Eckel, Peter D
Email Address
ORCID
Disciplines
5 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Publication The Dilemma of Presidential Leadership(2005-01-01) Birnbaum, Robert; Eckel, Peter DEvery decade, about five thousand persons serve as college or university presidents. Over a term of office averaging less than seven years, the president is expected to serve simultaneously as the chief administrator of a large and complex bureaucracy, as the convening colleague of a professional community, as a symbolic elder in a campus culture of shared values and symbols, and (in some institutions) as a public official accountable to a public board and responsive to the demands of other governmental agencies. Balancing the conflicting expectations of these roles has always been difficult; changing demographic trends, fiscal constraints, the complexity and diversity of tasks, university dynamics, and unrealistic public expectations make it virtually impossible for most presidents to provide the leadership that is expected.Publication Presidents Leading: The Dynamics and Complexities of Campus Leadership(2011-01-01) Eckel, Peter D; Kezar, AdriannaWhile the work of academics—teaching, research, and service—is the core of an institution, they need someone who can attend to the following: 1. Manage their finances and budgets and provide key services, such as payroll, and health and retirement benefits 2. Serve as a go-between to the scholars from different disciplines and coordinate individual course offerings to create a coherent curriculum 3. Act as a conduit to outside councils, government agencies, alumni, donors, and communities when representing, as well as defending, the academics 4. Steward, but more importantly increase, the available financial resources 5. Oversee facilities and ensure their maintenance 6. Serve periodically as a target for academic ardor and aggression The nature of this position requires a single individual to be a leader, academic, planner, mediator, politician, advocate, investment banker, conductor, showman, church elder, supporter, cheerleader, and, of course, manager. These roles, and many more functions-including providing leadership; setting institutional strategy; planning; financing; and ensuring compliance with multiple regulations, laws, and policies (and politics)—are the domain of a campus head, a position labeled president or chancellor, vice-chancellor or rector, depending on the continent and system.Publication Counsel on Program Elimination(2003-01-01) Eckel, Peter DThis book has provided case illustrations and discussed the costs and savings of program elimination, the role of leadership, the ability of shared governance to make hard decisions, and the use of criteria. The concluding chapter brings together the findings to provide counsel on program elimination. It presents rationale for why decisions must be defensible; discusses the tradeoffs regarding savings, tenure, and program elimination; and makes suggestions both for campus leaders seeking to eliminate programs and for those seeking to fight off program closures. Additionally, it suggests empirically based modifications to the Association of American University Professors (AAUP) policies concerning program termination and shared governance.Publication Toward a Clearer Understanding of Privatization(2009-01-01) Eckel, Peter D; Morphew, Christopher CThe trend toward privatization in higher education is clearly accelerating, as evidenced in both the scholarly and popular presses. It remains unclear whether governments cannot, or choose not to, provide sufficient resources to public postsecondary education, but intelligence points to a myriad of possible points of contention. For instance, the subprime mortgage crisis, downturns on Wall Street, declining state tax bases, and other recently emerging trends suggest little relief is in sight. Furthermore, higher education and the states most likely won't be relieved by other long-term fiscal pressures. K-12 education and Medicare are frequently factors behind funding shortages. State policy continues to encourage competition not only with private institutions but also with other public institutions on a mounting set of issues. For example, Ohio created a program in which its public institutions compete for a $150 million pot of research funding (Richards, 2007). Institutions continue to compete for students and their mi tion dollars, particularly those students who have the means to pay or to use their state-based merit dollars. The competition for students will be especially acute in states, such as Colorado, that have adopted a voucher-style funding structure. Tuition and vouchers, not state block grants, have become an increasingly important source of revenue for some public research universities. States too are recognizing the funding problem and realize that if they cannot provide the resources for their institutions, they should allow them the autonomy and flexibility to set and keep their tuition and to compete for students, investments, and faculty with little state intervention.Publication The Interesecting Authority of Boards, Presidents, and Faculty: Toward Shared Leadership(2016-01-01) Eckel, Peter D; Kezar, AdriannaThis chapter explores the leadership dynamics of universities through the lens of governance and the three groups of actors that play dominant roles — trustees, presidents, and faculty.3 While we recognize the important contributions of students or staff,4 this chapter focuses on the three groups most consistently influential and that are part of the formal governance structure. In addition to describing the leadership of boards, presidents, and faculty, it explores the organizational and environmental contexts of leading in the academy, select theories of leadership that pertain to higher education, and the intersection of faculty, trustee, and administrative influence.