I use organizational theories to develop new ...



|Jay R. Dee |

|Graduate College of Education |

|University of Massachusetts Boston |

| |

|Personal Statement – Fourth-Year Review |

Introduction

I take seriously Leslie and Fretwell’s (1996) claim that “colleges and universities have become focal points for what it means to be human: no question is too small or too large or too challenging to be contemplated at one institution or another” (p. 82-83). But higher education organizations, particularly urban public institutions, are under significant stress. Their urban location exposes them to a greater variety and larger number of external demands (Lynton, 1996). With issues such as cost containment, demands for accountability, and the challenges of diversity and technology, practitioners need an understanding of how colleges and universities function as organizations. The challenge for practitioners and scholars of higher education is to develop new models and understandings for leading these complex organizations.

This statement presents the conceptual framework that supports my teaching, scholarship, and service. The conceptual framework is itself a piece of scholarship, since it synthesizes strands of theory and research that I have constructed over the past several years. The framework is based in three core beliefs that characterize my work:

1. I believe that the tension between accountability and autonomy characterizes many of the debates and dilemmas associated with educational leadership.

2. I believe that new systems theory (NST) is the most effective approach for understanding issues associated with accountability and autonomy. Educational leadership is enhanced through the application of NST, particularly in an urban context where levels of uncertainty and complexity are high.

3. I believe that the primary goal of the Higher Education Doctoral Program at UMass Boston is not to teach people to become better administrators. Instead, the goal is to help people think differently about administration. The difference is between training people to do the same job better and empowering people to re-conceptualize the educational enterprise. Thus, the goal of my teaching is to empower a new generation of scholar-practitioners who can engage in meaningful change.

I have developed these beliefs through an active research agenda, which has resulted in the publication of one book and 15 refereed journal articles. These beliefs serve as the foundation for courses that I teach in the areas of organizational analysis, governance, and leadership. I enact these beliefs in my service commitments to the University, the profession, and the public.

Part one of the personal statement explicates my three-part conceptual framework. Part two illustrates how the conceptual framework has influenced my teaching, research, and service commitments. Part three describes my plans for the future.

|PART ONE: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK |

Part One examines the three strands of my conceptual framework: (1) the accountability/autonomy dialectic in educational organizations, (2) the utility of new systems theory in organizational leadership, and (3) the need for educational leaders to think differently about administration.

Accountability/Autonomy: A conceptual framework for academic administration

Since the advent of mass higher education, academic leaders have struggled with the challenge of holding people and units accountable without establishing control mechanisms that dampen individual and institutional autonomy. This tension between accountability and autonomy characterizes many debates in higher education. It illuminates the fault lines between coordinating boards and individual campuses, boards of trustees and presidents, and academic administrators and faculty. Pressures for accountability and demands for autonomy have punctuated debates in the US surrounding accreditation, assessment, governance, faculty roles, and tenure.

Findings from my research on faculty roles (Dee, Henkin, & Chen, 2000), for example, suggest that faculty members work within the constraints of “regulated autonomy,” where their behaviors are delimited by management and government. I found similar tensions in my studies of presidential leadership in Catholic colleges and universities (Dee & Holman, 2001; Henkin, Dee, & Holman, 2001). College presidents expressed concerns regarding their ability to ensure institutional autonomy given increasing pressures to become more accountable to the Catholic Church.

Participants in these debates often conceptualize accountability and autonomy as opposing points on a continuum. Some locations along the continuum endorse autonomy, others support greater accountability, but no point successfully integrates high levels of both. High levels of accountability are thought to diminish autonomy. High levels of autonomy are perceived as a limitation on accountability. Mid-range levels of accountability and autonomy are seen as opportunities for each “side” in the debate to push the position on the continuum closer to their side; some pushing for more accountability, and others striving for more autonomy (Figure 1).

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

|High accountability, low autonomy. |High autonomy, low accountability. |Mid-range levels of both accountability and|

| | |autonomy. |

Figure 1.

Traditional Conceptualizations of Accountability and Autonomy

My study of post-tenure review (Dee & Kidder, under review), for example, suggests that debates on faculty performance in the US have maintained clear distinctions between autonomy and accountability. Post-tenure review emerged, in fact, as a compromise between the “get the dead wood out of higher education” position of some state legislatures (e.g., Texas, Arizona) and the strict defense of professional prerogatives offered by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). As is the case with most compromises, neither party is satisfied. Periodically, state legislatures and other policy makers attempt to move the process closer to the accountability side of the continuum, while faculty and their administrative advocates attempt to maintain distance from political forces in order to ensure academic autonomy. The tension between accountability and autonomy is not embraced as a vehicle for change; instead, it is viewed as an impediment to effective performance.

Alternatively, a dialectical conceptualization suggests that organizations can maintain apparent contradictions; they can provide high levels of both autonomy and accountability (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Orton & Weick, 1990; Spender & Kessler, 1995).

Organizations are characterized by many contradictions; for example, change/stability, differentiation/integration, and centralization/decentralization. I claim that the dialectic most salient to educational organizations is accountability/autonomy. This dialectic situates the educational organization as a social institution, which is embedded in a complex external environment. The accountability/autonomy dialectic also reflects the internal dynamics of organizations comprised of highly educated professionals who expect to determine their own work methods and to have a voice in organizational decision making/governance. Thus, educational leaders are challenged to remain accountable to their environments, yet retain the expertise of autonomous professionals.

Recently, management researchers have begun to find empirical support for the need to maintain organizational contradictions in order to facilitate innovation and effectiveness (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997). I have conducted some of the first studies of dialectics in educational organizations. My studies of community college faculty (Dee, 1999), university faculty (Chen, Dee, & Henkin, 1999), and elementary school teachers (Dee, Henkin, & Pell, 2002) confirmed the utility of dialectics in educational organizations. Institutions that provided opportunities for faculty autonomy and established clear roles and expectations fostered conditions conducive to educational innovation. Autonomy and coordination – a contradiction at first glance – were essential ingredients in organizational change.

In the administration and governance course that I teach (HighEd 610), I argue that the maintenance of an accountability/autonomy dialectic is essential to ensuring both academic integrity and public support for education. Braskamp and Wergin (1998) make a similar case in terms of faculty roles. They argue that the public increasingly sees faculty work as distant and self-serving. They claim that faculty autonomy should be enacted in concert with communities beyond the academy. Otherwise, universities and their faculties “will become victimized by their own myopia” (Braskamp & Wergin, 1998, p. 80) and loose public support. Thus, faculty autonomy must be enacted within a context of public accountability. But colleges must also seek to protect institutional and faculty autonomy from outside forces. Otherwise, the institution becomes a mere vendor of packaged products, producing whatever the environment demands. Thus, accountability must operate within a context of faculty and institutional autonomy (Figure 2).

