By's Musings

Organizational Theory

By Leave a Comment

A New Millennium – The Same Old Story, Part I

Many in American Higher Education were looking forward to the 21st Century, hoping it would bring back the good old days. Unfortunately, after the cork was popped, the new drink fizzled. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In spite of the high hopes and great expectations of many in American Higher Education, the end of the 20th century and the beginning of a new millennium brought little relief to the beleaguered systems of AHE. In my previous post The First Age of Disruption in American Higher Education we left American higher education in a precarious situation. It was buried under numerous train wrecks brought on by many training storms or crises. Unfortunately, the incessant crises have not stopped during the first two decades of the 21st century. Not only have they continue unabated, but the frequency of their occurrences has also increased. 

The future outlook for American Higher Education is dire! Another scandal rocks AHE! The image is the author’s interpretation of current events in AHE. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

Instead of the period of recovery hoped for by the academy, the new millennium brought an unrelenting season of storms and turmoil to American Higher Education. A cursory examination of the reports and articles out of the general public and higher education media outlets during these first two decades of the 21st century yields an abundance of fuel for the argument that American Higher Education remains in deep trouble.

Just what I need – another project! Image courtesy of Presenter Media

The following list highlights some of the various crises that have made headlines in the 21st century. I have labeled many of them using academic code words. The task of explaining all the academic jargon associated with these code words would fill a book which I may write (Just what I need another writing project! – Is there anyone out who wants to help me?). In the meantime, to bring the project within manageable limits for this blog, I will provide a reasonably short synopsis of my take on each crisis and its immediate effects on AHE in separate posts which will follow.

The crises hit AHE repeatedly and rapidly. There was no time to rest. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

For those too anxious to wait for my follow up, I am providing an example of a commentator or the media’s interpretation of the crisis. The list is in chronological order according to the appearance of the media article that I reference. I have chosen to list the topics in this manner to show the rapidity and pervasiveness of crises in higher education which were occurring during these two decades.

I will have more to say on this topic later when I have time to reflect on the matter. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

The particular article I have selected may not necessarily be the first time the topic is addressed in public. However, I believe the articles selected are repesentative examples of the treatment which the topic has received. In some cases, the article referenced reflects my views on the topic. In other cases, it doesn’t. I will reserve my comments until I have the time and space to more fully explicate them.

