Chaos Theory: Reflections of Chief Academic Officers in Theological Education - Softcover

Softcover

ISBN 10: 0802866875 ISBN 13: 9780802866875

Publisher: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2011

Synopsis

Informative guide for academic deans at theological schools

Members of the Association of Theological Schools' Chief Academic Officers Society (CAOS) — deans and CAOs at more than 250 theological schools in the United States and Canada — face a number of unique vocational tasks and trials.

C(H)AOS Theory brings together in one volume perspectives from more than thirty deans and chief academic officers (CAOs) at theological schools across North America. These veteran administrators share their wisdom on a variety of topics related to academic leadership, from understanding institutional contexts and nurturing relationships to negotiating conflict, setting and meeting academic goals, building budgets, working with assessment and accreditation, and more.

With its rich amalgam of useful information, bold instruction on a host of academic leadership issues, and lively narratives on the ways that different colleagues address common challenges, C(H)AOS Theory will serve as a helpful resource for academic leaders.

About this title

About the Author

Kathleen D. Billman is John H. Tietjen Endowed Chair in Pastoral Ministry and professor of pastoral theology at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

C(H)AOS Theory

Reflections of Chief Academic Officers in Theological Education

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Copyright © 2011 Kathleen D. Billman and Bruce C. Birch
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8028-6687-5

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................................................................................................xiHonoring Complexities, Celebrating Colleagueship: What to Expect from This Book Kathleen D. Billman................................31. Academic Leadership and the Varieties of Theological Schools....................................................................232. Developing Vision and Serving Mission...........................................................................................443. The Vocational Call and Multifaceted Role of the CAO............................................................................634. Relating to the CEO.............................................................................................................895. The Dean's Role in Governance...................................................................................................1116. Faculty Leadership and Development..............................................................................................1337. The Dean's Relationship with Students...........................................................................................1548. Modeling/Leading in Teaching and Scholarship....................................................................................1759. Leading in Diversity: Personal Experiences and Institutional Choices............................................................19810. Orchestrating People and Processes.............................................................................................25111. Building the Academic Budget...................................................................................................28012. Balancing Formation, Academic Learning, and Ecclesiastical Goals...............................................................30213. Understanding and Using Assessment and Accreditation...........................................................................34514. Personal, Professional, and Spiritual Development..............................................................................380The Scholarship of Academic Leadership: A Postscript on the Work of Chief Academic Officers Daniel O. Aleshire.....................391CONTRIBUTORS.......................................................................................................................397

Chapter One

Academic Leadership and the Varieties of Theological Schools

Fins on the Left, Fins on the Right: Reading Context in Seminaries

Jana Childers

An Indispensable Compass for Surviving and Thriving

There are many reasons for a dean to put time and energy into exegeting context. A number of them have nothing to do with self-defense, but protecting your ability to do your job is an exceedingly common motivator. Far from being merely selfish or Machiavellian, it is a legitimate concern. Nobody is going to achieve your agenda for you. Whether your goal is to help your school live out its mission statement, envision a new future, reduce conflict, improve support for faculty, or strengthen student learning, accomplishing your goal depends on you. If you are not there to do it, the job won't get done. Something else will.

Most deans lead "from the center." In seminaries, deans live and move and have their being between two large entities, the president-and-board and the faculty. The interests, values, and work styles of the two groups can be quite different. Conflict, competition, or at least confusion over roles is common. When you see shark fins circling on your right and left, and as the song says, "you're the only bait in town," survival is key. Certainly the work of the office requires that the dean navigate among institutional forces. The ability to read cultural context can provide the dean with an indispensable compass. If you can read, you can anticipate. If you can anticipate, you can be ready to respond in constructive, effective ways. If you can respond in constructive, effective ways, you can meet your goals.

A surprising number of academic disciplines offer methodologies for exegeting context. Cultural anthropology, interpersonal communication theory, and various subfields within psychology and sociology are just the beginning of the list. Such diverse fields as engineering, archaeology, ethics, and literary theory also take an interest in this kind of work. Whether the focus of the investigation is on culture, ecology, process, or resources, there are many common tools.

1. Cultural approaches are often concerned with establishing identity. In theological education, a school's theological stripe might be examined in order to illuminate its culture. The tools of story analysis or rhetoric might be used to tease out information.

2. Ecological approaches involve focusing on the larger setting. The denomination's assumptions about the school's mission might be observed, for example, in the bishop's sermon or the Committee on Theological Education's report and used, in turn, to describe something of the school's ecology. The tools of rhetoric or content analysis might be used in such an investigation.

3. Process approaches are concerned with the dynamics of a situation. In a seminary, they might focus on governance style as a way of getting at a school's problems. Again, either story analysis, rhetoric, or content analysis might be among the tools used.