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

Figure 2.

Dialectical Conceptualizations of Accountability and Autonomy

If maintaining an accountability/autonomy dialectic is a major objective of educational leadership, then practitioners need a set of understandings and concepts appropriate for addressing this challenge. New systems theory (NST) provides a framework for reinterpreting traditional organizational concepts, such as environment, structure, strategy, and culture, in ways that facilitate the maintenance of accountability and autonomy. NST serves as the theoretical framework for my research on organizational structure (Dee & Duemer, 2002; Henkin & Dee, 2001). It also frames the organizational analysis course that I teach (HighEd 632).

New Systems Theory

Systems theory emerged in the 1930s and 40s as an attempt to erode disciplinary boundaries and create a general theory for explaining biological, social, and cognitive phenomena. Systems theory focuses on the relationship between a system (e.g., an organization) and its environment. Systems import energy from their environments in order to forestall progression toward entropy; that is, complete randomness and eventual death. The system then uses the energy to produce some product, which it then exports to the environment in exchange for additional energy imports.

By the 1960s, systems theory generated a shift in organizational studies. Tendencies to examine internal bureaucratic structures (Taylor, 1911; Weber, 1924) and informal organizational networks (Mayo, 1945; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939) were displaced by a focus on organization-environment interactions (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Thompson, 1967).

The traditional version of systems theory suggests that external environments determine internal organizational structures, which in turn shape individual and group behaviors (Blau, 1973; Parsons, 1951). New systems theory (NST) provides an alternative to environmental determinism, and suggests that individuals and groups are active agents who create/enact the environments to which they respond (Giddens, 1984; Luhmann, 1995). NST rejects a positivist epistemology, which suggests that organizational phenomena are “objective” and exist independent of human cognition. Instead, NST suggests that organizational phenomena, such as environment, structure, strategy, and culture, are created and recreated through the daily interactions of organizational members. Thus, NST infuses traditional systems theory with a social construction epistemology.

NST builds on the solid foundation of four decades of traditional systems theory research. NST also capitalizes on more recent thinking about organizations as socially constructed entities. The blend of well-tested empiricism and cutting-edge epistemology is intriguing, and is beginning to attract the attention of organizational researchers and practitioners.

Researchers have begun to explore the implications of NST for business management, law, and public policy. I have developed some of the first applications of the theory for educational organizations. I have identified four key principles of NST related to educational leadership: enactment, communication, recursiveness, and fragmentation.

Enactment suggests that organizations and their environments are created through social agreement among organizational members (Weick, 1969). Through repeated interactions over time, people come to share a common understanding of the organizational system. When a common understanding of a system has been developed, we say that the system has become reified; that is, the interpretation is perceived as reality. The interpretation becomes real for people when it serves as guide for action. Thus, people create/enact the realities in which they live and work.

Communication is the basic unit of organization; it is the process through which the system is created and sustained. This assertion suggests several implications for organizational leadership. First, it suggests that systems are malleable. “If organizations are social constructions, then we reconstruct them continuously and could, if we were conscious of these processes, change them in the reconstruction process” (Hatch, 1997, p. 42). Second, it suggests that meaning is negotiated among organizational members. Thus, all members of an organization have input into determining the systems with which they work. It is important to note, however, that critical postmodernists point out that certain individuals have far greater influence in constructing the organizational system than others (Deetz, 1992; Mumby, 1988). Finally, given that multiple interpretations of the system are possible, leaders may expect to encounter high levels of conflict, particularly when organizational membership is diverse in its perspectives and ideologies (Henkin, Cistone, & Dee, 2000; Kim, Dee, & Henkin, 1997).

Recursiveness challenges the rational planning approach inherent in much of the decision-making literature. Rational planning suggests that leaders identify problems, develop criteria, evaluate alternatives, and select a solution (Gouran & Hirokawa, 1996; Fisher & Ellis, 1990). Seldom, however, does organizational planning unfold in such a linear fashion. Certainly people think in order to act, but they also act in order to think (Weick, 1995). Recursiveness suggests that people make sense of organizational systems both prospectively and retrospectively; that is, they move forward while looking back (Mintzberg, 1994). Thus, ongoing activities are often reinterpreted as solutions to emerging problems. Aquaculture and marine science programs at the University of Maryland – Eastern Shore, for example, were reinterpreted as strategic responses to local economic development needs (Leslie & Fretwell, 1996). The activity (the programs) existed before the strategy (economic development).

Thus far, our discussion of the organizational system has presumed a relatively stable consensus regarding the interpretation of the environment, the communication patterns that characterize structure, and the strategy and goals that guide behavior. However, given that reality is multiple and subject to reinterpretation, organizational systems are in a constant state of flux. Each organization is characterized by a dynamic set of value-based coalitions that are always changing. Organizational members may be united on a particular issue, but on other issues, their values may be diametrically opposed. The result is fragmentation (Martin, 1992). Organizational leaders often feel compelled to mitigate fragmentation and “bring everyone together.” In the organizational analysis course (HighEd 632), I argue that tendencies to minimize fragmentation weaken expressions of diversity, homogenize the educational experience for students, and diminish propensity for innovation. Some level of fragmentation in the system is necessary for organizational resilience and vitality.

New systems theory (NST) serves as the foundation for implementing the third core value of my conceptual framework: helping educational leaders think differently about administration. In the organizational analysis course (HighEd 632), I use four traditional systems concepts (environment, structure, strategy, and culture) to illustrate the four key principles of NST that I have identified (enactment, communication, recursiveness, and fragmentation). Each principle is then applied to the accountability/autonomy dialectic.

Thinking Differently about Administration

Many people, particularly busy administrators and professionals, express some hesitancy about the utility of theory. Indeed, as Hoy and Miskel (2001, p. 2) note, “to many individuals, including educational administrators, facts and theories are antonyms; that is, facts are real and their meanings self-evident, and theories are speculations or dreams.”

Knowing theories, however, helps administrators understand how their organizations work (or don’t) and how to diagnose organizational problems. A theoretical approach to organizational leadership provides leaders with greater maneuverability and a broader palate of choices when confronted with difficult situations. Without a solid base of theoretical knowledge, administrators are often forced into reactive responses, relying on intuition or guesswork. New systems theory (NST) offers leaders a framework useful for analyzing environments, designing structures, developing strategies, and understanding cultures.

