Leading by gaslight? Nursing's academic leadership struggles

What characterizes strong nursing leadership in academia? Not what you might think. Popular mythology may suggest strength and certainty: people who transcend, get their way and “call” the important decisions (Brown, 2014). Yet, historian Archie Brown (2014) analysing hundreds of leaders over hundreds of years suggests otherwise, with: integrity, relationship building, collegiality, curiosity, willingness to seek disparate views, empathy and energy being far more important. Stereotypical strength, it transpires, is steadfast weakness. Leadership in academia is necessary because the work is highly demanding, change is ever-present and demands ever increase. Indeed, the academy has been changing ever since nursing's entry a relatively recent 50 years ago (Barnett, 2010). The traditional role of “The University” as a cosseted bastion of generating, curating and disseminating knowledge is now transformed. Instead, modern universities seek to square the private good of benefitting individual students by addressing the public good of generating useful knowledge while helping nations prosper by creating more educated citizens (Barnett, 2010). Teaching, for many decades considered mistakenly a distraction, is back to the fore institutionally and individually. Academics who teach are increasingly expected to be accessible, empathetic and techno-savvy in bringing subjects alive and making them accessible and fun. Expectations grow to do and publish “relevant” research in influential journals; attract competitive research funding; involve government, patients and other stakeholders; and use social media to engage with diverse audiences (Clark & Thompson, 2015). These changes and demands do not arise from inside the academy. Universities are now characterized by higher external government pressures, top–down decision and policy-making, and greater measurement and regulation of daily work (Alvesson & Spicer, 2016). As rich and deep disciplinary questions of “what?” “how?” and “when?” in scholarship become replaced by the practicalities of “who?” “why?” and “where?” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2016; Winter, 2009), numerous tensions and schisms around academic identity in higher education result. These lead to strain in academics to maintain a sense of scholarly integrity in this changing world (Pare, 2014) but also strain between academics. The effects of these strains, we contend, are particularly prominent in nursing in outcomes, conduct and leadership. In terms of outcomes, nursing continues to struggle to realize its potential in the Academy. Too often, nursing is seen as weaker and less credible by those in other disciplines: nurses in academia themselves perpetuate this by not seeking leadership roles outside nursing and viewing publishing in mainstream journals and seeking research funding as optional not desirable (Clark & Thompson, 2015). Conduct in our nursing workplaces remains a curious contrast of overt statements about quality, collegiality and community accompanied too often with the opposite (Cassell, 2011; Lampman, Phelps, Bancroft, & Beneke, 2009; MacKay, Arnold, Fratzl, & Thomas, 2008; Twale & De Luca, 2008). Known as gaslighting (Sarkis, 2017), misalignment of words with actions serves to deny or justify bullying and harassment in a language of legitimacy. This behaviour includes verbal and non-verbal actions, from overt aggression to subtle but ongoing undermining via institutional means, including unfair allocation of work and roles, assignment of heavier teaching loads, unfair performance evaluations and denial of opportunity (Cleary, Walter, Halcomb, & Lopez, 2016; Gloor, 2014). Rather than “owning” their conduct, perpetrators of gaslighting seek to bend reality by invoking overt references to not asserting “control” or being self-serving. Criticisms may be made publically but are parried with the caveat that “it's just a joke.” More often, inappropriate conduct is masked behind platitudes about “fairness,” the department's mission or strategy and line management legitimacy. Simultaneously, perpetrators tend to mobilize, label and align others in an attempt to establish a “usual suspects” cultural narrative that renders them the benevolent party (Sarkis, 2017). This unethical conduct occurs up, down and across work hierarchies (Cleary et al., 2016) but is especially damaging to those at formative career stages (MacKay et al., 2008). It is hugely damaging to work performance as victims lose sight of reality becoming insecure of their own talents and prone to intense self-doubt. When such conduct becomes more prevalent across organizations: productivity, engagement, loyalty, morale and staff turnover, all suffer massively. While leadership positions in universities often come with prestigious titles (Watson et al., 2017), high confidence in one's abilities alone does little to facilitate wider academic growth (Thompson & Darbyshire, 2013; Watson et al., 2017). Indeed, leaders, who feel threatened by others, are wary of being seen to change their mind, or struggle to be truly open to others’ perspectives seldom excel (Brown, 2014). Ironically, a preoccupation with acting strong actually becomes a profound weakness. Seeking to be involved in everything while having insight into nothing risks a double-whammy compromise of diminishing not only the vibrancy and autonomy of the academy but also the vulnerable growth of nursing within it (Thompson & Darbyshire, 2013; Watson et al., 2017). It is the anti-thesis of the collegial leadership necessary for excellence (Brown, 2014). Nursing, we believe, though well suited to effective leadership remains trapped inside its own history, blind spots and insecurities around leading in academic cultures. Echoing nursing schools and practice of old, academic nursing remains too focused on hierarchy in relation to its own leadership. This results in “them and us” thinking about those with and without formal leadership roles. Those seeking formal leadership positions in nursing should recognize that leadership never begins with a senior title (Maxwell, 2006). Assuming leadership is privy only of the senior or formalized roles in academic workplaces is misplaced and wasteful. Rather, leadership is behavioural and can be enacted in any position, at any time, in one's career (Maxwell, 2006). Good mentoring and role modelling around academic leadership is key. There are some outstanding senior nursing leaders internationally—but academic nursing has only recently itself emerged from hierarchical authority structures and attendant “rule following” of nursing schools (Thompson & Darbyshire, 2013). Consequently, nursing's capacity to build academic leadership capacity alone is weak—we have a short history of achieving academic growth via collegial processes, attaining internationally credible scholarly aspirations and standards or retaining a truly global lens on education and practice. Nurse leaders need to gain more experience working outside of the discipline, whether in cross-cutting leadership roles or in appointments in other academic disciplines. This serves to bring a more rounded lens and broader perspectives from these other disciplines to leadership in and for nursing. Most importantly, the solutions to nursing challenges in academic leadership lie deep within our personal and disciplinary psyche. When our academic leadership—either individually or collectively veers towards grandiosity, status sensitivity, self-perceived cleverness or insecurity—our growth is stunted. A mindset of openness: to others, to our own weaknesses and to growth (Dweck, 2007) form the intricate balance of self-acceptance, empathy, improvement and aspiration needed for effectiveness nursing leadership (Brown, 2014). The quicker and better we can develop this, the better nursing leadership in academia will become.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.