Considerate Leadership as a

Measure of Effectiveness

in Medical and Higher Education:

Analysis of Supervisory/Managerial

Leadership

Rana Zeine, MD, PhD, MBA

Associate Professor

Saint James School of Medicine

‘Consideration’ Dimension

The Extent to Which Managers Are

Personally Supportive and Considerate

of their Direct Reports

A People-Oriented Style of

Supervisory / Managerial Leadership

Supportive, Participative, Interactions Create a

Positive Psychological Environment

that Supports Goal Attainment

Cooke,1997. OEI®. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics; Mulki & Jaramillo,

2011; Yukl 2012

Behavioral

Norms

CURRENT

CULTURE

Desired

Values

IDEAL

CULTURE

Cooke & Szumal (2000). Using the Organizational Culture Inventory to Understand

the Operating Cultures of Organizations. In Ashkanasy, Wilderom & Peterson (Eds),

Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MISSION

&

PHILOSOPHY

Systems

Structures,

Technology,

Skills &

Qualities

CAUSAL

FACTORS

Individual,

Group &

Organizational

OUTCOMES

T

H

E

O

R

E

T

I

C

A

L

M

O

D

E

L

Evolve

Leadership

ConsiderationEFFECTIVENESS

B ‘Best Fit’

Supervisory / Managerial

Relationships in Higher Education

♦ Most Relationships Between Higher Education

Professionals and their Followers are Structured to

Support Teaching, Learning, Training, and

Mentoring

♦ To Facilitate the Transferal of Competencies &

Expertise

♦ Examples of Supervisory / Managerial

Relationships

(a) the Supervision of Graduate Students by

Mentors

‘Individualized Consideration’

A Component of Transformational Leadership

Theory

♦ Supportive Leadership: Focused on

Understanding the Needs of Followers

♦ Developmental Leadership: Focused on

Empowering Followers Towards Attaining

Higher Levels of Potential

♦ Empathy and Concern for Individual Needs of

Followers Bass et al. 1996; Avolio & Bass 1999; Rafferty & Griffin 2006

‘Considerate Leadership’

Core of Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

(Supervision)

Supervisors Can Affect the Motivation and

Performance of their Subordinates by

Ensuring that They “Experience Intrinsic

Satisfaction” as a Result of Attaining Work

Goals

House 1996

To Assess Levels of CONSIDERATION

in Higher Education Institutions

Objective

• Online OEI® Survey: March 1st to April 2nd , 2012

• Likert-type Scales to Quantitate Responses

• Mean Score Results Were Compared to

1) the Historical Average: 50th percentile = Median

of OEI® Scores Obtained from Members of 1084

Organizational Units, and to

2) Constructive Benchmarks = Median of OEI®

Results from Members of 172 Organizational

Units with Predominantly Constructive

Operating Cultures

Survey Methods: Organizational

Effectiveness Inventory (OEI®)

Cooke, R.A. 1997. Organizational Effectiveness Inventory®. Plymouth, MI:

Human Synergisticshttp://www.humansynergistics.com

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

USAIndia

UKAustralia

FranceEthiopia

EgyptMacedoniaCosta Rica

JordanWales

New ZealandCanada

SpainDenmark

Greecend

Number of Respondents

Home Countries of Institutional Affiliations of 52 Higher Education Professionals Surveyed

North

America

Europe

India

Australia

Latin America

Middle East

Africa

Gender & Organizational Level

Distributions of OEI® Respondents

0% 5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Gender

Female

Male

nd

Organizational Level

Faculty / Professor

Director

Department Chair

Associate Dean

Dean

Provost / Dean Academic Affairs

President

nd

Percent of Respondents

D

E

M

O

G

R

A

P

H

I

C

S

Years with Organizational & Education

Level Distributions for OEI® Respondents Percent of Respondents

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Years with Organization< 6 months

6 months to 1 year1 to 2 years2 to 4 years4 to 6 years

6 to 10 years10 to 15 years

>15 yearsnd

EducationProfessional degree (Certificate)

Master’s degreeDoctorate degree

MD / PhDJD

Other

D

E

M

O

G

R

A

P

H

I

C

S

Organizational Type & Institutional Level

Distributions for OEI® Respondents

Percent of Respondents

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Type of Higher Educational Institution

For-profit, Public

For-profit, Private

Not-for-profit, Public

Not-for-profit, Private

Institutional Level

Associate's College

Bachelor's College

Master's College / University

Doctorate-granting University

Special Focus Institution

nd

D

E

M

O

G

R

A

P

H

I

C

S

Supervisory Managerial Leadership:

