#Title
Dr Syed Saad Andaleeb
is distinguished professor emeritus at Pennsylvania State University in the US, former faculty member of the IBA, Dhaka University, and former vice-chancellor of Brac University.
Academic administration takes place at many levels. The more one ascends the decision-making hierarchy, the stronger are the currents and conflicts of interests s/he confronts. Being able to effectively mediate, moderate, and resolve such conflicts that arise both within and external to the university, while remaining steadfast to the institution’s purpose, defines, in my mind, the quality and capacity of a capable administrator.
Here I focus on the vice-chancellor: working with a vision and mission to align stakeholders and strategically position her/his university, the VC must strive to showcase how the institution benefits its larger stakeholder community, not just students. Because universities are embedded in society, the gifted administrator finds purpose and fuels passion within the university to ultimately serve society and its knowledge needs.
Altbach and Salmi (2011) identify three complementary sets of factors that operationalise and drive purpose and passion: a high concentration of talent (faculty members and students); abundant resources to offer a rich learning environment and to conduct advanced research; and favourable governance features that encourage leadership, strategic vision, innovation, and flexibility to enable decision-making without being encumbered by [external] bureaucracy.
The adept top administrator must successfully bring together these three elements to forge the character and ethos of the university while dealing with a continuing stream of demands from various stakeholders, often diplomatically, but sometimes with firmness and courage.
In my experience of administering a top-ranked private university in Bangladesh, I would say that an administrator’s success lies in her/his ability to deal with the political-economy climate of the institution involving both internal and external actors and influence agents.
Internally, it is vital to build quality programmes, increase enrolments, nurture professional development, invigorate the curriculum, improve general – foundational – education, strengthen research, build needed facilities, etc. Such initiatives can meet strong headwinds from within. To tackle such challenges the VC needs a management team that supports enlightened and decisive leadership, ensures transparent information flows and accountability, monitors performance, rewards good performers, and builds a unique and positive narrative about the university.
The prudent VC is a listener, a deal-maker, a peacekeeper, and a changemaker engaged in negotiation and adaptation. S/he must often accommodate many (some unjustified) requests and directives from the top. Imagine a VC being called by a UGC member to promote a faculty member who did not meet basic promotion criteria. Sadly, such criteria are often ambiguous or decidedly weak and routinely taken advantage of by shrewd and caustic stakeholders, especially when the VC is faint-hearted or driven by self-interest.
The VCs also face a decision-making environment that is highly centralised in our culture, where power is wielded by an individual or a small coterie, especially located in the board for private universities or the ministry (i.e. bureaucrats) in the case of public universities. In this environment, a VC is deemed “able” by the board often by the amount of resources (money) s/he generates (say, through enrolment growth). Public university VCs are deemed able, according to the cognoscenti, by the political clout they can maintain through student coteries and selective recruitment of faculty and administrators. Such priorities often cast student/faculty calibre and quality education to the wind, while failing to fulfil the institution’s larger mission – that of educating, enabling and empowering multiple stakeholders.
External actors, too, exert disproportionate influence over the universities, often pushing misplaced agendas. They are merciless and unsparing in their use of power, hierarchy, and proclivity to assert their views. What incapacitates a VC are the priorities of the central planning body (where education still gets the short shrift in budgetary allocations of two percent of GDP – lowest in South Asia); incompetence of the implementing body (especially, bureaucrats in the ministry) which allocates resources without accountability; a weak regulatory body (e.g. the University Grants Commission) that poorly monitors and regulates the universities, and other entities (Accreditation Council, Pharmacy Council, media, etc), each getting in the way of university affairs with agendas of their own. Building alliances with industry, generating collaborations among scholars (local and global), tapping into the diaspora, and engaging the alumni – all involve negotiating and making compromises that are not always optimal and often conflict-prone.
In a milieu of competing interests, the good administrator is comparable to the conductor of a symphony orchestra. The better s/he is able to harmonise a large ensemble of actors with their array of agendas, the more likely s/he will be to take her/his university to greater heights.
Competent VCs must also confront and manage change. For example, New Public Management (NPM) reforms, globally, are strongly driving quality assurance, audit and accountability mechanisms today. This is also coming to Bangladesh. According to Krucken, Engwall, and Decorte (2018, p. S1), NPM is challenging university governance to:
* Deliver “targeted results” in return for state resources based on concrete performance indicators;
* Manage demands of other external bodies (accreditation agencies, governance boards and the media); and
* Transform themselves “by becoming integrated, goal-oriented, and competitive entities wherein management and leadership play an ever important role.”
It is pertinent to observe that some VCs have not lived up to their image and responsibilities, berated with charges of corruption, nepotism, incompetence and the like. Well-intentioned VCs are beleaguered today, struggling with rising demands of multiple stakeholders, poorly trained management/support staff, lack of resources, infighting among competing groups, the backbiters, and a grim facilitating environment; an entire day can be spent sitting in traffic or in a power wielder’s office to answer a call or maintain a relationship! Some VCs are unduly rebuked and humiliated by the powers that be. But they (the VCs) fail to take a stand or speak out in their own defence; keeping the job is perhaps more important!
Two significant challenges regarding top administration that demand open discussion are: 1) how to limit the dictates of the BoT (for private universities) or the political/bureaucratic overlords (for public universities) who unduly micromanage the operations of the universities. The harm they cause to education is considerable; and 2) what clear mandate must the VCs be given in their terms of reference? Otherwise, in the nebulous operational frame of the university, while running the institution smoothly, it is always easy to pick on something innocuous to make the VCs’ life miserable. A third question demanding introspection is, “Who really controls our education system?” Why did it rank 112th out of 138 countries in the Global Knowledge Index 2020? Why such neglect?
To get the best out of our VCs, it is important to negotiate measurable (SMART) goals, then allow the VC and her/his team to achieve them. The board/syndicate meetings will provide ample scope to deliberate on the VC’s skills and performance; daily monitoring and needling or harassment is unnecessary.
Also, when a university wants a VC, it must have government approval. Why? Why not allow the academic ecosystem to become adept at choosing its own leader? In my experiences overseas, I have seen faculty governance and the VC (President) working together and building synergy and great universities! An “unencumbered” governance mechanism with “genuine” autonomy would enable the VC and faculty governance to make the universities sparkle. Perhaps that mechanism now deserves a chance. In the event of poor performance or failure (by way of the VCs terms/mandate), the removal process should also be fair and prompt. Four years (or some fraction) is too long to allow incompetence to continue in the university leadership setting.