View Portfolio

The Emotional Dimension of Leadership:

7 lessons from 3 decades
by Constantine W. Curris

In a world awash with excellent leadership tomes (the writings of Jim Collins and William George are personal favorites), my thoughts on this topic may be of little added value. Nevertheless, twenty-six years in the university presidency and another ten working with university leaders provides a perspective I gladly share. Seven leadership lessons learned over the decades follow:

1. Get Good People.

From my perspective the most important leadership task is to identify and retain men and women of talent, temperament and commitment. This task overshadows all others. In the words of a former colleague, Dero Downing, “Get good people and good things will happen.”

Every president I have known agrees with this call, yet many do not move beyond rhetoric. In some instances colleagues become smitten with a candidate and neglect to make (note I did not use the phrase “ask others to make”) reference calls— particularly to colleagues. In other instances, especially after presidential action removing a vice president, dean or coach, presidents abdicate their responsibility to search committees. While there is immediate gratification in giving friends of the aggrieved a role in the selection process, presidents often back away from the selection process and find themselves saddled with candidates not of their preference. Presidents should be truly engaged with the search committee. Leaders fail to recognize that the judgment of others on a personnel dismissal is often deferred until a successor is chosen and evaluated. “Get good people” is measured by outcomes, not processes.

2. Establish a Decision-Making Framework.

A multitude of decisions are made throughout the university—mostly outside the offices of the president and provost. By default the framework for most of those decisions is based on authority. The question too often asked is “who should make this decision,” rather than “how should this decision be made.” In unionized campuses struggles unfold as to who should have the authority (“power”) to decide what question. And even on non-unionized campuses, reoccurring disagreements focus on what authority does this office or person or senate have.

I have long favored, and have had success (in some instances limited, in others extensive) with a decision-making framework built around the concept of “expertise.” This approach identifies the individual or team of individuals best capable of understanding an issue and asking this party to recommend a proposed solution or resolution. That proposal in turn needs to be shared with a) those who will be affected by the decision, and b) those who must implement it—for their reactions and recommendations. Frequently, a clear consensus emerges; in other instances, the expert revises the proposal to accommodate concerns that have been raised. Granted, there will be instances when no consensus emerges or an impasse develops, at which the issue of who has the authority to decide resurfaces. But throughout the campus, that should be the exception, not the norm.

Read more (pdf)