4. Resource approaches are concerned with who has what. In a seminary, noticing what programs are offered and/or what degree of participation is common in various programs might be an important way of teasing out information. The tools used to accomplish this might conceivably include any of the tools mentioned above. In addition, tools such as student surveys or longitudinal studies of data might be used.

Bridging these approaches is a four-step method that provides a basic pattern for exegeting many different kinds of situations. In Practicing Gospel: Unconventional Thoughts on the Church's Ministry, Edward Farley describes the phases of such a process:

1. Identify the situation's distinct and constituent features.

2. Uncover the suppressions of the past.

3. See the situation in its larger context.

4. Discern the situation's demand.

In seminaries, this method might be enhanced by consideration of additional factors:

• observations about denominational assumptions

• stories of congregations, denominational groups, and the seminary

• complaints of constituents (donors, board members, faculty, staff, students, etc.)

• the felt needs of various groups, how they dress, what lingo they use, what physical setting/use of space is common for them, how they express themselves in nonverbal interaction

• diverse world views

• various views of authority

• differing communication styles among constituents

Values analysis and/or content analysis are part of many of these approaches. They can be used in conjunction with Farley's method as well as others. Nora Tubbs Tisdale, for example, recommends asking questions of congregations such as:

• What symbols are important to this group?

• What traditions, if taken away, would cause trouble?

• What stories about the group are repeated most often?

• What attracts newcomers to the group?

• What key figures and personalities have shaped the group?

Such questions are obviously useful in seminary contexts as well.

The classic text on exegeting faith communities is James F. Hopewell's Congregations: Stories and Structures, which first appeared in 1987. Tisdale and a number of others working on contextual methods build on Hopewell, and there are many books on management and leadership that offer critical insights related to analyzing context.

Although there are abundant resources for doing contextual analysis in many scholarly disciplines, analyzing context from the vantage point of the dean's office may not be an area of expertise for many people who become deans. Any skills I have that are specific to deaning are skills that were learned on the job. Though I have put some effort into finding helpful literature on the subject, the study of context is something I know much more through field experience than through academic work. Some deans do enjoy doing a formal study of one methodology or another, but such systematic work is not necessary.

Each dean will bring a particular discipline to the task. What I know about exegeting context I understood first as a preacher and homiletician. I have expanded that experience through serving as a dean in a freestanding seminary, related to a mainline denomination and part of a larger consortium of nine schools. With this background and experience, I have found four tools especially useful in helping deans avoid becoming shark bait. They have to do with both the art of communication and the ability to step back and observe.

Contexting: Understanding the Community's Communication Style

The first tool helps you make broad observations about your community's communication styles. It provides tools to describe how your community goes about building a common context (i.e., a structure that supports or undergirds its communication). The tool is called "contexting."

Cultural anthropologist Edward T. Hall introduced the notion thirty years ago. In The Bush Was Blazing But Was Not Consumed, Eric H. F. Law developed and applied the concept in a way that has been widely used by faith communities. Law claims that all cultures may be grouped roughly into two groups: "high context" and "low context." High context groups are group oriented, they rely heavily on shared understandings ("very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted message"), conflict occurs when shared understandings are violated, face saving is important, and these communities tend to focus on relationship. Low context groups are more oriented toward the individual than the group, they use a more explicit communication style, their conflicts have more to do with individuals' expectations than the shared expectations of the group, facts are more important than "face," and they tend to focus on action and solutions more than on relationships. High context communities are considered more stable, and low context communities are considered more flexible. Moving from one to another involves obvious challenges.

When "John" applied for a promotion at his seminary, it was widely assumed that he knew what to expect. Having served on the faculty for a number of years, he was familiar with the group's processes and norms. However, few of his colleagues recognized that there were two different cultures at play in John's review process. The review committee's culture was fairly "low." The majority of the group was comprised of people of European heritage, embedded in the wider culture of academia. Norms about "fairness" and "judging a case on its merits" and "objective evaluation" were highly valued. But John's own culture-of-origin was a "high context" culture. His values in the areas of shared understanding and relationship were strongly held. Only his colleagues who themselves had significant experience in high context communities saw the potential for disaster. In the end it was this small cadre of colleagues from racial/ethnic minority groups who played a key role in reconciling the two communication styles.

John got the promotion, largely due to the good efforts of that small cadre of colleagues who were skilled in "contexting." It would be correct, I suppose, to say that the promotion committee was able to assess John's merits more objectively with the enhanced understanding the smaller group helped them achieve. But I think of it more as them being helped to see (however partially or temporarily) that their "low contexting" assumptions were biasing their evaluation. When their unconscious expectations were made conscious they were able to see John's positive qualities more clearly.

