Figure 1 The Four Vignettes

Vignette 1

A dean discovers that her long time colleague and friend has been using his graduate students to get published. He assigns to students one major research project as the only requirement for the course. He provides them with four major topics that they can research; topics that happen to be his areas of interest and previous publication. He works with them through the semester, helping them to formulate their questions, collect the data, and draw conclusions. Students invariably get As for their projects with the understanding that they are waiving their right to publish their work. Students understand that he will seek publication outlets for their work with his name as the only author. This professor has been engaged in this practice for 5 years.

Faculty often wonder how this professor could be so prolific with his lackadaisical work style. Faculty used to say things in passing to the dean about this situation. The dean did not have any concrete evidence about this professor's behavior until one of his students decided to report it. The student began to get hostile toward the professor when she discovered that the professor was not allowing her to frame any of her own questions. She did not like feeling entrapped and exploited.

When the dean asked the professor about this situation, he blew up at her, berating her for her lip service to supporting a faculty research's agenda without supplying any funds or release time to do research. With the dean's 10-year review around the corner and the professor's powerful union influence in the college and the university, the dean worries about her next steps.

Vignette 2

A new dean knows that one of his charges is to diversify the faculty, particularly for the upcoming NCATE accreditation. This university happens to be located in an area that boasts of its multicultural flavor. However, the university has maintained its classical ivory tower image for the last century with its predominately male Caucasian homogeneity. The dean lets one of the college's youngest departments know that it must hire faculty from different backgrounds, lest it wants to forfeit its faculty lines. The faculty is angry with this ultimatum but do not want to lose the lines to another department.

The search committee embarks on a campaign to find nonwhite faculty. The committee gets so carried away with its mission that it does not even consider Caucasian candidates who happen to have the strongest credentials. Only those candidates who fit into the nonwhite category are interviewed. The committee ultimately is successful in finding a candidate for the position. However, one of the Caucasian male applicants discovers what the committee did and reports it to the local newspaper. When the dean is called in by the Provost to offer an explanation, he is not sure what to do.

Vignette 3

With a university wide pledge to purchase a computer for every faculty member, each dean is responsible for ensuring that it comes to fruition for every faculty member, either in the form of a desktop or a laptop. Obviously delighted by this windfall, one of the more veteran deans does everything in her power to get her faculty to be first in line for computer acquisitions. Within six months, every one of her faculty members has a computer.

A year later, this dean discovers that 20 percent of her faculty-her former department mates-have taken their laptops home to family members (spouses, children, and even grandchildren) for their use. The faculty members themselves, content to continue with their computer illiteracy, are not using them at all. These same faculty are veteran professors who are approaching retirement within the next five years. It turns out that she is the only dean who cannot communicate to all her faculty through email, and who cannot get her faculty to use computers in their teaching. Whenever she asks a faculty member about computer usage, she hears lame excuses about something not working. The university wide edict that computers must remain in their offices is fraught with faculty members' complaints about campus safety. She knows that if she were in their position, she probably would do the same thing because of the very low salaries given to the education faculty. It is the one perk that they have received in their many years of service to the university. She truly is torn between pushing for technology usage and respecting her colleagues' positions.

Vignette 4

A senior faculty member obtains a large grant from a private corporation to create off campus internships for students in educational technology. Six students would be paid salaries as part of a cooperative education experience in technology positions in the corporate sector.

The agreement between the university and the private corporation is a letter of understanding. The letter does not provide the level of detail typically found in traditional grants. The particulars regarding where students will be placed has not been described in detail.

After one year, outcome measures show that the funded experiences were beneficial to students, the university and the corporation. The faculty member's department chair, newly hired as an administrator, learns about the success of the funded project. At approximately the same time, the department chair finds that there will be a budget shortfall the following year and personnel support of technology will be limited. He believes he needs to find funds to support the science lab and its associated programs. The department chair decides to budget the money needed to support the Science Education Lab by creating compensated assistantships for education students from grant funds.

When the chair informs the faculty member that he has decided to reallocate funds, the faculty member informs the chair that discussions must first take place with the funding corporation before funds can be allocated for purposes other than the support of off campus internships. When the senior faculty member schedules a meeting with corporation representatives, the department chair does not show up. The faculty member then goes to the dean to explain the situation.

