How to interpret Primus Inter Pares.
Last month I spent some time talking about the Greenleaf's notion of primus inter pares, 'first among equals.' Check out here for one of my posts, and here for Don Frick's post.
Today I read this article on the Chronicle of Higher Education site. (No subscription required) A vice-president of an executive search firm speaks of what is required of today's univeristy presidents. He claims that there once was a time when presidents and provosts were considered to be primus inter pares among the faculty. However, that is no longer the case.
It is unreasonable, he explains, to expect today's university presidents to be a recognized leader in teaching and/or research. He believes that effective presidents look less like the faculty than in years past. Clearly the author of the article uses the term primus inter pares (and nowhere does he mention Greenleaf or servant-leadership) to mean that the leader comes from a similar background as those he or she leads.
I'm not sure that Greenleaf would have such a strict interpretation of the term. Greenleaf, I believe, uses the term to explain how an effective servant-leader relates to those with whom he or she works.
The questions here is this: Can someone be viewed as an effective primus inter pares (as opposed to a 'chief') if they do not come from the same field and experiences as those they are leading? For example, can someone who has spent their life working in politics be an effective servant-leader in the business world?
I believe, and I think Greenleaf would agree, that the answer to both of these questions is 'yes.' Of course, the other side of all of this involves the servant-followers. I believe that many struggle with this, and I'll come back to this with more on Monday.
I think the author needs to look at expanding his view of what primus inter pares can truly look like. On the other hand, the author may be right on this account: Those in academia need to accept that today's university leaders may not have the same experiences that they do teaching and/or conducting research. But even so, that does not mean they cannot be effective servant-leaders, resist the traditional top-down organizational structure, and come to be accepted by faculty as a primus inter pares, a first among equals.
Today I read this article on the Chronicle of Higher Education site. (No subscription required) A vice-president of an executive search firm speaks of what is required of today's univeristy presidents. He claims that there once was a time when presidents and provosts were considered to be primus inter pares among the faculty. However, that is no longer the case.
It is unreasonable, he explains, to expect today's university presidents to be a recognized leader in teaching and/or research. He believes that effective presidents look less like the faculty than in years past. Clearly the author of the article uses the term primus inter pares (and nowhere does he mention Greenleaf or servant-leadership) to mean that the leader comes from a similar background as those he or she leads.
I'm not sure that Greenleaf would have such a strict interpretation of the term. Greenleaf, I believe, uses the term to explain how an effective servant-leader relates to those with whom he or she works.
The questions here is this: Can someone be viewed as an effective primus inter pares (as opposed to a 'chief') if they do not come from the same field and experiences as those they are leading? For example, can someone who has spent their life working in politics be an effective servant-leader in the business world?
I believe, and I think Greenleaf would agree, that the answer to both of these questions is 'yes.' Of course, the other side of all of this involves the servant-followers. I believe that many struggle with this, and I'll come back to this with more on Monday.
I think the author needs to look at expanding his view of what primus inter pares can truly look like. On the other hand, the author may be right on this account: Those in academia need to accept that today's university leaders may not have the same experiences that they do teaching and/or conducting research. But even so, that does not mean they cannot be effective servant-leaders, resist the traditional top-down organizational structure, and come to be accepted by faculty as a primus inter pares, a first among equals.
<< Home