Health Information Technology

The article Dean’s Disease talks about interesting subject of power in academia. It never crossed my mind to analyze the topic of how power manifests itself in the office of dean. Arthur G. Bendeian does a great job at addressing power control and the relationship of deans and faculty at the universities across the country. Dean’s disease infects newly promoted deans that take a power position in which communications is minimized between the faculty and dean’s office and deans become so puffed up with their own importance that they alienate themselves from the others in the college. Also dean’s disease makes deans feel more valuable than other faculty and supports only those that are in an inner circle of the dean’s office and that agree with the dean on every issue. As such Dean’s disease can be fatal to the college and proper actions need to taken in order for this not to occur. Students and faculty are too valuable for any university and college that such disease could beat the purpose of university as visioned by early thinkers and as practiced over hundreds of years.  Deans that are suffering from Dean’s disease reward only those that communicate views that reflect the superiority of their dean’s ideas. Deans feel that they are able to influence faculty because of the resources they control (p. 165). The article talks about coercive power that is often times exercised by the deans that are suffering from this power control issue. I have a hard time accepting that coercive power is exercised as most in academia would not accept this type of treatment. I can see reward power being an incentive for many to join dean and support his/her ideas. Reward power can be experienced at any job. Arthur goes on to compare academia to private industry in matters related to the power and control. I think that this is a wrong approach as these two institutions operate at different levels. One cannot compare deans to CEO’s. This approach would justify deans infected by Dean’s disease. CEO’s often times have to reach the goals set forth and have a responsibility towards their shareholders. If such goal is not achieved many people suffer. CEO’s have a control over most actions taken by the company. Deans do not have such control. Provost, president of university and board of regents are similar in position to that of CEO’s but still do not exercise as much power as CEO’s. Also in academia there is a chain of command that does not allow faculty to go over dean and file a formal complaint. Instead faculty must address this complaint to the department and then department addresses it to the dean. As such, many faculty and department heads are unwilling to expose themselves to such review.  This type of hierarchical process further helps deans acquire dean’s disease. I think that author’s approach can be applied to many organizations and corporations and it is not relevant to academia especially one financed by the government.  However, the power issue has to be addressed and proper precautions have to be taken. Hiring and interviewing applicants for these positions have to be taken very seriously as it can harm much valuable faculty and students, without whom the university would not exist. Leadership in academia has to be recognized while teaching and performing research. Before being hired as a dean one must pass through research and teaching and prove themselves that they are the person who can successfully lead the college. Clearly, one must be appointed temporarily to this position before they are given tenure.