Inside Dentistry
February 2011
Volume 7, Issue 2

A Conversation with Dr. Arthur A. Dugoni

Inside Dentistry's James B. Bramson, DDS, president of Bramson & Company, and Arthur Dugoni, DDS, MSD, dean emeritus of the University of the Pacific Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry, discuss the leadership model that Dr. Dugoni committed early in his career to bring to dental education.


Dr. Dugoni, you're credited with bringing the humanistic model to dental education. For our readers who are perhaps not familiar with that concept, what exactly is the model?

It was former dean Dale Redig who really initiated the humanistic model, when he came from Iowa, and I had an opportunity to build on it over 28 years. This model was modified and enhanced over the years, but fundamentally it's built upon respect for every individual within the institution. It promotes openness and trust, so that people will have the courage to say what they believe, knowing there will be no consequences. Everyone has a stake in the institution, and everyone's opinion and role is valued.

My goal was to create a family, and build an organization in which there was the utmost respect between everyone (just as you would find within a family). In my mind, these efforts also encompassed the creation of a model that's motivating and inspiring – one that builds self-worth. I hoped that when individuals graduated, they would say, "These were the best days of my life. It was demanding, but it was fulfilling. It brought out the best in me."

Do you think that model has purveyed through most of dental education yet?

No, it has not, unfortunately, which bothers me. When I came into education, in the '40s, the model was not really punitive. It was not a humanistic model, but it was reasonably fair, thoughtful, and considerate. However, in the late '60s and early '70s, the model in the business world—which was copied in education—was all top-down. It was, "My way or the highway"—I'm the professor, you're the student. Do what I tell you, when I tell you, and how I tell you. I thought there was a better way; so did Dale Redig. We were able to build a different model. At Pacific Dugoni, I repeat often, "We build people and along the way they become doctors."

It bothers me that today there's a belief among some educators that their schools have a humanistic model, because when you talk to students, that's often not the case. When you talk to students and graduates of various programs, they're not happy with their model of education. I think part of the reason the Pacific Dugoni model succeeds is that it is very open. There are lots of meetings between faculty, professors, deans, staff, and students, during which students are encouraged to participate actively in all committees of the dental school. They're asked to come to frequent meetings with the dean and chairmen of departments, and my ground rules to the students were, "Come with a suit and tie on. Tell us what you like about your program. Tell us what really resonates, what's positive. Then talk about those educational programs you believe need to be improved and bring a solution."

Would you call that transparency in decision-making?

Absolutely. We have two major meetings a year with all student leaders: a dinner that involves all department chairs, directors, and representatives of every class. These meetings also include the specialty and international dental student programs. At this event, the student leaders all have the opportunity to stand up and present ways to make the school better and stronger—and they do one heck of a job. Then I made a solemn promise that within 6 weeks of the meeting, a detailed report would be sent out to the entire constituency of students, staff, and faculty, outlining every issue that was discussed, every recommendation that was made, and every action that was taken. In more than 28 years as dean, I found that that some of the outstanding changes that occurred came about because we allowed input from and exchange between students, faculty, staff, and directors. It wasn't easy in the beginning, because students weren't used to it—and certainly the faculty, chairmen, and directors weren't used to it. There had to be a change in the environment and the culture. Today it's ingrained—it's part of what Pacific Dugoni is.

What barriers did you encounter in implementing that new line of thinking?

First of all, old ways of thinking and ingrained habits were an issue. Many individuals copied the style of previous role models that were no longer appropriate. We had to eliminate "silos and towers." The major barrier, I think, was some tenured faculty who believed they could impose their will any way they wanted. These individuals were reluctant to change; they liked their power base of intimidation. They liked the idea that they could demean individuals, reduce them to nothing, and then build them back up in a certain image (not necessarily the best one). I believe that the non-humanistic model destroys people and their self confidence. It prevents dialogue, innovation, and personal growth.

What's that phrase used at your school—growing people?

I've often said that we build people, and along the way they happen to become doctors. If we haven't grown people as individuals who are concerned about their communities, patients, profession, and dental education, and who have a willingness to contribute and give back—then we've failed. If the only things we've produced are doctors, and we haven't built them as people of values and commitment – individuals who care and want to make a difference – then we've failed.

Were there influential people in your early training that helped you formulate your vision?

