lasher & Sullivan, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref8">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>This shift in budgetary authority recasts the role of deans. Historically, deans have embodied the "delicate but crucial backbone" of university decision‐making and governance by implementing the initiatives of central administrators (Wolverton, Wolverton, & Gmelch, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>], p. 80). This earlier depiction of deans as middle managers reflects their constricted authority in centralized budget models (Lombardi, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref10">20</reflink>]; Wolverton, Gmelch, Montez, & Nies, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref11">26</reflink>]). With increased budgetary authority, however, deans jettison their heritage as middle managers. By design, RCB models "unleash" deans (Carlson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>]). Instead of awaiting directions and dollars from presidents and provosts, deans emerge as entrepreneurial chief executives who are expected to integrate academic and budget planning by developing programs that increase enrollments and revenues, trimming expenditures and accumulating reserves to invest (Curry, Law, & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]; Lang, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>]; Priest, Becker, Hossler, & St. John, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]). Deans become "mini presidents," controlling many levers of organizational change (Carlson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]; English & Kramer, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]; June, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref18">16</reflink>], para 8).</p> <p>Academic deans, however, do not lead their colleges in isolation. Rather, deans often lean on administrators in their schools and colleges such as associate deans, assistant deans, and administrative directors. These college‐level administrators lead and manage essential functions in colleges such as academic programming, financial strategy, and student services in their units (Krahenbuhl, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref19">17</reflink>]). In many colleges, the dean and college‐level administrators also meet as a senior administrative team to evaluate pressing problems and opportunities (Krahenbuhl, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]). Previous research on deans, however, overlooks the contributions of associate deans, assistant deans, and administrative directors, ignoring the extent to which these administrators help to forge the future of their colleges.</p> <p>In this chapter, I begin to address this gap in the literature on deans, exploring how and why deans collaborate with college‐level administrators to shape the priorities of their colleges. I report select findings from an in‐depth case study that explored how deans establish priorities during the confidential annual budget review at Sprawling University, which is a pseudonym for a prominent American public research university. Specifically, I discuss how six deans approached the process of crafting an annual budget memorandum for the institution's provost. Some deans leveraged authorship of this budget memo to establish a collective sense of priorities among their senior administrative teams, electing to collaborate with associate deans, assistant deans, and administrative directors. In contrast, other deans chose not to engage college‐level administrators while crafting the budget memo. This chapter explores the consequences of adopting these different approaches, ultimately underscoring the benefits of deans and college‐level administrators collaborating to co‐construct academic and budgetary priorities.</p> <hd id="AN0142439741-2">Revealing the Invisible Contributions of College‐Level Administrators</hd> <p>Curiously, previous research on deans barely references college‐level administrators such as associate deans, assistant deans, and administrative directors. Most research on deans does not even mention these administrators, let alone examine their contributions to their colleges or explore their relationships with deans. Several studies mention associate deans within the narrow context of deans delegating work to economize time (Montez, Wolverton & Gmelch, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref21">22</reflink>]; Wolverton et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]). Practitioner guides advise deans to engage college‐level administrators, or "subordinates" (American Conference of Academic Deans, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>], p. 17), but offer few prescriptions for working with associate deans, assistant deans, and administrative directors. Moreover, research does not explore how deans engage these administrators within the context of senior administrative teams, which contrasts with a rich literature on top management teams in corporations (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, & Bourgeois, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]; Finkelstein, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref25">12</reflink>]; Finkelstein & Hambrick, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref26">13</reflink>]; Finkelstein, Hambrick, & Cannella, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>]) and previous insights on presidential teams in higher education (Bensimon & Neumann, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>]; Smerek, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref29">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>The experiences of former