Yesterday, I had the opportunity to listen to Dr George Morgan from the University of Western Sydney on 'questioning leadership'.
How do we respond in situations where leadership behaviours are against what we believe to be morally and ethically wrong? Whilst Dr Morgan presented and invited discussion on this within his plenary, today I want to revisit his observations on the situation.
One of the many realities facing us is that once we assume a position of leadership, we immediately become answerable to a larger bureaucracy. We are answerable to those 'who inhabit a different universe and hence we are caught between former colleagues and our political masters'. In a bureaucratic hierarchy, each level above us is the bottom of another one.
The education sector across the world is in the middle of a messy shift as politicians and administrators corporatise education systems, viewing education as a 'marketplace' responding to 'consumer choice'.
Dr Morgan referenced Dr Thomas Docherty from the University of Warwick and articles he has written on the
unseen academy and
academic freedom. Education professionals, and system administrators in particular would do well to peruse these.
It is not only the education sector that is in the middle of this mess. Health professionals and others find themselves in conflict with the administration, operating in an environment of conflicting priorities and imperatives. Dr Morgan wisely reminds us that this is a cascading conflict and that there are administrators who were once colleagues.
Even in moments of deep despair at the state of bureaucratic hierarchies, I try remain hopeful that we can find something beyond the binary of yes/no, ether/or. In this seemingly intractable situation, there has to be a 3rd way, one that Roger Martin describes in his book
The Opposable Mind.
There are various reasons for our conscious or sub-conscious decision not to speak out, whatever our place in the bureaucratic hierarchy. Observed and lived experience may cause us to see any action as more trouble than it's worth and 'bound to fail'. We may also be choose to 'bubble wrap' ourselves from the environment around us and create a space in which to stay true to our values. Some are in a position and/or chose to take the risk and say 'no', enough is enough, and walk away.
I am reminded of bridges. We see resistance as futile, there being no alternative other than to precariously walk across the rotting bridge. We may hide under it hoping not to be seen, patching the supports where we can to try and prevent it all falling down. Alternatively we turn away and seek to find another safer and better maintained bridge to cross. It appears that openness about the reasons for choosing another path are received as a metaphorical burning of the bridge. In all cases we put ourselves at risk. At risk of physical (and psychological) harm due to the bridge collapsing from under us, or onto us; or from finding ourselves lost, unable to find a safer pathway.
It remains a point of great sadness for me that the despondency that can set in at the difficulty of finding a secure path, causes us to settle for a 'bridge' that we know is in a state of disrepair in the hope that this time it could be different.
The open and unseen warfare that exists in these environments takes our focus away from the very purpose of the organisation, from its very reason for being. This results in a despair and dissatisfaction all round; 'consumers' included.
