Download Free Politics Of Collegiality Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Politics Of Collegiality and write the review.

Declining enrolment, retrenchment (cutback) strategies, and demands from the public for increased accountability have forced university administrators to re-examine the efficiency of the university and adopt managerial techniques that advocate increased accountability, centralized authority, and objective resource allocation. Cynthia Hardy argues that this approach has failed to take into account the political realities of university life and the conflict which arises from competing demands for scarce resources.
The National Labor Relations Board (Board or NLRB) is a collegial administrative body whose adjudications are not significantly tainted by the blight of political bias. Nonetheless, it has been roundly assumed by most commentators that the Board engages in politically motivated decisionmaking because of the natural affinity between conservative Republican Board Members and employers on the one hand, and liberal Democratic Board Members and unions and individual employees on the other. Yet, this Article's empirical study of agency adjudication at the NLRB - involving a comprehensive examination of all Board cases implementing the highly indeterminate inherently destructive conduct standard - covincingly suggests otherwise. Instead, it appears that Board Members are able to overcome their ideological biases and arrive at a surprising number of consistent decisions in order to foster the institutional integrity of their organization. This Article posits that the concept of institutional collegiality, developed by Judge Harry T. Edwards in the domain of federal appellate court decisionmaking, helps best explain how this counterintuitive result is possible in the midst of a purportedly partisan agency environment and under circumstances where amorphous legal standards would appear to permit the most aggressive forms of political adjudication. The ramifications of these empirical findings are at least three-fold. First, if Board Members do not consider their own political interests in making inherently destructive conduct determinations, the Board gains stature not only in the eyes of the Supreme Court and other reviewing courts, as Professor Summers has observed, but also increases its credibility in the eyes of labor and management groups that appear before it. Second, such consistent adjudicative outcomes assist parties in planning their future conduct and predicting the legality of their conduct, thereby fostering a more constructive labor relations environment throughout the country. Third, and perhaps most significantly, this empirical study suggests that institutional collegiality is playing a central and pivotal role in administrative agency adjudications. And although one study should not be interpreted too broadly, by establishing that Board Members are successfully able to act in a collegial manner by separating their political ideologies from their institutional roles and by seeking to get the law right, this Article confirms that agency adjudication can indeed play a valuable role in protecting the increasing number of individuals who seek vindication of their rights in front of these administrative tribunals.
This insightful book theorizes the contrast between two logics of organization: bureaucracy and collegiality. Based on this theory and employing a new methodology to transform our sociological understanding, Emmanuel Lazega sheds light on complex organizational phenomena that impact markets, political economy, and social stratification.
An eye-opening analysis of collegiate activism and its effects on the divisions in contemporary American politics. The past six years have been marked by a contentious political atmosphere that has touched every arena of public life, including higher education. Though most college campuses are considered ideologically progressive, how can it be that the right has been so successful in mobilizing young people even in these environments? As Amy J. Binder and Jeffrey L. Kidder show in this surprising analysis of the relationship between political activism on college campuses and the broader US political landscape, while liberal students often outnumber conservatives on college campuses, liberal campus organizing remains removed from national institutions that effectively engage students after graduation. And though they are usually in the minority, conservative student groups have strong ties to national right-leaning organizations, which provide funds and expertise, as well as job opportunities and avenues for involvement after graduation. Though the left is more prominent on campus, the right has built a much more effective system for mobilizing ongoing engagement. What’s more, the conservative college ecosystem has worked to increase the number of political provocations on campus and lower the public’s trust in higher education. In analyzing collegiate activism from the left, right, and center, The Channels of Student Activism shows exactly how politically engaged college students are channeled into two distinct forms of mobilization and why that has profound consequences for the future of American politics.
Nadja Bieletzki explores how university presidents lead universities. She provides insights into the upper echelons of higher education management and focuses especially on university presidents in Germany. Special attention is given to the career background of university presidents and the way they conduct reform projects. Based on the results from semi-structured expert interviews and their qualitative analysis, the author shows that university presidents do not use all their formal power although their position has been strengthened by law. This can be explained by the collegial characteristics of universities, which drive and restrict presidential actions Nadja Bieletzki was awarded the Ulrich Teichler Prize for Excellent Dissertations 2016.
This book examines two patterns of democracy – collegial and personal – through a comprehensive comparison of political institutions. It develops a conceptual, theoretical, and methodological basis for differentiating collegial and personal democracies. Central institutions in democracy are classified according to their levels of personalism and collegialism, including political parties, candidate selection methods and electoral systems, legislature, and cabinets and governments. The book presents preliminary findings concerning the causes for this variance between the two democratic regime types. The book will be of key interest to students and scholars of democratic institutions, personalism and personalization, political parties and, more broadly, democracy.
