It is no surprise to most readers that I do not believe that "the university is a (billion-dollar) business and so should be run accordingly." I reject the "entrepreneurial model" and think this has been a disaster, particularly for Australian and UK universities. Universities are not a business. Universities are also not a family, a finishing school for wealthy children, a community service organisation, a job training school, or a government department, ... Universities are universities. They are about thinking.
Previously, I have posted that management is not leadership, and how the "full economic cost model" in the UK has been a disaster.
But, having said that it might surprise some readers that it is not unusual for me to look at "business" literature on leadership, project management, and managing employees. The Harvard Business Review (HBR) is a particularly good source of helpful and stimulating ideas. Previously, I have mentioned articles relevant to the evolution of organisations, the role of humility in leadership, and managing people (great managers play chess not checkers).
Articles and ideas about business cannot be applied blindly to university contexts. Ideas presented may not be relevant or need to be adapted.
I have wondered why the "business" literature such as HBR is useful and I don't go elsewhere. There are very few helpful articles I am aware of that specifically address university contexts. I think this is because business is really "big business", i.e. there is an incredibly large market for books, ideas, articles, university degrees, ... about management. Hence, the best material such as HBR articles, are well-researched, well-written, and very accessible.
The latest article I read carefully may be relevant and helpful to several specific situations in universities that readers may encounter. (Currently, I am interested in similar issues in an NGO context).
1. When a senior professor is running a large research group with many students and postdocs it can be very helpful (for all concerned) if there is a more junior scientist (e.g. a research assistant professor) who takes responsibility for many day-to-day operations, especially when the professor is absent. For particularly large groups the professor may also have a PA/secretary/administrator.
2. Most large research institutes will have something like an operations manager who takes responsibility for administrative matters such as finance, reporting, personnel, organising meetings, and interacting with other administrators.
3. Most university departments now have a department manager or deputy chair who takes responsibility for administrative matters. They report to the department chair.
How do these two people best work together? What are their relative roles and responsibilities? In particular, what are lines of reporting, decision-making authority, and future career options for the second person?
These are important questions because when these two people work well together it can be a great blessing to all concerned. And, when they go bad, it can be a disaster...
The best analog in business may be the relationship between a CEO and a COO (Chief Operating Officer). There are similarities and differences. The article I found helpful is
Second in Command: The Misunderstood Role of the Chief Operating Officer
by Nathan Bennett and Stephen A. Miles
There are seven basic reasons why companies decide to hire a COO... This tremendous variation implies that there is no standard set of great COO attributes... Still, certain common success factors came up consistently in the interviews, the most important being building a high level of trust between CEO and COO. Trust comes from meeting obligations on both sides: The COO must truly support the CEO’s vision; keep ego in check; and exhibit strong execution, coaching, and coordination skills. The CEO must communicate faithfully, grant real authority and decision rights, and not stymie the COO’s career.
What do you think? Feel free to share any relevant experiences from the university context.
It's rather fitting that the second author shares the name of the Queensland DEPUTY premier
ReplyDeleteUniversity is about education. I like the definition of education written by Martin Luther King Jr ( https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/purpose-education ). It is fascinating that the article was written when he was still a student.
ReplyDeleteHow the university is best run to deliver its mission, I think it's okay to run it as a business, but the consumer should be future society. The problem is today's business model of university views current university students, rather than the broader future society, as the consumer.
It can be useful to think of university departments/research groups etc. by analogy with business units. If my academic department was a standalone business it would have an annual budget of ~$30M and several hundred full time and part time employees. It would be crazy to have one person run an enterprise on this scale single handedly. Accordingly, we have a structure with multiple administrative staff and faculty admin roles.
ReplyDeleteI am note claiming that an academic department is exactly like a standalone business. Our department exists within an overall university that has a budget in excess of $1 billion per year.