Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
Nagłówek strony

Artykuły

Nr 1(24) (2023): New Sociology of Leadership

Almost Impossible Leadership: Understanding the Crisis in Polish Academia

DOI
https://doi.org/10.51196/srz.24.4
Przesłane
24 września 2024
Opublikowane
26-09-2024

Abstrakt

Dominant leadership models, derived from business or politics, fail to address the unique nature of academia. This article proposes the integral leadership model, tailored to the specific challenges of universities, particularly in the Polish context. Drawing on data from 36 in-depth interviews and polarity management theory (Johnson, Koestenbaum), the article argues that inherent tensions (polarities) at every level of the academic system are a key factor in understanding leadership complexities. Unlike problems requiring a single solution (A OR B), polarities necessitate managing seemingly opposing elements (A AND B) for long-term effectiveness. This framework sheds light on the challenges faced by academic leadership in Poland across three dimensions: individual, organisational, and moral. Individual challenges include a lack of aspiring leaders and inadequate role models. Organisational challenges stem from prioritising stability over change and individual over team. Moral challenges arise from a lack of clarity about leadership goals and values, resulting in conflicts between excellence and relations (inclusion). The article emphasises the growing need for integral leadership that acknowledges and manages these particular polarities.

Bibliografia

  1. Adair J.E. 2005. How to Grow Leaders: The Seven Key Principles of Effective Leadership Development, Kogan Page.
  2. Anthony S.G., Antony J. 2017. “Academic Leadership: Special or Simple,” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 66(5), pp. 630–637.
  3. Bennett A., Elman C. 2006. “Qualitative Research: Recent Development in Case Study Methods,” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 9, pp. 455–476.
  4. Bennis W.G., Thomas R.J. 2002. “Crucibles of Leadership,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 80(9), pp. 39–45.
  5. Bloom A. 2008. The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students, Simon & Schuster.
  6. Cetin M.O., Fayda Kinik F.S. 2015. “An Analysis of Academic Leadership Behavior from the Perspective of Transformational Leadership,” Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 207, pp. 519–527.
  7. Deem R. 2004. “The Knowledge Worker, the Manager-Academic and the Contemporary UK University: New and Old Forms of Public Management?,” Financial Accountability & Management, vol. 20, pp. 107–128.
  8. Dewidar O., Elmestekawy N., Welch V. 2022. “Improving Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Academia,” Research Integrity and Peer Review, vol. 7, 4, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-022-00123-z.
  9. Etzkowitz H. 2003. “Research Groups as ‘Quasi-Firms’: The Invention of the Entrepreneurial University,” Science and Public Policy, vol. 32, pp. 109–121.
  10. Fernandez A.A., Shaw G.P. 2020. “Academic Leadership in a Time of Crisis: The Coronavirus and COVID-19,” Journal of Leadership Studies, vol. 14(1), pp. 39–45.
  11. Forman J.P., Ross L.A. 2013. Integral Leadership: The Next Half-Step, SUNY Press.
  12. Friedman E.H. 2017. A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, Church Publishing.
  13. Girard R. 1986. The Scapegoat, trans. Y. Freccero, Johns Hopkins University Press.
  14. Giza A. 2019. “Uniwersytet, czyli o upartym obstawaniu przy regułach dobrego używania intelektu ,” Kultura i Rozwój , vol. 7, pp. 151–170.
  15. Giza A. 2021. “Modernizując uczelnie. Polskie szkoły wyższe po roku 1989,” Kwartalnik Nauka, vol. 2, pp. 131–159.
  16. Hoening B. 2017. Europe’s New Scientific Elite: Social Mechanisms of Science in the European Research Area, Routledge.
  17. Lukianoff G., Haidt J. 2018. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, Penguin Press.
  18. Heifetz R., Grashow A., Linsky M. 2009. “Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis,” Harvard Business Review, July–August.
  19. Jemielniak D., Greenwood D.J. 2015. “Wake Up or Perish: Neo-Liberalism, the Social Sciences, and Salvaging the Public University,” Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies, vol. 15, pp. 72–82.
  20. Johnson B. 1992. Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems, HRD Press.
  21. Johnson B. 2020. And: Making a Difference by Leveraging Polarity, Paradox or Dilemma, vol. 1: Foundations, HRD Press.
  22. Kennedy M.D. 2014. Globalizing Knowledge: Intellectuals, Universities, and Publics in Transformation, Stanford University Press.
  23. Koestenbaum P. 2002. Leadership: The Inner Side of Greatness, A Philosophy for Leaders, Jossey-Bass
  24. Küpers W., Weibler J. 2008. “Inter-Leadership: Why and How Should We Think of Leadership and Followership Integrally?,” Leadership, vol. 4(4), pp. 443–475.
  25. Kwiek M. 2016. Uniwersytet w dobie przemian: instytucje i kadra akademicka w warunkach rosnącej konkurencji , Wydawnictwo PWN.
  26. Łuczewski M. 2024. “Przywódcy są kozłami ofiarnymi. Rozmowa z prof. Andrzejem K. Koźmińskim,” Forum Akademickie, vol. 7–8, https://miesiecznik.forumakademickie.pl/czasopisma/fa-7-8-2024/przywodcy-sa-kozlami-ofiarnymi%E2%80%A9/, accessed: 19.09.2024.
  27. Łuczewski M., Kennedy M., Giza-Poleszczuk A. 2021. “Czy można być szczęśliwym profesorem?,” Stan Rzecz y, no. 1(20), pp. 263–282, https://doi.org/10.51196/srz.20.14.
  28. Manderscheid S., Harrower N.L. 2016. “A Qualitative Study of Leader
  29. Transition and Polarities,” Advances in Developing Human Resources, vol. 18(3), pp. 390–408, https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645888.
  30. Northouse P.G. 2016. Leadership: Theory and Practice, Sage Publishers.
  31. Parker J., Crona B. 2012. “On Being All Things to All People: Boundary Organizations and the Contemporary Research University,” Social Studies of Science, vol. 42, pp. 262–289.
  32. Putz M., Raynor M.E. 2005. “Integral Leadership: Overcoming the Paradox of Growth,” Strateg y & Leadership, vol. 33(1), pp. 46–48, https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570510572644.
  33. Readings B. 1997. The University in Ruins, Harvard University Press.
  34. Rembierz M. 2019. “The Current Dispute on the Status of the University: The Anthropological and Axiological Aspects of the Problem,” Ethos, vol. 4, pp. 340–357.
  35. Shaked H. 2021. “Instructional Leadership in Higher Education: The Case of Israel,” Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 75(2), pp. 212–226.
  36. Teelken C. 2012. “Compliance or Pragmatism: How Do Academics Deal with Managerialism in Higher Education? A Comparative Study in Three Countries,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 37(3), pp. 271–290.
  37. Williams D. 2005. Real Leadership: Helping People and Organizations Face Their Toughest Challenges, Oakland Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  38. Williams D. 2015. Leadership for a Fractured World, Oakland Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  39. Winston M.R. 2019. “Transformational Change as a Function of Scale and Diversity: A Historical Perspective on Academic Leadership as Dynamic Process,” Journal of Dental Education, vol. 83(2), pp. S28–S32, https://doi.org/10.21815/JDE.019.040.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Podobne artykuły

<< < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >> 

Możesz również Rozpocznij zaawansowane wyszukiwanie podobieństw dla tego artykułu.