Stress at Work

Stress at Work: The Role of Failed Leadership

Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, MAM, MBA

Professor of Exercise Physiology

The College of St. Scholastica

Duluth, MN 55811

“…there is no more corrosive deterioration in today’s ethical norms than the conviction that ‘I didn’t do anything illegal, so I didn’t do anything wrong.’”

-- Daniel Yankelovich (Profit With Honor)

The purpose of this article is to consider the relevance of ethical behavior to academic institutions, and its relationship to the function of administrative leadership including the relatively new concept of “faculty autonomy.”

T

WO MAJOR AREAS of study in the academic community are the conflicts that exist among professionals and between professionals and the administration for which they work. Often, the first occurs when colleagues differ in their values and professional expectations [1]. The second conflict is an outcome of decisions by a highly bureaucratic administration. Either conflict can be and generally is problematic for many reasons, especially since individuals are usually unprepared for the conflict and its incongruence. A third reason for concern is the hurt and disappointment of a failed system that does not understand the importance of trust.

This article will address the conflicts and the concerns that result from each. The primary question: “How is it that during the 21st century the conditions are such that the minds of educated men and women fail to embrace ethical principles, if not the true understanding of Christian beliefs?” For example, is it not logical as well as a firm reiteration of church teachings that it is the right of colleagues with academic expertise to perform their specific duties? If it is true, then, of what value is a system that allows bureaucratic traits of some to displace professional ideals and norms of practice?

Conformity to ethical thinking is a responsibility of the administration, which naturally depends on the leadership in an academic institution.

Without answers to these questions, there will continue to be a growing gulf between the college teachers’ job expectations and the quality of education students deserve. In fact, it is more than reasonable to expect that if administrators allow, encourage, or set in motion the blending of elements that diminish the faculty, working conditions will contribute to stress and worse. Either or both are quite legitimate outcomes of a failed administration [2]. This thinking is not new or redundant. Faith and commitment in the administrative process are an accepted reality of professional ideals. After all, professionalism, which is expected of administrators, includes a commitment to serving others fairly. Professionalism should also concern itself with honesty, respect, and courtesy for others.

As a result of their education, experience, and training, administrators and college teachers are expected to acquire a sense of professional identity that links their thinking and behavior to “doing the right thing.” After all, service to students is service to society, and altruistic ideals are guided and defined by intellectual alertness and integrity in the academic and educational process. Regretfully, though, what constitutes the work of some college teachers can only be defined as little respect for professional collegiality and ethical service to their students! In other words, once a set of norms takes hold in academia, groupthink ensures that it will become widespread. In the end, the faculty is forced towards uniformity of norms, often at the expense of not wanting to.

In academia in which moral values of administrators are hardly ever under scrutiny, in which there is the widespread perception that administrators are ethical, that there are serious improprieties in academic transactions, and that such behavior is commonplace, the importance of ethics is inescapable and significant.

Professionals in general, not just academic professionals are expected to have the right to their own thinking. Up to a point, they are given autonomous behavior in their teaching and how they interact with students. What they believe is considered critical in relation to the subject matter they teach. How else could they function as professionals in their field? Yet, when coworkers intervene in unethical and unacceptable ways, less prepared colleagues are often used by the administration to reshape their version of winning. Such destructive norms make it impossible for college teachers to defend themselves. The end result is a state of confusion, disorientation, doubt, and stress.

Please appreciate that none of this thinking is radical, for it is surely the reason for much job insecurity, disappointment, and unfulfilled expectations. To think outside the box is a cultural no-no in academia when the leadership is weak. Indeed, the last thing college teachers are likely to do without direction from the administration is rock the boat. The resulting unmet career expectations triggered by the lack of leadership produce significant stress at work. The conflicts impair the faculty, “…psychologically by demeaning or silencing, socially by unjustly discriminating against, and so on….Evil also can be a perversion of a system, so that some parts of the system are incapacitated. In relationships, impaired functioning can be understood as alienation – persons alienated from one another…”[3].

Autonomy is a key ingredient to the college teachers’ professional work with the freedom to teach without restraint, they can teach creatively. But, not everyone is interested in their colleagues’ freedom to practice. In fact, creating conditions whereby faculty lack control is the means to which department chairs, deans, and other administrators frustrate and control their colleagues. Any sense of personal achievement or control over their personalized touch to “what is their work” isn’t allowed. The outcome of which contradicts the underlying values of a college education and, therefore, education as a profession. After this point sinks in, the image of academia and its true reality literally becomes a stumbling block to the mental understanding of educated men and women coping with life’s challenges. Thus, the acknowledged failure of colleagues working together and being supportive of one another contributes to even more job stress.