deans, however, begin to explain why and how deans should engage administrators in their colleges. Gary Krahenbuhl ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref30">17</reflink>]), a former dean at Arizona State University, stressed that deans can develop a "better‐informed sense of what might be possible" and "richer perspectives on important questions and issues" in their colleges by harnessing the "collective intelligence" of administrators in their colleges (p. 46). Similarly, Van Cleve Morris ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]), a former dean at the University of Illinois, argued that discussing problems with administrators throughout colleges generates "a genuine sense of involvement and participation" (p. 150). In fact, Morris ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>]) criticized deans who refused to consult their colleagues, cautioning deans not to believe that "decisions can be endowed with wisdom from only one head – their own" (p. 150). These insights foreshadow the findings of this chapter. Deans can establish clearer and more salient priorities for their colleges by soliciting the perspectives of associate deans, assistant deans, and administrative directors, capturing the collective knowledge of college‐level administrators and establishing a sense of participation across their senior administrative teams.</p> <hd id="AN0142439741-3">Research Context</hd> <p>This larger case study was grounded in the interpretive paradigm, exploring the inter‐subjective experiences of administrators. With case studies, researchers investigate the how and why of unexplored phenomena and embrace the rich context of specific settings (Eisenhardt & Graebner [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref33">9</reflink>]; Yin, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref34">28</reflink>]). With this focus on illumination, I designed an embedded case study to explore how deans shape priorities within the shared institutional context of a university annual budget review (Bogdan & Biklen, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>]; Merriam & Tisdell, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>]; Yin, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref37">28</reflink>]). Sprawling University offered a rich setting for investigating the work of deans because it implemented a RCB model more than a decade ago. The institution's budget model affords deans significant authority, making them the chief academic officer and chief budgetary officer of their colleges. During the budget review, the dean of every college submits an annual report, the annual budget memorandum, which then informs a budget conference between every dean and the provost.</p> <p>The primary sources of data for this study were interviews and observations. I conducted semi‐structured interviews with three groups: (a) deans; (b) administrators in their colleges; and (c) administrators in the provost's office. Ultimately, I conducted 63 interviews at Sprawling University. In interviews, I asked deans and college administrators to describe their participation in the budget review, particularly their role in crafting the annual budget memo. I also conducted observations of deans, targeting settings in which deans discussed the budget memo such as meetings of their senior teams. Ultimately, I completed 21 observations, including 18 meetings of senior teams in three colleges. I pledged significant anonymity to participants. First, I created pseudonyms for deans, assigning each of them the name of a famous novelist – Austen, Conrad, Huxley, Joyce, Stowe, and Swift. Table 3.1 presents background information on these deans.</p> <p>3.1 Biographical Backgrounds of the Profiled Deans</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Dean</th><th>Sex</th><th>Disciplinary Background</th><th align="center">Key Experiences</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dean Austen</td><td>F</td><td>Soft/applied</td><td>Dean, peer university; Associate Dean, peer university</td></tr><tr><td>Dean Conrad</td><td>M</td><td>Hard/applied</td><td>Dean, peer university; Department Chair, Sprawling University</td></tr><tr><td>Dean Huxley</td><td>M</td><td>Soft/pure</td><td>Dean, several peer universities</td></tr><tr><td>Dean Joyce</td><td>M</td><td>Soft/applied</td><td>Associate Dean, Sprawling University</td></tr><tr><td>Dean Stowe</td><td>F</td><td>Soft/pure</td><td>Research Director, peer university</td></tr><tr><td>Dean Swift</td><td>M</td><td>Hard/applied</td><td>Department Chair, Sprawling U</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For additional context, in Table 3.2, I approximate the college's budget for each dean (e.g., > $50 million) and describe the budget situation in their colleges (e.g., emerging from deficit).</p> <p>3.2 Summary Budget Profile for the Profiled Deans</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Dean</th><th>Descriptive Budget Profile</th><th>Approximate College Budget</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dean Austen</td><td>Emerging from deficit</td><td>>$50 M</td></tr><tr><td>Dean Conrad</td><td>Approaching deficit</td><td>$25–50 M</td></tr><tr><td>Dean Huxley</td><td>Emerging from deficit</td><td><$25 M</td></tr><tr><td>Dean Joyce</td><td>Investing surplus</td><td><$25 M</td></tr><tr><td>Dean Stowe</td><td>Investing surplus</td><td><$25 M</td></tr><tr><td>Dean Swift</td><td>Balancing budget</td><td>>$50 M</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Second, I did not reveal the specific colleges of deans. Instead, I refer to every dean's college as "college" while describing their approaches to engaging their senior teams.