successful programmatic accreditation as a signal to administrators and the greater public that the program is viable and of good quality (ASHA, 2011). Leadership in CSD and other higher education programs has garnered increased attention at the national level. The focus on leadership stems from the idea that ineffective leadership of academic units can slow or jeopardize programmatic success (Higgerson & Joyce, 2007). In CSD programs, the chair or program director is primarily responsible for strategic control of the academic unit and for leading important departmental processes such as accreditation. The role in academic programs is complicated by pressures from central administration, chair’s accrediting agencies, state boards of education, granting agencies, and state legislators. As the primary departmental figurehead, chairs must also serve as a primary agent of the central administration. Faculty members may have difficulty grasping that the chair serves in the primary agent role or may disagree with how the chair serves in that role, and, as a result, conflicts may emerge. Heifetz and Linksky (2002) suggest that modern leadership should be viewed as an activity that extends beyond positional power or authority, especially in academe. They further posit that leadership occurs in a context of problems and challenges, with shifting leadership responsibilities beyond authority figures to stakeholders, including faculty, staff, and students in programs. Leadership in higher education needs to help stakeholders accept responsibility for technical and strategic innovation in the face of challenging demands (Scudder & Self, 2010). Unique in many ways, CSD programs house both academic and clinical training components. Additionally, CSD programs often house two professions, audiology and speech pathology with potentially divergent faculty and student foci. Because of these distinctions, leadership in CSD programs can be challenging. Nan Bernstein Ratner (2010), program director
successful programmatic accreditation as a signal to administrators and the greater public that the program is viable and of good quality (ASHA, 2011). Leadership in CSD and other higher education programs has garnered increased attention at the national level. The focus on leadership stems from the idea that ineffective leadership of academic units can slow or jeopardize programmatic success (Higgerson & Joyce, 2007). In CSD programs, the chair or program director is primarily responsible for strategic control of the academic unit and for leading important departmental processes such as accreditation. The chair’s role in academic programs is complicated by pressures from central administration, accrediting agencies, state boards of education, granting agencies, and state legislators. As the primary departmental figurehead, chairs must also serve as a primary agent of the central administration. Faculty members may have difficulty grasping that the chair serves in the primary agent role or may disagree with how the chair serves in that role, and, as a result, conflicts may emerge. Heifetz and Linksky (2002) suggest that modern leadership should be viewed as an activity that extends beyond positional power or authority, especially in academe. They further posit that leadership occurs in a context of problems and challenges, with shifting leadership responsibilities beyond authority figures to stakeholders, including faculty, staff, and students in programs. Leadership in higher education needs to help stakeholders accept responsibility for technical and strategic innovation in the face of challenging demands (Scudder & Self, 2010). Unique in many ways, CSD programs house both academic and clinical training components. Additionally, CSD programs often house two professions, audiology and speech pathology with potentially divergent faculty and student foci. Because of these distinctions, leadership in CSD programs can be challenging. Nan Bernstein Ratner (2010), program director
HIED-DocProgAssessReport_2013_Rev1-1.docx