Thinking Differently about the Environment – Enactment

Budget recissions, policy mandates, and volatile student choice markets suggest that a thorough understanding of the environment is critical for successful educational leadership. Traditional systems theory suggests that an organization’s ability to respond to its environment depends upon adapting internal structures and processes to meet external needs. For example, if an environment becomes more complex, the successful organization also becomes more complex (Ashby, 1956; Birnbaum 1988).

New systems theory, however, suggests that environmental complexity is not an objectively “real” phenomenon, which exists outside the organization and determines the organization’s form. Instead, NST argues that organizational members construct the level of environmental complexity. The extent of environmental complexity is mediated by such factors as how narrowly or broadly the institution interprets its mission, the institution’s history, and the interpretive systems that leaders bring with them to their organizations.

Thus, environments are social constructions. Environments are not revealed through analysis; instead “it is actually the analysis that forms the environment to which the organization responds” (Hatch, 1997, p. 42). Through the act of analyzing, leaders create the organization’s environment (Neumann, 1995).

If organizations enact their own environments, then educational leaders are not at the mercy of external demands. Organizations can construct accountability to their environments in ways that maintain institutional and faculty autonomy. Massachusetts Board of Higher Education (BHE) Chancellor Judith Gill has provided examples of this assertion during her annual conversations with students in my administration and governance course (HighEd 610). Gill (June 18, 2001) described the emerging performance measurement system for state colleges and community colleges. The BHE granted each institution the authority to determine the criteria and indicators for which it will be held accountable. Thus, the leaders of each institution have the autonomy to create the environment to which they will be accountable.

Thinking Differently about Structure – Communication

New systems theory (NST) turns our attention from viewing structure as a means for controlling people’s behavior to viewing structure as an organizational activity. Organizational structure is created through communication and social agreement among organizational members. People create a language for understanding and enacting their work. This language gives form to the roles, rules, and relationships that structure their work lives.

If an organization’s structure is its communication patterns, then a large share of the structural work of an organization will involve communication. Organizational leaders will engage in conversations about mission and purpose. They will seek to identify common values and provide opportunities for collaboration. They will develop structures of collective accountability within a context of professional and institutional autonomy.

My study of innovation in community colleges (Dee, 1999) suggests that communication about norms and values can align the behaviors of autonomous professionals with requirements for achieving accountability. Communication enables the development of a shared organizational consciousness (Bormann, 1996), which serves as a common frame of reference for analyzing problems and implementing solutions. Here, communication functions as an implicit social control on autonomy; people act autonomously, but since they share a common value system, their autonomous actions are consistent with institutional missions (Dee, 1999).

Thinking Differently about Strategy – Recursiveness

Strategic planning in higher education is often reactive, linear, and top-down. Typically, colleges and universities engage in strategic planning in reaction to external pressure (e.g., the accrediting agency demands a five-year plan) or to an impending crisis (e.g., severe reductions in enrollment). The planning process itself unfolds as a linear analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (also known as SWOT analysis). The plan generates a set of goals, objectives, indicators, and schedules that lower-level units are expected to implement.

Reactive, linear strategic planning seldom is an effective guide for organizational action. If planning is reactive, organizational members are unlikely to develop a feeling of ownership toward the resulting plan (i.e., it was someone else’s idea). Moreover, the fallacy of linear planning is that it assumes that “the world is supposed to hold still while a plan is being developed and then stay on the predicted course while that plan is being implemented” (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 110).

Alternatively, in the administration and governance course (HighEd 610), I suggest that strategic planning should be ongoing, emergent, and recursive. Ongoing planning generates higher levels of commitment than reactive planning. Emergent planning allows ideas to “bubble up” from all levels of the organization. Recursive planning suggests a simultaneous top-down, bottom-up process, where top-level administrators consult organizational constituencies at each stage of the planning process.

This alternative conceptualization of strategy has significant implications for accountability and autonomy. For example, consider institutional governance. Departmental, decentralized governance limits horizontal communication and reduces institutional capacity to make comparative analyses across departments and programs. Thus, there is a tendency to make across-the-board cuts when times are tough (Benjamin & Carroll, 1998). This option “avoids hard decisions about weak or inefficient programs, and it risks missing targets of opportunity for new investment” (Leslie & Fretwell, 1996, p. 227). Here, weak programs are never eliminated, and relatively strong programs seldom receive incentives for continuous improvement. The alternative – centralized governance – creates its own set of problems. Centralized governance violates collegial norms and may constrain motivation and innovation among faculty and staff. Therefore, effective governance can be neither top-down nor bottom-up; neither department-based (complete autonomy) nor imposed by central administration (top-down accountability). Effective governance is both top-down and bottom-up; both autonomous and accountable. When governance is recursive, representatives of units and departments help shape evaluation guidelines and criteria, but these units/departments are then held accountable for their performance on the agreed-upon indicators.

Thinking Differently about Organizational Culture – Fragmentation

For many, culture is what unites the organization. Culture consists of shared values, beliefs, and assumptions that delineate the range of acceptable behaviors (i.e., norms) in an organization (Schein, 1992). Dominant norms hold people accountable to institutional value systems. Thus, culture creates implicit bonds of accountability among organizational members.

Shared values and assumptions mean that organizational behavior is predictable and reliable. Organizational members count on their colleagues to act in certain ways, and in a high-consensus culture, they typically do.

High-consensus cultures, however, can constrain expressions of diversity and innovation (Martin, 1992). When unchecked by autonomous expression, cultures become stagnant, and traditionally under-represented groups become marginalized.

In my presentation to the UMass Boston conference on community college leadership (2001), I argued that traditional efforts to retain faculty of color are focused inappropriately on assimilating the “minority” into the dominant organizational culture. Suppression of individuals’ identities is not a prerequisite for constructing bonds of shared responsibility. Autonomous expression of difference can coincide with and reinforce accountability, mutual respect, and trust.

Summary

The tension between accountability and autonomy accounts for many of the organizational dilemmas associated with educational leadership.

The maintenance of an accountability/autonomy dialectic is essential to ensure both academic integrity and public support for education.

If maintaining an accountability/autonomy dialectic is a major objective of educational leadership, then practitioners need a set of understandings and concepts appropriate for addressing this challenge.

New systems theory (NST) provides a conceptual framework appropriate for maintaining organizational dialectics.

Educational leadership based in NST can facilitate the enactment of environments, structures, strategies, and cultures where accountability and autonomy are maintained in ways that enhance organizational performance.

