a 'governor, '" which meant treating faculty, union leaders, and other administrators as colleagues, instead of subordinates ( Birnbaum 1992, 127). In general, successful academic leaders respected diversity (appreciating, not deprecating, different values). They respected participants' own goals for the institution (building on them, versus correcting them). They respected individuals' right-claims (placing the needs of people before system requirements). And they respected shared leadership (dispersing power, not just decentralizing it). All clearly Madisonian priorities.
There is a final point. I suspect that most of us work in universities with some Madisonian characteristics, whether top administrators encourage them or not. It is interesting that academic professionals create and seek employment in organizations with such institutionalized checks and balances as self-supporting departments, faculty senates, unions, tenure policies, grievance processes, and committees representing every interest imaginable. If this sort of federalist system is what we choose for ourselves, if we claim academic freedom as our right, why should we prescribe any less freedom for others?
This chapter was originally published by Business Ethics Quarterly (Vol. 5, No. 1).
The officers stirred impatiently in their seats, and then suddenly every heart missed a beat. Something was the matter with His Excellency. He seemed unable to read the paper. He paused in bewilderment. He fumbled in his waistcoat pocket. And then he pulled out something that only his intimates had seen him wear. A pair of glasses. With infinite sweetness and melancholy, he explained, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown grey but almost blind in the service of my country."