When we discuss leadership, it seems that change is not far behind. When candidates come to campus, one of the questions that seems to be always asked is about changes that will be made. Why do we automatically assume that changes will be made? Why do we always have to make changes? I am a big proponent of getting the "lay of the land" before making changes.
I think about my last position and my first month. I was responsible for organizing the RA training and I tried to make changes that I thought would make some training sessions better. Those changes did not go well. It made me realize that I needed to understand the process before making changes. Another past experience is when the "leadership team" in residence life made a decision that affected the hall directors and RAs without discussing it with the hall directors. From this experience, I learned to discuss any possible decisions with those directly involved to get their feedback and make appropriate changes.
One of the articles we read was about the changes to a master's program in which the majority of the faculty were part-faculty. From what I've read, part-faculty are often seen as "second-class" citizens. The assumption is that they are there for the money and not for the students. This article changed that view. It was due to their dedication and the new chair's willingness to build the part-faculty into the decision making process, that the new program was successful.
The article by University of Michigan's president also provided good insight on coming into a very stressful and intense situtation already in progress. The article reiterated the importance of the president and representing the institution.
So, change and leadership do go hand-in-hand, but what is important is how the change is handled. This is something I try to keep in the front of my mind when coming into situations or at the beginning of the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment