Tag: Higher Education

Categories
Features Managerial Competence Political Competence

Obstacles to Change in the Academic Setting

professor-in-reposeUniversities and colleges are faced with unprecedented challenges.  Institutions of higher education cannot be managed by wishful thinking or the belief that everything will “work out.” For years, this traditional mindset allowed academic institutions to perch on an isolated peak in the midst of an oasis. This idyllic state can no longer be sustained.

The reality is simple.  Resources are limited. Expansion is restricted. Technology is changing the core pedagogy. Students and their parents are no longer complacent consumers. In this context universities and colleges must change while adhering to their core mission of excellence in research, teaching, and outreach. They must become agile, entrepreneurial, and creative.

However, the very processes and structures that have allowed universities and colleges to expand in earlier times and under different circumstances are now sources of deep inertia and resistance to change.  It may be the case that it is harder to drive change in institutions of higher learning than in private-sector organizations. What are the underlying factors that cause universities and colleges to resist change?

Intransigent culture

Institutions of higher education have long taken pride in their culture.  From the biggest Ivy League school to the smallest private institution, individual traditions have drawn students, engaged faculty and staff, and sustained the interest and support of alumni.  However, culture and traditions that have been useful in building a sense of community may be a source of resistance to change.

Turf protection

Universities and colleges are riddled with artificial divisions.  Questions of turf arise in schools, departments, and fields. Collaboration and cooperation are the first casualties of turf battles.  Lasting change cannot be put into place when people are overly worried about losing ground, personally or professionally.

Administrative and faculty divide

Administrators have a distinctly different role in than faculty do, and these roles sometimes clash.  Administrators are usually more concerned with the bottom-line and maximizing income and faculty are first committed to excellence in teaching and research, and not as obsessed with how the bills are paid.  It is important to recognize the potential conflict that can be caused by differing administrative and faculty mindsets.

Power pendulum

The power pendulum swings with regularity in the university setting.  Sometimes higher ed gets on a “centralization” kick, where core support functions (IT, HR, Finance) are done by a single office.  Other times higher ed goes in the opposite direction, and gives schools and departments more latitude in how they operate, and allows more decisions to be made on a local level.  Both centralization and decentralization pose different obstacles to change.

Duplication of structures

What is the mission of a university? Ask a dozen people and there will be a dozen answers.  Multiple missions within the university can lead to a duplication of administrative structures—and therefore, a greater acreage of turf that needs to be protected.

It is clear that the 21st century will usher in great change for universities and colleges, and no one is certain what this “change” will look like.  There are built-in obstacles that make change difficult (some may say impossible), but by first recognizing what stands in the way of change, administrators and faculty can begin to deal with the factors that stand in the way of change, and clear the way for the next generation of students.

Categories
BLG Leadership Insights Features Ideas Managerial Competence Political Competence Proactive Leaders Proactive Stories

Leadership in Higher Education: The Skills of Political Competence

innovation safety leaders

In my neighborhood job security meant working for AT&T, teaching K-12, or joining the ranks or higher education. The latter career track came with the additional advantage of containing a bit of prestige. But there was also a sense of calling, a sense that you’d be serving some collective good by adding to the knowledge of society, and moving truly important agendas ahead.

You also entered higher ed because you felt it wouldn’t be a pressure cooker and the ruthlessness of the private sector wouldn’t rear its head every time you made a mistake.

Well, things have changed.

In a world where AT&T can’t provide job security and the U.S. auto industry almost disappeared, we can’t assume that you favorite college or university will be there tomorrow.

For years higher ed has been dominated by two mantras. One for administrators: “Leave well enough alone and things will get done in their due time.” The other for academics: “Let’s have a faculty meeting.”

But now the clock is ticking.

Higher ed is no longer the proverbial, angelic, oasis amidst a sea of private-sector sharks (if it ever was). Today, higher-ed organizations must keep moving in order to stay afloat. The Ivy League right down to the smallest of community colleges can no longer be guided by the stars—they need leadership that is proactive, pragmatic, and aware that change is crucial. They need the type of leadership that gets things done.

First and foremost leaders in higher ed must understand the three reasons universities and colleges often resist change.

  1. Intransigent culture: Leaders in higher ed must appreciate how to subtly move around the deep culture which has been celebrated and worked for so long. The very culture that has given higher ed its identity must now be adjusted.
  2. Turf protection: Higher ed is an arena of turf and silos. In a world of minimum resources, zero-sum games, and department elimination, this is becoming more evident. We need leaders who have political competence and can mobilize around these issues.
  3. Tension between administration & faculty: Traditionally, there has always been tension between administrators and faculty and each group quickly dismisses the other. Each has their own stereotypes of the other. It’s the false distinction between a stereotypical bureaucrat and a stereotypical academic. In a world where we want to increase shared services and shared missions, leaders must help administrators and faculty come together.

In the context of all this leaders within both the faculty and the administration must develop a degree of political competence. They must understand how to bring people together, mobilize around agendas, and sustain change.

A number of years ago, a colleague of mine told me, when assuming the chair of a large science department, “I don’t do politics.”

My answer was, “Don’t be a chairperson.”

The university is a maze of mixed interests, mixed agendas, and inconsistent visions. Political competence is the minimum we should ask of leaders in higher ed.

Categories
BLG Leadership Insights Ideas Leadership On the Edge Proactive Leaders Proactive Stories

Meeting Goals in Higher Education

Higher education institutions are struggling with how to brand themselves and their role as societal leaders. When vision exceeds the scope of leadership competence, gaps can appear. Universities better know what they want because they may not be able to perform. Effectiveness is measured by meeting goals. If the goals are too great, disappointment and its economic and political consequences may take root. It is appropriate to encourage students and faculty to have goals that exceed their reach, but the institution should not do the same. It sets itself up for failure.

Here’s a great article about how the University of Texas at Austin has dealt with this problem:

FOCUSING THE UNIVERSITY’S MESSAGE