The faculty member explains that he would be supportive of this use of funds because students would still be compensated for their work. However, under the new plan, a larger number of students would be paid lower wages, and the vocational advantages of off campus internships would be lost. The faculty member, who actually obtained the grant, is also concerned that the department chair has acted arbitrarily.

The Two Interview Protocols

There were two different protocols. One protocol was developed for the individual interviews. A second protocol was developed for the group interview. The group interview was designed to observe a process of sharing moral perspectives through group deliberation. This was important to us because we believe that leadership involves mutual influence of leaders to followers, and a group interview would allow us to observe and describe this process. Comparisons of the findings of individual and group interviews were not part of the research plan. Each interview took approximately ninety minutes. All deans returned informed consent forms, indicating their willingness to participate. All interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. Three of the authors served as coders in each phase of the research. Those who coded transcripts met as a group for coding sessions. The consensus method was used to decide how to classify text into thematic categories.

The individual interviews permitted deans to speak as individuals at length and in detail as they shared their reactions to the problems embedded in each vignette. The group interview was designed to gather information about a dean's responses to the vignettes in the social context of faculty/dean/student interaction. The responses of that dean were later analyzed using thematic coding, with the understanding that the dean's responses were mediated by the group process of deliberating along with the faculty and students.

Individual Interviews. The three individual interviews took place at each of the education deans' institutions in their offices. Three of us conducted these interviews. We each interviewed one education dean individually. We asked the education deans to read and respond to each vignette one at a time. We used four questions to prompt deans' responses: "How would you solve this problem?" "What principles did you use to arrive at solutions?" "In what ways do you find yourself accountable for a satisfactory solution?" "What do you anticipate will happen as a consequence of your decision?"

The Group Interview. The group interview took place with one education dean, three faculty members, and three students. The interview took place in the dean's conference room on a weekday afternoon. During the interview, one of us facilitated the discussion. A second author took written notes while a third author served as an observer who from time to time provided the facilitator with focus questions for the group. The facilitator distributed to each participant a packet of four vignettes. A small tape recorder was placed in the middle of the conference table.

The facilitator asked each participant to read the first vignette only. Once participants signaled that they had completed reading, the facilitator asked the group to begin discussion by asking the question, "How would you solve this problem?" Initially, participants were asked to identify themselves to help the authors recognize their voices on tape. The facilitator made sure that each participant had an opportunity to participate in the discussion. As soon as there was a natural break in the discussion, the facilitator asked the group to move to the next vignette. This procedure was used with each vignette.

We used thematic coding to analyze the interview texts. The moral content embodied in thematic codes was drawn from our theoretical model. In this way theoretically important principles could be imposed on the interview texts, thereby capturing the moral content of the interviews according to criteria that had been stated in advance and consistently applied across all interviews.

The Self as Researcher

Our story as researchers is well illustrated by the following example. Our research design evolved because we needed to confront an important methodological problem. The questions used in the first phase asked deans to reflect on their own issues that they confronted. Deans were not asked to help other deans resolve issues. In this next phase of the research, we designed vignettes so that deans would reflect and then advise another dean in an attempt to prevent a moral problem from unraveling. This change was motivated in part by a colleague who was subsequently invited to become the fourth researcher on the team. Four personal perspectives on the research shaped an emerging design. The enthusiasm and analytic skills of one researcher were balanced by the need for a rationalized process on the part of a second researcher. The critical judgments of yet another researcher were offset by the grounded and pragmatic views of a fourth colleague. We brought a mix of dispositions that influenced the creation of the vignettes as well as the analysis of interview texts. A dialogic process governed decisions about all aspects of the study.

Quality Control

Consistency of rater judgments was an important concern. We used the method of consensual validation in order to reach agreement on how to classify interview text. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and overcome only when all members of the coding team were satisfied that a contentious item of text could be logically classified. Theoretical validity was also very important. The origins of this study were biographical interviews in which 12 deans were asked about values, strategies and biographical experiences that influenced their leadership as deans. From these early interviews a psychological model was crafted which included moral dimensions of leadership. This study, which focuses on the moral dimension of deans and their leadership, was essentially a first attempt to validate a theoretical model. In each stage of the research we have been able to demonstrate that the data provide support for early theoretical assumptions. Evidence of support for our theory also lends to the data internal coherence and integration.

