After posting Bob Kaster’s insightful observation in this blog , I asked Brook Manville, a classicist now in the business world, how he thought such a consensus can be developed within a department. His answer: leadership. It turns out Brook is co-author of the Harvard Business Review’s Leader’s Handbook.
Bob Kaster is right, Brook assures us, but - guess what?- there’s a lot more to it. So I asked Brook, “Like what?”. His answer:
"For example, even with shared principles, it takes time to develop a shared set of goals--which usually begins with some kind of process of visioning. Thereafter, you need to develop an actual strategy to achieve the goals/vision--which in a turbulent world, always means exploring different options for a new direction (to keep one alive and vital), and then setting some capacity for testing and learning which might stick. There's also going to be a plan for developing networks of support and influence, to help the organization pivot in new directions, and some kind of agreed process to keep revising and reorienting, as the results from the strategy making and then implementing come in. One needs to think about a coherent and ongoing process, not just getting agreement "at the front end"--though of course that first step can indeed be helpful."
Helpful? Sure, but here’s the nagging question: Do academic organizations (esp. departments) require a different kind of leadership than businesses? If so, we’d expect different prerequisites for them to function well. Most of us assume they’re different, but just how?
The big difference, I think, is students. They must not be viewed as consumers, but as individuals developing capacities they will need for a productive and rewarding life. A department that focuses on them will ask itself what distinctive contribution a course or a sequence of curses can make to that goal. Taking time to focus on that question, in my experience, can make all the difference both for student learning and for faculty satisfaction with their work. ..
Am I right?
Bob Kaster is right, Brook assures us, but - guess what?- there’s a lot more to it. So I asked Brook, “Like what?”. His answer:
"For example, even with shared principles, it takes time to develop a shared set of goals--which usually begins with some kind of process of visioning. Thereafter, you need to develop an actual strategy to achieve the goals/vision--which in a turbulent world, always means exploring different options for a new direction (to keep one alive and vital), and then setting some capacity for testing and learning which might stick. There's also going to be a plan for developing networks of support and influence, to help the organization pivot in new directions, and some kind of agreed process to keep revising and reorienting, as the results from the strategy making and then implementing come in. One needs to think about a coherent and ongoing process, not just getting agreement "at the front end"--though of course that first step can indeed be helpful."
Helpful? Sure, but here’s the nagging question: Do academic organizations (esp. departments) require a different kind of leadership than businesses? If so, we’d expect different prerequisites for them to function well. Most of us assume they’re different, but just how?
The big difference, I think, is students. They must not be viewed as consumers, but as individuals developing capacities they will need for a productive and rewarding life. A department that focuses on them will ask itself what distinctive contribution a course or a sequence of curses can make to that goal. Taking time to focus on that question, in my experience, can make all the difference both for student learning and for faculty satisfaction with their work. ..
Am I right?