|
Amey and Twombly (1992) argue that while leadership behavior is influenced by the context and the particular institutional environment, ideas about leadership are also shaped and constrained by beliefs and images about the kind of leadership called for and the kinds of characteristics of those that assume leadership roles. For this reason, they use discourse analysis to question the relevance of images of leadership in community colleges and how the ideologies behind these images have maintained a particular type of leader, and consequently, excluded or limited leaders that do not fit this image. Amey and Twombly suggest that discourse analysis provides the means to examine how features of the social context, such as gender, power, and roles impact language.
In order to analyze images of leadership, Amey and Twombly (1992) frame the study using organizational life cycle theory, focusing on the life cycle schema developed by Gardner in 1986 and generations of community college development identified by Deegan and Tillery in 1985. Organizational life cycle theory posits that organizations progress through four stages with identifiable characteristics and problems. Leaders play a significant role in facilitating or hindering progress through the stages, which suggests that an organizational structure or leadership style effective in one stage is not necessarily effective in another stage. For this reason, Amey and Twombly expect to observe different images and styles of leadership related to the organizational structure at various stages in community college development. Gardner’s stages include birth, growth,
maturity, and renewal or decline, which parallel Deegan and Tillery’s stages of first generation, second and third generation, fourth generation, and fifth generation.
Amey and Twombly (1992) review literature on community college leadership from the early 1900s to the present using a variety of materials, including books, articles, and conference publications. The stages of community college development identified by Gardner in 1986 and Deegan and Tillery in 1985 frame the literature in order to help them identify “…the organizational context and structure, expectations of leadership, and most importantly, the images and language used to describe and reinforce leadership” (p. 130). Application of the framework leads to the identification of five generations of community college development according to leadership tasks that are attributed to growth and development. As a form of discourse analysis, Amey and Twombly employ an approach to post-structural criticism outlined by Cherryholmes in 1988 to examine stories within the texts and stories that share a common language, culture, or context.
This approach is characterized by a process of reading, interpretation, criticism, communication, and evaluation and judgment. Amey and Twombly appropriately acknowledge their role as readers and the fact that biases influence the reading and interpretation of texts, which may not be consist with other readers.
Analysis of community college leadership literature resulted in a discourse reflecting a set of relevant concepts about community colleges, including “constant change, democratic ideals about their role in society, and powerful autocratic leaders” (Amey & Twombly, 1992, p. 132). The discourse further contains consistent and value- laden images, which Amey and Twombly (1992) suggest has allowed scholars and practitioners to maintain “…a sense of cohesion, organizational definition, and
professional boundaries over time” (p. 132). Though this pattern of discourse is effective for early stages of community college development, it runs counter to organizational change if the leadership images are not appropriate. In addition, Amey and Twombly contend that the discourse creates and reinforces a particular image of leadership, which has resulted in the exclusion of leaders who are not viewed as legitimate because they do not fit this image.
The images of leadership created and perpetuated by the discourse center on the “great man” style of leadership, which suggests that a few select leaders have shaped the community college movement. This notion of “great leadership from a select few” reinforces a particular style of community college leadership that marginalizes some leaders (p. 145). This is particularly relevant considering community college systems have multiple leaders responsible for decision making that impacts the direction of the system and individual campuses. Based on definitions of a system grounded in the literature, a community college system has a system chief executive officer and campus presidents that must work together to advance the mission of the system and serve the needs of the state (McGuinness, 1991; Johnstone, 1999; National Association of System Heads, 2011). The limits to leadership resulting from the discourse around the community college movement suggests that scholars have not considered research outside of the field of community college leadership (Amey & Twombly, 1992).
Moreover, a core of scholars has advanced research on community college leadership, resulting in minimal contributions by others offering an alternative image. Amey and Twombly conclude that community college scholars and practitioners are challenged to create alternative constructions of leadership that reflect the discourse of the community
college movement but meets the demands for organizational change and evolving structures: “Using terms like great man, pioneer, builder, commander,
visionary…perpetuates the view that the success or failure of any community college rests in the hands of one or a few ‘great leaders’” (p. 147). Evolving organizational structures and the rise of community college systems, coupled with the limitations of images of community college leadership, suggest additional contributions are needed for literature on community college leadership.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