My conceptual framework serves as a powerful theory-to-practice tool for educational leaders. This work advances the University’s mission by disseminating recent innovative developments in theory and research to future leaders of colleges, universities, and schools throughout New England. This work will have a lasting impact on the practice of governance, assessment, strategic planning, and leadership in educational organizations.

In the next part of this personal statement, I explain how the conceptual framework has influenced my professional commitments. In the third and final part of this statement, I describe plans for the future.

|PART TWO: PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENTS |

Teaching

My teaching duties are in the Department of Leadership in Education. I teach four doctoral-level courses each year. During the past three years, I have prepared and taught five different courses in the Higher Education Administration Doctoral Program:

HighEd 610 – Current Issues in Higher Education I: Administration and Governance

HighEd 691 – Professional Development Seminar I: Case Study Research and Application

HighEd 632 – Organizational Analysis of Educational Institutions

HighEd 740 – Research Methods in Higher Education I

HighEd 741 – Research Methods in Higher Education II

The Higher Education Doctoral Program enrolls full-time practitioners who hold a range of leadership roles, including assistant and associate academic deans, deans of student development, department chairs, admissions directors, and program coordinators. They work in two-year and four-year institutions, both public and private. These students bring to the Program insights from years of administrative experience. Each student seeks to enhance his/her understanding of and capacity for leadership.

The Program utilizes a cohort system, in which 12 students are admitted each year, and these students progress collectively through coursework. Thus, each course is designed for a capacity of 12 students.

In addition to the US Doctoral students, three cohorts of college administrators from the Province of Guangdong China have enrolled in courses that I teach. They participated in a partnership between their province and UMass Boston to provide management training to middle and upper level managers in the public and private sector. These students audit the organizational analysis course (HighEd 632). I work to facilitate their classroom involvement and participation with our US students. I also schedule individual and group appointments so that they can ask questions regarding the US system of higher education.

This work advances the University’s mission by developing international connections among researchers and practitioners. These visiting administrators frequently comment on how my instruction transforms their thinking about administration.

“It has been a great experience to have been with you for your most fascinating course. It was informative, enlightening and simulating. I find class discussion most brilliant. I benefit a lot from both the course and your discussions. Though I focused on economics courses I found your course the most impressive. I will be back to China by the end of August. I will bring what I have learned here back. I am sure it will prove to be helpful, rewarding. Many great thanks for your generous care and kindness.” – Yong Heming, Director of the Foreign Language Department, Guangdong Business College, May 2001

My teaching approach is characterized by a constructivist pedagogy where students create knowledge with me. This pedagogy is enacted through six key principles: high-involvement, accessibility, feedback, relationship to practice, cultural context, and trust.

1. I create a high-involvement learning environment through the use of web sites, case studies, interactive scenarios, and team research projects. A typical class involves sharing reflective journals, group discussion of theoretical concepts, and application through small group exercises. In my classrooms, students are active, engaged learners, rather than passive recipients of knowledge.

2. Students in the Higher Education Doctoral Program are full-time professionals who are on campus one day per week. Thus, their access to faculty is limited. In response, I established a web site with on-line office hours to supplement my on-campus availability.

3. I provide extensive written feedback for all student work. The feedback forms the basis of an ongoing conversation with students about how they think, conceptualize, and express themselves.

4. I believe that learning is enhanced when it is related to practice. When teaching theory, I make concepts meaningful by helping students relate them to practice. As organizational theorist Mary Jo Hatch (1997, p. 10) writes, “Concepts are like empty baskets to be filled with experience. If you first encounter a concept through academic study, it is empty. You must fill it with meaning by relating personal experiences to it.”

5. I believe that learning is enhanced through an understanding of cultural context. Organizational perceptions are mediated through cultural context. This may include gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, linguistic background, country of origin, or religious affiliation. Cultural context also includes experiences, understandings, and aspirations about work and school. By understanding how people are situated within a cultural context, leaders come to respect difference and understand the need to empower people who are traditionally under-represented in educational institutions.

6. I believe that learning is enhanced when the classroom environment is a safe place to express views and discuss personal experiences. I facilitate the development of trust through a confidentiality agreement regarding classroom conversations surrounding sensitive workplace issues.

Aggregation of student evaluation data for my three years at UMass Boston is impossible, since the Graduate College of Education has utilized four different evaluation forms over the past three years, and two semesters of data are missing. However, the available student evaluations indicate that my teaching is consistent with these six principles.

In my first year at UMass Boston (1999-2000), my four-course average on the “overall evaluation” question was 86.5% excellent and 13.5% good. For 2000-2001, the results were 88.9% excellent and 11.1% good. These percentages surpassed the departmental averages of 63.7% excellent and 24.3% good. The 2001-2002 evaluation form did not include an “overall evaluation” question. However, 90.9% indicated that they “very much” would “recommend this instructor to other students,” surpassing the departmental average of 80.0%.

Despite these positive results, I believe that student evaluation forms are insufficient and imprecise instruments for assessing an instructor’s impact on students. For doctoral students in the professions, paper-and-pencil evaluations should be supplemented with assessments of instructor impact on practice. Those collecting data from students should seek descriptions of critical incidents where concepts from courses are applied in “real world” situations. Admittedly, this form of assessment is time-consuming and problematic, since the effect of a particular course may not be evident for months or years after the course ends. Nevertheless, I have collected and students have sent to me descriptions of critical incidents where my instruction has influenced their practice. Below, I have included three examples, which demonstrate the effect of my teaching on students’ strategic planning, program evaluation, and assessment practice.

One student reported her experience at a top-level administrative meeting with her campus president. The group was discussing various options for reducing spending in light of budget recissions from the state. She noted that many participants in the discussion were taking a narrow parochial view of the issue; they were seeking to protect the status quo. Instead, this student used concepts from new systems theory (NST) to analyze the various proposals in terms of impact on instructional program, faculty morale, and institutional image. “I started saying, ‘If we looked at this from a structural perspective … If we looked at this from an environment perspective … If we looked at this from a human relations perspective …’ All the frames that we talked about in class were suddenly in play. I was operating at a whole different level.”

One student reported her experience conducting an evaluation for a major federal program located in a community agency. She noted that the research skills she developed during her work with me were paying off in her job. “I was using conceptual frameworks in the evaluation. I was identifying direct and indirect effects of variables on program outcomes. I had no idea what a conceptual framework was before I started your courses. Now it seems like I am using them nearly every day. It helps me see things so much more clearly than before.”

