Luther Rice PhD

Was wondering if anyone has any thoughts (or experience) with the Luther Rice PhD in Organizational Leadership. Now SACS accredited in addition to TRACS and ABHE, the program appears interesting and affordable. I still find the Bakke Graduate University Doctor of Transformational Leadership a bit more interesting but the SACS accreditation might be hard to pass up at LR.

 

Not in particular to this program but there are many threads that talk about PhDs in leadership. They seem to be generic PhDs that can fit some profiles but their utility is limited in academia and industry as you will not see many ads calling for professionals or full time professors in leadership. Some might agree or disagree but personally think that if leadership is of your interest, a more marketable degree could be in HR or Management.

 

Like any doctorate, it depends on what you want to do with the degree and the knowledge.

Because I have a keen interest in the subject--I've worked in it for decades--I am interested in both the scholarship and practice of leadership development. I think denizens of this board radically under-sell the notion of a degree in this area.

If I was ever to enroll in another degree program (at any level), it would be in leadership. There is zero doubt about that.

 

By the way, I wrote and self-published a book on how to develop leaders. It even has one review! (Thanks, Steve!)

Leadership is real, it is the crux to business and organizational success, and it can be learned.

 

Here's a good thread: https://www.degreeinfo.com/index.php?threads/if-i-could-live-my-life-over-again.53227/

 

I remember that thread. It was filled with unsupported opinions and over-generalizations.

It's important to examine why someone would want a particular degree in a particular area. At the doctoral level, it is particularly important to make distinctions between scholarly and professional doctorates, as well as degrees done by non- or short-residency means vs. traditional doctoral processes.

As for leadership itself, it is a scholarly discipline as well as an applied practice. It is reasonable to approach its research from either approach, depending on (a) what you want to know and (b) what you want to do with it. The OP didn't seem to know the answers to those questions before embarking on the degree. A lot of education is sold that way.

Frankly, irrespective of the discipline studied, I would not have pursued an academic career with an EdD from Argosy. And if I did, it would not be a traditional job search. It would be because the school already wanted me and the degree just checked a box. (If you want to know how such a degree can be optimally leveraged, be in the career field of education first. That particular degree would be excellent in a K-12 situation, or an administrative HE position.)

 

He is oversimplifying in some ways but also making some good points. Loved his calling out buzz words (masquerading as depth).

 

There is obviously serious academic study of management and has been for a long time. Perhaps not in these degrees.

"Servant Leadership" "Transformational Change" became buzzwords. Good concepts perhaps but risk being like those introductions to resumes and the video calls this out

 

Garp,

I think that the video critique of the Master’s degree program in Organizational Leadership misses the entire point of the leadership-learning educational experience. Perhaps, the participants in the expensive degree have actually imbibed the “platitude-bullshit-lie” leadership communication model.

Link: http://www.decodingleadershipbullshit.com/pdf/bullshit_leseprobe_1.pdf

According to one author with “years of senior leadership positions in business consultancies around the world”, the “beauty of the model lies in its broad explanatory power: it is uncontroversial to assume that about 95% of what successful leaders say belongs in one of the three categories,

So the model is constructed around two axes: what you say in terms of content (platitudes, bullshit, lies) and how you say it, as measured by the level of assertiveness you display. The mechanics of the model allow us to define the relationship between what you say and how you say it in one sentence: the level of assertiveness you need to display is directly proportional to your content. In simpler terms, the bigger the crap you say, the more assertive you need to be when saying it. And this works along a continuous function starting with platitudes and finishing with lies. That was easy! Let’s now explain how you can make this work for you.

Platitudes: As a leader, babbling out platitudes is daily business for you. What separates you from the sherpas is your ability to display “gravitas” (as our HR buddies like to say) when saying meaningless stuff everybody knows anyway. So, in keeping with the model, you are required to have this assertive look on your face that makes clear how extremely important your message is. For a sane person, this takes practice. Start with a simple platitude, obvious stuff like “the sun rises in the east.” Squinting and raising your head a bit usually helps. Learn from G.W. Bush; he was a master in this. Once you can say this in a way that makes a business audience tremble with admiration at your wisdom, move on.

Bullshit: Raise the bar and increase the bullshit factor. For example, right before filing for bankruptcy, a good bullshitter can get away with stuff like “while we see some challenges short-term, the long-term outlook is good.” While platitudes actually have no content, bullshit is different. In general, bullshit is difficult to debunk, as it always contains an idea or proposal that could be true, but never is. For example, in our model we would summarize half-truths (that are very important in business discussions) under bullshit. You probably hear (and hopefully talk) a lot of bullshit yourself in your office each day, so we’re not going to provide more examples.

