Edu-leaders

Promoter-leaders may be the new norm in academia today, but with increased focus on research and global recognition, academic leaders will soon take centre stage. The success of an institution cannot be measured by its bottom line alone; and the head of an institution is characterised by competencies and credibility that are very different from those possessed by the leaders of other enterprises.

In the June 2011 issue of EDU Tech, Editor Pramath Raj Sinha in his editorial, ‘Can Non Academics Lead’, observed: “...the leadership of academic institutions is no different from that of other enterprises.” While it is true today in the context of Indian institutions, it will not be so in the future. Majority of Indian institutions today are not focussed on research and have failed to provide quality teaching. However, as institutions mature, professionalise and seek global recognition, academic leadership will be characterised by competencies and credibility which will be very different from other enterprises.

I believe that the nature of academic leadership in the higher education setting is different from business leadership in at least three interrelated ways. First is the role of institutional mission which defines its purpose and shapes the leadership style. The second is the success of an educational institution, which unlike a business enterprise, cannot be measured by the bottom line alone. And, the third is the role of governance, which is a shared responsibility and entails domain expertise for leading an educational institution.

Different Leanings
Bolman and Gallosac in their recent book, Reframing Academic Leadership, note that higher education is different from business organisations for several reasons including “...educational mission — a complex and variable mix of teaching, research, service, and outreach. Higher education’s mission requires that many of its key employees be teachers and scholars whose contributions depend on their unique expertise, dedication, and capacity for professional judgment.”

To paraphrase, the core mission of a comprehensive institution of higher education relates to teaching, research and community. Unfortunately, in India there are only a handful of institutions which have a clearly defined mission. Most of the institutions here are places for teaching with no focus on research or community service. In the private sector, majority of the institutions are driven by a singular focus on profits or surpluses, which means that they have corporate style leadership with focus on the bottom line. Such an approach may work well for this segment of profit-oriented schools, but will fail miserably for institutions that seek excellence and quality.

Clash of Principles
One challenge that an institution with a mission statement seeking excellence faces is the clash between its academic and business motives. The emphasis for such an institution is on quality, research and global recognition, and this shifts the measures of success from profits made for promoters, to more nebulous ones like peer recognition, rankings, and prestige. The success of such a hall of learning is then not measured by the number of students enrolled, but rather by how it is perceived by the stakeholders. It is the head of the school who builds its credibility.

Amanda Goodall in her book, Socrates in the Boardroom: Why Research Universities Should Be Led by Top Scholars, argues that scholars are in the best position to lead a research university because of their expertise and credibility, which signal confidence among the stakeholders about the values and mission of the institution. She notes, “...in settings where expert knowledge is the key factor that characterises an organisation’s core business, it is likely that expert knowledge is the key in the selection of its leader.”

The chances of an academic leader earning the trust and confidence of faculty members, are much higher when the person has grown within the educational system and is perceived as an expert by them. This trust becomes even more important in the shared governance model where faculty is intensively engaged with institutional vision and strategy. Bolman and Gallosac have noted that in such an institutional environment the faculty attains “...levels of individual autonomy and collective power beyond most employees in other sectors.”

Ajit Rangnekar, Dean, Indian School of Business, in an EDU interview claims, “[t]here is a lot more collaboration happening in the academic world and it is necessary to spend more time in building consensus with the faculty.” In 2006, President of Harvard University, Larry Summers, was forced to resign after a stormy battle with the faculty to establish himself as a change agent. Warren Bennis in his analysis of the event noted that Summers never quite got “...that leaders — especially those who are change agents — can only succeed when they have a reservoir of goodwill that allows them to convince followers that their fates are correlated.”

India Needs Academic Leaders
In India, majority of private sector institutions are not professional and are headed by promoters as leaders. This means that the faculty has almost no say in the governance of these schools. In public institutions, the challenge is at the other extreme as the faculty lacks business acumen and perceives administration as clerical work. The need is to strike a fine balance between academic perspicacity and business efficiency.

According to a World Bank report, while US had attained a gross enrolment ratio of 56 per cent 30 years ago, India is still struggling to raise it from 13 per cent. For various reasons which have been discussed in EDU from time to time, at this nascent stage of education system, talented academic leadership is in short supply and professional practices are underdeveloped. Thus, borrowing talent from the corporate world is sometimes a necessity and there are instances where institutions have excelled with leaders from outside the academia.

Yet, for instituting and nourishing schools of excellence, there is an immediate need for a cadre of leaders who understand the unique characteristics of academia and its best practices. The future of higher education rests with leaders who make good choices, adapt global best practices and instill values of excellence and success which look beyond the bottom line.