</p> <hd id="AN0142439741-4">Embracing Decentralized Budget Authority at Sprawling University</hd> <p>Administrators across Sprawling University underscored the institution's decentralized character. In fact, administrators argue that the institution affords deans more authority than their counterparts at peer universities. Over a decade ago, Sprawling University adopted an RCB model, which further pushed budgetary authority from the provost's office to dean's offices. While the provost oversees the budget model, deans retain significant authority and autonomy over academic and budgetary affairs in their colleges. In fact, central administrators characterize this decanal authority as a signature advantage of Sprawling University. An institutional document further extols the benefits of decentralization, stating, "the academic leadership closest to the particular circumstances make the best decisions concerning those circumstances." The profiled deans acknowledge their significant authority over academic and budgetary affairs. Dean Joyce, for example, argues that the institution's budget model affords deans "a substantial amount of independence." Dean Conrad also praises the "independence" extended to deans, claiming, "it's a great way to run a university" because deans understand the constraints and opportunities of their colleges better than the provost.</p> <hd id="AN0142439741-5">Crafting the Annual Budget Memorandum at Sprawling University</hd> <p>At Sprawling University, deans enact their authority during the annual budget review through one primary mechanism—crafting the confidential annual budget memorandum for the provost. During the budget review, the dean of every college submits a budget memo and meets with the provost for a budget conference. The budget memo serves two purposes, according to central administrators and deans. Deans need a mechanism for reflecting on the state of their colleges, while the provost needs a mechanism for monitoring the decisions of deans. A senior administrator described the memo as "very important," arguing that the budget review is "the most important time in the year for taking a global look at how the college is doing."</p> <p>The provost's office affords deans significant autonomy in crafting the budget memo. With this discretion, deans craft their memos in different—even opposite—ways. Ultimately, deans adopted three approaches to crafting the budget memo—dominating, distributing, and delegating authorship. First, dominating authorship entailed deans composing most of the budget memo by themselves. Second, distributing authorship entailed deans leveraging the expertise and experience of administrators on their senior teams. Distributing authorship featured three key activities: deans asking administrators to coordinate completion of the budget memo; deans asking members of their senior teams to write portions of the budget memo; and deans convening their senior teams to debate drafts of the budget memo. Third, delegating authorship entailed deans abdicating authorship and tasking other administrators in their college to compose the budget memo.</p> <hd id="AN0142439741-6">Crafting a Collective Sense of Priorities With Senior Administrative Teams</hd> <p>The deans who distributed authorship framed crafting the budget memo as an opportunity to establish a collective sense of priorities with their senior administrative teams. These deans crafted this collective understanding across their senior teams in three key ways—generating ideas, deepening commitments, celebrating accomplishments—as described below.</p> <hd id="AN0142439741-7">Generating Ideas</hd> <p>First, the deans who distributed authorship framed the budget review as an opportunity to generate and refine new ideas for priorities in their colleges. These deans generated clearer and richer interpretations of issues by crafting the annual budget memo with their senior teams. While discussing content for the budget memo during meetings, deans, associate deans, assistant deans, and administrative directors translated fragments of information and disparate impressions into clearer interpretations of situations, which ultimately morphed into new ideas for academic and budgetary priorities.</p> <p>Dean Swift, for example, frames the budget review as an opportunity to "cook up" ideas with the senior team to improve the college. The senior team discusses "lots of crazy ideas" while crafting the budget memo. "Some of [the ideas] we follow up on and ... turned out to be just great, unbelievable things ... Other things, we just dug a hole and buried it." During meetings, Dean Swift encourages "everybody to talk as much as they want." By capturing "multiple voices," the team stimulates "more good ideas" for the memo. "I'm continually amazed that when you put a bunch of smart people together, and let the conversation almost freewheel, that how in almost every case, you end up with better answers and better solutions. I think that a person in my position should never be afraid to let that happen."</p> <p>Members of Dean Swift's senior team praise his framing of their meetings. An associate dean characterizes him as "super willing to listen to new ideas," which makes it "hard not to bring up new ideas." One associate dean describes meetings as forums for "just trying to get very big concepts out there, flesh things out." A different associate dean portrays meetings as an opportunity "for everyone to get a diverse set of opinions on what we should be doing and thinking about what our priorities should be." An administrative director refers to the team as a "sounding board," explaining that members of the team "play off" of each other's "energy" while "hatching plans" together.