The best academics make the best heads of department

Universities have become dar too manageralised from academics point of view. The managers just want more cash coming in from increased student and research money and overpay themselves relative to the academics that bring in the money through teaching and research income. The managers also keep increasing the workload on academics while employing ever more bureaucrats so they themselves do not have to do too much. No wonder academics are getting more and more dissatisfied.

An absolutely excellent and spot on argument that applies even further up the academic management chain. It is interesting to note how few senior university leaders have any knowledge of even the most basic of management scholarship (they certainly know less than your average MBA from an average institution). Failing to know many very basic ideas, they rely increasingly on consultants, search firms and 'professional' staff to fill them in on things, with those groups ultimately driving the direction of university strategies. Because these groups are themselves hardly leading edge, you end up with rather weak and unjustified logics driving strategy and operations (e.g., like SWOTS -- which I ban in my MBA classes as I view them as little more than a Substantial Waste of Time) and the inevitable pendulum of centralization and decentralization of services. For example, I recently had a discussion with some senior university managers about Alfred Chandler. I could tell immediately they never heard of Chandler (which would be like a Chemist not knowing Priestley). My point with them was that Chandler first articulated the idea that Strategy needed to precede Structure -- i.e., you build your structure to drive through your strategy -- while at universities we allow structure to drive strategy -- doing little more than reinforcing the existing viewpoints and power structures, removing any ability to change direction successfully. You can manage people in a combination of two ways. One is that you can be a very competent manager who is not a role model but understands that fact and works to ensure that the people to whom they are responsible -- who are far more talented in the key operational areas of scholarship and teaching -- are given the environment and resources to succeed. The second is that you can be an inspiration and role model who understands the demands of the profession and works represent and guide others. Unfortunately, the skills are not compensatory and the best leaders need to be able to do both.

Very interesting findings, which clearly chime with my own experience at a Russell Group university. The only good head of department I have had in my years there is a world-leading researcher, who has a much better understanding of the needs of what is needed to promote high-quality research and teaching than those who turn to admin as a career choice. Our current head of department was recruited externally. His research profile is middling and of course we all realise that the people who actively choose to take on a senior management role for at least five years aren't going to be leading researchers. This results in a manager who has an incentive to follow the central university's agenda to the letter, introducing constant change to justify his position as someone promoted to a professorship on an admin track and having very little sense of how to promote job satisfaction and an active research culture on the ground. It's an infuriating situation but I hope that this research can point higher education institutions in the right direction.

Readers should be aware that the 'facts' reported in this article about City, University of London and its participation in the Leadership Foundation Aurora programme are all incorrect. There is also no record of the authors attempting to contact the lead department for this programme at City as part of their research.

All data and correspondence with university staff available on request. Amanda Goodall