Another student reported that a professional association in her state was concerned that people were leaving the profession or moving to higher-paying jobs in other states. This student used new systems theory to assess the problem. Under my guidance, she developed a survey instrument to assess the career plans of people who had recently entered the profession. “I was so pleased that I could study this problem in my research courses. What I learned through the assessment shaped my response to the association and gave everyone some very useful data.”

These critical incidents show how my teaching advances the University’s mission by bringing new ideas and methods to practitioners, who then use them to make real differences in their organizations.

My three-part conceptual framework is evident in all courses that I teach.

HighEd 610 – Current Issues in Higher Education I: Governance and Administration. I was first assigned this course in 2001. Previously, this course employed a survey approach to a broad range of higher education issues. The course lacked a conceptual framework, and its relationship to the Doctoral Program’s curriculum as a whole was not well defined. I re-conceptualized this course, after a review of the Program’s curriculum. I decided to focus the course on governance and academic administration – two areas that had not been specific foci in other courses in the Program.

Students enroll in this course during their first semester in the Doctoral Program. Here, I provide an overview of structures and processes associated with higher education administration. We examine state coordinating boards, boards of trustees, faculty and administrator roles, shared governance, collective bargaining, accreditation, assessment, and strategic planning. Each issue is discussed and analyzed in terms of the accountability/autonomy dialectic.

HighEd 691 – Professional Development Seminar I: Case Study Research and Application. Students enroll in this course during their second semester in the Doctoral Program. This course suggests that case study research can help higher education leaders think differently about administration. Case studies are important data collection and evaluation tools. Leaders come to understand programs and policies more fully through case study research. In this seminar, students identify research problems, select sites for studying the problem, develop research questions and protocols, conduct interviews and observations, analyze data, and report findings. For many students, this course represents their first experience with conducting original empirical research.

HighEd 632 – Organizational Analysis of Educational Institutions. Students enroll in this course during their third semester in the Doctoral Program. Here, I present the new systems theory (NST) framework. The first three weeks of the course focus on NST as a “grand” theory, which explains a wide range of organizational phenomena. Other “mid-range” theories fit within the NST framework. The next ten weeks of the course focus on the following mid-range theories: contingency theory, resource dependence theory, population ecology theory, institutional theory, structural-functionalism, loose coupling theory, motivation-hygiene theory, expectancy theory, equity theory, human relations theory, organization culture theories, and critical organizational theory, including feminist perspectives on organization.

The research methods courses that I have taught (HighEd 740 and HighEd 741) help practitioners think differently about administration. The skills, knowledge, and understandings developed in these courses assist practitioners in their efforts to use data more effectively for assessment, planning, and decision making. The emphasis is primarily quantitative. Students learn to utilize the following quantitative tools: descriptive statistics including correlation, chi-square tests, t-tests, analysis of variance, linear regression analysis, and logistic regression analysis. Students examine issues associated with validity, reliability, and ethical research practice. Course projects apply research techniques to practical problems of educational leadership. For example, in fall 2000, the HighEd 740 class examined student success patterns in UMass Boston’s undergraduate biology program. Students found that:

Female students were more than twice as likely to drop-out of the program as male students.

Students of color had lower GPAs than white biology students. Retention rates, however, were independent of race/ethnicity. Students of color were just as likely to persist as white students were.

In this course, students developed a research design that they could apply to their own academic program assessment efforts.

I take a number of steps to improve my teaching. I participate in forums sponsored by the UMass Boston Center for the Improvement of Teaching (CIT). These forums examine effective methods of working with diverse students, listening to student voices, and facilitating student involvement. During the spring 2002 semester, I was selected to participate in the CIT’s Seminar for Pre-Tenure Faculty. The semester-long seminar explored a range of pedagogical issues, including critical thinking, assessment, and diversity. I lead two seminar discussions – balancing demands of teaching, learning, and scholarship; and developing an effective teaching portfolio. During the spring 2000 semester, I was selected to participate in UMass Boston’s Information Technology Explorations program, which was jointly sponsored by the Learning Center and Media Services. The workshops met over ten weeks and explored the use of technology in the classroom. In fall 2001, I participated in the annual meeting of the Council for the Advancement of Higher Education Programs (CAHEP). This organization aims to improve the teaching and learning experiences for students and faculty in Higher Education programs.

In addition to classroom teaching, I have significant responsibilities for students’ dissertation research. These responsibilities include assessing Qualifying Paper Proposals (QPP), assessing Qualifying Papers (QP), and serving on dissertation committees.

In the QPP, students make an argument for a proposed research area. The QPP includes (1) a statement of the problem, (2) a discussion of the problem in the context of relevant theory and prior research, and (3) a rationale for the significance of this area of study. The QPP typically ranges from 8 to 14 pages. Each year, I assess 8 to 12 QPPs.

The QP is designed to assess a student’s ability to analyze an educational problem through existing theory and research. The QP consists of (1) a statement of the problem, (2) research questions that derive from the problem, (3) a review and analysis of related literature, and (4) a discussion of the implications of the literature for future research on the problem. The QP typically ranges from 40 to 60 pages. Each year, I assess 8 to 12 QPs.

During each of my three years at UMass Boston, my dissertation committee workload has been substantial. In 1999-2000, I served on 12 committees, including 3 as chair. In 2000-2001, I served on 12 committees, including 4 as chair. In 2001-2002, I served on 15 committees, including 7 as chair. [Since students typically take two to three years to complete dissertation requirements, most of these committees span more than one year.] Over the past three years, seven of these committees have resulted in successful defenses. I chaired three of those committees, and served as second reader on four.

My approach to working with dissertation students is consistent with the six principles that support my teaching. To facilitate high involvement, I encourage students to submit their research to peer-reviewed conferences. These conferences provide an external assessment of students’ work through the proposal review process, provide venues for developing presentation skills, and provide a vehicle for mentoring and networking. These efforts have resulted in the presentation of four research papers and one poster at national and regional conferences. In 2001, a paper from one of my students received one of only two honorable mention awards for “Paper of the Year” at the Eastern Educational Research Association’s Annual Meeting. Thus, this student’s paper was judged among the top three papers from more than 225 presented.

To facilitate accessibility, I schedule “progress and process” meetings with each student. Here, students provide a progress report on their research, and examine issues related to their writing process. I provide extensive written feedback at these meetings. Over the course of a dissertation project, a student may receive 20 to 30 pages of written feedback from me. Examples of written feedback are provided in the Teaching/Learning Portfolio, which accompanies this statement.

