In reading Bedeian’s scathing critique of dean’s bad behavior the first question that occurred to me was: And…this is unique how? To be fair, I think Bedeian is really writing an article about the pitfalls of leadership and how to navigate sudden rises to power without completely destroying yourself and everyone around you. His analysis and his solutions are highly generalizable. I assume he just writes about deans because his experience is in academia. Methinks a grudge or two might lay barely below the surface as well. But I digress.
Bedeian points out that deans fail miserably when they retreat into silos of insulated power, and lose touch with their reference group of origin, i.e. the faculty. Deans often surround themselves with sycophantic yes-men who enable the dean’s growing addiction to admiration. By isolating dissenting voices on the fringe, deans grow ever more disconnected from the reality of their colleges. Bedeian seems to resent that deans often prioritize raising funds over scholarly pursuits, though in this it seems the dean is as much a victim of systemic necessity as anyone.
These criticisms could easily be transferred to any situation where one individual has gained power over a group, whether it’s a fast-food shift supervisor or the President of the United States. I think the basic fundamentals of a power dynamic gone off the rails is the same all over–the only variation would be in the magnitude of the consequences. The key takeaway for me is that effective leaders stay as connected as possible, invite dissent, and model the values they want to instill in the organization. Easier typed, then done.
