Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. - -Martin Luther King Jr
Deans encounter barriers to doing their job regardless of the level of nursing education within which they operate. Some of these barriers actually serve as good checks and balances for ensuring quality, whereas others uphold the status quo to keep the institution from progressing as it should. This article discusses internal and external barriers to academic leadership.
Leading in a Man's Land
Nursing remains predominately a female profession. Academic leadership remains a predominately male career rung, except in nursing. These 2 worlds collide when it comes to leadership styles. Yet to be an effective nursing dean-male or female-one must consider how to communicate and move academic agenda forward to become, as Quint Studer1 states, "a fire starter." With the current nursing shortage and pressures to increase enrollments with little or no increase in faculty or supports such as information technology, a dean has to answer many opposing and oppressing forces. Communication across genders sometimes adds to the mix. In other words, academic nursing leadership is highly complex. "The science of complexity[horizontal ellipsis] helps us to see the world through a different lens, to make a fundamental shift in perception-from complexity as obstacle to complexity as opportunity."2 To illustrate complexity, we will share our story of starting a doctoral program.
Doctoral Education
About 4 years ago, it became clear to the new leaders at the college that the state of Oklahoma needed a nursing doctoral (doctor of philosophy) program to address the nursing shortage and faculty shortage. This probably seems "a given" to many readers. However, in a state that is 90% rural and has more than 50% associate-degree nurses, with only a few who go on for higher degrees, the reason for not having doctoral programs justifiably might be a lack of interest. However, that indeed was not the case. In fact, of the more than 50 nurses in the state holding a doctorate, few had them in nursing and those who did had gone to surrounding states where they had been actively recruited to stay. It was not surprising that a needs assessment was done and "in kind" and real support were garnered. More than 90 letters of support from potential employers were obtained, along with almost $100,000 in potential scholarships from these institutions.
Other Colleagues
When a draft proposal was written exclusively for the purposes of discussion, the first questions raised at the state level were as follows: "would this make the bedside nursing shortage worse" and "would nurses with doctorates have jobs as they were not generally research scientists?" These questions told us that lack of understanding about nursing, nursing education, and the potential for such nurses were barriers. It became clear that another barrier existed between nursing and other health profession disciplines that already had doctorates. Did the questions posed imply that there was a gender issue? We think "yes," in part, but this is more from a communications standpoint as the men involved wanted the facts and financial details and not a description of the work. Another issue was the difference in nursing research from bench research and the fact that many nurses are not involved in bench science, therefore having less costly research projects and needs.
An obvious other concern about the program was cost. The deans garnered private donations to support an endowed chair for the program and another quarter million dollars in scholarships. Obtaining this level of funding was quite a feat too. Educational funding often comes from state sources but was not available to this program. Was this a double standard or another example of a lack of clarity about nursing as a discipline? Again, this complexity is due to a number of factors, not the least of which are the need to produce more nurses and support undergraduate education at a state level and our inability to sufficiently articulate how the doctorate would help ease this shortage and build capacity. Because the university and state officials, for the most part, were men and the dean of nursing was a woman, differences in verbal and written communication styles had to be considered. Men tend to want the short, written bulleted version of a proposal, whereas women tend toward discussion and long rationales. Neither style is right or wrong, but each requires consideration of the audience that is to receive the message.
Happy Ending
Three years later, a doctoral program was born. This scenario is not unique to the state of Oklahoma or nursing. The barriers also are not just applicable to a doctoral program but represent the types of "hoops" that any dean has to jump through to effect change. The key in this scenario and in a dean's job is to understand the constituency that has to be included in decision making and proactively identify the barriers including gender differences.
Additional Barriers
There are other barriers that deans face when making changes. Many of them are internal, involving faculty and resources. Again, using the doctoral program as an example, concerns were raised:
* nontenure track faculty members who wondered whether their teaching assignments would shift from the master's level to the undergraduate level,
* faculty who questioned how we would successfully recruit research-active faculty to do the required teaching and mentoring, and
* how we could successfully recruit the best and brightest doctoral students given that the program was new.
What is the common denominator? Communication among stakeholders is the key. A transformational leader who wants to be a "fire starter"1 must consider how to be an effective communicator. That means considering gender issues and the audience for the message-regulatory bodies as well as university administration and internal stakeholders. Timing is also key. The message about change must be timed, almost never for the week that school starts or at the end of a year. It also must be in a deliverable form that most stakeholders can digest, that is, electronic, written, or verbal. To be most effective, it must be in several forms and repeated so that input is gained along the way. For the doctoral program, we held faculty forums, sent electronic versions of the proposal, and then moved the paper forms through the various committees. By the time the proposal was considered for vote, all stakeholders, internal and external, had heard, read, or seen it. That planned experience led to the program's adoption on first submission.
Conclusion
Many tasks and functions that deans encounter pose challenges and opportunities. The key to unlocking the challenges and forging ahead with progress lies in addressing the barriers directly, first by anticipating them and then as they are encountered, not by pushing them aside hoping that they will disappear. We have found that some of the same individuals or entities who identified barriers to launching a doctor of philosophy program were the same persons holding solutions to addressing the barriers. This is yet another good reason for discussing concerns about complex problems with individuals who express the greatest and most daunting concerns. The key is communication, communication!
References