Administrators must have standards, both explicit and implicit, of what is appropriate to do or not to do when it comes to dealing with faculty members. After all, is it necessary that employees conform to what they believe is acceptable to their superiors or is it true that they should be allowed a pattern of creativity and shared understanding of their vision?

Collegiality is a myth in academia. It is sugar coated with gestures of teamwork and support, but neither is a true sharing for fear of being punished if one were to stumble on certain failures of the administration to treat all academic departments and/or schools equally. Yes, the concept of punishment is real in academia. Colleagues are fully aware of the dean or chair’s role in discouraging collegiality from doing certain things or even thinking that differs from the status quo. Instead, they promote conflict and misunderstanding by demanding a narrow view of everyday events. Of course such behavior is resented by most thinking members of the faculty, yet they fear being rejected or betrayed if they were to say anything. Above all, they realize that there is the notion of sharing work-related knowledge when in reality the support of new ideas can only come from top down.

The emphasis is on service to the administration, not to the students or to one’s beliefs or even one’s profession if they run counter to the primary duty to provide assistance to status quo. All of this raises the question, “Why?” Is it really necessary to punisha person for his or her beliefs, dreams, and passions that appear to co-mingle with intellectual debate to survive? The concept of professional norms that emphasize service to society and altruistic ideals are true only for the select few academic majors with a high financial return to the institution. Is it even possible that administrators could deny the truth of these statements?

Here’s a question: “What causes administrators of academic institutions to act unethically?” Better yet, rather than wait for an answer, why aren’t the administrators developing an organizational climate in which ethical conduct and decision-making justify new thinking and creativity.

Unfortunately, “gaming the system” is a process common to many business models that link behavior to the bottom line. It is no wonder that some college teachers find themselves exhausted and at such a depth of despair that they sense their worth and work as shallow beginnings going nowhere. The hypocrisy is obvious. The administrators are viewed as royalty, partly for their power to corrupt the educational process and convict faculty at their whims. Often, their destructive norm goes uncontested and seldom set straight. After the damage is done, many deans and vice-presidents leave their positions to find themselves yet in a similar position elsewhere to distort and make a mockery of the faculty’s commitment to professionalism.

In addition to the profound simplicity that administrators demonstrate in regards to “what is” quality teaching, they still have failed to transform their everyday thinking about evaluating instructors at the end of each academic semester. One indication of their heads buried deep in yesterday’s thinking is the simple failure to acknowledge that students who fail or don’t want to be challenged by their teachers will do everything they can to make the teachers look bad. That’s why students love to evaluate their teachers at the end of each course. It’s not illegal, so they go for it. They win by giving their teachers poor marks. That way the faculty who look for ways to punish the “hard” teacher by bending the rules to gain access to their own needs, desires, and interests can do so without breaking any rules.

Unless department chairs, faculty members, and administrators are willing to think differently, nothing will change. But, of course that is the point isn’t it? The authority structure of a bureaucratic institution and the administrative stamp they wish to use when it benefits them (i.e., as in removing a faculty member from his/her teaching duties) are incompatible with what academic professionals require to do their best work. For this reason it is difficult for college teachers to balance responsibilities to their students and to the institution. This may cause conflict, especially when a sense of personal ownership is pushed aside for personal reasons by coworkers and/or administrators.

Ethics is everyone’s responsibility. The administrator’s challenge is to ensure a high degree of congruence between the academic institution’s beliefs and the faculty member’s beliefs, feelings, and behaviors.

It is difficult to imagine this way of thinking without experiencing it, but rest assured that it happens. Those who have felt powerless as they are re-positioned, demoralized, and separated from normal institutional tenure and work conditions say they are in hell! This is the problem to which the personal and family effects are under-estimated or simply overlooked. While there is no reasonto believe that such behavior is appropriate, it is seldom analyzed and/or corrected. In truth, it is the equivalent of “raping” a person and, then, requiring the teacher to watch the video of being rape by his/her colleagues and administrators on a daily basis. For those willing to fight the chaos and failed leadership, one wonders if partners in crime will look back and express genuine regret.

