Introduction
The global higher education landscape is filled with opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, thirst for skills and knowledge and technology, will continue to fill the seats (virtual and literal) in many institutions and will spur the delivery of education in innovative ways. On the other hand, there is intense competition, uneven market growth, and rapidly evolving paradigms that threaten the survival of bureaucratic and traditionally grounded institutions.
The cost of tertiary education is not affordable to everyone. In the United States, college tuition has risen about 1,200% in the past 35 years, with an average 4-year degree costing over $80,000 in tuition, room, board, and other expenses for residents studying in state universities (Cohen, 2014). U.S. students loaned about $1.1 trillion worth of debt, a figure higher than the country’s credit card debts (Economist, 2014). Parents are seeking cheaper education options and are enrolling students in community colleges (Sanchez, 2014). This marks a fundamental shift in the social contract, where for generations investment in the next generation’s education was seen as a collective responsibility—and investment—borne readily by taxpayers, this burden has shifted dramatically now to students and their families. This shift contributes to a growing class divide reflected by income disparity in the United States. Elite private schools continue to flourish and remain highly competitive; state-run and less robustly funded private institutions struggle for adequate resources. For-profit schools, after an early generation of largely unchallenged financial successes that were not always highly correlated with student success, are now being taken to task by the public and the federal government to provide a quality return on student investment in their programs of study. Universities will need to address diverse challenges such as quality and academic excellence, academic talent and workforce structure, commercial skills, change management and speed to market, and relationship with government (Ernst & Young, 2015). Emerging generations of “digital natives” learn, socialize, and process information differently than prior generations. They are likely more aligned with the society they will inhabit as adults than the professorate that seeks to prepare them for their roles in this society. The academy has to take responsibility to retrain and retool its instructors, curricula and pedagogies to anticipate, and meet and engage meaningfully with digital natives.
In essence, the contemporary education landscape requires “old school” institutions to embrace “new school” management philosophies—and core infrastructure—and execute dynamic strategic approaches.
Importance of Planning and Leading
The ability to manage institutions professionally and creatively will be critical to success. Attention to the management functions of planning and leading will be important.
Effective planning is essential. Carefully thinking through critical organizational goals is imperative. When planning, attention should be given to achieving high academic quality, accreditation, innovative instruction, technological adaptation, and internationalization. A well-developed Strategic Plan that incorporates the views of stakeholders will help define a successful future path.
Leadership in an institution will be the means in which important goals will be accomplished. Academic leaders need to build an effective management team, create a leadership pipeline ahead of time, and manage diversity as well as duty of care among its stakeholders. An institution’s sustainability and profitability rest in the shoulders of its leaders. A well-developed leadership development plan can be a valuable tool for success.
Outlined below are some of the key learning points on planning and leading (Tables 13.1 and 13.2).
Table 13.1 Learning Points on Planning
Table 13.2 Learning Points on Leading
The list provided above represents only a sliver of the numerous university management strategies outlined in the book. The findings suggest that (1) planning and leading operate in tandem—leaders create excellent plans in concert with their constituents, and well-developed plans make the implementation process easier for the leader and the institution; (2) planning in the university context requires the consideration of diverse factors; (3) a comprehensive and well-developed Strategic Plan would likely enhance the planning and leading process; (4) leadership in the university setting requires a dual ability to manage situations simultaneously using both a macro- and microperspective; leaders need to be able to think big, and act small; and (5) planning and leading needs to be aligned and recalibrated alongside a rapidly changing market environment; the practice is forever evolving with the times—there is no such thing as stasis.
Need for Self-Assessment
Findings in the book underscore the need to know one’s organization well. An organizational Self-Assessment can help identify areas for improvement in Planning and Leading. Asking the right questions can make a difference. An example of helpful Self-Assessment questions is offered in Table 13.3.
Table 13.3 Relevant Questions for Self-Assessment
Taking on an inquisitive, efficiency-seeking management approach can lead to the identification of appropriate strategies.
A Future Path
The various chapters in this book highlight important attributes of the academic institutions of the 21st century:
Business-driven. More than ever, academic institutions need to consciously operate as a business, which they have always been, despite frequent distaste for this reality among faculty. While the delivery of top-rate education is paramount, the foundation from which the service is efficiently delivered is key. This means, institutions with exceedingly large infrastructure may need to divest some of their assets to keep expenses at more manageable levels. For some institutions, this would mean the elimination of programs that do not draw viable enrollment numbers. Management attributes such as planning, task execution, and the ability to motivate are essential attributes of institutions (Floud & Corner, 2007). Universities benefit from effective strategic management anchored on quality teaching and student-centered experiences, cultivating a research-oriented and enterprising culture, and accessing external financial resources to fund and incubate innovative academic ideas (Schram, 2011). Consulting firms such as Docere Group International, owned and operated by the editors, have started to help academic institutions transition into a business mindset and creatively find strategic partners and capital to grow.
