Leadership in Place: How Academic Professionals Can Find Their Leadership Voice (review)

Jon F. Wergin’s Leadership in Place collects nine stories that illustrate leaders in today’s academy. The contributing authors behind the tales aren’t all “leaders” by title; they are what Wergin terms “leaders in place”—people compelled by their passions and care for an institution and its mission to lead no matter where they fit in the pecking order of the collegiate setting. Wergin chooses not to define “leaders in place” in his opening chapter but lets the very honest, real-life examples of the chapters paint a picture for the reader, then defines “leaders in place” in the concluding chapter.

Wergin’s aim is to narrow the gap between academic workers and their formal leadership. This task begins with helping academic professionals (including faculty members) to believe that they “really are in a position to make a difference” (p. 245).

A few stories merit particular note. Professor X outlines how he and other faculty became leaders because they were faced with a new “illegitimate leader who had risen to power through the back door” (p. 48). Together the faculty members each used their talents to quietly change the system. In the end, the illegitimate administrator stepped down, and the faculty sent the clear message that they would lead if needed. The ability to rise to the occasion was a theme woven throughout the nine stories. A leader in place sees the need and takes action. One only needs the “opportunity, the ability, and the courage to sense the need for leadership in the moment, then seiz[es] that opportunity” (p. 224). And in many cases, like Professor X, they return to their daily duties until called upon again to lead in place.

Shelley A. Chapman and Linda M. Randall showed how a group without titular authority became leaders in place. In their chapter, a new chairperson enabled a group of adjuncts to rebuild a graduate program. Through communication and a renewed spirit, these part-time faculty members were “clamoring to be part of the new program” (p. 57). The authors identified five steps that tied this case a synthesis of the cited works on leadership (Heifetz, 1994) and learning (Mezirow, 1991).

The essential first step, “go deep,” meant that the adjuncts had to look beyond technical solutions and identify the “adaptive challenges,” to use Heifetz’s language. The other four are: (b) be patient with distress, (c) attend to needs, (d) monitor the process, and (e) regard process, which means adaptation is a process, not an event, and may occur slowly and may need encouragement (pp. 59–60). Chapman and Randall go deep in their account of leadership in place, giving the reader leadership and learning theory to develop the concept.

A more personal entry is provided by Carol A. Reineck, who ties her military background to principles of leading in place. Using the analogy of an army in which every soldier has the opportunity to lead (p. 129), she explained her task as an interim department chair tasked with three large initiatives. She needed every “soldier” to seize leadership opportunities to accomplish the jobs of making a major curriculum revision, transforming the curriculum to a web-based delivery system, and conducting a self-assessment/internal review.

Although Reineck’s superiors told her that “you” need to accomplish these milestones, she quickly changed the “my job” to “our job.” She appointed a faculty member from the department’s clinical side (in which faculty teach and supervise students in a health care setting) with a proven track record of effectiveness as a committed chair. This faculty member had 30 years of teaching experience and a “lower” academic title than some of the other committee members.

The appointee questioned Reineck’s selection, asking if she would be more comfortable with a tenured faculty member from the tenure-track side—obviously viewing leadership as something that...