</p> <p>Observations of team meetings substantiate these depictions. During a meeting about the budget memo, Dean Swift and the senior team recast the college's diversity initiatives. To initiate discussion, Dean Swift posed a question – did the team want to profile the college's diversity efforts in the budget memo? In response, members of the team voiced enthusiasm for mentioning the effect of specific recruitment events and scholarship programs. A critical turning point occurred when an associate dean challenged his colleagues to consider how the college could reconceive the college's diversity activities into a more coherent initiative. "I think this is wonderful. My suggestion is to create a positive slope on it. Propose something; perhaps a little bit more money." This associate dean proposed requesting supplemental funds from the provost "to actually grow and try some things." "I think making it a deliberate ask would first of all be timely, but it could also be right ... I just really think this is one of those things that leaning forward is going to work." Over 25 minutes, the senior team sketched a more detailed plan for increasing diversity in the college, specifying a budget request for the provost's office. During this discussion, Dean Swift assumed an essential role, contributing his own impressions and articulating emerging consensus across the team, but other administrators informed and altered discussion in critical ways. Ideas bounced around the conference table, snowballing and accumulating richness. This discussion revealed that Dean Swift depends on the college's senior team, marshaling their collective expertise to generate ideas to improve the college.</p> <hd id="AN0142439741-8">Deepening Commitments</hd> <p>The deans who distributed authorship of the budget memo also aimed to deepen commitments to priorities on their senior teams. Dean Austen, for example, argues that authorship offers a rare opportunity to "bring everyone together" to discuss the college's priorities. "I can tell you what drives it, conceptually. There are really very few things that we own collectively. Very few, that we own really as a group. So, cognitively, I am always aware that when we have an occasion to reaffirm our collective ownership of those things, we should do it." Similarly, Dean Huxley frames authorship as an opportunity to explore "what's driving the college" as a team, ensuring that the senior team remains "on the same page." Dean Swift, too, describes the budget review as a rare "touchpoint" about the college's priorities.</p> <p>In these colleges, associate deans, assistant deans and administrative directors agree that crafting the budget memo together engenders a deeper commitment to priorities. In Dean Swift's college, an administrative director explains that some ideas make the budget memo, whereas others are tabled for future consideration—or discarded altogether. Regardless, Dean Swift's inclusive approach attenuates frustration over not pursuing some ideas. "This is where the dean does a very good job. It seems like we're doing whatever we want to do, because the things that come to the top of the list, that get done, seem to everybody to be what we want to do." By "vetting" ideas while drafting the memo, the senior team realizes, "we are doing the right things because we have come to identify these things as the right things." Similarly, in Dean Huxley's college, an associate dean argues that crafting the memo as a team forces everyone to "think about our priorities" and "understand how to move forward" with planning. "It's helpful ... it's about the priorities, figuring out your priorities, but it's also about how do you set about achieving them."</p> <hd id="AN0142439741-9">Celebrating Accomplishments</hd> <p>Third, some deans framed authorship of the budget memo as an opportunity to celebrate accomplishments across the senior team. Notably, Dean Austen leverages authorship to profess and praise the college's progress in digging out of budget crisis. "I use it as an occasion for people to be creative in expressing what they have done that is good." Amidst a context of constrained resources, members of the senior team have persevered to renew the college's academic mission. For Dean Swift, the budget review offers an occasion for the senior team to showcase that it "really has its act together." "It's just a chance ... to remind the provost's office that this place is really well‐managed, is very innovative, is just really on a tear in terms of where we're going." This showcasing of accomplishments not only inspires the provost's confidence, but also energizes the team about the college's future and strengthens camaraderie across the team. "We've got a bunch of articulate people with ideas ... and I think to have that group in a room, all at the same place at the same time, makes one heck of an impression."</p> <hd id="AN0142439741-10">Creating Confusion About Priorities by Excluding Senior Administrative Teams</hd> <p>In contrast, Dean Conrad and Dean Stowe offer sensible rationales for adopting different approaches to crafting the budget memo. Dean Conrad senses little need to consult associate deans, assistant deans, and administrative directors during the budget review because everyone knows "what our initiatives are." "What's important ... is that we are a top ranked college, we are considered among the very best in the country." Moreover, the college "does not vote" on budgets. "I make it very clear – this isn't a democracy," adding "the buck stops" with him. Dean Stowe, too, offers reasons for not co‐constructing the budget memo with college‐level administrators. First, every year, she discusses the memo with faculty and college‐level administrators after meeting with the provost about the budget memo. "I walk people through [the memo] ... They didn't need more than that." Second, few administrators want to read the memo because "the details are boring." Third, the budget memo, which Dean Stowe deems "not very important," is written during "an extremely busy part of the year."