Journal of Professional Exercise Physiology
ISSN 1550-963X
Vol 9 No 4 April 2011
Stress at Work: The Role of Failed Leadership
Tommy Boone, PhD, MPH, MAM, MBA
Professor of Exercise Physiology
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
“…there is no more corrosive deterioration in today’s ethical norms than
the conviction that ‘I didn’t do anything illegal, so I didn’t do anything
wrong.’”
-- Daniel Yankelovich (Profit With Honor)
T
WO MAJOR AREAS of study in the academic community are the
conflicts that exist among professionals and between professionals and the
administration for which they work. Often, the first occurs when colleagues differ
in their values and professional expectations [1].
The second conflict is an
outcome of decisions by a highly bureaucratic administration. Either conflict can
be and generally is problematic for many reasons, especially since individuals are
usually unprepared for the conflict
and its incongruence.
A third
reason for concern is the hurt and
disappointment of a failed system
that does not understand the
importance of trust.
This article will address the
The purpose of this article is to
consider the relevance of ethical
behavior to academic institutions,
and its relationship to the function of
administrative leadership including
the relatively new concept of
“faculty autonomy.”
conflicts and the concerns that
result from each.
The primary
question: “How is it that during the 21st century the conditions are such that the
minds of educated men and women fail to embrace ethical principles, if not the
1
true understanding of Christian beliefs?” For example, is it not logical as well as
a firm reiteration of church teachings that it is the right of colleagues with
academic expertise to perform their specific duties? If it is true, then, of what
value is a system that allows bureaucratic traits of some to displace professional
ideals and norms of practice?
Without answers to these questions, there will continue to be a growing gulf
between the college teachers’ job expectations and the quality of education
students deserve.
In fact, it is more than reasonable to expect that if
administrators allow, encourage, or
Conformity to ethical thinking is a
responsibility of the administration,
which naturally depends on the
leadership in an academic
institution.
set in motion the blending of
elements that diminish the faculty,
working conditions will contribute
to stress and worse. Either or both
are quite legitimate outcomes of a
failed administration [2].
This
thinking is not new or redundant. Faith and commitment in the administrative
process are an accepted reality of professional ideals. After all, professionalism,
which is expected of administrators, includes a commitment to serving others
fairly.
Professionalism should also concern itself with honesty, respect, and
courtesy for others.
As a result of their education, experience, and training, administrators and
college teachers are expected to acquire a sense of professional identity that links
their thinking and behavior to “doing the right thing.”
After all, service to
students is service to society, and altruistic ideals are guided and defined by
intellectual alertness and integrity in the academic and educational process.
Regretfully, though, what constitutes the work of some college teachers can only
be defined as little respect for professional collegiality and ethical service to their
students! In other words, once a set of norms takes hold in academia, groupthink
ensures that it will become widespread. In the end, the faculty is forced towards
uniformity of norms, often at the expense of not wanting to.
2
Professionals in general, not just academic professionals are expected to have
the right to their own thinking.
Up to a point, they are given autonomous
behavior in their teaching and how they interact with students. What they believe
is considered critical in relation to the subject matter they teach. How else could
they function as professionals in their field? Yet, when coworkers intervene in
unethical and unacceptable ways, less prepared
colleagues are often used by the administration
to reshape their version of winning.
Such
destructive norms make it impossible for
college teachers to defend themselves. The end
result is a state of confusion, disorientation,
doubt, and stress.
Please appreciate that none of this thinking
is radical, for it is surely the reason for much
job insecurity, disappointment, and unfulfilled
expectations.
To think outside the box is a
cultural no-no in academia when the leadership
is weak. Indeed, the last thing college teachers
In academia in which
moral values of
administrators are hardly
ever under scrutiny, in
which there is the
widespread perception
that administrators are
ethical, that there are
serious improprieties in
academic transactions,
and that such behavior is
commonplace, the
importance of ethics is
inescapable and
significant.
are likely to do without direction from the
administration is rock the boat. The resulting
unmet career expectations triggered by the lack of leadership produce significant
stress at work.