  • Adjunctification of the faculty threatens academic quality across all of AHE is a theme that began appearing in higher education circles in the 1980s. It has exploded with much force in the new millennium. Gabriela Montell begins her December 15, 2000 article A Forecast of the Job Market in English in The Chronicle of Higher Education with the conflicting statement: “It would be an overstatement to say the job market for faculty members in English is booming, but scholars have reason to be mildly optimistic…” Later in the article, defining the term adjunctification, she notes that “Many professors also say they are concerned about universities’ reliance on part-time and temporary faculty members…the great worry…is adjunctification, which could keep students from getting the proper tenure-track jobs they clearly deserve.”
  • Faculty Reward Systems and Faculty Priorities are subjects of internal and external heated debates. Three researchers, Cathy A. Trower, Ann E. Austin, and Mary Deane Sorcinelli, collaborated in the study Paradise Lost: How the academy converts enthusiastic recruits into early-career doubters. This paper “captures the sense of dreams deferred as well as the tension between ideals and reality that young scholars face as they move through graduate school and into faculty posts … if they move into faculty posts.” It appears in the May 2001 issue of the AAHE Bulletin.
  • The Academic Lattice is the seemingly constant expansion of administrative support structure to handle tasks and duties seen by many as not directly related to teaching and learning. It is very frequently blamed for unneeded increased costs. This phenomenon is often derogatorily called “administrative bloat”. The study The Cost of Prestige: Do New Research I Universities Incur Higher Administrative Costs? by Christopher C. Morphew and Bruce D. Baker seems to say it does apply to some institutions. However, it leaves the question open for others. The paper appeared in the Spring 2004 issue of Review of Higher Education, Volume 27, Number 3.
  • Basic questions concerning College Admissions which have been around for hundreds of years remain tauntingly unanswered: “Who should go to college?” “How should a college decide to whom they offer admission?” Ross Douthat addresses one particularly sticky question in his article Does Meritocracy Work? His article concerns the fierce competition among prospective students to gain entrance into elite institutions, and the extensive pressure on elite institutions to enroll a more diverse student population. The article appears in the November 2005 issue of The Atlantic.
  • Since the Reagan tax revolution, many public higher education officials and commentators have debated the issue of whether the privatization of the academy threatens public higher education. In 2005 Ronald G. Ehrenberg, director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, published the white paper The Perfect Storm and the Privatization of Public Higher Education, a version of which appeared in the November 2005 issue of Change Magazine. Ehrenberg argued that the privatization of public higher education and the shrinkage of public support threatened to do irreparable damage to public higher education. In a November 2009 blog post Reality Check: The Privatization of Public Higher Education, Travis Reindl partially rebuffs the Ehrenberg arguments. In the decade since Reindl’s post, public support of public higher education in terms of government funds have continued to decline. So where are we?
  • Sweeping demographic changes are altering the face of AHE. These changes began in the last half of the 20th century with the entrance of women and some minority students into our colleges and universities. However, they have picked up steam heading into the new millennium. Rob Jenkins sketched the new “traditional student” in his October 2012 article The New ‘Traditional Student’  in The Chronicle of Higher Education. This new student is married, living at home, and working. Within a few years, the majority of students will be over 25 years of age and a person of color. 
  • Scandal after scandal rocks AHE and drags its reputation through the mud. Prior to the dawn of the new millennium, AHE was not immune from scandalous activities. However, as social media access has accelerated the news cycle, information about scandals has become more available, more quickly. A Google search for “college scandals” took less than 1 second to produce over 75 million results. One of those results was a Harvard Business School Working Paper The Impact of Campus Scandals on College Applications, which was published in 2016. The abstract of this study by Michael Luca, Patrick Rooney, and Jonathan Smith begins with the provocative statement: “In recent years, there have been a number of high profile scandals on college campuses, ranging from cheating to hazing to rape.” In their paper, the authors attempted to answer the question “With so much information regarding a college’s academic and non-academic attributes available to students, how do these scandals affect their applications?” The authors looked at the top 100 American universities ranked in the 2015 U.S. News and World Report, “Best Colleges.” They then constructed a database of reported scandals on these campuses between 2001 and 2013. They found that during these dozen years, 75% of the top American universities reported at least one major incident. Since their databased cut off in 2013, they didn’t include recent major scandals including the Michigan State gymnastics incident (2014), the Baylor football scandal (2016), University of North Caroline cheating scandal (2017), the fraternity hazing death of Timothy Piazza at Penn State (2017), the Ohio State sexual abuse scandal (2019), and the Varsity Blues Admissions fiasco (2019). It also doesn’t include the Louisville basketball scandal (2017), Temple falsification of USNWR data (2018), or the implosion and collapse of ITT (2016) since these schools were not in the top 100 universities on the USNWR rankings.
  • Are athletics taking over the academy? Many including Richard Vedder, the director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, think so. He presents some ammunition for his opinion in the op-ed piece Athletic arms race hurts academics, which appeared in the December 31, 2013, edition of the Omaha World-Herald.
  • The Academic Ratchet tightens its grip on AHE. The automatic response of many within the academy to solve every budget or enrollment deficit is to seek new students via the addition of new programs and faculty, or an increased effort by the admission, recruitment, and fundraising offices. “To solve our problems all we need to do is rachet up our efforts, programming or personnel.” The obvious problem with this solution is that for most institutions it just doesn’t work. There aren’t enough funds, faculty, and students to satisfy all of AHE. In addition, institutional personnel doesn’t have the time nor expertise to do all of the necessary work. To help alleviate the academic rachet problem, in the late 1990s Robert C. Dickeson developed a process he called Program Prioritization. He outlined it in a 1994 book which was later updated in 2010. It is titled Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance, 2nd edition. Over the next 25 years since Dickeson’s process was first released, more than 500 institutions attempted program prioritization. Some were successful in achieving a strategic balance. Many were not. In January 2014, Alex Usher, a consultant with Higher Education Strategy Associates, wrote a blog post Better Thinking About Program Prioritization critiquing the Dickeson plan.
  • As Academic Arms Races heat up in all segments of AHE, the burning question is “What is the price of prestige?” Kevin Iglesia attempted to answer that question in his 2014 Seton Hall University dissertation The Price of Presitge: A Study of the Impact of Striving Behavior on the Expenditure Patterns of American Colleges and Universities.
  • The question: “Is virtual teaching a replacement for the traditional classroom?“ has perplexed higher education since the University of Illinois created an Intranet for its students in 1960. It was a system of linked computer terminals where students could access course materials as well as listen to recorded lectures. It evolved in the PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) system which at its height was operating on thousands of computers all over the world. By the time we entered the new millennium, millions of students were not only using computer-aided instruction for supplemental course work, but they were also taking entire courses and even degree programs online. Faculty members and universities were asking the question of whether these students were getting a quality education. Along the way, faculty began to worry about whether they were becoming viewed as superfluous. Universities became concerned about whether their brick-and-mortar palaces would be ghost towns replaced by a new costly virtual infrastructure. In a June 23, 2018, blog posted on the eLearning Industry website, Allistair Gross asked the direct question Is Virtual Teaching A Major Threat To Teachers?
For the past two decades, have educators been running from crisis to crisis trying to save American higher education? Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

Having reached 10 crises and running out of room in this post, I have decided to save another 10 crises for a Part II of A New Millennium – Same Old Story. Tune in next week for more troubles, calamities, cataclysms, emergencies, and disasters in 21st century American higher education.

By Leave a Comment

KPI – Part XI: Era of Expansion and Disruption in American Higher Education

Some historians of American Higher Education call the era between the American Civil War and WWII the Gilded Age of American Higher Education. When I look at it, I see a period of unparalleled expansion, confusing disruptions, and bewildering rearrangements. It is also a period rife with widespread uncertainties and inescapable paradoxes. It is a period of unprecedented diversification.

A schematic view of the American Higher Education Family Tree, with the four main branches (University, College, Institute, and Faith-Based Schools), and their many intertwined connections. This schematic was created by the blog’s author using ClickChart Software.

