Revolution Lullabye

July 2, 2015

Harrington, Fox, and Hogue: Power, Partnership, and Negotiations: The Limits of Collaboration

Harrington, Susanmarie, Steve Fox, and Tere Molinder Hogue. “Power, Partnership, and Negotiations: The Limits of Collaboration.” WPA: Writing Program Administration 21.2/3(Spring 1998): 52-64.

The writers, who are all part of a collaborative WPA structure at their institution, use situations at their institution to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of collaborative administration. They maintain that collaborative administration is possible, and the diverse perspectives it invites has helped unite and strengthen their writing program. The writers do acknowledge that collaborative administration is difficult, and name four potential problems that emerge from collaborative administration:

  1. The tendency to focus inward instead of also collaborating with partners outside the writing program/department;
  2. The issues of authority and expertise created inside and outside the program because members of the collaborative administration have different titles, roles, positions, and responsibilities;
  3. The desire to avoid conflict in the decision-making process, which can create false consensus and silence dissenting opinions
  4. “Twin citizenship,” or how members of the writing program administration committee are torn between obligations and identities in the program, the institution, the community, and the discipline.

Notable Notes

They explain that there are few arguments/analyses of collaborative administration that address “how such partnerships come to be created in a hierarchal university environment, how power (even the decentralized, facilitated kind) is acquired, and how collaboration works on a daily basis” (53-54).

Collaborative administration is difficult, made more difficult because administration is not always recognized work/labor/scholarship in institutions, comp/lit divides in academic departments.

Gives their local context: there is no WPA, but rather a Writing Coordinating Committee

The Writing Coordinating Committee – both TT and NTT faculty. Partly conceived as a way to get NTT/adjunct faculty involved, “decentralize decision-making,” increase connection between composition research and teaching. (54)

Explanation of the composition of the Writing Coordinating Committee. 10 members. The chair (TT) rotates every two years. No release time for the chair. The NTT faculty have a 4/4 load, the TT have a 3/3 load, and some of the members of the Writing Coordinating Committee get a 1-2 course release per semester for WPA work. The NTT faculty do most of the WPA work on the committee

Uses Molly Wingate’s discussion of writing center politics to look at the collaboration, Wingate’s work draws on Werner Rings’ description of four kinds of collaboration: neutral collaboration, unconditional collaboration, conditional collaboration, and tactical collaboration (57)

Quotable Quotes

“Living the experience of a postmodern WPA can be complicated and troubling” (52) – arguing that the theories of postmodern WPA leadership – of being situated, contextual, in networks, collaborative – might be more difficult than we’re giving it credit in our scholarship.

“While the arguments for collaborative administration are clear, the political dimensions of collaboration and partnership have been undertheorized, and we use our insitituion’s administrative structure as a starting point for analysis” (54).

“On a broader level – and this is where the collaborative structure makes a difference – the committee seeks to coordinate the work of writing program faculty; to represent the interests of adjunct faculty in the department and the university; and to link the writing program with other offices on campus with an interest in writing” (56).

“The mix of experience, expertise, and perspective on the committee provides much-needed diversity, and compensates for individual shortcomings…No single person dominates the overall policy-making responsibility of the committee. The writing program does not speak with a single voice, but it does, on the whole, speak from consensus” (56).

Collaborative administration creates “a web of relationships” (56)

“Much of our energy (and specific responsibilities delineated by the department) is devoted to collaborating with each other; little to collaborating with other academic units” (58).

“Composition, like math or reading if not more so, invites Monday morning quarterbacks” (59).

“Individual committee members (and likely individual members of the writing faculty as well) have sometimes chosen silence over conflict, enabling what appears to be consensus, but actually creating imposed orthodoxy. The imposition of orthodoxy is no less unfortunate if accomplished via collaboration than if directed by a single person” (60).

“A cooperative administrative structure will not automatically promote pluralism. Without an agreement to converse and a willingness to explore disagreements, shared administration can degenerate into a front, masking the will to power of some dominant person or group on the committee or in the department. Our collective leadership must be authorized by the conversation of committee members – and by the conversation of the whole writing faculty” (61).

“Writing program administration is, in many ways, an exercise in power. As long as wirting programs are staffed by teaching assistants or part-time faculty, and as long as required writing courses are a key element of university general education requirements, writing program administrators will possess a great deal of power over the curriculum, teachers, and students. This power, something we don not often acknowledge in a discipline which privileges cooperation, collaboration, and empowering others, is not necessarily evil” (62).

“The unitary WPA retains certain advantages over a shifting, collaborative, contextual writing program administration. The locus of power is clear in the unitary model, and that clarity speeds communications (especially outside the department)” (63).

November 5, 2013

Cox, Plagens, and Sylla, The Leadership-Followership Dynamic

Cox, Raymond W. III, Gregory K. Plagens, and Keba Sylla. “The Leadership-Followership Dynamic: Making the Choice to Follow.” The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 5.8 (2010): 37-51. Print.

The authors give a framework for a follower-centric definition of leadership, putting the focus on the followers, not the leaders. They argue that it is followers, not leaders, who determine an organization’s success, and in order for an organization to be effective, both leaders and followers need to trust one another and understand each other’s roles. Following and followership are not the same – following can be passive, but followership is an active choice. The authors draw on leadership studies in history, psychology, management, political science, business administration, and public administration and present an in-depth overview of leadership and followership theories from the early twentieth century onward.

Notable Notes

Leaders have to solve problems, so one of their jobs is to recruit problem solvers (46). – leaders have to find someone to follow them (47)

James MacGregor Burns (1978) – argued for two kinds of leadership: transactional v. transformative. Their definition of a follower-centric idea of leadership depends on Burns’ scholarship and definitions

Challenges the notion that leaders alone can make an organization better (38) – acknowledges that there has been a shift from transactional leadership to transformational leadership (38)

Defines leadership, followership, leading, following

Gives a detailed overview of the history of leadership theory – the evolution, corrections, recorrections: leadership as command, cooperative leadership, leadership of groups, the psychology of leadership, organizational leadership, the new public management, the leadership-followership dynamic

Leadership-followership dynamic: cites early and mid-20th century theorists that were interested in worker motivation and their affinity to the organization, the human/follower component to leadership. Leadership requires legitimacy (ethos) (44)

Quotable Quotes

“followership is an a priori choice (self-conscious) of the individual in the context of his or her relationship to the nominal leader” (48) – followership is not compelled by rank or hierarchy; following is (48).

“Leadership means understanding how to promote excellence and protect values in the workplace. This collaboration requires changes in the assumptions about leadership and its definition. Leadership emerges through a stance of flexibility and adaptability, trust from the followers, and accommodation to inevitable change. This creates a partnership instead of a hierarchal relationship” (43).

“In summary, leaders and followers both must have the ability to interchange their role. Meaning that the leader must be decisive and desirous of becoming the follower, and the follower must be capable as well as desirous of leading. In addition, leadership is not only a behavioral attitude but it also includes ethics and intention” (45).

“The follower is no longer a mere subordinate who accepts and obeys the dictates of the leader. The leader or leadership also is transformed due to the complexity and the necessity of collaboration. Understanding each other’s role and values is essential in this transformation of the traditional view in organizations” (47).

 

Blog at WordPress.com.