The feedback addresses issues of conceptualization, research design, interpretation, and overall organization of the writing. I have found that students often have the most difficulty with interpretation; that is, drawing inferences from their data. In response to these difficulties, I encourage students to consider relationships to practice and the cultural context of their case sites or subjects. Finally, I facilitate trust through frequent interaction, honest assessment of strengths and weaknesses, and optimistic expectations about the outcomes of their research.

Each year, my pre-dissertation advising responsibilities have increased. In 1999-2000, I served as pre-dissertation advisor to 6 doctoral students. In 2000-2001, I advised 7 students. In 2001-2002, I advised 10 students. As a pre-dissertation advisor, I assist students in selecting electives, provide career advice, write letters of recommendation, provide mentoring for research projects, and counsel students who have personal, professional, or academic difficulties. I also provide assistance when these students are completing Qualifying Paper Proposals (QPP), Qualifying Papers (QP), and Dissertation Proposals (DP). This assistance includes responding to multiple drafts and providing advice related to literature review content, conceptual frameworks, and research design.

Scholarship

My scholarship advances the University’s urban mission by examining organizational and leadership issues in an urban context. I have studied organizational dialectics in urban community colleges (Dee, 1999) and urban school districts (Dee, Henkin, & Pell, 2002). I have studied the leadership strategies of urban school principals (Henkin, Cistone, & Dee, 2000) and teamwork among urban school teachers (Dee & Duemer, 2002). This work contributes to a scholarship of urban organizations, and addresses the highly complex environments in which leaders operate.

I have published one book and 15 refereed journal articles. I have presented 12 refereed papers at national and regional conferences. My scholarship is focused on three themes: organizational dialectics, including accountability/autonomy; organizational structure from a new systems theory (NST) perspective; and strategies that leaders can use to think differently about administration. I described each of these themes in Part One of this statement. Below I summarize studies that exemplify each of the three stands.

Organizational Dialectics – Accountability/Autonomy

Henkin, A., Dee, J., & Holman, F. (2001). Institutional identity, pressures for change, and executive leadership at US Catholic colleges and universities. Journal of Research in Education, 11 (1), 23-30.

This study explored the tension between institutional autonomy and accountability in Catholic higher education. Specifically, we examined presidents’ perceptions of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, a mandate issued by the Pope in 1990 and ratified in the US by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2000. Ex Corde was designed to hold Catholic colleges and universities formally accountable for their Catholic identity. Presidents expressed some concern that Ex Corde was incompatible with academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The study also revealed some uneasiness regarding the position of Catholic colleges within a competitive student choice market.

Dee, J., Henkin, A., & Chen, J. (2000). Faculty autonomy: Perspectives from Taiwan. Higher Education, 40 (2), 203-216.

This study explored the relationship between institutional autonomy and faculty autonomy. Institutional autonomy is assumed to “trickle down” to faculty members, who are then empowered to engage in change. Asserted benefits of institutional autonomy may not accrue, however, where faculty members are unable to determine the methods and processes of their work. Study findings lend conditional support to the claim that faculty members work within the constraints of “regulated autonomy,” where their individual behaviors are delimited by government and management.

Organizational Structure – New Systems Theory

Dee, J., & Duemer, L. (2002). Structural antecedents and psychological correlates of teacher empowerment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA, April 1-5.

Empowering work environments can facilitate teacher leadership, improve the quality of work life, and enable effective implementation of school reform. This study examined teamwork, empowerment, and organizational commitment in an urban school district in the Southwestern US. The district had recently implemented site-based management, which enhanced the decision-making roles of principals and teachers. Teachers who participated in team teaching, governance teams, and community-relations teams reported higher levels of empowerment. Empowered teachers also had higher levels of commitment to the school.

Dee, J., Dole, S., Phair, C., & Shay, P. (2002). Trust and collaboration in ‘zero-history’ administrative teams. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA, April 1-5.

Traditions of shared governance and the complexity of problems faced by colleges suggest the need for effective collective action. This study examined administrative teamwork in two sites: a new two-year public institution formed by merger and a new four-year private institution. Findings suggest that higher education leaders can take several steps to improve prospects for the development of trust and collaboration in their administrative teams: (1) articulate behavioral norms that endorse thinking beyond one’s functional area; (2) develop and support cross-functional planning groups; (3) make clear that team behaviors are supposed to further institutional goals, not advocate for departmental- or self-interest; and (4) provide frequent opportunities for interpersonal interaction among team members, especially during early stages of team development.

Leadership Strategies – Thinking Differently about Administration

Henkin, A., Cistone, P., & Dee, J. (2000). Conflict management strategies of principals in site-based managed schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (2), 142-158.

Conflict is inevitable in restructured schools where varied interests in education converge. The conflict management skills and strategies of principals are important elements in the conflict regulation equation. This study developed a profile of conflict management behaviors of a sample of principals who work in an urban district in the Southeastern US. Effective leaders mediated divisive forces by sharing information, providing expertise, promoting a sense of security, and by enabling progressive transitions toward collective action. This “mediative” approach can reinforce belief in the fairness of outcomes and, simultaneously, allow conflicting parties to feel that they have some control over the process.

Dee, J., & Henkin, A. (2002). Assessing dispositions toward cultural diversity among pre-service teachers. Urban Education, 37 (1), 22-40.

The purpose of this study was to assess pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward cultural diversity prior to their entry into multicultural education courses at an urban university. Respondents indicated strong support for implementing diversity programming in the classroom. They did not agree that assimilation to the dominant culture was a requisite for student success.

The use of dispositional assessment in teacher education programs calls attention to a potential dilemma; specifically, how to address scenarios where prospective teachers have successfully completed course requirements, can communicate significant knowledge in their area of expertise, yet express problematic attitudes toward cultural diversity. This circumstance suggests the need for conceptual frameworks that clearly identify cultural competence as a desired outcome of teacher education programs. Assessment plans should include a clear definition of what culturally-sensitive practice is, and specify ways to measure candidate progress.

Service

My service commitments can be characterized in three ways: service to institution, service to profession, and service to public.

Service to Institution

I have served for three years on the Graduate College of Education (GCOE) Senate. In May 2001, I was elected vice-chair of the GCOE Senate, and was re-elected to that position in May 2002. As vice-chair, I wrote the College’s first set of by-laws, which were adopted by the Senate in spring 2002. I have served on two faculty search committees in the GCOE, and I annually serve on the Higher Education Doctoral Program’s admissions committee.

During spring 2000, I conducted an evaluation for the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) at UMass Boston. The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the impact of NERCHE’s “think tanks” on the practice of higher education administrators.

