In ethical university leadership “how” matters more than “what”
People matter. Respect for people matters. Sadly though, it has been my experience that not everyone seems to agree. I hear too many stories about university leadership decisions that have significant human impact having been made with little or no input from the staff, faculty or students who will be affected. This to me — handing down decisions without discussion or option (and often without explanation) — reflects a profound lack of respect for those we purport to serve.
It’s not the thing being decided that is necessarily problematic (the “what”) — it’s the way the decision is made that is lacking (the “how”). Top-down directives. Do it because I said so. Don’t ask questions. Don’t complicate things. I am in charge. Your input is irrelevant. You don’t matter.
I’ve lived this; I hate this. To me it’s a violation of basic human decency. It’s damaging to morale. It’s damaging to diversity. It’s damaging to productivity. Our staff and faculty give their hearts and souls to the work they do. They deserve better.
Not only is it damaging, though, it’s also short-sighted. I hear frustration and anger in the stories people tell me. I also hear pain and defeat. I hear powerlessness and the feeling of being unvalued or unwanted. That is the real crime to me. The real harm. People matter. Their input and ideas matter. Together we are better. We need “us” more than we need “me.”
This is important because universities really do need change – which requires agility and ideas. Which means we need the input of our people. All of us. It is hubris — pure arrogance – for any one person (or small group of privileged elite) to assume they have all the answers or know better than those on the ground living the work every day.
But postsecondary education has a leadership problem; it allows the elevation of people on the basis of successes that are unrelated to the type of leadership actually needed. It creates executives that care more about legacy or neo-liberal outcomes than about community or collective wellbeing.
I recently completed certification for research with human subjects. The training was based on the Belmont Report (1), written in 1974, to summarize the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioural research involving human subjects – respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Respect for persons asserts that people should be treated as autonomous agents, and that those with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection. We respect autonomy when we recognize the ability (and right) of persons to make choices about their own lives and respect the decisions they make. The principle of beneficence states that “people are treated in an ethical manner not only by respecting their decisions and protecting them from harm, but also by making efforts to secure their wellbeing.” Beneficence requires that we actively do no harm, and that we work to maximize possible benefits for others while minimizing possible harms. Finally, the principle of justice lays out the question of who should receive the benefits of research and who should bear the burdens? Populations should not be systemically excluded nor advantaged.
The Belmont principles should apply to ethical leadership as much as they do to ethical research. I for one would like to see a world where academic leaders are held accountable for the types of authentic, respectful, and inclusive behaviours that the principles propone. And I wonder what it would be like if academic leaders had to go through the same sort of certification and review in order to lead as we do in order to conduct research? After all, executive and senior leaders have power over the people in their care – they have the ability to help or harm. They should be held accountable for their use of that power.
Ultimately, how and why we do things is more important than what we do. As the saying goes, people may not remember what we say, but they will remember how we made them feel. They will remember if they felt respected and valued. And that matters.
(1) The Belmont Report, 1974. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html