Managing Colleges and Universities: Issues for Leadership.

Managing Colleges and Universities: Issues for Leadership edited by Allan M. Hoffman and Randal W. Summers. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, Connecticut. 2000, 221 pages. ISBN:0-89789-645-9. Reviewed by Mark Oromaner.

This is an uneven collection of papers on a hot theme--the need for colleges and universities to respond to change in the information society. One of the reasons for this uneven nature is that the authors "were given latitude in respect to their approaches and writing style" (p. x). In addition, with the exception of some general comments and observations about present competition and the need for change, the editors make no attempt to make a whole of the 12 papers.

Given the above, it is fitting that the lead paper, "Organizational Structure, Management, and Leadership for the Future," by Richard Alfred and Scott Rosevear, provides a well-written theoretical framework for the volume. The basic thesis is that although the market in which colleges and universities function has changed dramatically, they "are slow-moving, change-resistant organizations with static organizational structures and systems-driven management" (p.2). Alfred and Rosevear point to the challenge that our new competitors (e.g., corporations, for-profit institutions, online programs) pose. Given the mission of community colleges, I would suggest that the challenge is particularly real in our case. How do we demonstrate that we can create better value than our new competitors? Seven alternative new organizational models that may enhance our ability to compete are presented. Some of the 12 common principles of these models are decentralization, teamwork, information sharing, core competency focus, customer service emphasis, and market foresight. In contrast to this more abstract discussion, the authors conclude with very practical advice for leaders: "Institutions cannot get to the long term in one big jump. The goal should be to understand what relatively small things they have to do this year that will have enormous implications for the future" (p.27).

In "The Practitioner's Dilemma: Understanding and Managing Change in the Academic Institution," John S. Levin suggests that the basic problem in the management of change in academic institutions stems from the contradictions and inconsistencies that exist within and between institutional mission, culture, and practices (e.g., administrative authority vs. faculty autonomy, teaching vs. research, skills to achieve economic mobility vs. cooling-out function). This certainly applies to many community colleges in their drive "to be everything to everyone." In place of the emphasis on the need for new organizational models, Levin calls for a change in understanding of our organizations. That understanding is based on the recognition that organizational reality is socially constructed and that change must take into account institutional and individual values. The practitioner's dilemma is to adjust to changing conditions and yet preserve those values.

The editors and I agree that "A Memorandum from Machiavelli on the Principled Use of Power in the Academy" is a "must read." The authors, Daniel J. Julius, J. Victor Baldridge, and Jeffrey Pfeifer demonstrate their innovative thinking and practical advice in this piece. Although unemployed at present, Machiavelli served for years as special assistant to kings, dukes, generals, several popes, numerous presidents, senior executives, and faculty at the University of the Medici. Based on his experience, he argues that the special characteristics of the university are service to clients, highly professional staff, unclear and contested goals, and much external pressure. I would suggest that the unclear and contested goals and the openness to external pressure are the most significant of these for the community college. There are few community college leaders who do not take great pride in our comprehensive nature and our community orientation. In addition, I doubt that few would disagree with Machiavelli's description that "the structure of the organization is fluid, can be challenged, and is highly political"(p.45). Given the above, he suggests the term decision-making be replaced with the term decision-flowing. While the former suggests finality, the latter suggests a never-ending process that must be worked on if it is to be implemented. A few examples of specific pieces of advice convey a sense of the value of Machiavelli's memo. "If you care enough to concentrate, you have enormous power to be effective. The frustration caused by the resistance offered by an immovable system is usually the result of scattered and dispersed efforts" (p.49). As dean of planning and institutional research, I am particularly fond of the following: "Once anyone demolishes the basis of your (informational or research) objectives, you will lose your influence. In the academic milieu, if people cannot trust your data, they will not trust you" (p.52). And, "having influence on a committee is frequently equal to having influence over the decision'(p.55). Who appoints members? Who determines the agenda? Who writes the minutes? He labels his last piece of advice as his most ruthless: "kill your own projects when they have outlived their usefulness'(p.58). Machiavelli is aware that this is where most change agents fail. Perhaps there is some value in the concept of term limits.