For two years, I was a member of UMass Boston’s Campus Life Resource Team. The team’s charge was to examine and respond to issues pertaining to the quality of life at a diverse urban campus. I belonged to a sub-group that explored the campus climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students, faculty, and staff. In 2002, the Chancellor merged this team with another campus committee that was focused on diversity issues. Only senior faculty and administrators were appointed to the reconfigured team; thus, my membership ceased. My commitment to LGBT issues at UMass Boston, however, continues.

On February 25, 2002, Kathleen Sands (Religious Studies), Linda Dittmar (English), and I presented at the CIT forum, “Queer Issues: Representation and Beyond.” The central focus was how to make sexual difference visible and reflective in the classroom. During my presentation, I identified a dynamic tension between community and diversity on college campuses. I emphasized the need to examine sexual diversity and its implications for institutional identity, mission, and values. This work reflects my commitment to an urban university mission that values and promotes respect for individual differences.

Service to Profession

I am active in three professional associations: Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), American Educational Research Association (AERA), and the Eastern Educational Research Association (EERA). My service to each is summarized below.

ASHE, 2000, program committee, chair of poster session

ASHE, 2000, session chair

ASHE, 2001, reviewer of poster proposals

ASHE, 2002, reviewer of research paper proposals and poster proposals

AERA, 2002, Division A (Administration), proposal reviewer

AERA, 2003, Division J (Higher Education), proposal reviewer

EERA, 2001, session chair and discussant

In Spring 2001, Karen Arnold (Boston College), Judith McLaughlin (Harvard University), and I re-established a Boston-area higher education faculty group. Such a group met for several years in the early 1990s, calling itself the “Friends of David Riesman” and meeting several times a year at the home of the late Ernest Lynton. The new Riesman-Lynton group meets twice each semester. Generally, one of the group members or an invited speaker will talk about research or policy work followed by group discussion. The group fosters collegiality across institutions. I continue to serve as co-chair of the group.

Service to Public

I conceptualized, planned, and organized Community Colleges in the New Century: Evolving Missions, Innovative Strategies, a conference sponsored by the UMass Boston Higher Education Doctoral Program. The event was held on October 26, 2001, and attracted 125 participants from six states and 31 institutions. The conference featured 24 presenters, including 7 college presidents and 4 nationally-recognized researchers. This conference was the Higher Education Doctoral Program’s largest public service outreach project in its nine-year history.

Sessions addressed strategic planning and change, developmental education and transfer, assessment and performance measurement, workforce development, and service learning. The conference advanced the University’s mission by:

meeting critical needs for professional development in this sector of higher education

raising UMass Boston’s national visibility on important issues of urban higher education

fostering connections between the Higher Education Doctoral Program and national policy organizations and research institutes

establishing a venue for dissemination of faculty research

providing networking opportunities for graduate students and faculty

I recruited a 15-member steering committee composed of community college administrators and faculty members. The steering committee guided the selection of topics and presenters. With UMass Boston’s Dr. Alicia Dowd, I developed collaborations with conference sponsors, including the Institute for Community College Development at Cornell University and the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC).

Evaluation forms indicated that participants strongly agreed that they would attend this type of conference again. Respondents indicated that the pairing of researchers and practitioners in the same session was a highlight of the event. Several praised the amount of information conveyed in only a one-day conference. Other responses cited the need for more of these types of professional development opportunities for community college administrators and faculty. There are no other conferences in New England that focus on community college leadership issues. A summary of conference outcomes is included as an appendix to this statement.

Summary

My conceptual framework related to accountability/autonomy and new systems theory (NST) prepares educational leaders to meet the challenges of working in:

urban universities that are highly complex and departmentalized

small, independent institutions that are highly tuition-dependent

community colleges that are closely linked to their environments

other educational institutions with complex internal and external dynamics

Doctoral students are applying these frameworks to their practice and are making a difference by finding ways to ensure institutional resilience in a difficult resource environment. These frameworks have been disseminated through a range of publications and service projects, including a regional conference on community college leadership attended by more than 125 educational leaders. These frameworks provide a new path for educational leadership and scholarship.

|PART THREE: FUTURE PLANS |

My three-part conceptual framework – accountability/autonomy, new systems theory, and thinking differently about administration – will continue to guide my teaching, scholarship, and service.

Teaching

The accountability/autonomy dialectic will remain the focus of the administration and governance course (HighEd 610). Thinking differently about administration through case study research will continue to be the focus of the professional development seminar (HighEd 691). New systems theory will continue to be the foundation of the organizational analysis course (HighEd 632).

For academic year 2002-2003, I have been asked to teach the organizational analysis course in the Leadership in Urban Schools Doctoral Program. My department chair (Dr. Linda Eisenmann) indicated that this request was based in recognition of cross-program strengths that I can offer. I look forward to building with these students a thorough understanding of new systems theory as it relates to urban school leadership.

Building upon my experience in the Spring 2002 CIT Pre-Tenure Faculty Seminar, I will continue to invite faculty colleagues from across the university to observe my teaching and offer constructive feedback. I, too, will engage in classroom observations. These activities will provide opportunities for developing a “reflective practice community” among my CIT faculty cohort. Specifically, I hope to learn more about (1) linguistically diverse learners, (2) constructivist pedagogy, (3) educational technology, and (4) making theory relevant to practice.

I annually receive more requests to serve on dissertation committees than I am able to accommodate. I will continue to serve on 12 to 15 committees each year – about half of which as chair.

Scholarship

Despite the growing number of education researchers who utilize organizational theory, few are familiar with new systems theory (NST) and its implications for leadership. Upcoming studies will position me as an authority on new systems theory applications to educational leadership. I plan to disseminate NST applications by presenting my framework at national conferences and by publishing the framework in a practitioner-oriented publication, such as Change or The Department Chair.

I will also engage in new empirical studies related to NST concepts. For example, I plan to explore the accountability/autonomy dialectic in case studies of community college governance. The accountability/autonomy dialectic is particularly salient in community colleges, given their dual missions of workforce development and transfer/general education. Case studies will involve interviews with system administrators, college presidents, provosts, and faculty governance leaders. The studies will seek to determine how these leaders address the accountability/autonomy dialectic in decisions related to curriculum.

Other studies will utilize a new systems theory (NST) approach to understanding connections between organizational structure and individual behavior. For example, with two graduate students, I am designing a series of studies that examines faculty job satisfaction and turnover intention in urban colleges and universities. These studies involve collecting data from large national samples. Among the three to four researchers who currently study faculty turnover intention, I will be the only one examining the phenomenon in an urban context. Similarly, among the many researchers who study faculty job satisfaction, none have examined the phenomenon specifically in an urban context.

