{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015873015873015872, 'fraction_numerical': 0.000496031746031746, 'mean_word_length': 5.527508090614886, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Leadership Perspective: The Key to Designing Effective Leadership for Organizations of Higher Education

Consistent with typical behavior in times of perceived crisis, commentary concerning the current unrest within American colleges and universities is turning increasingly to the topic of leadership. Some groups are highly critical of formal administrative leadership even to the point of questioning its traditional legitimacy. Others, including many professors, are engaging in the self-illusory practice of scapegoating incumbent officials, thereby providing simplistic but anxiety-reducing explanations for any and all internal disorders or problems. Still others, increasing in numbers in direct proportion to the escalation of campus crises, are crying out for law and order leadership to return higher education to normalcy. Another level of leadership concern is reflected by the on-going debate as to what group or groups should exert leadership for higher education. Some suggest that the prerogative of leadership has shifted historically from the trustees to the faculty, then to the administration, and now is in the process of shifting to student groups (1). Others claim the universities belong to the students and faculty; while still others regard institutions of higher education as creatures of the state, thus concluding that they should be controlled primarily by the electorate through their chosen representatives. The presence of such a widespread concern about university leadership and the diversity of viewpoints about and expectations for its legitimacy, performance, and source has stimulated a plethora of printed reactions. Most reactions are long on criticism of current leadership and short on functional proposals for improving it. Those offering proposals typically stress idealized views of what would be "better" behavior on the part of individual leaders and ignore the situational variables within which the better behavior must be acted out. All in all, the current litera-