During the Civil War, much of American higher education shut down. Many colleges were forced to cease operations due to a lack of students. In both the North and the South, many young men of military age either enlisted or were drafted. Since this group formed the overwhelming majority of college students, the potential student population was almost completely depleted.

Photograph of Rev. John M.P. Atkinson, 10th President of Hampden-Sydney College, and Captain of the Hampden-Sydney boys, part of the Virginia Militia. Image is in the Public Domain since it was published prior to 1924. Image courtesy of Alfred Morrison, Hampden-Sydney College, and Wikimedia Commons

The stories of what four institutions. Hampden-Sydney (with its sister school Union Theological Seminary), the United States Military Academy at West Point, and the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, went through during the Civil War Period are so interesting I will address them in a separate, future post.

Since much of the actual fighting in the Civil War occurred in the territory of the Confederacy, a large number of colleges in the South found themselves in battle zones. A few colleges in the North, like Pennsylvania College (since 1921, known as Gettysburg College) and its sister institution Lutheran Theological Seminary, were also put in dangerous situations. This placed students and faculty at severe risk. Travel was treacherous at best. Students from the Confederate States who were studying in the Union States, and vice versa, were prohibited from crossing territorial or battlelines and were forced to withdraw from their colleges.

During the eight decades between the Civil War and WWII, the current structure of American higher education began to take shape. Prior to the Revolutionary War, all colonial colleges were begun with a religious emphasis by individual clergy or denominations. These schools were founded to provide an educated clergy for the church.  Studying the early days of these institutions, we also see that they were not in the business of changing the social stratification of the colonies.

Most of the colleges established between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars were built to maintain the status quo. They only enrolled white, males. They were expensive, residential institutions, which meant that the “lower class” families could not afford the luxury of doing without the income supplied by the family sons. Entrance requirements of many were rigorous and only within the reach of the wealthy few who had the advantage of a demanding secondary education.

The few female colleges were also expensive, residential colleges that trained girls to be “ladies”. These schools were beyond the reach of most families and didn’t fit the long-term goals of most girls in America.

Prior to the Civil War, there were very few coed colleges. There were also very few female applicants who could meet the admissions requirements. There were only a handful of colleges open to African-Americans. Colleges prior to the Civil War were the great sustainers of an elite hierarchy with white males at the top of the ladder. Many obstacles were placed in the paths of others trying to ascend the ladder of social mobility.

The cover of the catalog of Pennsylvania Female College (now known as Chatham University) in 1886. Since it was published before 1924, it is in the public domain. Image courtesy of Chatham University and Wikimedia Commons.

Immediately after the Civil War, the dams of restrictive access were leaking a little, before they finally burst. In those early post-war days, a number of changes occurred. It became more acceptable for women to attend college. More women colleges were opened, and more colleges permitted men and women to sit in the same classrooms.

A second new stream of students consisted of the returning soldiers. Their war experience awakened new dreams. They saw that the only difference between them and many of their “educated” officers was formal education. The rank and file soldiers found that they were just as smart as their officers. They began to question why had they been deprived of an opportunity to advance themselves. They demanded the right to go to college, and some colleges opened their doors to these new students. However, more than college for themselves, they demanded college for their children so that they could better themselves and not be limited to the status of a lackey or foot soldier in the future.

Jubilee Hall, oldest permanent building on the campus of Fisk University (an HBCU in Nashville, TN). It was opened in 1876. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. Image courtesy of Fisk University, National Park Services and Wikimedia Commons.

A third stream formed with the opening of colleges for African-Americans. At first, this was a small stream because these students had many deficits to fill in from their lack of education prior to the Civil War.

In 1860, there were less than 10 institutions of higher education which were open to African-American students. By 1900, there more than 100 institutions that were dedicated primarily to the education of African-American individuals. These schools became known as Historical Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU).

First-year students in cadaver lab of Univ. of Penn Medical School in 1890. The image is in the Public Domain since it was first published prior to 1924. Image is courtesy of Amy Hutchens, University of Pennsylvania and Wikimedia Commons.

A fourth stream formed with the demand for specialized training and education. Career colleges, business schools, technical and engineering institutions, art schools, research universities, Bible colleges and seminaries, agricultural schools, medical specialty colleges, nursing schools, and law schools began popping up in every corner of the growing country.

Another new strand of higher education emerged in the first decade of the 20th century, the community or junior college. These colleges were designed to offer the first two years of a general college education and permit their graduates to then transfer to the four-year colleges and universities. Joliet Junior College in Illinois was the first public junior college. It opened in 1901.

A publicity card depicting the two founders, Sam Knight and William Baine, of Central City Commercial College in Waco, Texas. Image courtesy of the William Baines Papers of the Texas Collection at Baylor University.

Previously, colleges were primarily residential and located in rural or semi-rural settings. But now urban students demanded and got schools in the middle of cities. These students didn’t want the residential experience, so a new type of commuter college was invented.

Schools like Central City Commercial College (4C), which opened in Waco, Texas, in 1924, met the need of urban residents for training in employable skills or retraining in new skills. In 1935, 4C expanded its evening programs in order to accommodate shift workers who wanted to learn new skills.