ConsiderationUndesirable

Leadership

Skills

0 1 2 3 4 5

FemaleMale

FacultyAdministrators

For-profit, PublicFor-profit, Private

Not-for-profit, PublicNot-for-profit, Private

Total

Mean Score

± SEHistorical Average

Median, 50th

percentile

Constructive Benchmark

n = 8n = 30

n = 10n = 4

n = 20

n = 25

n = 26n = 25

n = 52

• Scores Fell Below the Historical Average and the

Constructive Benchmark for Total Respondents, and

for Faculty, Administrators, Male, Female, Private- &

Public Not-For-Profit, and Private For-Profit

Subgroups

• Females Trended Higher than Males

• Scores for the Small Public For-Profit subgroup

Reached the Historical Average, and Showed Wide

Variations that Rose Above the Constructive

Benchmark

Consideration Levels Are Undesirable in

Higher Education Institutions

Discussion on Interactional Injustice

• Incivility Problems: Hostile Behaviors ↔ Humiliation,

Belittlement, Intimidation, Mistreatment, Threatening,

Academic Harassment, Bullying, Abuse, Workplace

Aggression or Violence, Demeaning Acts, ‘Teaching

Through Humiliation” (Cookson 2006; Morse 2010; Hershcovis

2011)

• Bullying: A Learned Behavior Perpetuated by Overly

Competitive Work Environments and Reward

Systems that Encourage Overly Aggressive

Behaviors (Lewis 2006)

• Excessive Passive/Defensive and

Aggressive/Defensive Cultural Styles, and Insufficient

Constructive Styles, Found in Higher Education

Current

Culture

Ideal Culture OCI®

NOT-FOR-

PROFIT

FOR-PROFIT

N=34

N=24

N=17

N=12CONSTRUCTI

VE

AGGRESSIV

E

DEFENSIVE PASSIVE

DEFENSIV

E

50th Percentile

(Historical)

H

i

g

h

e

r

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

O

C

I

R

e

s

u

l

t

s

Zeine, Boglarsky, Blessinger & Hamlet, 2011

SUBGROU

PS

T

H

E

O

R

E

T

I

C

A

L

M

O

D

E

L

Impact of Culture on Effectiveness

Effective, Creative

Self-Enhancing

Develop Others

Coercive

Abrupt

CynicalNoncommittal

Self-Protecting

Volatility

Vulnerability

Sustainability

Research and development by Cooke & Lafferty. Copyright © by Human Synergistics International. All Rights Reserved.

Confrontational

Withdraw

Receptive

Vulnerabilities in Higher Education

Segments

Examples of Issues that Are Brought to the Attention

of the Ombudsman by Graduate Students Include

• (A) Concerns That an Adviser is Delaying their

Student’s Degree Progress in Order to Retain a

Cheap Source of Labor

• (B) Situations in which a Faculty Member Is Taking

Advantage of a Student Research Assistant who

Fears Losing their Visa Status

• (C) One Trainee Is Being Given Credit For Another

Student’s Work

Morse, 2010

Vulnerabilities in Medical Education &

TrainingPercentages of Medical Students, Surveyed at 16 US Medical Schools, who

Experienced Belittlement and Harassment from Residents or Clinical

Professors

Subspecialty Residents Clinical Professors

Belittleme

nt

Harassme

nt

Belittlement Harassmen

t

Psychiatry 77 % 38 % 66 % 21 %

Family Medicine 75 % 32 % 69 % 30 %

General Internal

Medicine72 % 28 % 65 % 25 %

Emergency Medicine 71 % 30 % 64 % 22 %

Surgery 70 % 28 % 60 % 24 %

Pediatrics 73 % 22 % 67 % 20 %

Public Health,

Preventive medicine,

Urology, other

69 % 27 % 62 % 22%

Anesthesiology,

Pathology or 70 % 27 % 60 % 16 %Data are adapted from Frank, E. et al., Copyright 2006 by the British Medical Journal

Recommendations for Implementing

Consideration in Higher Education

Culture• Reduce the Use of Passive/Defensive and

Aggressive/Defensive Cultural Styles

• Promote Constructive Styles in Supervisory /

Managerial Relationships in Higher Education

Institutions (Sanilippo, Bendapudi, Rucci & Schlesinger, 2008;

Zeine, Boglarsky, Blessinger & Hamlet, 2011)

• Address Antecedent Factors such as Job Insecurity

• Eliminate Reasons for Resistance to Change

• Monitor Employee/Trainee Well-Being, Job

Satisfaction and Student Satisfaction Regularly and

Address the Feedback Systemically

Recommendations for Implementing

Consideration in Higher Education

Practices

• Improve Professional Standards: Define Disruptive

and Inappropriate Behavior and Implementation

Procedure

• Raise Awareness and Provide Training for

Educators/Supervisors on Considerate Leadership

Styles

• Adopt Learner-Centered Teaching, Active Learning

and Adult Learning Theory

Acknowledgements Considerate

Leadership… in Higher Education InstitutionsOrganizational Cultures: An International Journal

Edward Daly

Community College of Rhode Island, Warwick, RI

Patrick Blessinger

Higher Education Teaching & Learning Association

(HETL)

Cheryl Boglarsky

Human Synergistics International, Inc.

Alwyn Gilkes

Bronx Community College, City University of New

York, NY

Mary Kurban