The conflicts impair the faculty, “…psychologically by
demeaning or silencing, socially by unjustly discriminating against, and so
on….Evil also can be a perversion of a system, so that some parts of the system
are incapacitated. In relationships, impaired functioning can be understood as
alienation – persons alienated from one another…” [3].
Autonomy is a key ingredient to the college teachers’ professional work with
the freedom to teach without restraint, they can teach creatively.
But, not
everyone is interested in their colleagues’ freedom to practice. In fact, creating
conditions whereby faculty lack control is the means to which department chairs,
3
deans, and other administrators frustrate and control their colleagues. Any sense
of personal achievement or control over their personalized touch to “what is their
work” isn’t allowed. The outcome of which contradicts the underlying values of a
college education and, therefore, education as a profession. After this point sinks
in, the image of academia and its true reality literally becomes a stumbling block
to the mental understanding of educated men and women coping with life’s
challenges. Thus, the acknowledged failure of colleagues working together and
being supportive of one another contributes to even more job stress.
Collegiality is a myth in academia.
It is sugar coated with gestures of
teamwork and support, but neither is a
true sharing for fear of being punished if
one were to stumble on certain failures of
the administration to treat all academic
departments
and/or schools
equally.
Yes, the concept of punishment is real in
academia. Colleagues are fully aware of
the dean or chair’s role in discouraging
collegiality from doing certain things or
even thinking that differs from the status
quo. Instead, they promote conflict and
misunderstanding
by
demanding
Administrators must have
standards, both explicit and
implicit, of what is appropriate
to do or not to do when it
comes to dealing with faculty
members. After all, is it
necessary that employees
conform to what they believe is
acceptable to their superiors or
is it true that they should be
allowed a pattern of creativity
and shared understanding of
their vision?
a
narrow view of everyday events. Of course such behavior is resented by most
thinking members of the faculty, yet they fear being rejected or betrayed if they
were to say anything. Above all, they realize that there is the notion of sharing
work-related knowledge when in reality the support of new ideas can only come
from top down.
The emphasis is on service to the administration, not to the students or to
one’s beliefs or even one’s profession if they run counter to the primary duty to
provide assistance to status quo. All of this raises the question, “Why?” Is it
4
really necessary to punish a person for his or her beliefs, dreams, and passions
that appear to co-mingle with intellectual debate to survive? The concept of
professional norms that emphasize service to society and altruistic ideals are true
only for the select few academic majors with a high financial return to the
institution. Is it even possible that administrators could deny the truth of these
statements?
Unfortunately, “gaming the system” is a process common to many business
models that link behavior to the bottom line. It is no wonder that some college
teachers find themselves exhausted and at such a depth of despair that they sense
their worth and work as shallow beginnings going nowhere. The hypocrisy is
obvious. The administrators are viewed as royalty, partly for their power to
corrupt the educational process and
convict faculty at their whims.
Here’s a question: “What
causes administrators of
academic institutions to act
unethically?” Better yet,
rather than wait for an
answer, why aren’t the
administrators developing an
organizational climate in
which ethical conduct and
decision-making justify new
thinking and creativity.
Often,
their destructive norm goes uncontested
and seldom set straight. After the damage
is done, many deans and vice-presidents
leave their positions to find themselves
yet in a similar position elsewhere to
distort and make a mockery of the
faculty’s commitment to professionalism.
In addition to the profound simplicity
that administrators demonstrate in regards
to “what is” quality teaching, they still
have failed to transform their everyday thinking about evaluating instructors at the
end of each academic semester. One indication of their heads buried deep in
yesterday’s thinking is the simple failure to acknowledge that students who fail or
don’t want to be challenged by their teachers will do everything they can to make
the teachers look bad. That’s why students love to evaluate their teachers at the
end of each course. It’s not illegal, so they go for it. They win by giving their
teachers poor marks. That way the faculty who look for ways to punish the
5
“hard” teacher by bending the rules to gain access to their own needs, desires, and
interests can do so without breaking any rules.