Market sensitive. Academic institutions need to be aware of market conditions in the local, national, and international level. Institutions need to intensify their research efforts to keenly understand market influences and craft timely strategies to capture opportunities and address challenges. There is a growing need to carefully examine competitive activities and plan effective courses of action. If President Obama’s January 2015 proposal for free tuition and unlimited access to the nation’s community colleges is ultimately funded and enacted, the rest of higher education will have to adapt quickly—with implications for existing revenue streams and market approaches for many undergraduate institutions as well as the need to plan for a more robust and diverse population of students headed to the undergraduate upper division and beyond.
Organizationally fit. Organizational health is essential for academic institutions. Business models have to be decentralized to guarantee a fast response time to challenges and opportunities—which alone would represent a huge “sea change” for this notoriously ponderous sector. Academic bureaucracy and red tape have to be cut to ensure consistent operational efficiency. Universities need to be able to function in a lean, strong, and agile manner—again, a gigantic sea change from the “Ivory Tower’s” storied insulation, isolation, and self-congratulatory norms and hallowed traditions for conducting its affairs. Governance models will have to change to reflect these new realities. Universities face countless risks, and enterprise risk management is essential with due consideration provided for internal environment, objectives setting, event identification, risk assessment, risk response, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring (Association of Governing Boards, 2007). Proper administrative control along with financial access helps reduce operational risk (European University Association, 2008). Effective measurement systems are important with the careful selection of performance indicators and reward systems (Abbey, 2007).
Student-centered. With intense competition, institutions who know their students well offer the best value, and who have mastered student recruitment gain the competitive advantage. A Gallup (2014) report indicated that long-term outcomes for college students were shaped by the support and relationships they built while in college. For instance, in scenarios where there were caring professors, teachers who stimulated excitement in learning, or individuals who encouraged the pursuit of their dreams, the college experience became more meaningful. Institutions will need to be in tune with student needs. They have to take proactive efforts in attracting and keeping students and ensuring their professional success. Already a generation ago, those of us who teach at the graduate level recognized an appalling lack of foundational preparation in our students and often had to incorporate remediation in areas such as critical thinking and the ability to write an academic paper into our course design. There is little indication that this problem has gone away, with significant implications for the work required in K-12 and undergraduate preparation.
Academic institutions need to closely link strategic policy formation with execution and provide keen attention to factors such as direction, communication, sponsorship, actions, accountability, resources, incentives, measurement, engagement, feedback, and passion and enthusiasm (Kennie, 2007).
In decades past, academic institutions have proven themselves to be resilient and innovative. Many have survived natural calamities, wars, financial crisis, and a host of other challenges. Many have decided to do the “right” thing and serve the best interests of stakeholders.
In the end, the strategic path taken by the university’s leadership team sealed their fate and destiny. In a contemporary world where governments, markets, stakeholders, students, competition, and technologies continually evolve and redefine the operational terrain, the university’s ability to pick the right strategy and execute it well at the right time is paramount.
Abbey, C. (2007). What can performance indicators do for higher education institutions? A US perspective. In B. Conraths & A. Trusso (Eds.) Managing the University Community, Exploring Good Practice. Accessed December 30, 2014. Available at: http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Publications/Managing_the_University_Community.pdf
Association of Governing Boards. (2007). Meeting the challenges of enterprise risk management in education. A joint research project with National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). Accessed January 1, 2015. Viewable at: http://www.ucop.edu/enterprise-risk-management/_files/agb_nacubo_hied.pdf
Cohen, S. (2014). A quick way to cut college costs. Accessed January 1, 2015. Viewable at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/opinion/a-quick-way-to-cut-college-costs.html?_r=0
Economist. (2014). Making college cost less. Accessed January 1, 2015. Available at: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21600120-many-american-universities-offer-lousy-value-money-government-can-help-change
Ernst, & Young. (2015). Future challenges for universities. Accessed January 1, 2015. Available at: http://www.ey.com/AU/en/Industries/Government---Public-Sector/UOF_Future-challenges-for-universities
European University Association. (2008). Financially Sustainable Universities. Toward Full Costing in European Universities. Brussels: European University Association.
Floud, R., & Corner, F. (2007). Managing a merger: Making it work for a university. In B. Conraths & A. Trusso (Eds.) Managing the University Community, Exploring Good Practice. Accessed December 30, 2014. Available at: http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Publications/Managing_the_University_Community.pdf
Gallup. (2014). Gallup Purdue Index. Accessed December 30, 2014. Available at: http://products.gallup.com/168857/gallup-purdue-index-inaugural-national-report.aspx
Kennie, T. (2007). Management and higher education: Is it really that necessary? In B. Conraths & A. Trusso (Eds.) Managing the University Community, Exploring Good Practice. Accessed December 30, 2014. Available at: http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Publications/Managing_the_University_Community.pdf
Sanchez, C. (2014). How the cost of college went from affordable to sky high. Accessed January 1, 2015. Viewable at: http://www.npr.org/2014/03/18/290868013/how-the-cost-of-college-went-from-affordable-to-sky-high
Schram, A. (2011). Development challenges for universities in developing nations. Accessed January 1, 2015. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/673174/Development_Challenges_for_Universities_in_Developing_Nations