Prior to the Civil War, most colleges were founded under the flag of religion. By the time the Civil War began, many of these institutions had drifted from their religious moorings. Some had become secular institutions, while others had their ownership assumed by governmental agencies and had become public institutions.

The Honorable Justin Smith Morrill, Senate sponsor of the Morrill Act of 1862. The photograph was taken between 1865 and 1880. The image is courtesy of Brady-Handy Photograph Collection (Library of Congress). It is available from the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID cwpbh.04981.

After the Civil War, three separate strands of institutional control were formally recognized. The first strand was public institutions, which were primarily funded by governmental agencies such as states, counties, or cities. These institutions were kick-started by the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, also known as the Land-Grant Acts. These pieces of legislation provided grants of land to states to finance the establishment of colleges specializing in Agriculture, Home Economics, the Mechanical Arts, and other useful professions. Public institutions began to dominate higher education with their seemingly untouchable advantage of an apparently unending supply of tax revenue.

The second strand consisted of private, non-profit institutions. These were chartered by states, but controlled by independent boards. Some of these were sectarian in nature. They were founded by, controlled by denominations or churches, and funded through the religious founders. Others were non-sectarian, without any particular religious bent.

The third strand was the proprietary schools. These consisted of schools typically founded by an entrepreneur who viewed the institution as a profit-making venture. They were chartered by states, but controlled by the founder or a board of trustees, similar to a corporation. These three strands still dominate the higher education scene of the 21st century.

Diversity in these colleges was not just limited to the type of control, students, programs offered, or geographic location. Students began choosing colleges for more reasons than particular academic programs. They began including in their selection processes non-academic programs like athletics, debate teams, musical opportunities, both vocal and instrumental, and social organizations.

In the opening game at Michigan Stadium, Michigan beat Ohio State in October 1927 before a crowd of 84,000. This image is courtesy of Kaufmann & Fabry Co. – This image is available from the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID pan.6a28995. See Commons: Licensing for more information., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2348814

Rutgers University defeated Princeton in the first intercollegiate football game on November 6, 1869. The University of Michigan’s football stadium, Michigan Stadium (known as the Big House), was built in 1927 with a capacity of 72,000. It soon outgrew it and added 10,000 more seats within five years. The stadium was formally dedicated on October 22, 1927,  when Michigan beat Ohio State before a standing-room-only crowd that exceeded 84,400 people. College sports had become a big-time business. Colleges began recruiting athletes to attend their school in order to play for them.

Intracollegiate debating on college campuses seems to have originated in literary societies as early as 1830. The first recorded intercollegiate debate may have been between Wake Forest University and Trinity College (later known as Duke University) in 1897. Soon debate teams were touring the country, holding matches and tournaments. The movie “The Great Debaters” memorializes a 1935 debate team of African-American students from Wiley College (Marshall, TX) which supposedly traveled to Harvard University, and defeated the reigning national championship debating team. In reality, the debaters from Wiley did not debate Harvard. They debated and defeated the reigning national debate team from the University of Southern California. However, the Wiley team could not declare themselves victors because African-Americans were not permitted to join the Debate Society until after WWII.

James Farmer, Jr., was recruited as a 14-year old freshman by Melvin Tolson, the founder, and coach of the Wiley College Debate Team to become a valuable member of this formidable debating powerhouse. He went on to a have distinguished career in civil rights work in the United States in the middle of the 20th century.

Civil Right Activists including Martin Luther King Jr, Whitney Young, Roy Wilkins, and James Farmer Jr in the White House on January 18, 1964. The picture is in the public domain because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. Image is courtesy of the LBJ Presidential Library and Wikimedia.Commons

James Farmer Jr. was considered one of the “Big 4” in the civil rights world. The first of the other three was Martin Luther King Jr. (1948 graduate of Morehouse College an HBCU institution in Atlanta, GA), and founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). The second was Whitney M. Young Jr. (1941 graduate of Kentucky State University and HBCU institution in Frankfort KY) who served as the Executive Director of the National Urban League, transforming it from a passive organization into an aggressive force working to give socioeconomic access to all individuals who had been historically disenfranchised. The third member of the group was Roy Wilkins (1923 graduate of the University of Minnesota which had a long history of accepting African-American scholars and students), who was Executive Director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People from 1955 to 1977. Roy Wilkins was one of the primary organizers of the 1963 March on Washington. In 1967, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian decoration.

Postcard publicizing the Carlton College Glee Club itinerary for the 1913 season. The image is in the public domain since it was published prior to 1924. Image is courtesy of Carlton College and Wikimedia Commons.

Glee Clubs were small choral groups dedicated to singing glees, short secular choral songs, which were written or arranged for several vocal parts.   These clubs originated in London in the late 18th century and made their way to the American college campuses in the mid-19th century. The first documented American collegiate glee club was founded at Harvard University in 1858.

By 1910, there were more than 100 colleges hosting Glee Clubs. Many of these co-curricular clubs were replaced on campuses by larger choral groups and formal choirs which performed under the auspices of the music department or school. Many of the colleges would sponsor the Glee Club tours for fundraising and student recruiting purposes.

