FASSC PROFILE.pdf - CUEA

1. Monitoring: At all times we need, to seek and give advice or guidance on what we do or we
intend to do for better results. Let us compare our opinions with others and see how critical
and comprehensive we are in all that we think and do. We should monitor ourselves and,
at the same time, accept to be monitored by others, for both are not only important but
also necessary for our growth.
2. Evaluation: There should be time for evaluation. This is because the evaluative exercise
inquires whether the value of a particular object (mission statement, studying, teaching,
learning, research, knowledge, skills, and community service) remains intact, has added
value or has lost its value. Without this noble exercise, we will not know whether what we
are still doing is reasonable.
Let us appreciate that the outcome of these two recommendations is incommensurable. They
not only give us a feedback but also a “feed forward”.
5. On the Principle of Subsidiarity
The Faculty seeks to promote the principle of subsidiarity in order to assign power and
make real decisions in all levels of the system. The units that constitute our Faculty (nonacademic
staff, Students, lecturers, Heads of Departments, Departmental boards, and the
Faculty boards) should exercise real power and make noble decision according to their
capacity. This demands genuine knowledge of what we ought to do, to share and supervise on
daily basis.
As a matter of fact, the principle of subsidiarity allows the members of a given unit to own
the unit and display their level of responsibility and commitment. Therefore, everyone should
know the reason as to why he/she is here and act according to his/her job description.
6. The Kind of Leadership we long for
A good leader should be an authority, a companion and a blessing to the society. Max
Weber distinguishes three different types of leadership: rational leadership which relies on the
legal process and a technically skilled bureaucracy, traditional leadership which rests on the
regularized belief in the sanctity of valid traditions, and charismatic leadership which rests on
the extra-ordinary appeal to the holiness or the heroic or exemplary qualities of a person.
(ww.users.surfaid.org/ Leadership.htm)
This scholar is certainly moving towards a particular direction: leadership must be shared
with others for the pursuit of the common good. Sharing is the essence of such conception
because one person cannot possess all the skills or qualities for different situations. Let us know
that it is highly difficult, perhaps impossible, to be good or tactful in all. For instance, a person
may be very good in planning or conceiving prominent ideas but very poor in executing them.
Although one is aware of its various mechanisms, nature, as well as the problems, expectations
and philosophies of leadership, he might not be up to the task as the practice is concerned.
When sharing is ignored or neglected in some prevailing situations, the community faces
conflicts which divide the leader from those he leads. This state of affairs can cause confusion
in the sense that, lacking full knowledge of a given situation, the leader and the people may not
know the kind of leadership to be exercised for a particular good.
Based on this, we can state that a leader must have acute and accurate perceptions of the
needs of the group, the ability to judge and to determine its level of maturity in all dimensions