</p> <p>Despite these rationales, Dean Conrad and Dean Stowe have alienated administrators in their colleges by crafting the budget memo without them. Despite her intentions, Dean Stowe has misjudged interest in knowing and shaping the priorities that are profiled in the budget memo. One associate dean describes having "zero" role in crafting the memo. Instead this administrator learns about the memo during the dean's annual meeting with the faculty. This associate dean expresses angst from not knowing more about the college's priorities, arguing, "I've never had any – I don't know who [the dean] deals with ... but she didn't deal with me." Another associate dean explains that administrators in the college often muddle through discussions about initiatives, which can be attributed to their exclusion from the budget review. "I'll be sitting in meetings and people will say, 'Well I think we ought to do this that or the other thing' and I'm sitting there saying, 'Do you know what that's going to actually cost?'"</p> <p>These frustrations, however, pale in comparison to those expressed by administrators in Dean Conrad's college. The budget review offers an annual reminder about the lack of academic and budgetary planning. An associate dean argues, "We have not established priorities ... we don't have any decision process that drives how we spend our money." This administrator's frustration devolves into exasperation while describing this confusion. "It's too loosey‐goosey ... We have limited resources, so what are our priorities? Is this something we're going to go for or is it not?" Another associate dean levels a stinging indictment. "There's not an unlimited pot of money ... Luckily, most colleges don't go into receivership and their belongings aren't sold off," admitting, "If we were a business, it'd be sad. I wouldn't invest in us."</p> <p>Administrators in the college articulate a consistent narrative—the dean's failure to set priorities has stagnated the college's progress. An associate dean explains, "It is ... bittersweet ... we've got wonderful faculty, fantastic students, so much potential ... If only [the dean] had those skills to ... lay the ground rules as far as how we would all work together, I think we could be even greater, and that there is some sadness with that." Worse yet, confusion over priorities stimulates gossip; rumors proliferate throughout the senior team. Some administrators contend that Dean Conrad rewards his "favorites." An associate dean argues that a lack of transparency "creates tension." "People make up stories in their head to explain what they're seeing because they don't know – it's not clear."</p> <hd id="AN0142439741-11">Learning to Work Together as a Senior Administrative Team</hd> <p>College‐level administrators can assume indispensable roles in forging the future of their colleges, despite previous research ignoring the extent to which deans depend on their associate deans, assistant deans, and administrative directors as individual administrators and members of senior teams. These administrators help deans to fulfill some of their most important responsibilities, including formulating academic and budgetary priorities. Deans can make sense of complex issues and problems by harnessing the expertise and experience of administrators in their colleges. The profiled deans who distributed authorship of the annual budget memorandum framed the budget review as a rare opportunity for them and administrators in their colleges to develop a clearer sense of priorities and rally around them. In contrast, the deans who did not distribute authorship believed that their colleagues were either ambivalent about priorities or already understood them. The consequences of exclusion extended beyond engendering frustration; administrators expressed confusion over the priorities in their colleges and resentment over feeling disconnected from the dean's vision.</p> <p>A constructive exercise for cultivating collective sensemaking would be for deans to conduct a self‐study of their senior administrative teams. New and experienced deans could benefit from this exercise. A new dean, or even a seasoned dean who is new to a college, might not know college‐level administrators beyond interactions during the search process. By conducting a self‐study, a new dean could learn about the contributions and preferences of new colleagues and group dynamics on the senior team. Alternatively, an experienced dean could use a self‐study to reboot their senior team after a period of administrative turnover or mark a fresh start after reappointment.</p> <p>The recommendation to conduct self‐studies of senior teams is not new. In their study of presidential teams, Bensimon and Neumann ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>]) advised presidents to conduct self‐studies, specifically suggesting that presidents collect data on three themes—how the president perceives their role on the team; how team members perceive the president's effect on the team; and how team members evaluate the team's performance. While presidents could collect this data by conducting anonymous surveys, Bensimon and Neumann ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref39">4</reflink>]) favored selecting an external consultant because team members might be more willing to divulge candid assessments of the president, their colleagues, and the team's strengths and weaknesses to an unbiased outsider.