Findings

We used the interview transcriptions of the four vignettes to find evidence of deans' statements to support the moral theme of broad social ideals and the moral theme of negotiating for mutually acceptable outcomes. With broad social ideals, we identified major issues that deans typically confront, i.e., respecting intellectual property, academic integrity, a commitment to diversity, valuing professional integrity, and honoring commitments to agreements. With negotiating for mutually acceptable outcomes, we found evidence of strategies that they used to enact their ideals. We then looked for similarities and differences in ideals and strategies across deans.

Moral Theme of Broad Social Ideals

Vignette 1: Faculty Research. All four deans believed that the faculty member had compromised the values of the academy, and they had to do something about it. Their statements were consistent with a broad social ideal of respecting intellectual property. They stated that the faculty member's threat about the ten-year review of the dean in the vignette would not interfere with their mission at hand.

Vignette 2: Hiring for Diversity. Three of the four deans expressed commitment to diversifying the faculty as a value of great importance; one dean was not as committed.

Dean Appel valued the importance of reflecting society in the faculty and diversifying the student body. Again, she expressed the need to accept responsibility for communication and to make sure that a process is followed. Dean Borak also supported the ideal of diversifying the faculty, and he would stand firm with his decision. Dean Carter believed in the sufficiency of diversity as a value. She explained that diversity is essential for preparing educators by exposing students to a variety of models. Dean Eagen did not subscribe to the ideal of diversity. He is aware of the issue, but not strongly committed to it.

Vignette 3: The Purloined Laptops. There wasn't evidence of the deans responding to a broad social ideal of professional integrity. The deans focused more on strategies for helping faculty to use the technology appropriately. Any comments by the deans referred mostly to the theme of negotiating for mutually acceptable outcomes.

Vignette 4: Breach of Contract. All four deans responded to the broad social ideal of honoring a commitment to an agreement. One dean also showed evidence of conflict between honoring an agreement and taking advantage of an opportunity for the department as a whole.

Dean Appel said that while she would like to do good things in both areas, she wouldn't do it without examining specific agreements within the grant and other commitments made. Dean Borak valued respect for the contractual relationship and respect for details that uphold the integrity of contracts. He valued maintaining good faith and relationships. Dean Carter believed that one needs to be mindful of one's obligations. She spoke about upholding the faculty member's ownership of the project. She also argued that goals and priorities can change. Dean Eagen emphasized the importance of respecting contractual obligations and likewise the importance of developing administrative subordinates' abilities to work in a trustworthy way with faculty.

Moral Theme of Negotiating for Mutually Acceptable Outcomes

Vignette 1: Faculty Research. All four deans looked for ways to negotiate for mutually acceptable outcomes through discussion, but the form of interaction with faculty differed. Whereas three deans used direct contact with faculty, one used a faculty governing body. Even among those who used direct contact with faculty, there were different types of interactions used.

Vignette 2: Hiring for Diveristy. Three of the four deans looked at ways to rectify what they believed to be a leadership problem. Two deans focused on improving the faculty search process, including resources beyond the School to help move toward mutually satisfactory outcomes. One dean focused on working directly with the faculty to shepherd them through the process. The fourth dean, who did not see a leadership problem, said that he simply needed to weather the storm, and to move on.

Dean Appel would have acknowledged that mistakes had been made, tried to correct them, and changed the procedures for the future. Dean Borak would stand firm in support of the faculty committee's decision because they were successful in finding the type of candidate that they thought the dean wanted. Dean Carter valued consistency with adherence to published criteria and the provision of support for every hire. She would be candid with the provost and stand behind her decision by using NCATE to lend weight to articulating a decision. She stated that the leadership should work closely with affirmative action officers to work sufficiently closely with the search committee so that they wouldn't have the elimination of strong candidates because of the diversity issue. Dean Eagen said that this situation might have been avoided by the leadership of the search process.

Vignette 3: The Purloined Laptops. All four deans focused on identifying ways to foster faculty buy-in to the idea of using technology for instruction. They proposed varied strategies, based on their interpretation of faculty expectations and needs.

