It's About Time...

I saw this earlier on Bitch Ph.D's blog, but now CNN is in on the loop.

Lawrence Summers has resigned.

The search for a new President begins, and I can only speculate what that means for them.

There are many possible outcomes to this. They could get someone almost exactly the same, will the same things happen to them afterwards? Maybe, maybe not. You would imagine that someone who can be the President of a University might have some tact and be able to avoid having a potentially slanderous situation thrown at them, or be recreated.

But my experience at Small U has taught me that just because you are the President of something that does not mean anything about your character or intelligence. I would think you would have to be more like a politician than an academian at heart. I mean, you would still have to be analytical and research-minded, but the traits that make most Presidents of universities successful, I would think, would be a business-mind and a political attitude/flair.

The Pres. of Small U has the "business-mind", according to administration, but at the same time makes boring and life-less speeches that make her sound like an idiot. Every other word that comes out of her mouth is "ummmm..." and it annoys the heck out of me! What does it take to be an administrator and/or high office within a university?

Intelligence surely is not a qualifier, my boss who sits on administration has none of that and I am sure that anyone in academia has met a few people that they said to themselves, "how did you get your job?" But if that's not it, what is it? They had to fool someone into thinking they were smart, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten the position (I would hope so).

Tact is not a qualifier either because not only is Summers lacking it, but again my boss is so far from tact that she's... I don't know what word would describe her. But she really does not have tact. She makes lude jokes all the time and offends many females, and males, in my office. I do not understand why no one has pressed sexual harrassment charges against her to be honest.

So what does make a President or high-level administrator? Do you have to be a leader? I believe it is easier to describe leadership qualities than narrowing it down to a particular job-title. But I do not see my boss leading anyone to do anything besides walking into a paper bag. She pawns off all her work on other people and takes the credit. A leader works with other people and does not work against them. A leader also takes up arms with their group in order to reach the greater goal. I have never seen my boss bring herself to do any work that was required of her. She only checks her e-mails and makes phone calls, even those are not impressive.

Maybe my fault is that I am describing an ideal leader. A real leader is not always the one in power, but could be the "wingman" (or "wingperson" as the situation requires). Some may say that Summers is an ideal leader, some may even say that Bush is an ideal leader, some may even say my boss is an ideal leader (I would have to question the integrity of those who said my boss was an ideal leader, but on some level I can see leadership qualities (if I squint my eyes and turn my head) in Bush and in Summers). But if these people are examples of ideal leaders, then what happened to the non-selfish part of leading?

What do you think defines a leader? Since people are imperfect, even strong leaders are bound to make mistakes, but is it how they handle these situations that makes us trust in them or lose faith in their ability as leaders?

Doesn't the action of completely trusting leaders lead us into trouble? What if our leaders change their position or change their values such that they no longer characterize our ideal leader - would it make it wrong for us to not follow these leaders?