</p> <p>This advice informs my recommendation for deans to conduct self‐studies of their senior teams. First, deans could use an external consultant (such as a professor of higher education) to collect data from team members about the previous dean's approach to leading the team and the team's dynamics; potential questions for a self‐study appear in the Appendix. The answers to these questions would help an incoming dean understand the rhythms of the senior team, which could inform how a dean articulates and espouses their own expectations for the team. After a consultant collects this data, incoming deans could schedule a meeting of the senior team to discuss the results, including assessments of the team's strengths and weaknesses.</p> <p>In addition, incoming deans could dedicate a subsequent meeting of the senior team to discuss their own approach to leading teams. Incoming deans might find it helpful to describe how their own identities and personal and professional experiences inside and outside of academe have shaped their perspective on leading teams; potential questions appear in the Appendix. Despite the inherent vulnerability of disclosing these impressions, new deans might reap numerous benefits by describing past experiences with teams and articulating their philosophy for meetings. First, by answering these questions, new deans might develop a clearer understanding of their role on the team. Second, the answers to these questions would provide team members some understanding of the dean's perspective, alerting them to the expectations of the new dean and revealing how these preferences differ from the previous dean's approach. A dean would be prudent to establish a collective sense of expectations for the senior team that was co‐constructed by their own perspective and the impressions of members of the senior team.</p> <hd id="AN0142439741-12">Conclusion</hd> <p>The vitality of universities such as Sprawling University cannot be taken for granted. Senior administrators continue to wrestle with an uncertain, even deteriorating, economic and political environment that features stagnating, if not decreasing, state appropriations and federal investment in research as well as calls from trustees to demonstrate restraint in raising tuition. At public universities, the predicament is not if institutions need to do more with less, but how much needs to be done with how few resources. Within this daunting context, deans have emerged as pivotal figures who forge the fortunes of their institutions due to their increased authority over academic and budgetary affairs. The ingenuity of numerous individuals contributes to the fate of universities, but deans might assume the most critical role because they translate the ideas of different stakeholders into coherent visions that mobilize action in colleges.</p> <p>Albeit only one aspect of their work, a dean's approach to navigating annual budget reviews reveals their approach to "deaning" (Morris, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>]). During budget reviews, deans demonstrate how they enact essential work, including establishing priorities, mobilizing financial and human resources, and communicating with colleagues. A dean's approach can rouse a sense of camaraderie and commitment in their college; associate deans, assistant deans, and administrative directors, along with faculty and staff, can extract a shared sense of purpose and clarify their own contribution to the college's future. Alternatively, deans can induce confusion, spelling stagnation for a college if they ignore their role as orchestrators of collective purpose. By working together, deans and college‐level administrators can generate new ideas for addressing problems, deepen commitments to familiar and fresh priorities, and celebrate the college's triumphs. By adopting this approach to leadership, deans can stimulate the development of initiatives that will advance their colleges to secure a more prosperous future.</p> <p>Appendix</p> <hd1 id="AN0142439741-13">Questions for Self‐Study of Senior Administrative Teams</hd1> <hd1 id="AN0142439741-14">Questions for Members of Senior Teams</hd1> <p> <emph>Exploring the Previous Dean's Role</emph> </p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How would you describe the previous dean's role on the senior team? To what extent was the previous dean the team's leader?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent did the previous dean collaborate with the senior team to formulate the college's priorities?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent did the previous dean discuss budget issues with the senior team? To what extent did the previous dean consult the team during the university's annual budget review?</item> <p></p> <item> Under the previous dean, how did the senior team establish an agenda for meetings? To what extent did the previous dean control the agenda for the team's meetings?</item> <p></p> <item> How did the previous dean introduce issues during meetings of the senior team? To what extent did the previous dean contextualize issues with background information?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent did the previous dean recommend solutions to issues before members of the team had the opportunity to explore issues in earnest?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent did the previous dean encourage the articulation of a diverse set of perspectives during meetings of the senior team? During meetings of the senior team, to what extent did the previous dean discourage certain perspectives on the team?