Yes, many individuals. It probably started in dental school , with one of my professors, the chair of the department of pediatrics. A very caring and thoughtful person, he was a role model who inspired me by saying, "I have confidence in you. I have selected you especially to take care of this very difficult patient who has very serious problems." He made me a partner in the treatment of that patient.

There have been many others who have influenced me over time. I've had wonderful mentors my entire life. Thinking back, there was my high school principal, who saw something in me and got me involved in public speaking and debating, helping to build up my self-confidence. Certainly I'd have to say my mother was a huge influence on me, because she built on positives. She was an individual who didn't focus on the negatives and berate you for things you hadn't done, but rather she searched out positives and built on them. She was a very bright lady, and she helped me as I grew personally and professionally.

You came from a large Italian family, which seems to have greatly influenced your methods for interacting with students and faculty. What was it like growing up in the Dugoni household?

It was very special. A large group of my family had emigrated from northern Italy—my grandparents had 13 children, and everyone who lived in the same block and the adjoining neighborhood in San Francisco were relatives. Even those who weren't relatives, but were also Italian, were like cousins or aunts and uncles, and they watched out for me. It was an atmosphere full of love and respect, and there was a sense of belonging. The family came together every Sunday at my grandfather's, who cooked all day Saturday. He was a chef who cooked Italian delicacies. We would eat for three or four hours, then the family would all get together for storytelling and singing operas. All the aunts and uncles had great voices, as did my grandfather. It was a special environment in which to grow up—I was loved and cared for, and I felt like I was one of the most important people in the world.

So you wanted your dental school to feel like a family?

Absolutely – the concept came from that background. That's why all students were invited to my home for two barbecues a year, and they were allowed to bring anyone they wanted—mothers, fathers, significant others, and children. We usually brought first-year students to my home, which added up to about 300 to 400 people, counting faculty, staff, first-year students, their mothers, fathers, children, and significant others. Then we brought all of them back again during their last year, about four months before graduation. This was my attempt to bring sense of family to the school.

In my first few years, I also instituted having lunch with six to eight different students every day. This gave them the opportunity to learn about the philosophy we were trying to create, giving them the courage to become involved.

Initially, Pacific Dugoni was not a well-known school; it was insular. The faculty members were great educators, committed and passionate, but they weren't very well-known. They weren't involved in leadership, and they didn't get out of the dental school much. One of my major challenges—which I was passionate about—was to get our faculty and staff involved in continuing education programs out of the dental schools. We encouraged them to become involved in leadership positions at dental societies (the California Dental Association and American Dental Association), which we did achieve. Most people thought Pacific Dugoni students couldn't get involved in leadership because of our 12-month around-the-clock curriculum—how wrong they were.

Then, once students began to see faculty in leadership positions, they decided they wanted that too. They found the time. They've been presidents of ASDA; they've been selected as the outstanding chapter. We've had speakers of the ASDA House of Delegates, people in leadership positions in California, and actively involved in the House of Delegates at the CDA and ADA. Pacific Dugoni students have shown that they want to make a difference—in their dental school, their communities, and their profession.

What aspects of education haven't changed that you think should be ripe for review?

I think there's a lack of collaboration between dental schools. Although I believe it's improved, there could be more collaboration between dental schools, especially in states that have multiple institutions.

Do you mean collaboration in the sense of talking or in sharing resources?

Yes, collaboration in sharing resources, which could reduce the cost of education and enhance programs in both institutions. There tend to be a lot of silos: each dental school sitting on its own strengths or beliefs. I believe there could be a core collaborative effort to share faculty and expertise. Pacific Dugoni has done that with a school in Arizona. When that school was started, many of our faculty actively participated in teaching there, and it was a productive model for both schools. However, after a while, the issue of intellectual capital became a concern.

Besides the humanistic model, I think another area that needs to change is understanding what people are really doing—getting down in the trenches to find out how they deliver the educational model that they perceive is being delivered.

There also needs to be more collaboration between basic and clinical sciences. I think it's better than it used to be, they're not isolated silos as they were in the past. Certainly the application of translational research is coming more to the forefront, but more has to be done.

What about the content of the curriculum?

There's major movement in American Dental Education Association and among academic deans to take a close look at curriculums and change them. At Pacific Dugoni, we have taken a whole new direction with our curriculum, totally rebuilding it. We don't have curriculum restructuring every 5 or 10 years; we've made it a point to look at the curriculum annually. We're looking to see what needs to be brought into the curriculum and how we can enhance teaching and learning. We are totally rebuilding the delivery of education: large classrooms, with the sage on the stage, are disappearing. In the meantime, the model of the guide on the side is growing – learner-centered education. We are developing much smaller groups, similar to graduate programs in which students are meeting regularly with a core of faculty. There may be only six or eight students in a group, where they can't hide anymore. Interactive, small group learning at its best!