Unless department chairs, faculty members, and administrators are willing to
think differently, nothing will change. But, of course that is the point isn’t it?
The authority structure of a bureaucratic institution and the administrative stamp
they wish to use when it benefits them (i.e., as in removing a faculty member
from his/her teaching duties) are incompatible with what academic professionals
require to do their best work. For this reason it is difficult for college teachers to
balance responsibilities to their students and to the institution. This may cause
conflict, especially when a sense of personal ownership is pushed aside for
personal reasons by coworkers and/or administrators.
It is difficult to imagine this way of thinking without experiencing it, but rest
assured that it happens. Those who have felt powerless as they are re-positioned,
demoralized, and separated from normal institutional tenure and work conditions
say they are in hell! This is the problem to which the personal and family effects
are under-estimated or simply overlooked. While there is no reason to believe
that such behavior is appropriate, it is seldom analyzed and/or corrected. In truth,
it is the equivalent of “raping” a
person and, then, requiring the
teacher to watch the video of
being rape by his/her colleagues
and administrators on a daily
basis. For those willing to fight
the chaos and failed leadership,
Ethics is everyone’s responsibility.
The administrator’s challenge is to
ensure a high degree of congruence
between the academic institution’s
beliefs and the faculty member’s
beliefs, feelings, and behaviors.
one wonders if partners in crime
will look back and express genuine regret.
The underestimation of emotional harm and hurt is significant, often arguing
for a dimensionless frame of reference by those in the power position. Those who
have been emotionally raped experience feelings of unbelievable stress, not just
discouragement or moments of being lost or emotionally overwhelmed by what
6
has happened to them. They understand but can’t accept that life as they were
accustomed to no longer exist. It is no wonder that they feel like giving up.
Disappointed by the intellectual dishonesty from coworkers, they suspect that
every aspect of their work is increasingly meaningless. Thus, they look for
opportunities that confirm their sense of worth about themselves.
The only faculty members left standing are those who are determined to fight
the injustice. They boldly go to work with their heads held high even though they
feel emotionally circumcised as a precondition of their continued employment.
Disappointment isn’t a strong enough word for their unhappiness. The experience
at work is now measured by indifference and diminished input.
It destroys
autonomy and collegiality. Thus, it is
not an exaggeration to always expect
the worst to happen. But, it should be
The ASEP exercise physiologists
demonstrate their commitment to
a professional set of expectations
by clarifying meaning, unifying,
and intensifying professionalism
in exercise physiology. This
process, repeatedly followed,
earns and sustains credibility
over time.
obvious that if academia is to survive,
let along recapture creativity and
passion, there is no time to lose in
getting rid of personal greed, power,
and organizational politics.
Indeed, the lack of collegial and
supportive working relationships and
satisfactory interactions with students
are clearly related to ethical decision-making and behavior. Failing to grasp this
point only allows traditional organizational thinking and radical beliefs to produce
more stressful work experiences, which is consistent with findings reported in
other studies [4, 5]. The unmet expectations of college teachers result in workrelated stress and decreased welfare of their students. The primary concerns of
teaching, supportive relationship, and satisfying student interactions are in
conflict with the excessive bureaucratic practices.
People in power who tell lies or omit the truth do so to gain financially and/or
socially.
That’s why the idea of treating colleagues with dignity is a joke,
7
especially when the leadership fails to correct an injustice. In fact, it is wellknown that the cause of ethical failure in academic institutions can often be traced
to the organizational culture and the failure on the part of the leadership to
promote ethical ideas and practices [6]. This is the problem that faces the faculty.
How can they do their work with the obvious asymmetry of power? Isn’t it the
responsibility of the leadership to promote trust? And if it is, then, shouldn’t it be
held accountable for regulating itself effectively?
The convergence of administrative norms with personalized norms of selfinterest has created the conditions for the perfect academic storm. This lack of
integrity among those in academia isn’t well publicized. It should be because
accountability and social ethics set the standards for how college teachers and
administrators should act.
