Rethinking the “L” Word in Higher Education: The Revolution in Research on Leadership (review)

In its conceptualization and practice, leadership in higher education has undergone a paradigmatic shift in the last 20 years. Social constructivism, critical, and postmodern paradigms are being used to contextualize the study and practice of leadership in higher education. This much needed contemporary work, Rethinking the "L" Word in Higher Education by Adrianna J. Kezar, Rozana Carducci, and Melissa Contreras-McGavin (an edition of The ASHE Higher Education Report), captures the essence of this dramatic change. In the authors' words:

Leadership has moved from being leader centered, individualistic, hierarchical, focused on universal characteristics, and emphasizing power over followers to a new vision in which leadership is process centered, collective, context bound, non-hierarchical, and focused on mutual power and influence (p. ix).

Rethinking the "L" Word is an update to the 1989 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report authored by Bensimon, Neumann, and Birnbaum entitled Making Sense of Administrative Leadership: The "L" Word in Higher Education. The authors of the current edition acknowledge today's ongoing crisis of leadership on college campuses across the nation. This monograph offers timely and relevant perspectives for those engaged in the study and practice of leadership.

In helping researchers and practitioners understand the challenges of leading in higher education today, the text calls to attention how leadership has been influenced in the last two decades. The 1989 publication primarily defined leadership in the context of an institution's chief executive officer (i.e., president, chancellor, etc.). Kezar, et al. give insight into the complexity of higher education organizations through a new lens. This lens allows the reader to view the organizational and administrative structures of an institution as one interconnected, interdependent web of numerous sub-organizations. Influenced by new views, such as transformational leadership, and emerging theories, (e.g. chaos and complexity theories, social and cultural theories, contingency theories, and relational or team-based theories of leadership), this text expands the reader's understanding of the landscape of higher education. Within this new view of the higher education landscape, leadership no longer solely lies with the president. Today's institution will thrive only when individuals on all levels of the organization practice leadership. Previously, leadership had been conceptualized by primarily (and almost exclusively) looking to leaders. Leadership is now being re-conceptualized to be democratic, process-centered, and collaborative. Whereas independence "at the top" was previously emphasized, interdependence among leaders and constituents is vital today. A good leader in the past may have been defined as someone who kept their distance from the community they served; today's campus requires leadership that is involved and willing to share power in order to necessarily progress. For many years, management was identified as the motivation for leadership; today leadership aims to invoke change. Vision was at one time the responsibility of the president. This too has shifted to involve many constituents, both inside and outside of the campus community.

The authors also discuss a critical shift in theoretical perspectives. In the 1989 monograph, leadership is not presented as a transformational process. By contrast, Kezar, et al. explicitly challenge the reader to begin practicing transformational and transactional leadership. Unlike their predecessors, who presented solely leadership theories, these authors conceptualize leadership through paradigms, which are defined as " worldview(s) and . . . the main assumptions brought to the study of leadership" (p. 15). These distinct, yet interconnected paradigms allow the reader to trace the evolution of leadership theory, begin to understand the worldview through which a given theory has emerged, and critically examine the effectiveness of said theory. The text gives clear insight as to why research and practice of leadership has shifted over the past few decades in order to represent all constituents on college and university campuses.

The strength of this monograph lies in the authors' organization of the key concepts summarized above. Leadership is discussed through concepts of...