Discussion: In The Middle Of This Week’s Video With Dr. Adri

Discussion: In the Middle In this Week’s Video Dr Adrianna Kezar Pro

In this week's discussion, we analyze how political issues can counteract or undermine collaborative leadership strategies as recommended by Dr. Adrianna Kezar. Kezar emphasizes inclusive, participatory approaches to leadership that foster shared responsibility and collective problem-solving within academic institutions. However, due to the inherently political nature of higher education organizations, political dynamics often pose significant challenges, potentially hindering such collaborative efforts.

Political issues in higher education frequently manifest as conflicts between stakeholders pursuing divergent interests—such as faculty autonomy versus administrative control, resource allocations, or institutional priorities. These conflicts tend to reinforce siloed mindsets and fosters environments where collaboration becomes difficult. For instance, faculty members may resist administrative directives that they perceive threaten academic freedom, actively opposing or circumventing collaborative initiatives. Administrators, on the other hand, might prioritize institutional rankings or financial goals over shared governance, leading to resistance or superficial engagement with collaborative leadership efforts.

Such political resistance can stem from deeply rooted power struggles, organizational inertia, or conflicting values and agendas. When political considerations dominate organizational decision-making, they often serve to preserve existing hierarchies or protect vested interests, resulting in a distrustful environment that is antithetical to the transparency, mutual respect, and shared authority essential for effective collaboration. Additionally, politics can influence resource distribution, leading to resentment or competition that further undermines collaborative efforts.

An example from my personal experience illustrates these dynamics. At my former university, there was an attempt to implement a comprehensive faculty development program aimed at improving teaching quality through cross-departmental collaboration. The initiative required input and cooperation from multiple departments. However, entrenched political issues such as departmental autonomy and competition for resources created formidable barriers. Department chairs prioritized their own agendas, resisting the centralized oversight of the program. In some cases, fear of losing control over their department’s budget and autonomy led to disruptions or minimal participation. The university administration’s efforts to foster collaboration were undermined owing to this politicized environment, characterized by competing interests and mistrust.

This scenario exemplifies how institutional politics can obstruct collaborative leadership. The resistance was rooted in perceived threats to departmental independence, which stoked fears of losing influence and control. Leaders within departments prioritized protecting their turf, which hampered the collective effort to enhance institutional practices. In this context, political motives influenced decision-making processes, sidelined collaborative strategies, and ultimately thwarted the broader goal of institutional improvement.

Overcoming these political challenges requires strategic approaches grounded in transparency, shared governance, and relationship-building. Leaders should foster open dialogues to address underlying concerns, establish clear shared goals, and ensure equitable participation. Building trust across stakeholders is crucial, as is aligning institutional incentives with collaborative objectives. Leaders must also work to de-politicize decision-making processes, emphasizing common institutional priorities over individual or departmental interests. Transparent communication, accountability, and inclusive participation serve as vital tools to mitigate political resistance and cultivate a culture receptive to collaboration.

In conclusion, political issues pose significant barriers to collaborative leadership in higher education institutions. They often reinforce siloed mentalities, breed mistrust, and foster conflicts of interest that undermine collective efforts for institutional change. Recognizing these challenges allows institutional leaders to devise strategic interventions that promote inclusiveness, transparency, and shared responsibility—key components for successful collaboration in complex political environments. Understanding and navigating institutional politics is therefore essential for effective leadership and sustainable organizational improvement.

References

• Honig, A. S. (1995). Choosing childcare for young children. Handbook of parenting, 4.
• Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership: Bringing diverse voices to the table. About Campus, 5(3), 6–11.
• McClellan, G. S., & Stringer, J. (2016). The handbook of student affairs administration (4th ed.). Wiley.
• Tierney, W. G. (2001). Overcoming obstacles to reform. About Campus, 6(2), 20–24.
• Pungello, E. P., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (1999). Why and how working women choose child care: A review with a focus on infancy. Developmental review, 19(1), 31-96.
• Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2004). Meeting today's governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future research agenda. Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 371–399.
• Astin, A. W. (1992). The challenge of partnering with faculty. Educational Record, 73(3), 12-17.
• Haugan, M. P. (2019). Building trust in complex organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(4), 418-432.
• Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2009). Overcoming Obstacles to Innovation as a Shared Enterprise: Engaging Faculty and Staff in Change. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 423-448.
• Yelon, S. L., & Sorey, D. (1999). Strategies for navigating organizational politics. Harvard Business Review, 77(4), 132-138.