At the same time, this is creating a new teaching/learning model, bringing out the best in the student and faculty. Students love this model, because they come into an educational program wanting to learn. In this environment, they are motivated and stimulated to excel. They become inspired learners.

I think this needs to happen at all of our dental schools. Students want to learn at 2 pm on Sunday afternoon or at 1 am on Saturday night, so more distance online learning has to be initiated. In my view, one of the big changes that could come about—and maybe people will disagree with me—is that more of the basic science could be transferred as a requirement to get into dental school, thus making it possible to grow the curriculum with enhanced science and clinical experience. Colleges will have to change their curricula to match the way students learn and professors must change their teaching styles to fit how students learn.

Isn't that a fairly large component of ADEA's Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education (CCI) initiative?

Yes it is, but I'm not sure it's been enhanced to its maximum application. It's like any strategic plan—people put together a plan, and the majority of times it goes on the shelf. It's the wise leader in an institution that can take that model, prioritize it, and monitor it to make sure it's getting carried out. I'm not too sure we've done the job. By bringing some of the basic sciences into the requirements for admission, you can then concentrate more in dental school on advanced science and its application to the clinical curriculum. Active, concrete learning is best and the outcomes can be measured.

How would you describe your own personal leadership style?

My style is very much that of a coach and a teacher. Following the principles of Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence, I strongly believe that you have to be willing to coach and teach individuals and spend time to grow them. I like to combine two styles of coaching. The first says to individuals, I believe in you, you're important. It also says, let's try this. It develops people and shows empathy. I believe it's an approach that also excels at delegating to individuals. Instead of managing things yourself, you set the vision and the goals, and you build leaders and hire people who are better than you are.

I like to combine the coaching style with the authoritative style. I don't mean one that says, do what I tell you, but instead a style that says, come with me. It mobilizes people toward a vision. People come first. It's a change catalyst; it has a positive impact. I also appreciate the democratic style, which says, what do you think? However, it can go on forever—it takes too much time and too many meetings, and so often doesn't get you where you want to go.

In your view, who are the 20th century's greatest leaders and why?

There's a whole group of them that come to mind. For me, I go back to Mahatma Gandhi, and his fundamental concept of respect for all people and the equality of all individuals. That resonates with me. Franklin Delano Roosevelt led us through some very difficult times. Winston Churchill, for being able to set the vision and goals, inspiring people to take on the destructive Nazi power that was eminent at the time. Ronald Reagan is another example, because he embodied one of the principles of great leaders, and that's optimism. He wasn't falsely optimistic; he looked for positives and then built on them. He made people in this country feel this is a great nation and that we could do the right things. We could ask Russia to "take down that wall." So these are some of the people that come to mind.

Did you ever find yourself in a situation requiring courage in leadership?

Yes, several times. One I remember is my views on the licensure issue. I felt that licensure was born out of a time when education did not have standards, curriculums were non-existent, and proprietary schools owned by individuals were in vogue. Over time, licensure needed to be reformed, and I made that one of my cause célébres as President of American Dental Association. My own constituency in California asked "why was I forming committees to study licensure?" Because I fundamentally believed that licensure was flawed, it was disrespectful and injurious to patients—and we could find a better way. My goal was to bring licensing communities within dental schools, to develop trust between them. We should be able to graduate a student with a degree and a license at the same time. So that was a daunting challenge, to take on licensure. We're beginning to see the fruits of these efforts.

You must be pleased with the recent approval of a portfolio exam in California?

Absolutely. I was on the initial committees pushing that concept. I believe it will set in motion changes throughout the entire country.

As California goes, so goes the rest of the country?

So often that happens, for better or worse.

Back in 1983, there was a report called A Nation at Risk, which showed that K-12 education was a sea of mediocrity. Then, Hersh and Merrow, in Declining by Degrees, argued that the same thing was happening in higher education. From your perspective as a former dean in an institution of higher education, is the quality of higher education in America declining?

In my view, overall, yes. However, applicants to dental schools usually come from very strong universities and are highly motivated. There's a strong legacy in dentistry of individuals following family members, and they're able to go to some of the more prestigious colleges and universities in the country.