John's experience is not unusual. It was complicated, perhaps, by the fact that the people of his seminary thought of themselves as being fairly "high context." They did not realize that relative to other cultures they could easily be seen as "low." Despite their emphasis on relationships among people, their lip service to valuing the collective, and their respect for tradition, it turns out they really were not a high context culture at all.

Many seminary communities in the United States are low context cultures. Academic contexts often value explicitness. An eloquent senior colleague once expressed his frustration with a meeting moderator who wanted participants to shorten their speeches. "I love to be able to lay everything out," he said, extending his arm in a wide gesture. They also pride themselves on being open ("no second class citizens here") and favor direct confrontation — it took me a long time to understand that our faculty meetings are as long as they are because, at some level, we love nothing better than wrangling with each other! They can be very judgmental about high context cultures.

The confrontational style of many seminaries may seem direct, task-oriented, and quick to people from other cultures. People from high context cultures often respond to conflict by backing off, slowing down, and taking time to figure out where they stand in relation to others. "Then," as Eric Law says, "the judgment comes. 'Why can't they be honest? Why don't they want to find a solution? I can't read their minds! Why are they so passiveaggressive?'" As theological education continues to diversify, the insights provided by contexting will be increasingly important. The conflicts among world views, communication styles, and values of the constituent groups within seminaries must be parsed. Law and others make a good case for starting with communication styles. Fortunately, most academic communities have the facility and interest to analyze communication strategies. Gathering people to talk about talking may be an important first step on a dean's agenda. At the very least, noticing communication patterns is a good place for a dean to start reading context.

Your Leadership Style: What Kind of Motivator Are You?

Just as a sense of how your community communicates is important, it is helpful to identify your own style. On their first day in office, most deans can say whether they prefer a "command-and-control" approach or a "communicate-and-inspire" style. But you will want to know a bit more about yourself than that. Understanding your style in some detail may take time. The literature can be helpful in narrowing down the field. It can also lead a person into deeper confusion, so be judicious about which theorist or theorists you choose to read.

There are three questions that determine much of a person's leadership style:

1. How do you motivate people?

2. How do you manage yourself?

3. How do you deal with conflict?

Many deans think first about their self-management style: I'm not going to be as buttoned up as my predecessor, I'm going to let them know how I feel, or It's not becoming to a dean to wear her heart on her sleeve. But it can be helpful to start with the question of how you motivate people. Much of the rest of your leadership style will hinge on how you answer this question. Are you a visionary, someone who holds up a compelling picture of how life can be and invites others into it? Are you a coach, someone who is skillful at showing others how what they want connects with what the school wants? Are you a democratic leader, someone who makes others feel valued? Your choice among these three popular options (or a number of others) will have implications for both self and conflict management.

Answering the motivation question as specifically as you can is important. Too many administrators make the mistake common to beginning preachers — they assume that the power to motivate comes with the trappings of office (pulpit, vestments, and seminary degree for preachers; a big desk, title, and office for deans). But just as good sermons hang on the preacher's ability to get under a congregation's skin using imagery, narrative, or oratorical techniques, so good deaning depends on finding ways to motivate people. A chance to make a contribution will motivate some folks. Others will respond to an opportunity to connect more deeply with others. Some people like to hear shared dreams articulated. Still others want recognition, reassurance, or the chance to rise to a challenge.

Motivation almost always involves identifying a need, showing how the need can be satisfied, and "making the close." Leaders who use motivation effectively, however, often add a magic fourth step. After showing the need and establishing the need-satisfaction and before the close, they get others to visualize: "Can't you just see yourself chairing the review committee?" "Can you picture what it would be like if we could finish this project?" "I can see you making a real success of this." Different leadership styles employ various ways of motivating folks. But at some level most depend on the leader finding ways to draw others into the seminary's mission.

One caution fromthe world of preaching might be appropriate here. It is well known that two of the most powerful motivators—guilt and fear—have equally powerful boomerangs built into them. Guilt breeds avoidance, preachers say, and many of us have reason to know how true that is. Similarly, fear, though very effective in the short-term, has disastrous long-term effects, including paralysis and resentment. The long-term effects of fear are particularly difficult to remedy.

Distance: Getting on the Balcony

I once asked Barbara Brown Taylor, one of the nation's best-known preachers, what fueled her ability to do her work. She said her preaching was fueled by, among other things, the chance to get out of the country every so often. She commented that looking back at the United States from some distance and perhaps through the eyes of another culture had become important to her for the perspective it can provide. The ability to achieve critical distance is no less important for the administrative, political, and creative tasks that fill a dean's desk pad.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from C(H)AOS Theory Copyright © 2011 by Kathleen D. Billman and Bruce C. Birch. Excerpted by permission of William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co
• Publication date: 2011
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 0802866875
• ISBN 13: 9780802866875
• Binding: Paperback
• Number of pages: 399
• Editor: Billman Kathleen D., Birch Bruce C.