The Purdue Marching Band “Block P” formation from 1922 football game. Image in the Public Domain since it was published prior to 1924. Image is courtesy of Purdue University and Wikimedia Commons

Historically marching bands were associated with military ventures. They consisted primarily of wind, brass, and percussion instruments. By the middle of the 19th century, they found their way onto college campuses. The first official collegiate marching band was the University of Notre Dame Band of the Fighting Irish, founded in 1845. It first performed at a football game in 1887. By the end of the 19th century, hundreds of American colleges and universities hosted marching bands and orchestras. In 1907, the Purdue All-American Marching Band unveiled the first pictorial formation on a football field with their rendition of the Purdue “Block P.” Not to be outdone, later that year, the University of Illinois Marching Illini band performed the first full halftime show at the football game between the University of Illinois and the University of Chicago.

Colleges and universities began recruiting students to perform in their vocal and instrumental musical groups. Other performing arts, like drama and dance, soon followed. Colleges and universities became cultural centers, not only for students but for the communities in which they were located.

Fraternities, sororities, and other social clubs dated their beginning on American campuses from December 5, 1776, with the founding of the Phi Beta Kappa Society at the College of William and Mary. Between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, fraternities and sororities developed slowly. They were primarily centered in the Northeast quadrant of the United States.

A photograph of the monument in Lexington, VA commemorating the founding of three Panhellenic fraternities in that town. SuperNova at the English Wikipedia, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publishes it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Image courtesy of Super Nova and Wikimedia Commons.

After the Civil War, with the great expansion of colleges and universities, fraternities and sororities also flourished. The American higher education system began encountering racial, religious, and gender diversity and new colleges were founded or reformed throughout the south and west. Growth in the fraternity system overall during this period would lead some to label the last third of the 19th century as “The Golden Age of Fraternities.”

However, the diversity of institutions which engendered a diversity of students also had a darker, hidden side. Students looked to the fraternities and sororities not as vehicles to encourage diversity, but as avenues of escape and as a way to avoid associating with large numbers of particular types of students. They became vehicles of discrimination.

Thus the period between the Civil War and WWII was an era of growth in terms of the number of students and the diversity of types of institutions, types of campus activities, and diversity of students within the system as a whole. Paradoxically, it was also an era of rampant discrimination and exclusion. WWII produced another pause in the development of the American higher education system. We pick up that story in the next post.

 

By Leave a Comment

KPI – Part VI: Difference Between Governance and Management

Many within higher ed think management theory is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, trying to sneak into the sheepfold and devour the sheep. Image courtesy of Dreamstime, ID 28175702 © Debspoons | Dreamstime.com

In this post, I return to looking at Key Performance Indicators in a higher ed setting. While this gentle approach may seem innocuous to most individuals outside of the insular world of higher education, it is sure to raise the hackles of many of my higher ed colleagues. They will accuse me of trying to sneak the wolf (management theory) dressed in sheep clothing into the sheepfold (the university) through a back door.

Welsh Corgi working as sheepdog with a flock of sheep. Image courtesy of Dreamstime and Natalia Yaumenenka. ID 104389610 © Natallia Yaumenenka | Dreamstime.com

I am going to be bold enough to take that next step and publicly declare that I do not see management theory as a wolf trying to devour the sheep. I believe it can be viewed more like a sheepdog, herding the sheep to safety through the one and only door of the sheepfold. The sheepdog then lies down at that entrance and guards the fold and the sheep against all predators.

 

Education is a process that can’t be measured in financial returns. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

Many of the most familiar performance indicators are business-oriented outcome measurements. How many widgets were produced? How much did it cost to produce each widget? How much income did the firm make from the sale of those widgets? Higher education for years has claimed that since education is a process, we shouldn’t focus on or speak of educational outcomes, especially financial ones.

As I noted in my post K PI Part III, A University Should Be Managed as If It Were a Business  Milton Greenberg in his seminal essay “The University Is Not a Business (and Other Fantasies)” published in EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 39, no. 2 (March/April 2004), argues forcefully and persuasively that a university should be managed as if it were a business.

Very early in his essay, Greenberg proclaims, “ Presumably, a ‘business’ involves the hierarchical and orderly management of people, property, productivity, and finance for profit.” The primary counterarguments of academicians to Greenberg’s position hinge on three concepts in this sentence.

We need to dig further into the idea of “Hierarchical Management” and the difference between governance and management. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

 

In this post, I will begin to address the first of these counterarguments, the concept of “hierarchical management.” To understand the problems created by the use of the term hierarchical management we need to have some familiarity with the difference between the general concepts of governance and management.  We also need to look at the typical governance structures of colleges and universities, and the usual management formats of colleges and universities. These two topics are too involved to address in depth in this one blog post. I will take each of them up in subsequent posts. This idea will require more in-depth excavation.

Governance refers to the relationships among people in an organization. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

The origins of the two terms automatically set the stage for a huge battle in the academy over their applicability to higher education. The term governance historically came from the disciplines of social and political sciences. Without digging into the finer points of the definition, this ancestry would usually imply that it must primarily deal with relationships.

Governance has many definitions, but most center on two related ideas. The first idea concerns how decisions are made. What are the processes of decision making within the organization? Who has a voice in making decisions? The second changes the focus to how those decisions are implemented. How is power or control exercised within the organization? What is the locus of authority within the organization?