Most college teachers are unhappy about the
deterioration of ethical standards. They are tired of skating on ever-thinner ice
year-after-year and yet suffer from
the consequences of trying to do the
right things for the right reasons.
They believe telling the truth,
The problem that faces the
academy is how it can police the
asymmetry of power.
caring about the people they work
with, and showing respect for the
rights of others are important. The thinning out of ethical norms and the mistrust
of administrators are so widespread that both threaten institutional productivity
and competitiveness. This failure in ethical behavior is displayed in the incivility
between departments, which has often led to the proliferation of selfish cultures.
Where is the trust within politics and greed? To trust is have certain expectations,
especially “feeling secure” in one’s work. There is also the element of having
confidence in administrators and colleagues that they will not do harm to you or
things in which you have an investment [6].
8
This thinking highlights an important and necessary core feature of academia.
That is, the relationship between administrators and faculty is based upon an
obvious asymmetry of power as exemplified by the faculty’s vulnerability to their
actions. This is why trust is essential and necessary component of an effective
leadership. Trust promotes ethical behavior. When administrators forget this
vital point or when they turn a blind eye to it, they cannot be considered reliable
or trustworthy. After all, it is the conscientious, reliable administrator who “does
the right thing.” When administrators fail to act ethically, it is not possible to
trust them.
They are unpredictable
and unreliable, thus it is logical to
expect that they will harm faculty
The best way to encourage others
to trust you is to act ethically and
be transparent about it.
-- Andrew Brien [6]
and/or those things about which they
care. It is no wonder that so many
faculty members build walls between
themselves and administrators.
The loss of a moral compass is a major concern in academia, especially since
the culture of corruption is having significant negative effects on the faculty and
families, the institution and profession, and the students. This point requires
serious deliberation if the advancement and well-being of the faculty, students,
and society are to be realized. Ethical behavior and trust are expected of college
administrators. Being trustworthy means that the administrators are likely to be
ethical as well. As David Putnam [7] said, “Stocks of social capital, such as trust,
norms and networks, tend to be self-reinforcing and cumulative. Virtuous circles
result in social equilibria with high levels of cooperation, trust, reciprocity, civic
engagement and collective well-being.”
The conclusion then is that academic institutions that allow for unethical
behavior cannot be trusted to use its professional capacities altruistically. This
means the leadership has failed the institution, faculty, and students. Further, the
failure encourages the opportunistic defectors to act unethically if there is a
chance they will benefit. The failure to be trustworthy erects barriers and creates
9
stress at work. This means the failed leadership does not do those things that lead
to the faculty being helped. As a result, an institution that is perceived by faculty,
students, and parents to be untrustworthy harms the reputations of the entire
professional community. Trust is at the heart of professionalism and credibility.
Thus, isn’t it obvious that the cultivation of trust is central to decreasing the stress
at work?
Mark Twain’s observation that fish rot from the head down
is an excellent ending to this article. Similarly, it has been
observed more than once that academic institutions “rot”
from the administrators down to the faculty. The moral is
that if it recognized that failed leadership leads to a failure
of faculty cooperation and trust, then, leadership that
fosters a culture of trust contributes to a shared power,
accountability, and well-being. And, when trust plays a
vital role in the activities in which professionals engage, a
common expectation is a significant decrease in the stress
at work.
References
1. Lait, J. and Wallace, J. E. (2002). Stress at Work: A Study of
Organizational-Professional Conflict and Unmet Expectations. Industrial
Relations. 57:3:463-490.
2. Williamson, D. A. (1996). Job Satisfaction in Social Services. New York,
NY: Garland.
3. Peters, K. E. (2008). Understanding and Responding to Human Evil: A
Multicausal Approach. Zyon. 43:3:681-690.
4. Collings, J. A. and Murray, P. J. (1996). Predictors of Stress Amongst
Social Workers: An Empirical Study. British Journal of Social Work.
26:3755-387.
5. Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C. L. (1997). Managing Workplace Stress.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.
6. Brien, A. (1998). Professional Ethics and The Culture of Trust. Journal of
Business Ethics. 17:391-409.
7. Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern
Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10