Any organization is as strong or as weak as its foundation. This great country of ours once led the world in education and everyone wanted to study in the United States of America, but we've lost that advantage. Higher education, once our crown jewel, is tarnished.

Is that mostly in undergraduate education, rather than the graduate degree programs?

I think it starts with K–12. Many excellent teachers have left those grades. We underpay them, and perhaps we haven't provided enough support or reform of K–12. For example, most other countries in the world require longer days and more months in their education program. Without a major reform of K-12, learning in colleges and universities will be compromised.

Then the problem moves up into the next level, the collegiate level, where the rewards are in the wrong place. Rewards are not being given to great educators and individuals in the classroom working with the students, so many of them go where the rewards are. They go into research. Every great university wants to be one of the research leaders, so teaching assistants or graduate students are in the classroom. In some schools, parents are not getting their tuition value from the professor, who is not in the classroom teaching the students. The pursuit of research funding has changed higher education.

We need to be very careful or we will repeat the 1980s and '90s, when the return on investment for dental education was diminished. People were losing faith in the profession; they were looking at ways of getting into engineering, business, and other fields more quickly and at less cost. So the dropout rate was 67 percent, as you remember, for all those reasons. Now, as new dental schools are being built thereby increasing the output of dentists and we're in a period of recession—will we suffer the same consequence of the '80s and '90s? I don't think so, but we need to be vigilant, remembering what happened earlier.


Certainly with healthcare reform, and as we open up avenues for more oral healthcare for the underserved, the need for skilled healthcare providers including dentists could increase. Therefore, more individuals will want to come into our profession. The applicant pool grew significantly in the 2000s. At Pacific Dugoni alone, we have over 3,000 applicants. In graduate programs, the ratio is 10–20 to 1, applicants versus positions.

Regarding the current debate about the return on investment for higher education—is it simply pricing itself out of the marketplace for ordinary families and students with respect to the kinds of jobs and skill sets they're learning there?

I think the cost of education is a serious concern in this country, which must be addressed. Higher education leaders need to look at how we can provide education at a higher quality and find ways of reducing the escalating cost. At Pacific Dugoni School od Dentistry we have addressed this by completing four academic years in three. In addition, we have honors programs that will provide a BS and a DDS degree in six years. Many individuals in our communities are unable to afford an education. We need more scholarships and endowments, so that individuals can find ways to obtain that education. We have great universities, some of the leading universities in the world. In addition, there are a lot of jewels out there—smaller, lesser-known schools that are delivering very high quality education. In their book, Hersh and Merrow identify many of those schools.

My heroes and heroines have always been teachers. They made a difference in my life—a high school principal, a dean of a dental school, and several professors who sought me out and grew me. I've often said if I can make a difference in people's lives, that's the greatest reward for my life. For me, it's not the plaques on the wall, medals, or distinguished service awards. It's that priceless letter that I receive so often from a peer, student, friend, or colleague, who states, "Art, you made a difference in my life." To me, that's the greatest of all rewards.

I think that belief is in the heart and soul of so many educators. Especially in dental education, where they have given up the opportunity to be in clinical practice and make considerable sums of money. My son, Steven, who teaches one day a week at no salary, says, "It's the best day of my life."

I recently gave a talk at ASDA, for about 300 students, nine representatives from each dental school. I asked them to "close your eyes for 30 or 40 seconds, and envision what you're going to be doing in the year 2030." I waited, and then said, "Let me tell you what I see. Very few of you are going to be what you envision. But believe me, as your world evolves, your opportunities grow from the basis of your college and dental education. Opportunities will open for you and you will suddenly have a dream and a passion to do something that's far different from what you're all thinking at this moment. You're thinking you will be clinicians, and that's what you came to dental school for."

There may be only a small percentage of you thinking about being an educator. But we've turned that around at Pacific Dugoni; we have a lot of young people who want to be educators. That helps to reduce the cost of education through innovative models. Two plus three model: two days a week teaching, three days a week in practice. Or the three plus two model: three days a week teaching, two days in practice. Especially in clinical areas, we've invested heavily in bringing in expert practitioners who've had 10 or 15 years of practice, and who have credibility in carrying out those procedures. We've built a core of full-time faculty surrounded by part-time faculty. For instance, when I was the chair of orthodontics, I developed this model. My son has followed the same model, enticing three to five outstanding clinicians to come in and give a free half day or full day once a week, every week, beside a paid faculty member. Now you've got a team of five or six people. In the restorative department, we have over 80 faculty members. Having 80 full-time salaries and benefits in one department would bankrupt a school. However, we have a core of full-time faculty surrounded by part-time educators.

