The realization that leadership is deeply affected by the environments in which it is enacted. And in which it's studied, starts us towards an explanation of why this subject can be so illusive. And one that seems to be perpetually re-interpreted. Think of the system of colleges and universities in United States as a society. And think of your own institution, or any that which you might imagine yourself as some part of that small society. Well, keep in most of its traditions. And even while balancing its own unique internal compass, the world of higher education is nontheless changed, inside out, outside in. What was certain and seemingly permanent at generation ago is now questioned. Things we have dependent upon are simply no longer available. Or possibly have been exposed, is longer maybe they were never true. And as we know, when societies change, when context change, expectations of leaders and what they must do change, as well. When we explored leadership in this course, we'll be doing so with these evolving circumstances in mind. But we've not moved from one certainty to another. In fact, we can only be confident of a very few things. Demographics are pretty strong predictors. Our society will change in its diversity. Our population will age, and the United States will look different, it will be different by the middle of the century, than it was when it started. And much, much different than when the United States higher education system was essentially built, and then further built out in the 1970s and 1980s. Some historians say, demography is destiny, and that's hard to argue. Especially for a social institution like ours, that's essentially about people in all levels, and in all ways. We can expect more changes in technology that will not only affect our organizations, and the ways in which we teach, they'll affect our students. And will shape the jobs they'll probably hold. More broadly, the knowledge explosion, of which higher education has been a really important part, has not yet run its course. If anything, the predictable shift may be from growing an acquisition of information to a more general, deeper search for meaning. We can be certain that competition for resources will intensify. And I think it's fair to anticipate a world that is more interdependent, and maybe less secure. Than ours has been for most of my adult life. And what will become of our colleges and universities amidst all of these changes? Well that will largely be up to you, and other future leaders. In taking up this discussion, we will be integrating three related, but slightly different and potentially complimentary aspects of what we've termed new leadership. We're going to focus on leaders, who they are, and what they do when they're in a position to influence people and events. We're going to examine the concept of leadership as a process. One that could be studied and modeled, and about which we can make reasonable predictions based on research. And finally, recognizing that, for the most part, leaders are not born as such. And that leadership can be studied, and it can be taught. We're going to look at various approaches to developing leaders with an aim to ensuring that we have more good ones. With a wide range of backgrounds and skills needed to face the challenges ahead. All three of these aspects of the topic are important for different reasons. And of course, they're all very related in obvious ways. The key here is that we are seeking to identify and nurture more and diverse leaders. Who understand their roles more clearly, than others who they will replace. We are going to examine those aspects of leadership in the context of three crucially important values. That follow from our awareness of the role that higher education plays in our society. Look, there are many things that we honor and value in higher education. The freedom to teach, the freedom to learn, and the freedom to explore, a commitment to the use of evidence. Higher education as an important, public benefit. These values continue to guide us, and it's the responsibility of leaders to protect them. But they will all be interpreted through a specific set of challenges that have frequently been vocalized, but barely actualized. Challenges that more than others are likely to define us through this century. You're familiar with the terms, you're familiar with the rhetoric. Colleges and universities as institutions, and higher education as a whole. Will have a primary, essential role in making these words, and the vision they promise more immediate and meaningful. Diversity, inclusion, and equity. These values are already found in commitments articulated by the vast majority of our higher education institutions. Fact, I cannot immediately think of any college or university that would not acknowledge the importance of these values in our society. It's important to our future, and most institutions organize their admissions hiring curriculum. And the campus experience with at least some view of these core commitments in mind. That's not to say that all institutions, and much less our society, nor any in the world of which I'm aware, achieve or fully realize these aspirations now. We should not be misled into thinking that the commitments to diversity equity and inclusion originate with the higher education system in our country, or somehow are natural to what we do. Nor were they adopted at all times and at all places without a long period of transition and resistance. Some part of the current attention given these values, maybe born out of an enlightened view point. A recognition of undeniable evidence, some part maybe driven by raw demographics. Clearly, a society that once seem to have unlimited room, and unlimited resources, to crudely accommodate. differences. Largely, I think by systemic exclusion, and the occasional expansion, now is turning to the fact that we're no longer a frontier nation. We're we once thought we we're protected by two oceans from the rest of the world, now we're becoming compressed between two oceans. No longer able to avoid responsibility for the world around us. And, no longer able to avoid dealing with the differences amongst us. How often have you heard it said that we need to recognize differences? Recognize individuals that have been previously excluded. Recognize economic, political, and social inequalities. In this course, simple recognition in the way that we think about it, is not enough. We're working towards a more literal sense of right to admission. We want to rethink, actually recognize these terms, these factors, these patterns. Recognize these realities in our lives, and relate them to the challenges associated with leadership within our institutions, and on behalf of our society. Recognize means, to think again, and to think in different ways. That rethinking process will make it clear that there are tensions and challenges. That are inherent in the exercise of leadership, and pursuit of these values we hold. When there's tension, that's not because there's something misguided or wrong in our adoption of these values. In fact, the tension originates as much with the concept of leadership, as it does with either inclusion, diversity, or equity. Leadership involves change. And while we know that change is a part of everything in us, and everything around us, social change, while inevitable, is difficult. Social change when basic foundational relationships are being tested. When power and privilege are being redistributed. And when people sense they may have something to gain, or something at risk. This is especially hard. The leadership needed to achieve this, must be up to that task. Let's start with the fact that all values, no matter how noble, operate in some sort of balance, or tension with other values. Words used to describe what we value. Can be spoken by different individuals, and lead to quite different interpretations of fact, and suggest very different required action. People speak of greater equity, or progress towards social justice for example. And they rarely mean exactly the same thing. They mean what they think they mean, based on their life experiences, and their sense of the current and preferred conditions. Perhaps, social justice suggests a more widespread distribution of resources to you. Perhaps social justice requires a system of laws, and consequences for breaking those laws. Maybe even capital punishment for others. Look, too often we lump equity, diversity, and inclusion into one phrase, one concept. Perhaps, assuming that they're all versions of the same desired end, which if achieved could translate to liberty and justice for all. We rather go on speaking of these three different terms, as if they were three part harmony. Hoping that if only they could be sung together and loud enough, we'll finally get to hear that wonderful old American folk song that we've been told about. Each of these terms is discreetly important. And each may have something important to do with defining our character, and in shaping our future. But meeting the requirements of one will not assure the others. That can be surprising, right? Putting equity, diversity and inclusion into a blender and turning on the switch might seem to be a recipe for the utopian smoothie. But leadership in pursuit of differing values, much like the increasingly adopted shorthand EDI. That doesn't work like that. The concept of equity, diversity, inclusion, EDI, if it deserves to be called a single concept, is not only superficial. It's far more complicated than we assumed. And from the standpoint of leadership, it presents an unexpected, and an inevitably frustrating tension. The tension affects the leader, and it can divide the leaders followers. Let me explain using what we know about leaders, and how they interact with the groups they lead to make this more clear.