The typical view of the concept of management is to get employees to work harder to make more money for the company. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

On the other hand, the term management originated within the realm of the business world and was then fine-tuned within the disciplines of economics and business. This ancestry automatically makes it suspect to the academy, which believes that given its origin, it must naturally deal with productivity and finances. These concepts are antithetical to many citizens of the academy.

The four tasks of management. Image courtesy of the author, created by using ClickCharts.

Most modern definitions of management view it as a process of four interwoven tasks. The first of these tasks is Planning, the selection of appropriate organizational goals and the best array of actions to achieve those goals. The second task is Organizing, the establishment of assignments and an aura of authority that encourage and allow people to work together to achieve the organization’s goals.

The third task is Leading which involves motivating, coordinating, inspiring and energizing individuals and groups to work together to achieve the organization’s goals. The fourth task is Controlling which has two primary aspects. The first is assessing situations by establishing accurate systems of measuring and monitoring how well the organization has achieved its goals. The second is redirecting the course of operations when it is apparent that the organization is not achieving its goals.

Modern universities consist of four major groups of individuals. These groups are students, faculty, administration, and governing boards. In subsequent posts, we will examine the historical development of these groups, their relationships with each other, and their roles in governance and management.

From the definitions of governance and management, we see much common ground with one major difference. The major difference is their primary focus. Governance focuses on relationships, while management focuses on tasks. In subsequent posts, I will deal with the idea of shared governance and hierarchical management. I hope to convince you that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

To get to the point of being able to discuss these topics, my next post will be this Friday, March 29. It will be a short history of the development of the modern university and the four major groups of individuals that comprise the university.

 

 

 

 

By Leave a Comment

KPI – Part V: Scoring Rubric for Guiding Principles Factor

Scoring Rubric for Baylis/Burwell VMI. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

This post is a continuation of my previous post [KPI – Part IV: Guiding Principles]. It will describe the scoring rubric we selected to use to assign points to institutions on the Guiding Principles Factor of the Baylis/Burwell Vitality/Morbidity Model.

Two different approaches to building our scoring rubric. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

There are two different directions which we could have taken to develop our scoring rubric. The first way was an ultra-quantitative, spreadsheet approach attempting to measure the quality of the statements of institutional Mission, Vision, and Core Values, and the institution’s efforts to live out those statements in their actions.

This type of approach is typically called the objective approach. However, if by objective you mean “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts,” this direction is far from being truly objective. There are many points of subjectivity present in the quantitative scoring of the various components and in the weighting factors used in combining component scores to obtain a final score, where the raters’ biases and opinions enter into the equation.

A panel of higher education experts weigh the evidence and make judgments on each aspect of a particular factor. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

The second approach is a more holistic approach which is typically labeled as a subjective approach. It relies on the use of higher education experts, who have had years of training and experience in the field of higher education, to evaluate the institution in a number of ways.

The first thing these experts are asked to do is to read the institution’s published documents and judge whether they believe the institution has selected values and behaviors that represent those of a quality institution of higher education. The institutions are scored on the following three-point scale:

Is the institution a stellar citizen of the higher education community or a devil in disguise? Image courtesy of Presenter Media

-1   Totally inadequate for a quality institution of higher education

0   Barely adequate for a quality institution of higher education

+1  Describes a high performing institution of higher education

The higher education experts are then asked to judge whether the behavior of a given institution matches its stated beliefs using the following scale:

In the opinion of the higher education experts does the institution’s behavior match its stated values. They will weigh the evidence and make their decision on their training and experience in higher education. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

-1  Behavior doesn’t come close to its stated values. The institution fails to meet its own stated standards

0   Behavior barely meets its stated values or standards.

+1  Behavior exceeds the expectations set by its stated values.

A quality institution of higher education should be beyond reproach. In light of this, the panel of higher education experts is asked to make two more judgments.  The first judgment involves the institution’s track record with those entities and agencies to which the institution is responsible. Does the institution meet all of its required reporting deadlines and fulfill all obligations to federal and accrediting agencies? Institutions will be scored on the following scale:

The institution has done everything it could to move it to the top of its class. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

-1  The institution has failed to meet more than one reporting obligation or legal requirements.

0  The institution has met all requirements and obligations but has occasionally been late or hesitant in making results public.

+1 The institution has gone of out its way in meeting requirements and obligations. It has made been completely transparent in all of its operations.

The final area of concern for the panel of experts deals with the reputation of the institution. The panel will judge whether the institution is held in high esteem by various entities such as higher education as a whole, the general public, students and prospective students, and employers of the institution’s graduates.

Is the institution a stellar citizen of the higher education community or a devil in disguise? Image courtesy of Presenter Media

The scoring scale for this area of concern is as follows:

  -1  The reputation of the institution is tarnished in a number of areas with a number of groups.

0  The reputation of the institution is considered “run-of-the-mill.” It is not outstanding in any area.

+1  The reputation of the institution is stellar with all groups with which it deals.

To determine a factor score for Guiding Principles, the sub-factor scores are summed. Total scores are assigned as follows:

If the total sub-factor score is -3 or less, the assigned factor score is -1. Any institution in this area should be considered in trouble and possibly dying.