That's one way of reducing the costs of education, along with better management. Dental schools need individuals who have management skills. That's why we instituted certain programs at Pacific Dugoni. First was the masters in education program—now 45 members of our faculty have a master's degree in education. They understand the pedagogy of education—how to teach, inspire, and motivate. Then we brought in the school of business. Now 30 members of our faculty and staff have MBAs. They know how to manage time, people, and resources. Then we brought back the school of education, and this year we have 25 or 30 people who are completing their doctorates in education. It helps take your educational programs from good to great.

So one asset of Pacific is the reinvestment in your faculty?

Definitely. Dr. Pat Ferrillo, the current dean, also believes very strongly in reinvesting in faculty and staff. We also have the CalTEACH program, in which teams of educators critique each other to enhance their teaching skills. We believe in encouraging lots of feedback from our students about the strengths of every course (and teachers) in the curriculum. Not with the idea of being punitive to an educator, but to find out how we can enhance that person's skills. And these efforts have been paying dividends.

Looking at your background, it seems that early in your career, everywhere you went, you made the basketball team. Did team sports help you hone your ability to lead people and foster group skills?

Absolutely. Being involved in athletics has always been high on my agenda, whether it was running or basketball. I tried out for lots of basketball teams when I was in the Navy. I made some teams and I sat on a lot of benches. My coach nicknamed me "Brooms" because I was a high jumper and I could sweep the backboard.

Being part of an athletic team helps you understand that an individual cannot achieve everything by him or herself. It takes a team. If you can develop a team concept, you can take any institution to its highest potential—in some instances, from good to great. Whether I was a dental student or a dean, I always had a half basketball court at my home, and I would go out every evening and weekends and shoot 100 shots from 12 to 15 feet. I got pretty good at that, because like anything else, if you have a passion for something and if you do it repeatedly, you can master it.

So to answer your question, I think my involvement in athletics was a big part of my concept of building teams, hiring people who are better than I am at what they do. I could not be the chairman of oral maxillofacial surgery, but I could get the best oral maxillofacial surgeon. If I could remove the barriers, provide the resources, and get out of the way, then that person could move his or her division from good to great. That's part of my management style.

Speaking of passions, philanthropy has always been part of your great vision for the profession, and you've certainly modeled that behavior for all of us. In your opinion, how can we help dentists give more of their time, talent, and treasury?

I've always felt that giving back was important. Unfortunately, although dentists have given back generously of their time and their talent, they weren't always motivated to give back of their treasury as alumni. That percentage was not as high as it could have been—15 or 20 percent at the highest stage, which means that maybe 80-85 percent don't give back.

Starting when individuals are students, we can help them to understand that whether it's a public or private school, they've never paid the true cost of their education. Therefore, we need to help students (future alumni) realize how they can be part of taking an institution from good to great by giving of their time, talent, and treasury. Certainly it starts with perhaps only their time, and later their talent, and then as time goes on, their treasury. It's something that I believe must be done because of the continuing escalating cost of education. We must create an awareness in the minds and hearts of every dentist and graduate to support their dental school. The message has to go out often to make them aware of the needs of dental education. I used to ask individuals to "please partner with me in the dream and vision I have."

I also tried to model it by giving of my own time and resources. On almost every project, I contributed to the best of my ability, whether it was a new simulation lab, a research facility, or an endowment. I tried to encourage people with the concept of monthly giving. If you look at computer printouts of what graduates are giving, you would be shocked. Probably 85 percent of graduates have not given even $10,000 in their entire lifetimes to their dental schools. As dean, I read reports every week showing every donor and what their lifetime giving was. Every donor received a personal note from me to encourage him or her to give more, and I also encouraged them to create endowments that would honor their family name. If you can get people inspired to create endowments, these live on forever. An endowment has a family name on it, honoring grandparents or parents, or just the family name itself. Therefore, donations will be made every year. And that's the point, because most individuals do not donate every year to their dental school. Mostly they give every five years, one or two hundred dollars.

I remember a story you once told me about soliciting a donation from an alumnus. Would you care to share that story with our readers?

