Questioning the principle of pragmatism in leadership.
In leadership training sessions and discussions, I have heard the articulation that "leadership can't be ideologically driven. A leader has to be pragmatic."
This statement and its look alikes have puzzled me and continue to puzzle me. What is most puzzling about this statement is the active uptake of the statement among academic leaders. In this statement and statements similar to it, there is an implicit assumption that pragmatism is devoid of ideology, or that the commitment to some practical goal or outcome is itself an a-ideological position.
This is troubling to me because the discursive move to separate the ideology of the logics of efficiency, effectiveness, bureaucratic organization, and market success from the roots of this logic in neoliberalism is itself a political move. Such a political move erases the underlying agendas of market logics to serve the dominant institutional structures of society and the interests of the powerful in shaping these institutional structures, processes, and practices.
To be pragmatic is to be driven by the argument that catering to the market and its demands is not political.
In dissociating from its political roots, the rationality of the market discursively erases the power structures that are exercised through the market in maintaining control in the hands of the few. That the claim that academic leadership has to be pragmatic is rooted in the values of dominant institutional structures that seek to limit the nature and scope of academic work.
To resist the large scale liberalization and privatization of academic organizations, one has to perhaps begin by deconstructing what academic leadership ought to look like. In doing so, we need to question the discourses of academic leadership and the ways in which these discourses constrain and enable specific forms of action within academic organizations. The starting point to doing so is perhaps by acknowledging that academic leadership is enacted at the very sites of contestation of values. Leadership is itself an ideological tool that is constituted within specific terrains of power, and how leadership gets constituted in the roles we perform as leaders is tied to the values we seek to bring into our roles. Ultimately what kinds of academic organizations we create is intertwined with the values we bring to the table as leaders.
This statement and its look alikes have puzzled me and continue to puzzle me. What is most puzzling about this statement is the active uptake of the statement among academic leaders. In this statement and statements similar to it, there is an implicit assumption that pragmatism is devoid of ideology, or that the commitment to some practical goal or outcome is itself an a-ideological position.
This is troubling to me because the discursive move to separate the ideology of the logics of efficiency, effectiveness, bureaucratic organization, and market success from the roots of this logic in neoliberalism is itself a political move. Such a political move erases the underlying agendas of market logics to serve the dominant institutional structures of society and the interests of the powerful in shaping these institutional structures, processes, and practices.
To be pragmatic is to be driven by the argument that catering to the market and its demands is not political.
In dissociating from its political roots, the rationality of the market discursively erases the power structures that are exercised through the market in maintaining control in the hands of the few. That the claim that academic leadership has to be pragmatic is rooted in the values of dominant institutional structures that seek to limit the nature and scope of academic work.
To resist the large scale liberalization and privatization of academic organizations, one has to perhaps begin by deconstructing what academic leadership ought to look like. In doing so, we need to question the discourses of academic leadership and the ways in which these discourses constrain and enable specific forms of action within academic organizations. The starting point to doing so is perhaps by acknowledging that academic leadership is enacted at the very sites of contestation of values. Leadership is itself an ideological tool that is constituted within specific terrains of power, and how leadership gets constituted in the roles we perform as leaders is tied to the values we seek to bring into our roles. Ultimately what kinds of academic organizations we create is intertwined with the values we bring to the table as leaders.
Comments
Post a Comment