Dean Appel valued the use of dialogue to explore areas of agreement and dissent and, over time, use that forum to create a culture that would be responsive to technological change. She would elicit from faculty their concerns, use their concerns and ideas to develop parameters, and then find ways to provide support for technology. Dean Borak valued the encouragement of learning, even if it would be on an informal basis. He believed that faculty need to be prepared for the task at hand. He would provide a rationale for using laptops. Dean Carter believed that faculty should have shared responsibility for creating a technology-enriched environment, and for creating procedures that shape behavior. She also valued coming up with creative strategies that induced them to be more responsive to explore the challenges of technology. Accountability to the taxpayers creates the inducement in her view. She would create conditions where faculty have to use laptops. She would use established faculty committees to have discussions and create strategies to get faculty to use the machines. Dean Eagen expressed the need to train faculty so that misuses of technology are less likely. He also expressed his concern that faculty be trusted and that the use of technology not be micromanaged. He expressed the belief that it might be unrealistic to expect all faculty to become proficient in the use of technology, and suggested that training would work best with those who were highly motivated.

Vignette 4: Breach of Contract. All four deans believed in a deliberative process for solving this problem, i.e., bringing people together, serving as a facilitator for communication, and creating conditions for consensus and shared responsibility.

Dean Appel valued discussions that are goal-directed and that diffuse feelings of threatened leadership. She would establish a framework for communication at every level, and keep the conversation ongoing until there was a solution. Dean Borak would establish a framework for communication at every level, and he would make sure that obligations were defined in writing. Dean Carter would have discussions to involve all stakeholder groups. She would have deliberative conversations and discussions, involve all stakeholders, and use institutional procedures to determine how the funds are allocated. Dean Eagen would involve all stakeholders in the conversation about redirecting the purpose of the grant. He recommended that the dean in the vignette meet with all the stakeholders to discuss the content of the contract. He also said that he would talk to the department chair about his actions and his leadership style.

Discussion and Implications

There was general support for the conceptual framework's moral dimension of leadership. All four deans made reference to broad social ideals and expressed the importance of negotiating toward mutually satisfactory outcomes.

There was evidence of support for both themes by all four deans for two of the four vignettes. In vignette 3, all four deans made reference to the theme of negotiating toward mutually acceptable outcomes but no reference to a broad social ideal of professional integrity. In vignette 2, three of the four deans supported the broad social ideal of diversifying the faculty; one did not show evidence of this theme.

While the intent of vignette 3 was to portray misuse of technology, the focus of the deans' responses was on the location of the computers (should they be allowed to take them home?). It appears that the vignette didn't provide sufficient information on why the computers were being provided and how the computers were supposed to be used. Because of this ambiguity, deans ended up focusing on strategies that they would have used to help faculty use them for instructional purposes.

Although there was consistency in deans in showing evidence of two themes, their individual expressions of specific strategies and actions differed. Even though Deans Appel and Carter evidenced commitment to the broad social ideal of academic integrity for the vignette on faculty research, they differed in their interpretation of their role as leaders in handling these situations. Dean Appel talked about the importance of the dean articulating her position to faculty. "You have to know what [moral principle] is for yourself, and I think you'd have to let the faculty know what…where you are in that process…." Dean Carter talked about the importance of institutional accountability and really viewed the dean's role as insuring that professionally sanctioned ethical guidelines and institutional policies are followed. "You then fall back on those guidelines and review the specifics through whatever procedural review provisions are in place in the particular institution."

For the theme of negotiating for mutually acceptable outcomes for the vignette about breach of contact, Deans Borak and Eagen believed in a deliberative process but differed in their suggested use of the deliberative process. Dean Borak would look for ways to continue the discussion with all interested parties. "You have to talk to those people and I guess in that kind of discussion with the faculty, the corporation and what have you that maybe you come to some kind of understanding." Dean Eagen, on the other hand, focused on the deans working directly with the department chairperson to avoid future problems of this sort. "I think the dean should definitely talk to the department chair and find out why he/she acted this way and then work with that person on their leadership style because that is not the way things function."

These differences in strategies articulated above could be related to other dimensions of leadership proposed in the conceptual framework. For example, the contrast in Dean Appel's and Dean Carter's handling of the faculty research vignette could reflect differences in their social and emotional responses to the situation. Dean Appel reveals a strong emotional dimension in her desire to articulate her personally held view of the situation and a strong social dimension in her desire to actively engage in the conflict. Dean Carter, on the other hand, seems less emotionally invested and less revealing of social influences in her handling of the conflict.

