Page 106 - Crisis in Higher Education

78 • Crisis in Higher Education

The allegiance for this new breed of administrative leaders is to the
boards of trustees, who hire them and will provide recommendations for
their next job. This breaks the bond that once naturally existed between
administrators and tenured faculty. In this new environment, it is com-
mon for new leaders to blame problems that cannot be easily resolved on
“difficult” faculty and tenure. A typical response to fixing a budget deficit
is increasing productivity by having faculty teach more sections per term
with more students in each section. The effect is to align the administra-
tor and the board against tenured faculty. When administrators take jobs
while looking toward their next position, there is a propensity to imple-
ment quick-fix solutions to attention-getting problems. For example, they
form committees or fund institutes to enhance diversity, or they fund
a center for teaching innovation to improve learning. Administrators can
point to these successes as they look for their next job. On the other hand,
they avoid the conflict and turmoil caused by making radical changes to
fix fundamental problems, so important issues that require substantial
work and carry great risk are rarely addressed.
It is reasonable to ask: Why does this problem exist when hiring leaders
in higher education but not in for-profit business. The answer has two parts.
The first is that these businesses often seek leaders from within the organi-
zation so they avoid some of the problems of hiring an outsider. Second, for-
profit businesses have “bottom lines.” When these companies are publicly
held, a stock price is reported daily, and it changes in response to important
outcomes such as sales, market share, profits, and return on investment.
Based on these outcomes, stockholders can pressure boards of directors
who, in turn, question the actions of top managers. When outcomes do not
meet these bottom-line criteria, changes are made. In for-profit companies,
expectations for new leaders and whether they have met those expectations
are clear. Leadership teams in for-profit businesses move forward quickly
and are willing to take risks to achieve outsized improvements.
It is also important to know that most high-level university administra-
tors are not trained in management or leadership. They may know a great
deal about specific topics like nineteenth-century literature, sociology, quan-
tum physics, or geology, but typically know little about leading, planning,
organizing, and managing a large and complex organization. What they
know about these topics is inherent in their being, learned on the job, or
part of a short course offered from groups like American Council of Higher
17
Education (ACE) or Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics (LEAP). 18