Much of our writing re?ects a long-term commitment to the analysis of the col- gial tradition in higher education. This commitment is re?ected most strongly in Oxford and the Decline of the Collegiate Tradition (2000), which we are pleased to say will re-appear as a considerably revised second edition (Oxford, The Collegiate University: Con?ict, Consensus and Continuity) to be published by Springer in the near future. To some extent this volume, The Collegial Tradition in the Age of Mass Higher Education, is a reaction to the charge that our work has been too narrowly focussed upon the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Oxbridge). Not surpr- ingly, you would expect us to reject that critique, while responding constructively to it. The focus may be narrow, and although the relative presence and, more arguably, the in?uence of Oxford and Cambridge may have declined in English higher e- cation, they remain important national universities. Moreover, as the plethora of so-called world-class higher education league tables would have us believe, they also have a powerful international status. This, however, is essentially a defensive response dependent upon the alleged reputations of the two universities. This book is intent on making a more substantial argument. To examine the c- legial tradition in higher education means much more than presenting a nostalgic look at the past.
Using case studies and relevant literature, this book illustrates the challenges to legitimate, Shared-governance domains when the routine of the academy is forced to deal with big issues, often brought on by external forces. Mortimer and Sathre have gone beyond a discussion of faculty/administrative behavior by focusing on what happens when the legitimate governance claims of faculty, trustees, and presidents clash. They place these relationships in the broader context of internal institutional governance and analyze the dynamics that unfold when advocacy trumps collegiality. The book closes with a defense of shared governance and offers observations and practical suggestions about how the academy can share authority effectively and further achieve its mission.
Governing by Committee is the first book-length study to examine decision-making among political executives. It examines sixteen advanced Western and Communist states and shows that collegial and semi-collegial patterns are far more common than is generally assumed. Contrary to the assertions of Max Weber, Baylis contends that modern bureaucracy, with its growing role in policy-making and its intimate association with neocorporatist forms of interest group representation, offers a particularly congenial setting for collegial leadership. A timely study, Governing by Committee opens a new dimension in the comparative study of political executives. But it also complements and contributes to the existing literature on political leadership, decision-making, consociationalism, and neocorporatism. It belongs as well to the still relatively small number of works comparing the politics of advanced Western and Communist states.
This book focuses on the status and work of full-time non-tenure-track faculty (NTTF) whose ranks are increasing as tenure track faculty (TTF) make up a smaller percentage of the professoriate. NTTF experience highly uneven and conditional access to collegiality, are often excluded from decision-making spaces, and receive limited respect from their TTF colleagues because of outdated notions that link perceived expertise almost exclusively to scholarship. The result is often a sub-class of faculty marginalized in their departments, which reduces the inclusion of diverse voices in academic governance, professional relationships, and student learning. Given these implications, the authors ask, how can departments, institutions, and the profession do more to engage NTTF as full and active colleagues? The limited access of NTTF to the rights and responsibilities of collegiality harms institutional success in several ways. Given the full-time nature of their work and the heavy (but not exclusive) focus on instruction, NTTF are likely to be on campus as much or more than TTF, and thus be engaged with students, colleagues, and administrators in ways that more closely resemble TTF than part-time faculty. Their limited access to collegial spaces makes it harder for them to do their jobs by restricting access to information and input into decision-making. Moreover, since the greatest growth among women faculty and faculty of color is in NTTF roles, their exclusion from collegiality and decision-making negates the very diversity the profession claims to seek. Finally, colleges and universities face financial, curricular, and organizational challenges which require broad input, although the burden of governance is falling on fewer shoulders as the percentage of TTF declines and NTTF are excluded from these spaces.Ultimately, NTTF must be engaged as partners and colleagues in supporting institutional health. This book – the fruit of extensive data collection at two institutions over a five-year period – describes lessons learned from and benefits experienced by departments that have successfully supported and engaged NTTF as colleagues. Drawing on their research data and analysis of “healthy” departments that integrate NTTF, the authors identify the practices, policies, and approaches that support NTTF inclusion, shape a more positive workplace environment, improve morale, satisfaction, and commitment, and fully leverage the expertise of NTTF and the valuable human capital they represent. The authors argue that this more inclusive collegiality improves governance, supports institutional success, and serves diverse institutional missions. Though primarily addressed to institutional leaders, department chairs, tenure-line faculty, and leaders in the academic profession, it is hoped that the findings will be useful to NTTF who are engaged as advocates for and partners in the change process required to address the evolving structure of the university faculty.