Universities Need More Management Not Less!

Academics are prone to bemoaning their lot. Whining, the uncharitable might call it. A prominent theme in this dirge is the excessive and overbearing management of universities. Not only do I not accept this, I hold the radical view, that universities need more (and, of course, better) management, not less. I realise I will have to explain.

Let us look coolly at the environment, internationally, for higher education. It is uncertain. The uncertainties arise from many causes. We are in the prolonged throes of an economic downturn that impacts on government, industry and on the capacity of students to pay. We are faced with technology-induced changes in the ways in which education can and will be delivered. Liberalisation has given rise to new higher-education actors in the shape of the 'for-profits'. Globalisation has allowed competition from growth focussed economies in Asia and elsewhere.

In research the scene is changing too. The large science and engineering challenges require multi-disciplinary and inter-institutional partnerships. The resource cost base is growing with ever more complex experimental infrastructures and equipment. Research in biomedicine is facing a particular stress as traditional models of drug discovery are proving difficult to sustain. In the arts and humanities the hitherto dominant 'lone scholar' approach is increasingly being questioned. The research publication model that has underpinned the growth of research is being radically disrupted, not simply by open access but by the range of Internet-enabled communication services.

Organisations in receipt of public money are being expected to meet higher standards of transparency and accountability. Students who are meeting the rising costs of higher education are expecting improvements in their experience and are unwilling to cross-subsidise an accelerating race for research prestige and rankings whilst being acutely conscious of the 'brand' associated with their education.

None of this is necessarily bad, indeed an uncertain environment can yield opportunities, but these opportunities are only available to the swift, the well organised and the well resourced. In other words, the well managed. An effective management allows a university to address the environment and to remain a creative, vibrant and, I say this with emphasis, relevant institution.

There is necessarily a balance to be struck between the scholarly collective and directive management. In some institutions, it could be argued, this balance has tipped too far in favour of management. This is a question of governance. My view is that we do not have too much management (on the contrary), we have too little (of the 'right sort' of) governance and engagement. The existing mechanisms that have grown up with universities are largely inadequate for the purpose of providing the necessary counter-balance. They are slow, ill constituted to provide feedback on complex issues and too easily prey to either a static committee mentality or to small vocal minorities.Their form discourages engagements and they are inward-looking.

There is also a critical distinction to be drawn between management and managerialism. Managerialism is a concern with processes and systems without regard to the content of the work being managed. It is the diametric opposite of good management which concerns itself with processes and systems only insofar as they directly impinge on the work itself. I will not deny that managerialism is present in universities, but in significant part as the consequence of inadequate systems to which higher education is the unwilling subject. Management of scholars, by scholars, in the service of scholarship, is not managerialism.

As often as the complaint about overly imposing management in universities is heard, a similar complaint about distant and opaque management is voiced. Clearly, it is an issue of proportion. Universities are large and complex organisations and there can be of necessity a significant distance between senior management and the staff for whom they are responsible. Management faces outwards to a complex set of stakeholders as much as it faces inwards to the needs of its own employees. This gives rise to a potential communication gap that good management attempts to bridge but that poor management can use to insulate itself from the consequences of its decision making.

Universities are becoming more compartmentalised with much greater role specialisation than was traditionally the case. A key element of this is the substitution of academics by professional administrative staff in performing service roles. This makes sense because, generalising greatly, academics are neither skilled nor motivated to undertake these tasks effectively. Because administrative tasks performed in conjunction with research and teaching must be repeatedly picked up and put down there is a significant additional overhead not experienced when somebody is wholly dedicated to the role.There are also substantial cost savings to be achieved. The consequence of this development is that there is an increasing need for an academic engagement in the direction and oversight of administrative work to ensure it is aligned with academic priorities. This is a critical function for management in universities. In short, the professionalisation of university administration necessitates academic input of a different type than hitherto.

Bad management is bad management. It is not tolerable and, perhaps, we tolerate it too much in universities. Good university management is positive and enabling not just for the universities themselves but for their broader mission in society. We need more of it not less.