COLLABORATIVE LEADERSHIP

                                                                                                 Collaborative Leadership and Problem Solving

                                                                                                   Moving Beyond Compromise

       Collaborative leaders are problem solvers. Leaders facilitate the ability to learn and to see issues from various perspectives by working through differences. Compromise is at best a temporary solution and at worst it leaves all parties dissatisfied. Moving beyond compromise to work through problems and arrive at solutions that benefit everyone must be the goal of every leader. Also, on matters of principle compromise does not work and may even be a clear sign of weakness on the part of a leader if it diminishes the fundamental human rights or safety of people in any way. However, even though collaboration is not compromise, it requires the ability to see all sides of issues and work through problems in a way that enables all parties to begin to perceive possible areas of resolution. This is Collaborative Leadership through critical thinking and problem solving that leads to the best possible decisions, policies and solutions. The following is an example in education of how  two departments handled the problem solving process - one through compromise and the other through collaboration (Also see Leadership in Education).

       With their increasing funds from their Adult Program, the Dean of Education at Old School University decided to revamp their curriculum to market their program and bring even more students into their school. He wanted to add a Leadership Degree Program to each of the educational departments. Discussing it with each Chairperson and with the curriculum planners and teachers, some of the faculty wanted to keep the program the way it was, others wanted to add new faculty with more knowledge of leadership and integrate the program in a collaborative and interdisciplinary way. Since none of the faculty or planners were knowledgeable in the area of leadership development, they eventually compromised and simply changed the names of their programs to Educational Leadership in Higher Education, Educational Leadership in Secondary Education and Educational Leadership in Elementary Education adding some new courses.  In effect, the changes made were primarily cosmetic as they continued to teach Educational Administration in each of these programs and did not hire any new faculty with a deep understanding of collaborative leadership abilities. As a result, no one was really satisfied except the Dean who was content to have a new marketing tool to sell the programs to prospective students without having to hire new leadership faculty.

       New School University had a similar desire to add a Leadership Program to their educational curriculum. However, they did not have enough money to add new faculty to each of the areas of educational administration. Discussing the plan and problem with the department Chairs and faculty, the Dean was able to work through some of the major concerns to the extent that the faculty began to see the benefits of the curriculum to improve the programs and help the students to become future collaborative leaders. They decided to integrate the new leadership program curriculum into each of the Higher Education, Elementary and Secondary Programs. As a result, they only had to hire one new faculty member with collaborative leadership knowledge to improve each of the programs. Now, not only was the Dean happy to have a new leadership program for the students, the faculty was happy to expand their curriculum without disrupting what they were already teaching the students in the areas of administration. In addition, the curriculum seemed to take on a deeper sense of direction as contextual examples of leadership were added to every class by students who raised questions that created richer discussion and more meaningful dialogue.

       Gradually, New School University added some new students to their programs and their reputation continued to grow with richer more integrated curriculum. In contrast, Old School University soon added many new students who expected to learn real leadership but instead were taught only the narrowing and quickly outdated elements of educational administration. And, even though they soon became wealthier, Old School’s reputation continued to erode.

Copyright 2008, Global Leadership Resources: For teaching or classroom use only.

                                                                            Discussion Questions 

1. What is the primary difference between collaboration and compromise?
2. If Collaborative Leaders are problem solvers, when is compromise useful or appropriate? What elements of compromise must be considered  and understood?
3. What are the matters of principle that cannot be compromised?
4. How does the Collaborative Problem Solving Process work? What is the primary role of a leader in this process?  
5. What was the result of Old School University’s compromise in developing a Leadership Degree Program? How did New School University work through the problems involved in developing a Leadership Program?
6. What were the future implications of Old School’s compromised program for the students, faculty and school?
   
7.  What were the future implications of New School’s resolution of the program issues and curriculum for the students, faculty and school?