If the total sub-factor score is -2 to +2, the assigned factor score is 0. An institution with a score in this area is just hanging on and should be considered just surviving.

In institution in this category is considered a top-tier or elite institution. It is truly thriving. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

If the total sub-factor score is +3 or more, the assigned factor score is +1. An institution with a score in this area is doing well and should be considered to be thriving.

With the institutions we have examined we have found a predisposition away from the thriving side of the scale. It should not be surprising. Most observers will readily say that the overwhelming majority of colleges and universities are either in trouble or just surviving. There are few elite, or top tier institutions that are really thriving.

Next Tuesday, March 19, I will take a break from this series of post on Key Performance Indicators and publish a special post inspired by the scores of birthday wishes that I received this past week. It may be unusual to throw a big celebration for someone’s 73rd birthday. However, after a series of traumatic brain incidents more than a decade ago, scores of doctors wouldn’t have given you a plug nickel that I would make my 73rd birthday. Thus I will publish a post celebrating an unexpected decade of extra life. What would you do with an extra decade of life?

 

By Leave a Comment

KPI – Part IV: Guiding Principles

We want our college built upon a rock solid foundation so that it will withstand all the storms that come its way. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In this post, the fourth in a series on Key Performance Indicators, I continue my consideration of the eight factors of the Baylis/Burwell Vitality/Morbidity Model. This post focuses on the factor Guiding Principles (GP).  The Guiding Principles of any organization, particularly Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL), form the foundation upon which that organization is built.

The Guiding Principles of an organization are the basis of the blueprint for its current and future success. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

However, Guiding Principles are not just the foundation. They also provide the basis for the plans and blueprints on which a thriving organization can be built. The current and future success of any organization is dependent on that organization staying committed to the foundational principles upon which it is built.

 

The three pillars of an Organization’s Guiding Principles are a Mission Statement, a Vision Statement, and a list of Core Values. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

Typically, the foundational principles of an organization are bound together as a set of three statements which form the pillars which support the organization. The three pillars consist of a Mission Statement, a Vision Statement, and a list of Core Values. Although closely related, these three statements are distinctly different in their purpose, format, and point of view. In what follows, I will address these three pillars in a university setting.

Mission Statement

A mission statement holds the key to a university’s place in the world and its reason to exist. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

A Mission Statement articulates a university’s reason for being, or raison d’être. A mission statement looks outward and justifies the existence of the university based upon its external environment. A university can only survive and thrive if it has a reason to exist within its environment.

A good mission statement should be simple and concise but at the same time elegant. It must be well-publicized internally and externally. Everyone in the university should recognize and accept the mission. This includes the board, the administration, faculty, staff, and students. It should be easy for individuals outside the university, particularly prospective students, to find and understand the mission.

Vision Statement

A Vision Statement is an explicit announcement of what a university wants to and is committed to becoming. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

A Vision Statement is an explicit announcement of what a university desires to be and what it wants to accomplish. It is a forward-looking proclamation of the university’s mid-term and long-term objectives. It is meant to serve as a guide or roadmap for internal decision-making. Strategic and tactical plans and initiatives should align with and adhere to the tenets of the vision statement. These include staffing, facility, programmatic, and budget decisions.

A good vision statement should be precise, concise, and most definitely memorable. All constituencies of the university should know and be able to recall the major points, if not the exact wording, of the vision statement.

A good vision statement should be aspirational. It should drive the university to reach beyond its current status. It should also be inspirational, pushing all constituencies to action on behalf of the university.

Core Values

The Core Values of a university are the fundamental beliefs that the university collectively holds. They are derived from the university’s mission statement and they dictate how the university behaves. Core Values look inward and describe the nature of the organization.

Core values are those central beliefs and behaviors around which the university community aligns. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

The expression of a core value should be a descriptive statement of a collective belief of the university. Core values serve as self-guiding principles that dictate how the university should act and behave as an organization. As collective values, it is expected that all constituencies individually give assent to and agree to conduct themselves accordingly.

It is important and imperative that individual and collective agreement with the beliefs and behaviors included in the core values be verifiable. The university should have the ability to demonstrate that, as an organization, it is upholding its core values. For all individuals who chose to align themselves with the university, the university is entitled to expect that they will abide by and exhibit the stated core values. This includes the board, administration, faculty, staff, and students.

Examples of common organizational core values include honesty (tell the truth), integrity (know and do what is right), respect of others (treat others as an individual would like to be treated), and accountability (willingness to take responsibility for one’s own actions). Examples of common academic core values include scholarship (commitment to the creation, organization, and dissemination of knowledge), student centeredness (commitment to student learning and serving students by meeting their needs and desires), and service (meeting the needs of the various communities associated with and around the university).

Scoring Rubric

As I noted in my previous post, KPI Part III, A University Should Be Managed as If It Were a Business, each of the eight factors in the Baylis/Burwell Institutional Vitality Model would be scored on a three-point scale of THRIVING (+1), SURVIVING (0), or DYING (-1).

Please take note that I will be publishing a special post on Friday, March 15. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

Since I am fast approaching my self-imposed 1,000 word limit per post, I will postpone the explanation of my scoring rubric for this factor to my next post. Although I have been trying to stick to a Tuesday publication schedule, since the ideas are so closely tied to the content of this post, I will publish a post on the scoring rubric for the factor Guiding Principles this coming Friday, March 15.