The underestimation of emotional harm and hurt is significant, often arguing for a dimensionless frame of reference by those in the power position. Those who have been emotionally raped experience feelings of unbelievable stress, not just discouragement or moments of being lost or emotionally overwhelmed by what has happened to them. They understand but can’t accept that life as they were accustomed to no longer exist. It is no wonder that they feel like giving up. Disappointed by the intellectual dishonesty from coworkers, they suspect that every aspect of their work is increasingly meaningless. Thus, they look for opportunities that confirm their sense of worth about themselves.

The ASEP exercise physiologists demonstrate their commitment to a professional set of expectations by clarifying meaning, unifying, and intensifying professionalism in exercise physiology. This process, repeatedly followed, earns and sustains credibility over time.

The only faculty members left standing are those who are determined to fight the injustice. They boldly go to work with their heads held high even though they feel emotionally circumcised as a precondition of their continued employment. Disappointment isn’t a strong enough word for their unhappiness. The experience at work is now measured by indifference and diminished input. It destroys autonomy and collegiality. Thus, it is not an exaggeration to always expect the worst to happen. But, it should be obvious that if academia is to survive, let along recapture creativity and passion, there is no time to lose in getting rid of personal greed, power, and organizational politics.

Indeed, the lack of collegial and supportive working relationships and satisfactory interactions with students are clearly related to ethical decision-making and behavior. Failing to grasp this point only allows traditional organizational thinking and radical beliefs to produce more stressful work experiences, which is consistent with findings reported in other studies [4,5]. The unmet expectations of college teachers result in work-related stress and decreased welfare of their students. The primary concerns of teaching, supportive relationship, and satisfying student interactions are in conflict with the excessive bureaucratic practices.

People in power who tell lies or omit the truth do so to gain financially and/or socially. That’s why the idea of treating colleagues with dignity is a joke, especially when the leadership fails to correct an injustice. In fact, it is well-known that the cause of ethical failure in academic institutions can often be traced to the organizational culture and the failure on the part of the leadership to promote ethical ideas and practices [6]. This is the problem that faces the faculty. How can they do their work with the obvious asymmetry of power? Isn’t it the responsibility of the leadership to promote trust? And if it is, then, shouldn’t it be held accountable for regulating itself effectively?

The problem that faces the academy is how it can police the asymmetry of power.

The convergence of administrative norms with personalized norms of self-interest has created the conditions for the perfect academic storm. This lack of integrity among those in academia isn’t well publicized. It should be because accountability and social ethics set the standards for how college teachers and administrators should act. Most college teachers are unhappy about the deterioration of ethical standards. They are tired of skating on ever-thinner ice year-after-year and yet suffer from the consequences of trying to do the right things for the right reasons.

They believe telling the truth, caring about the people they work with, and showing respect for the rights of others are important. The thinning out of ethical norms and the mistrust of administrators are so widespread that both threaten institutional productivity and competitiveness. This failure in ethical behavior is displayed in the incivility between departments, which has often led to the proliferation of selfish cultures. Where is the trust within politics and greed? To trust is have certain expectations, especially “feeling secure” in one’s work. There is also the element of having confidence in administrators and colleagues that they will not do harm to you or things in which you have an investment [6].

The best way to encourage others to trust you is to act ethically and be transparent about it.
-- Andrew Brien [6]

This thinking highlights an important and necessary core feature of academia. That is, the relationship between administrators and faculty is based upon an obvious asymmetry of power as exemplified by the faculty’s vulnerability to their actions. This is why trust is essential and necessary component of an effective leadership. Trust promotes ethical behavior. When administrators forget this vital point or when they turn a blind eye to it, they cannot be considered reliable or trustworthy. After all, it is the conscientious, reliable administrator who “does the right thing.” When administrators fail to act ethically, it is not possible to trust them. They are unpredictable and unreliable, thus it is logical to expect that they will harm faculty and/or those things about which they care. It is no wonder that so many faculty members build walls between themselves and administrators.

The loss of a moral compass is a major concern in academia, especially since the culture of corruption is having significant negative effects on the faculty and families, the institution and profession, and the students. This point requires serious deliberation if the advancement and well-being of the faculty, students, and society are to be realized. Ethical behavior and trust are expected of college administrators. Being trustworthy means that the administratorsare likely to be ethical as well. As David Putnam [7] said, “Stocks of social capital, such as trust, norms and networks, tend to be self-reinforcing and cumulative. Virtuous circles result in social equilibria with high levels of cooperation, trust, reciprocity, civic engagement and collective well-being.”