</item> <p></p> <item> During team meetings, to what extent did you feel comfortable debating issues as a team under the previous dean? To what extent did you feel comfortable disagreeing or challenging the previous dean in team meetings?</item> <p></p> <item> During team meetings, to what extent did the previous dean encourage the senior team to push each other to formulate a rich set of potential alternatives when discussing problems?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent do members of this team comment on issues that extend beyond their formal area of responsibility?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0142439741-15">Questions for Deans</hd1> <p> <emph>Revealing Personal Experiences</emph> </p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How has my experience as a faculty member influenced my conception of my role on this team?</item> <p></p> <item> What other professional experiences most influence my conception of my role on this team?</item> <p></p> <item> What lessons—positive and negative—have I learned from watching other administrators lead teams? What positive lessons from them do I hope to adopt? What negative lessons from them do I hope to avoid?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent does my disciplinary background influence my approach to leading this team?</item> <p></p> <item> What personal experiences most influence my conception of my role on this team?</item> <p></p> <item> What personal qualities do I bring to this team? How am I most confident in my ability to contribute to this team? How am I least confident in my ability to contribute to this team?</item> </ulist> <p> <emph>Articulating a Meeting Philosophy</emph> </p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do I conceive of my role on this team? To what extent do I consider myself the leader of this team?</item> <p></p> <item> How would I prefer to set agendas for meetings of the senior team? What role should I assume in creating the agenda?</item> <p></p> <item> What issues or problems do I prefer to raise during meetings of the senior team? What issues or problems do I prefer to explore in one‐on‐one discussions with members of the team?</item> <p></p> <item> How do I prefer to introduce issues during meetings? To what extent do I try to contextualize issues as an introduction to discussion?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent do I believe that my voice as dean influences the team's discussion? Do I prefer to voice my opinion sooner or later in the discussion? How willing am I to interrupt discussion?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent do I try to encourage the articulation of a diverse set of perspectives? To what extent do I encourage the articulation of contrary or minority perspectives during meetings?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent do I encourage debate as a team during meetings? To what extent can we debate and disagree in a constructive fashion as a team? To what extent am I comfortable with members of the team disagreeing with me in team meetings? What expectations and values should discipline and govern our interactions when we disagree in meetings?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent do I encourage members of the senior team to comment on issues and problems that extend beyond their formal area of responsibility?</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0142439741-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2016a). Public research universities. Recommitting to Lincoln's vision: An educational compact for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2016b). Public research universities. Understanding the financial model. Cambridge, MA : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref23" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Conference of Academic Deans (2014). The resource handbook for academic deans. San Francisco, CA : John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref28" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bensimon, E., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership. Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref35" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston, MA : Allen and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carlson, S. (2015, February 9). Colleges 'unleash the deans' with decentralized budgets. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Unleash-the-Deans/151711">www.chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Unleash-the-Deans/151711</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Curry, J. R., Laws, A. L., & Strauss, J. C. (2013). Responsibility center management: A guide to balancing academic entrepreneurship with fiscal responsibility. Washington, DC : NACUBO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref5" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Deering, D., & Lang, D. W. (2017). Responsibility center budgeting and management" lite" in university finance: Why is RCB/RCM never fully deployed? Planning for Higher Education, 45 (3), 94 – 110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref33" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeois, III, L. J. (1997). Conflict and strategic choice: How top management teams disagree. California Management Review, 39 (2), 42 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> English, D., & Kramer, R. (2017, May 31). Can deans fix higher‐ed dysfunction? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-Deans-Fix-Higher-Ed/240201">www.chronicle.com/article/Can-Deans-Fix-Higher-Ed/240201</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (3), 505 – 538.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top‐management‐team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (3), 484 – 503.