The fourth major paper that is likely to have the broadest appeal is entitled "Higher Education Management in Theory and Practice." This is a sociology of knowledge perspective to the adoption of a particular theory or practice in higher education management. Courses can provide exposure to the variety of theories available. Academic exposure alone does not explain which approach will be adopted, however. In place of this one-factor determinism, Jana Nidiffer argues, "There is a dialectical interaction between one's sense of self and the cultural expectations of the institution that condition the specific choice made in a given instance" (p.64). Given the importance of strategic planning today, Nidiffer's views on that topic are worth quoting. Nidiffer does not reject the need for planning or argue that it is a sham engaged in by administrators. "However, it may not be going too far to suggest that the process itself is so full of choice points for which there is no rationale other than preference that the appearance of sequential decision making is tainted by intellectual dishonesty.... Unexamined assumptions cannot warrant viable conclusions" (p.67). Perhaps our institutions would be better served if presidents and managers promised less predictability and certainty when they present their plans to trustees, faculty, and other stakeholders. At the same time, presidents and managers should examine their own background assumptions and theory-in-use. One of the most serious dangers is when we begin to accept our own unexamined espoused theories.

These four papers remind us of the limitations of leaders to control and plan the future of their colleges and of rational models of organizations. At the same time, through an understanding of self, significant others, institutional culture and history, and the changing environment, the papers indicate that our actions can help to create the future of our colleges and universities.

The value of the remaining eight papers is likely to vary with the interest and knowledge of the reader. For instance, there is little new information in the papers on financing of higher education, collective bargaining, or student development. The paper on setting of tuition is based on case studies of two public universities and therefore likely to be of little value to a community college audience. In contrast, the paper entitled "Successfully Managing Higher Education Consortia/Partnerships" is based on responses of 617 community college presidents. Almost 80% were involved in one or more relationships with other two- and four-year institutions, and almost 50% were involved in three or more relationships. The 617 community colleges were involved with 9,990 institutions. The most important relationships in terms of current success of their colleges were articulation agreements and 2 + 2 programs with universities. In light of the increasing reliance on information technology, it is of interest to note that the next three in order of importance are computer networks with four-year schools, computer networks with two-year schools, and teleconferencing networks with two-year colleges. The authors suggest that given the magnitude of these relationships with other colleges alone, not to mention those with business, industry, public schools, and public agencies, community colleges should consider developing a new position with the title of assistant to the president for partnership agreements.

In a paper on diversity, Amer El-Ahraf and David Gray ague that we must move from thinking in terms of "managing diversity" to "managing with diversity." Once again, we see the need for a change in our thinking about issues. The authors also remind us that diversity concerns go beyond race, gender, and ethnicity to include age, physical disabilities, and lifestyle.

The final two papers are concerned with managing evaluations and evaluating administrators. Regardless of source of the demand, a decision must be made concerning which evaluations and assessments will be conducted by internal staff and which will be conducted by outside consultants. Factors that are frequently taken into account in the making of such a decision include size and expertise of the internal staff, institutional politics, sensitivity of the area to be reviewed, funds available, and credibility of insiders. Lessons learned from the experiences of insiders in the Office of Instructional Resources (OIR) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are presented. Most important among these are that insiders must live with their colleagues after the conclusion of the evaluation, and in comparison to outsiders, insiders should have a better knowledge of the project and the campus setting. I would add that whether the evaluators are insiders or outsiders, they must face the possibility that their work will be ignored or misused. Although this may have a greater personal impact on the insider, insider knowledge may enable them to minimize the likelihood of such occurrences. In the final paper, Miller and Miller suggest that in the case of the evaluation of the CEO "... it is fairly common to have an academic (instructional) affairs committee of the board that will ask for input from the chair of the faculty governing/coordinating board such as a faculty senate" (pp.201-202). Is this done at any community college?

In conclusion, go to the library and read the memorandum from Machiavelli. If you have time, read the first four papers. After that, I have little guidance to offer.

Mark Oromaner serves as Dean of Planning and Institutional Research at Hudson County Community College, Jersey City, New Jersey. [e-mail]