Running head: GOOD ACTORS OR GOOD SOLDIERS
Political Frames and Leadership Principles in Good Actors or Good Soldiers?
Frederick R. Tench
Virginia Commonwealth University
1
Running head: GOOD ACTORS OR GOOD SOLDIERS
2
Political Frames and Leadership Principles in Good Actors or Good Soldiers?
All four Bolman and Deal frames and Drath’s three leadership principles are present in
the article Good Actors or Good Soldiers? However, the Bolman and Deal structural and
political frames seem particularly pertinent for analysis. Likewise, Drath’s leadership principles
of personal dominance and interpersonal influence appear to be the leadership principles best
connected to the fact set. The article very effectively captures several aspects of academic
promotion and tenure. It emphasizes that rules, authority, and processes are in place for tenure –
the structural frame. Moreover, it conveys the criticality of senior faculty support, the necessity
to identify supportive colleagues, the frustration on the part of junior faculty members to be good
actors, and the negative implications for not playing politics – the political frame. Throughout
the article, there are several examples of the use of personal dominance and relational dialogue in
setting direction, creating commitment, and meeting adaptive challenges during the promotion
and tenure process (Drath, 2001).
Guidelines for faculty appointment, promotions, and tenure are well documented in
higher education. Successful candidates for promotion and tenure must demonstrate high
achievement in teaching, research, and service as they progress through the ranks from
instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. Excellent student evaluations,
publications in high impact journals, presentations at professional conferences, and public
service are expected of candidates by higher education promotion and tenure committees.
Furthermore, deadlines for paperwork submission, the size and scope of review committees,
options for appeal, and timelines to be followed are outlined in detail. Contributing to the highly
structured frame of promotion and tenure is that higher educational institutions generally operate
Running head: GOOD ACTORS OR GOOD SOLDIERS
3
within a professional bureaucracy structural configuration (Bolman & Deal, 2008). To be
successful within this structure requires scrutiny to process and scholarly accomplishment.
On the other hand as the article points out, a strong vita is not the only factor in achieving
tenure. Political skills and a candidate’s ability to “fit in” are often equally important. Candidates
must invariably play politics in the academy. Accordingly, they gravitate to senior professors
who can mentor them, ensure they receive appointments to important faculty committees, and
serve as their advocates during the promotion and tenure process. Even though universities and
colleges are very hierarchical and bureaucratic in structure, individual departments are generally
decentralized with lots of independence to set their own parameters for promotion and tenure. In
addition, tenured professors are immune to formal interference and sanctions. They also have
substantial control of what they teach, the research they conduct, and the university activities
they attend (Bolman & Deal, 2008). As a result of this freedom from accountability, personal
agendas and power brokering often become an integral part of culture in academia.
Consequently, this cultural independence emboldens departments to develop their own
approaches to teaching evaluation, promotion, and culture. Senior faculty members that have
gone through the grueling promotion and tenure process expect junior faculty to do likewise. As
previously mentioned, junior faculty look for mentors who are not only skilled in the process but
who are also powerful and protective. Politically savvy junior faculty members shrewdly identify
key faculty players, their interests, and their power – what Bolman and Deal (2008) refer to as
“mapping the terrain.” Once that mapping is complete, many junior faculty members work at
cultivating political skills that are at times much more critical to their success than the traditional
factors associated with promotion and tenure. Within this highly charged political frame, it is
Running head: GOOD ACTORS OR GOOD SOLDIERS
4
extremely challenging for younger professors to be good soldiers rather than good actors. This is
precisely the crises of conscience that Dr. Sharon faced in Good Soldiers or Good Actors?
It is in the context of the tightly structured tenure process and political frame that Drath’s
personal dominance and relational dialogue leadership principles are connected in the article. For
example, the personal dominance style of leadership is used by Dr. Jones. As the senior member
of the Tenure and Promotion Committee, Dr. Jones not only wields significant clout but also
uses his position to push a personal agenda. In fact, Dr. Jones is such an imposing figure that
even the departmental chairman avoids confronting Dr. Jones. Instead the departmental chair
opts to meet with their dean over departmental funding. Dr. Jones’s personal dominance
principle is so strong that Dr. Sharon is considering Dr. Jones’ request to support a candidate she
does not think is fully qualified for promotion. Dr. Sharon gives serious thought to supporting
Dr. Jones’ candidate just so Dr. Jones will support her own promotion request. Within the
independent political framing of the higher education tenure track process, this kind of personal
dominance can often set direction although true commitment to the leader may not be
forthcoming.
In contrast to Dr. Jones, Dr. Sharon engages in relational dialogue. She at least attempts
to talk to Dr. Jones. She also considers the possibility of talking to another colleague. Although
the departmental chair avoids Dr. Jones, the department chair does debate departmental funding
with the dean. While Dr. Sharon is questioning whether to be complicit with Dr. Jones’ request,
she considers using dialogue with the intention of a creating a more committed and inclusive
promotion and tenure process. This is difficult given the political frame in which the tenure
process lives. However, by engaging in relational dialogue, Dr. Sharon can become a good
soldier, resist an improper request, and neutralize the influence of politics in her department. In
Running head: GOOD ACTORS OR GOOD SOLDIERS
5
short, her adaptive challenge in this situation is to convince Dr. Jones to recognize the limits of
Dr. Jones’ personal dominance style so the department will be stronger and more vibrant.
In Good Soldiers and Good Actors?, the capacities and limits of personal dominance and
relational dialogue principles can be compared to and contrasted with the structural and political
framing prevalent in the article. The tenure process is very structured and is bound by both
departmental and institutional processes. Although the structure is laid out for junior faculty,
inter-departmental autonomy and the independence of tenured faculty have created an
environment that is highly political. Candidates for promotion and tenure not only need sterling
credentials but also collegial relationships with their fellow departmental members, especially
senior faculty. As a result of the lack of accountability and the power that being a tenured
professor brings, senior faculty members often engage in personal dominance to get what they
what. Accordingly, junior faculty morph into good actors to succeed in their institution’s
promotion and tenure process. They take the politically expedient path rather than the high road
of being a good soldier. By attempting to engage in relational dialogue, junior faculty may be
reframing the long-followed path of tenure as experienced by current senior faculty.
Running head: GOOD ACTORS OR GOOD SOLDIERS
6
References
Bolman, L. G. &. Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Drath, W. H. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.