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. New York : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hearn, J. C., Lewis, D. R., Kallsen, L., Holdsworth, J. M., & Jones, L. M. (2006). " Incentives for managed growth": A case study of incentives‐based planning and budgeting in a large public research university. The Journal of Higher Education, 77 (2), 286 – 316.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> June, A. W. (2014, November 24). To change a campus, talk to the dean. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chronicle.com/article/To-Change-a-Campus-Talk-to/150197">www.chronicle.com/article/To-Change-a-Campus-Talk-to/150197</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krahenbuhl, G. S. (2004). Building the academic deanship. Westport, CT : Praeger Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lang, D. W. (2002). Responsibility center budgeting at the University of Toronto. In D. M. Priest, W. E. Becker, D. Hossler, & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Incentive‐based budgeting systems in public universities (pp. 111 – 135). Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lasher, W. F., & Sullivan, C. A. (2004). Follow the money: The changing world of budgeting in higher education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 197 – 240). New York : Agathon Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lombardi, J. V. (2013). How universities work. Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA : John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montez, J. M., Wolverton, M., & Gmelch, W. H. (2003). The roles and challenges of deans. Review of Higher Education, 26 (2), 241 – 266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, V. C. (1981). Deaning. Chicago, IL : University of Illinois Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Priest, D. M., Becker, W. E., Hossler, D., & St. John, E. P. (2002). Why incentive‐based budgeting systems in the public sector and why now? In D. M. Priest, W. E. Becker, D. Hossler, & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Incentive‐based budgeting systems in public universities (pp. 93 – 108). Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smerek, R. E. (2013). Sensemaking and new college presidents: A conceptual study of the transition process. The Review of Higher Education, 36 (3), 371 – 403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., Montez, J., & Nies, C. T. (2001). The changing nature of the academic deanship (Vol. 28). ASHE‐ERIC Higher Education Report 1. San Francisco : Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolverton, M., Wolverton, M. L., & Gmelch, W. H. (1999). The impact of role conflict and ambiguity on academic deans. The Journal of Higher Education, 70 (1), 80 – 106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Nathan F. Harris</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>Nathan F. Harris is an assistant professor of higher education at the University of Rochester. His research explores issues and problems of university governance and leadership through the conceptual lens of organization theory.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref36"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1248458
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Working Together to Lead the College to Bigger and Better Things: Exploring the Relationship between Academic Deans and Senior Administrative Teams
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Harris%2C+Nathan+F%2E%22">Harris, Nathan F.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Higher+Education%22"><i>New Directions for Higher Education</i></searchLink>. Spr 2020 (189):41-55.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Deans%22">Deans</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Responsibility%22">Administrator Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Budgeting%22">Budgeting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expertise%22">Expertise</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrative+Organization%22">Administrative Organization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/he.20353
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0271-0560
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This chapter examines an underexplored way in which deans enact their authority in Responsibility Center Budgeting (RCB)--mobilizing the expertise of administrators in their colleges to establish academic and budgetary priorities. The findings underscore the benefits of deans harnessing the expertise of their senior administrative teams to make sense of complex issues and problems.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1248458
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1248458
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/he.20353
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 41
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Deans
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Budgeting
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expertise
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrative Organization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Solving
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Working Together to Lead the College to Bigger and Better Things: Exploring the Relationship between Academic Deans and Senior Administrative Teams
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Harris, Nathan F.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0271-0560
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 189
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1