I will return to the regular publishing schedule with a post on Tuesday, March 19 which focuses on the first of the three counterarguments, hierarchical management, raised by academics against Milton Greenberg’s argument that a university should be managed as if it were a business.

By Leave a Comment

KPI Part III, A University Should Be Managed as If It Were a Business

Inactivity, inattentiveness, and other bad business practices lead to the failure of any organization. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

As noted in the previous post, Key Performance Indicators – Part II: Definition, the theme of this post was going to be A University Should Be Managed as If It Were a Business. In all of my previous roles, as a university administrator or the creator of this blog, I made no efforts to hide my sentiments concerning this proposition. It was always one of my operating premises.

When the wheels fall off an organization, it will fail to run. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In 2016, I started a series of posts on the theme The Business Model of All Higher Education Is Broken. Even in the title of the series, I attempted to make the point that institutions of higher education (IHEs) must view themselves as business enterprises. As an academician, I believe that institutions of higher education must be more than businesses. However, if they don’t operate using the best business and management techniques then they will surely fail, which is what we have seen with 2,000 American IHEs since 1950.

Too many universities live in a fantasy world chasing rainbows, leprechauns, and illusory pots of gold. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

Milton Greenberg in his seminal essay “The University Is Not a Business (and Other Fantasies)” published in EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 39, no. 2 (March/April 2004), argues forcefully that a university should be managed as if it were a business.

Very early in his essay, Greenberg proclaims, “ Presumably, a “business” involves the hierarchical and orderly management of people, property, productivity, and finance for profit.” The primary counterarguments of academicians to Greenberg’s position hinge on three concepts he introduces in this sentence: hierarchical management, productivity, and profit. In three future posts in this series, I will separately tackle each of these counterarguments.

Eight Factor Model of Institutional Vitality developed by By Baylis and Ron Burwell. Image copyright by Higher Ed By Baylis, LLC. Image courtesy of By Baylis and Ron Burwell. Constructed using ClickCharts Software

But first I return to present my argument on why universities should be run more like businesses. In studying the 2,000 deceased IHEs, Ron Burwell and I noticed eight factors that we believe contributed negatively to their vitality and their eventual morbidity. The eight factors are shown in the diagram to the left.

Although the eight factors are obviously not completely independent of each other, they are sufficiently different to warrant separate consideration. Additionally, that consideration would take up too much space for one blog post. Thus, I will address each of the factors in upcoming posts.

Mind Map of the Guiding Principles Factor. Image courtesy of authors By Baylis and Ron Burwell. Constructed using ClickCharts Software.

To give you a taste of how I will be introducing and treating these factors, I present a Mind Map Diagram on the right illustrating the three components which define the Guiding Principles Factor.

Under each of the three components, the diagram presents the major ingredients that go into measuring the success of the organization in that component.

A reasonably informed person weighing the evidence should be able to make an informed judgment. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In order to simplify our study, without losing the crux of discovering the reasons why institutions failed, we have chosen to use the straight-forward three-point scale of Thriving, Surviving, and Dying. Instead of attempting to construct complicated, quantitative scales to measure each subfactor of our eight factors, we are going to use a subjective approach similar to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s take on defining pornography: “I may not be able to define it. But I know it when I see it.”

Vitality/Morbidity Index (VMI) Gauge indicating an institution is greatly struggling in the Guiding Principles Factor. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

With each component in our factors, most reasonable observers can easily determine whether: 1) an organization is extremely successful and thriving in terms of this component, 2) just barely getting by or only surviving, or 3) failing badly and falling far short of success or flat out dying.  This approach permits us to use a simple gauge to illustrate the vitality/morbidity level of an institution.

We will also associate a three-point numerical scale with our three categories: Thriving (+1); Surviving (0); Dying (-1). We then added the scores across all eight factors. Repeating this process for each institution in our database of closed colleges and universities, we were not at all surprised to find that the total score of each closed institution was negative. No closed college had a total positive score. Some individual factor scores were positive but they were outweighed by a much larger share of factors with negative scores.

If this model is to have predictive capabilities it must also work with all types of institutions. We have tried our model out on a number of institutions that we identified as thriving, surviving, and outright struggling.

Is the wrecking ball set to knock down your institution? Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In this process, we did find a number of colleges that were still operating which had negative VMIs. In each of these cases, the colleges involved could easily be classified as struggling or just barely surviving. They were definitely not thriving.

Although I believe that it is difficult to “kill a college” it is not impossible. Just ask the constituencies of Newbury College (MA), College of New Rochelle (NY), Green Mountain College (VT), and Hampshire College (VT).

For institutions that we identified as thriving, just as we expected each of them had a total VMI that was positive. What about the struggling institutions with positive VMIs? We believe that these institutions must address the factors that are negative or “zero” or they could be heading for more serious trouble.

 

In the post above I outline several different directions that I could go with my next post. At this point, I am working on a post that delves more deeply into the VMI Factor Guiding Principles which I introduced in this post. Watch for it next Tuesday, March 12, 2019.