The different responses of Dean Borak and Dean Eagen could reflect differences in their willingness to engage the intellectual complexities of the situation. For example, Dean Borak seemed to use dialogue as a vehicle for getting at all the elements of the situation simultaneously. Dean Eagen, on the other hand, seemed to focus on only one of the elements contributing to the situation (i.e., the department chair).

      Anderson, D. (1999, February). The deans of the future. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC.

      Anderson, D. A., & King, J. P. (1987). The dean of education: A demographic analysis. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(6), 9-12.

      Baker, G. (1992). Cultural leadership: Understanding America's Community Colleges. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

      Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

      Blumberg, A. (1988). Beyond something called the deanship: A story about a memorable academic leader. Teachers College Record, 90(1), 85-98.

      Bowen, L. S. (1995). (Ed.). The wizard of odds: Leadership journeys of education deans. Washington: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

      Clifford, G. J., & Guthrie, J. W. (1988). Ed school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

      Dejnozka, E. (1978). The dean of education: A study of selected role norms. Journal of Teacher Education, 29(5), 81-84.

      Denemark, G. (1983). Coping with declining resources in teacher education: What deans can do. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 36-42.

      Dill, D. (1980). The deanship: An unstable craft. In D. Griffith & D. McCarty (Eds.), The dilemma of the deanship (pp. 261-284). Danville, IL: Interstate Printers and Publishers.

      Gardner, W. E. (1992). Once a dean: Some reflections. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 357-366.

      Geiger, J. (1989). Education deans as collaborative leaders. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 2-4.

      Gmelch, W. H. (1999, February). The education dean's search for balance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, DC.

      Gould, J. W. (1983). The academic deanship. New York: Teachers College Press.

      Heald, J. (1982). Report to the profession 1982 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Washington, DC: AACTE. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 216 010).

      Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, N. L. (1990). Professors and deans of education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 349-390). New York: Macmillan.

      Huffman-Joley, G. (1992, February). The role of the dean: Fostering teaching as scholarship in the School of Education learning community. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX.

      Judge, H. (1982). American graduate schools of education: A view from abroad. NY: Ford Foundation.

      Kapel, D., & Dejnozka, E.L. (1979). The education deanship: A further analysis. Research in Higher Education, 10, 99-112.

      Kerr, D. C. (1998). The education dean: Perspectives on the human dimension of restructuring. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Widener University, Chester, PA.

      Kersten, A. (1991, November). Control, control, complete control!!! Neurotic control relationships and the development of dysfunctional organizational cultures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

      Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally.

      Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

      Martin, J. L. (1993, April). Academic deans: An analysis of effective academic leadership at research universities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

      McCarty, D., & Reyes, P. (1987). Organizational models of governance: Academic deans' decision-making styles. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(5), 2-9.

      McGannon, B. J. (1987). Academic dean: Dimensions of leadership. Liberal Education, 59, 280.

      Morris, V. C. (1981). Deaning: Middle management in academe. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

      Morsink, K. (1987). Critical functions of the educational administrator: Perceptions of chairpersons and deans. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 17-22.

      Munitz, B. (1995). Wanted: new leadership for higher education. Planning for Higher Education, 24, 9-15.

      Riggs, R. O., & Huffman, S.B. (1989). Education deans respond to mandated program changes. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 15-22.

      Robbins, J. H., & Schmitt, D. M. (1994, February). Who is leading us toward quality professional development? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.

      Salmen, S. (1971). Duties of administrators in higher education. New York: Macmillan.

      Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

      Shell, S. M. (1997). Kant on punishment. Kantian Review, 1, 115-135.

      Shulman, L. S. (1993, December). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change, pp. 6-7.

      Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures, and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

      Thiessen, D., & Howey, K. R. (Eds.). (1998). Agents, provocateures: Reform-minded leaders for schools of education. Washington, D.C.: AACTE Publications.

      Wepner, S. B., D'Onofrio, A., & Willis, B. (in press). From practice to theory: Personal perceptions of the education deanship. Academy of Education Leadership Journal.

      Willmer, W. K. (1993). Blueprint for a small college. Currents, 19, 16-40.

      Wisniewski, R. (1977, March). The dean of education and the looking-glass self. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Professors of Education, Chicago, IL.

      Zimpher, N. L. (1995). What deans do: A reflection on reflections. In L. S. Bowen (Ed.), The wizard of odds: Leadership journeys of education deans (pp. 49-65). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Author Note