I usually had dinners and luncheons all over the western states with our graduates, and I like to play golf, so I'd usually ask them to set up a game with me. This particular day, I was golfing with a non-graduate—an officer of the dental association. All the time we were playing 18 holes, he was complaining about how he didn't like the manner in which he was educated. He didn't appreciate the way he was, in his view, taught by intimidation and fear. At the end of the game, I pointed out his high-tech Cobra golf clubs in his beautiful golf bag, the BMW he drove up in, and his Rolex watch. I said, "You've done well with your dental career, haven't you? That fundamental education you received was pretty good, wasn't it? Maybe you ought to think about giving back to your dental school, about making it better because of you not in spite of you. I'd like you to think about the fact that maybe you can bury that hurt, because now there's a different dean and different professors. Now that you have the assets, maybe you can give back and make a difference for future students."

You've said that the greatest gift is to do something for someone who can't do anything for you. It sounds as though there have been a lot of people throughout your life who've done that for you.

One of the greatest gifts I received was when the President of the University of Pacific offered me the deanship. To me, that was a wonderful and humbling moment in my life. He had a lot of other choices beside me—32 or so candidates at the time, reduced to a final three, and he offered me the deanship. I couldn't give him anything in return, except to do the best job that I could.

Another time, earlier, I made the acquaintance of a very wealthy man, who offered to set me up in practice, without ever having to pay him back. I could not accept the offer, because I told him I was going to go into education. The third time, when I was 38 years old, I decided to go back to graduate school even though I had five children under the age of eight. Two individuals offered to send me three or four hundred dollars apiece each month to help me fund my way through the graduate program. I did not accept their offer, but these are people who were giving something to me when I really couldn't give anything back to them.

When the dental school was named after you, how did you feel about that symbol representing the culmination of a lifetime of passion and commitment to dentistry?

First of all, it was something I never expected, to have the dental school named after me. It was overwhelming, humbling, unbelievable. I wish my mom and dad could have been there. About the time I was turning 80, I felt it was time for me to retire. However, when the dental school was named after me, the president advised me to stay another one or two years to be a consultant to the President, while he looked for someone to become dean. It was a very special time in my life, to have the school named after me.

It was difficult to leave something that I loved passionately. Confucius said, if you love what you do, you never work a day in your life. That's been my career. I loved my profession and the dental school of which I was fortunate to be dean. I could have left it several times for other offers and I chose not to. I could have moved up in the university administration, and I chose not to. I had a passion to take a good dental school to the great levels that I knew it was capable of achieving.

There were outstanding deans before me, and as you know, you build an organization on consistency – consistency of core values, consistency of efforts and vision over time. Core values never change, they're timeless. Consistency, in my view, distinguishes the truly great leaders. They have a relentless drive for excellence, change, and progress. They have to bypass their charisma and find out what they can be passionate about and best at, and then have the courage to do it.

Put it this way. There are a lot of people who are good—people get to levels of doing things very well. But the difference between good and great can come down to one thing, in my mind—great leaders just outwork everybody. It's not necessarily that these leaders put more time in, they're just more productive in that time. To me, one of the major differences in leadership is the commitment and passion to be the best that you can be. When you build your teams, if you can identify this vision for your teams, they wake up every morning to be the best they can be. It becomes their passion.

Jim Collins wrote in his book, Good to Great, if you can create a team with those kinds of people, it's amazing what you can build. If you can create an environment of trust and respect, where everyone feels secure about who they are and what they are doing, and they feel comfortable enough to take risks, to challenge you and disagree with you as a leader—it's all based upon a passion to make the institution better. Collins said, "Greatness is not a function of circumstance. Greatness, it turns out, is largely a matter of conscious choice and discipline."

Thank you for your time and insight.

Suggested Reading

Collins J. Good to Great. New York, NY: HarperBusiness; 2002.
Goleman D. Emotional Intellilgence. 10th Anniversary Edition. New York, NY: Bantam Books; 2010.
Hersh RH, Merrow J. Declining by Degrees: Higher Education at Risk. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005.

About the Interviewee

Dr. Arthur A. Dugoni is the dean emeritus of the dental school that now bears his name at the University of the Pacific, San Francisco. A former president of the American Dental Association, he is the immediate former president of the ADA Foundation. Among his many awards and recognitions throughout his career, in 1998 Dr. Dugoni was elected to the FDI World Dental Federation List of Honour, the highest award the FDI can bestow on a member and is limited to thirty living members throughout the world who have made distinguished contributions to the international dentistry and the World Dental Federation.

© 2021 AEGIS Communications | Privacy Policy