Lies: The day you master bullshit statements like the above, try to move on to the realm of flat-out lies. Probably the most popular lie in business is something around “we value our people,” or “people are our most important asset.” On reflection, this is not a very big lie, because nobody actually believes it. But it’s a good start. A better one would be “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” This could have been potentially true. And to make it stick, it had to be said on various occasions by different people. This kind of orchestration is actually a defining feature for lies. In general, lies need some kind of ballyhoo around them, as this increases your probability of getting away scot-free. However, we do not recommend that you lie more than is necessary to advance your career. Princeton Professor Harry G. Frankfurt says it very clearly in his famous title On Bullshit: “our attitude towards bullshit is generally more benign than our attitude towards lying.” Also, note that the degree to which you can lie (and get away with it) is limited by your rank: if you’re low-ranking, a small lie is okay; if you’re high-ranking, you can get away with a bigger lie. You knew this anyway. However, many careers fail because low-ranking managers play around with lies just way above their level. As an aside, now you also understand why we find “middle management” a bit of a clumsy concept…Okay, so we just said HOW you say stuff beats WHAT you say.”

 

The thread is pretty hijacked right now, so why not pile on?

In my theory of executive (strategic) leadership development, here are the key factors. I'm not going to explain any of them, but they're commonly understood and/or understandable with a little looking.

4 Areas to Develop:

• Technical expertise in your field
• Strategic Leadership Concepts and Applications
• Organizational Savvy
• Adult Ego Development

4 Methods to Use:

• Learning, including teaching, research, independent study, experiential learning, and OJT
• Coaching
• Mentoring
• Facilitation

4 Types of Developers to Use:

• Trainers
• Coaches
• Mentors
• Facilitators

A note on learning leadership: yes, it is learned. Yes, certain traits (like charisma) help, but none are particularly essential. Leadership is about behavior, not traits. Just as height (a trait) is helpful for success in basketball, success can be found without it. (Calvin Murphy is in the Basketball Hall of Fame at 5'9" and Nate Archibald--also in the HoF--was called "Tiny" at 6'1".)

In WWII, Halsey, MacArthur, and Patton were inspirational leaders. Yet, it was Eisenhower, Marshall, Bradley, and Spaatz who really led us to victory. None of them would be described as inspirational or charismatic. Behavior, not traits.

 

That was funny

 

If the desired outcome of earning this doctorate is to make more money, I agree with you. However, there are lots of other reasons one might want to earn a degree at any level. I am 54 years old, own and operate a successful business, and am looking to semi-retire in the next few years. I am looking for something that interests me on a deep level and allows me greater ability to teach, coach, consult, and write in the next chapters of my life. I earned a BA in Leadership and found every class fascinating. I earned a MS in Organizational Performance and found it to be very interesting in parts and extremely blah in others. I definitely gravitated toward the human human behavior aspects of performance as opposed to the analytics and systems. I am considering a doctorate that evokes enough interest in me to see it through. I am also considering a graduate degree in counseling because of my interest in human behavior.

My question wasn't intended to be about the earning potential of the Luther Rice doctorate, but rather the experience others may have had with the program, or perhaps other programs from Luther Rice, or thoughts on the structure/content of the program.

Pug

 

I've looked at the BGU DTL for years. I absolutely love the structure, content, and options associated with this degree, especially the 10 day immersive experience spent in a global world city (could be in the US or abroad, both are offered). If this program was RA I would already be enrolled. Lots to consider...

 

I agree with him. I see so many of these leadership doctoral degrees on LinkedIn. You need no prior subject knowledge and no skills. It's the go-to degree for people who just want the doctor title.

 

I would recommend a PhD in Industrial Psychology. You can teach general psychology, HR and organizational behaviour. You can also use it for leadership or executive coaching. I have nothing against leadership but it is something that you can learn in one course or two courses and the rest with experience.
This degree seem to be geared towards people that want a PhD for general leadership positions, it works well for some people who already have a job in the government or academia and just need a doctorate for a pay bump but not so good for those who want to use it for consulting or academic career in my opinion. Most schools would prefer an adjunct that can teach different subjects, most schools only have one class in leadership.

 

I can see its use. Many administrators in Academia can get a pay bump because of a doctorate and also get professional development funds. If I can use my professional development budget to do a PhD that does not take too much of my time, it might help me to get a pay bump, become an adjunct professor and be called a Dr so it is all good. The problem is for those that want this PhD to start a new career, I don't see much use for it as leadership positions would put more emphasis on experience than a PhD and academic positions in leadership are very rare.

 

I couldn't disagree more. Leadership is both a scholarly and applied discipline, not unlike a slew of others in professional areas. And that "doctor title" business? That almost always comes from someone who hasn't actually done one. (Nothing personal; I have no idea if you've done one or not.)

 

While Leadership is a discipline of its own, it is odd that so many places that don't deliver other specialized programs default to Leadership or Organizational Behavior. I wonder if this is because these areas capture more of the students who would be interested in a PhD, or if there is something specific to Leadership that makes it particularly easy to deliver as an online PhD when compared with other disciplines. I'm not sure of either, just thinking out loud.

 

Some good insights. This is of course distinct from the academic study of management/organizational management.