I am also working with James Bess (retired New York University Professor of Higher Education) to develop an organizational analysis textbook. Currently there is no organizational theory textbook that is specifically tailored to college and university administrators. This book will be an ideal professional development resource for practicing administrators. The book will also be appropriate for adoption by the more than 100 graduate programs in Higher Education across the United States and Canada, each of which offers at least one course in the organization and administration of colleges and universities.

This textbook and the two research projects described above (community college governance and urban faculty career satisfaction) will constitute my primary scholarly commitments over the next two years. These projects will position my work among the scholarship of national experts on higher education governance and organization.

Service

The nation’s 1,470 community colleges enroll nearly 11 million credit and non-credit students, roughly 45% of the nation’s undergraduates, and about 50% of all first-time students. Community colleges serve millions of students who have traditionally been underrepresented in higher education. A leadership crisis, however, looms in the near future as community colleges struggle to meet growing demands for service with diminishing financial resources. Moreover, researchers estimate that as many as 50% of community college senior administrators will retire or leave office in the next 10 years. At the same time, few efforts are underway to prepare academic administrators for the difficult tasks of leading community colleges. I will continue to explore opportunities to provide professional development services to this group of higher education leaders.

I will continue to serve on the UMass Boston Graduate College of Education Senate. As Senate vice chair for 2002-2003, I will be in charge of organizing monthly brown-bag lunches. These lunches will serve as a new community-building initiative for the College. I will also continue to serve as co-chair of the Riesman-Lynton Higher Education group, which brings together faculty and researchers from Harvard University, Boston College, and the University of Massachusetts.

Works Cited

Ashby, W. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall.

Benjamin, R., & Carroll, S. (1998). The implications of the changing environment for governance in higher education. In W. Tierney (Ed.), The responsive university: Restructuring for high performance (pp. 92-119). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blau, P. (1973). The organization of academic work. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bormann, E. (1996). Symbolic convergence theory and communication in group decision making. In R. Hirokawa & M. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making, 2nd ed. (pp. 81-113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Braskamp, L., & Wergin, J. (1998). Forming new social partnerships, in W. Tierney, ed., The responsive university: Restructuring for high performance, pp. 62-91. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1-34.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1994). The management of innovation, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chen, J., Dee, J., & Henkin, A. (1999). Innovation in Taiwanese higher education: Faculty perspectives and perceptions. International Education, 28 (2), 54-70.

Dee, J. (1999). Organizational support for innovation: Perspectives of community college faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) document 458 899.

Dee, J. (2001). Beyond managing diversity: Strategies for recruiting and retaining a diverse community college faculty. Presentation at the Community Colleges in the New Century conference, Boston, MA, October 26.

Dee, J., Dole, S., Phair, C., & Shay, P. (2002). Trust and collaboration in ‘zero-history’ administrative teams. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA, April 1-5.

Dee, J., & Duemer, L. (2002). Structural antecedents and psychological correlates of teacher empowerment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA, April 1-5.

Dee, J., & Henkin, A. (2002). Assessing dispositions toward cultural diversity among pre-service teachers. Urban Education, 37 (1), 22-40.

Dee, J., Henkin, A., & Chen, J. (2000). Faculty autonomy: Perspectives from Taiwan Higher Education, 40 (2), 203-216.

Dee, J., Henkin, A., & Pell, S. (2002). Support for innovation in site-based managed schools: Developing a climate for change. Educational Research Quarterly, 25 (4), 36-49.

Dee, J., & Holman, F. (2001). Reconciling differences: Conflict management strategies of Catholic college and university presidents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), Richmond, VA, November 15-18.

Dee, J., & Kidder, R. (under review). Accountability and autonomy: Dynamic tensions in post-tenure review.

Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Fisher, B., & Ellis, D. (1990). Small group decision making: Communication and the group process, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gill, J. (2001, June 18). Conversation with HighEd 610 at Massachusetts Board of Higher Education.

Gouran, D., & Hirokawa, R. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view. In R. Hirokawa & M. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making, 2nd ed. (pp. 55-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hatch, M. (1997). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

Henkin, A., Cistone, P., & Dee, J. (2000). Conflict management strategies of principals in site-based managed schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (2), 142-158.

Henkin, A., & Dee, J. (2001). The power of trust: Teams and collective action in self-managed schools. Journal of School Leadership, 11 (1), 48-62.

Henkin, A., Dee, J., & Holman, F. (2001). Institutional identity, pressures for change, and executive leadership at US Catholic colleges and universities. Journal of Research in Education, 11 (1), 23-30.

Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice, 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kim, Y., Dee, J., & Henkin, A. (1997). Managing conflict: Strategic preferences of academic department chairs in the Republic of Korea. International Education, 27 (1), 51-70.

Leslie, D., & Fretwell, E. (1996). Wise moves in hard times: Creating and managing resilient colleges and universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lynton, E. (1996). Reversing the telescope: Viewing individual activities within a collective context. Metropolitan Universities, 7 (3), 41-55.

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mayo, E. (1945). The social problems of an industrial civilization. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72 (January-February), 107-114.

Mumby, D. (1988). Communication and power in organizations: Discourse, ideology, and domination. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Neumann, A. (1995). On the making of hard times and good times: The social construction of resource stress. Journal of Higher Education, 66 (1), 3-31.

Orton, J., & Weick, K. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15 (2), 203-223.

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: Free Press.

Roethlisberger, F., & Dickson, W. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spender, J.-C., & Kessler, E. (1995). Managing the uncertainties of innovation: Extending Thompson (1967). Human Relations, 48 (1), 35-56.

Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.

Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weber, M. (1924). The theory of social and economic organization (ed. A. Henderson and T. Parsons). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Weick, K. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

|Jay R. Dee |

|Graduate College of Education |

|University of Massachusetts Boston |

| |

|Personal Statement – Fourth-Year Review |

September 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 3

Accountability/Autonomy 3

New Systems Theory 6

Thinking Differently about Administration 8

PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENTS 12

Teaching 12

Scholarship 18

Service 20

FUTURE PLANS 24

WORKS CITED 27

-----------------------

Autonomy

Accountability

Autonomy

Accountability

Autonomy

Accountability

Autonomy within a context of accountability

Accountability within a context of autonomy

Accountability

Autonomy

Autonomy

Accountability

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download