Setting the Context : Globalisation and the Information Society
The Practical Imperatives: Governance and Strategic Management
Return to contents of Proceedings
The organisers of the conference very helpfully included guidelines for presenters to the speakers. According to the guidelines, most speakers have the attention of their audience at the start. “Take this chance to retain it” they sternly warn “Speakers often spend time at the start on minor points or polite acknowledgements, only to run out of it just as they get to the key issues”. So, mindful of those stern admonitions, and the danger that I will indeed miss my narrow window of opportunity, here are the main points of my presentation.
These two terms now trip easily off our tongues. They are, of course, related. Yet, I believe very few people fully grasp the sheer scale of the revolution that engulfs us all that is embedded in those terms. Futurist Alvin Toffler (1980) has labelled our current transition to the information age as the ‘Third Wave’, suggesting that it may be ultimately as significant as the last two waves in human history: the move from hunter–gatherer to agricultural societies and then, during the industrial revolution, the move from agricultural to industrial societies.
Information has never in history been so central to the conduct of an entire society. The role of the ‘knowledge industry’ in modern society has been compared to the role of the railroads in the second half of the 19th century and the role of the car in the first half of the 20th, that is, the focal point for economic growth. And the educational system is the centre of the knowledge industry.
This ‘new wave’ is characterised by a number of related elements. Together, they constitute an irresistible pressure to change that is bearing down on every organisation in a modern economy. Over the past twenty years, the world of business worldwide has been convulsed by the changes brought about by globalisation and the information society. In response to that relentless pressure to change, businesses have down–sized, right–sized, merged, diversified, consolidated, de–layered, restructured. They have feverishly adopted team approaches, implemented the concept of total quality, and engaged in expensive and radical business process re–engineering. They have emerged leaner, meaner, only to watch in horror as venerable companies that seemed impregnable, part of the landscape, lose their grip on the market and fail, and hungry newcomers, in tune with the zeitgeist of the modern consumer, redefine the rules of the game, invent new business models and take off. Universities have also responded to that relentless pressure to change, albeit at a more gentlemanly pace than the front line battalions of business.
speed. The information age has come upon us faster than our ability to retrain ourselves to comprehend it. In a little over 30 years, the universities have experienced a dramatic growth in enrolment – from 21,000, 11% of the age cohort in 1965, to more than 103,000 at present, 56% of the age cohort. Presently, over half of young people advance to third level, with around half of these taking degree–level programmes This will increase to 117,000 in 2002/2003 – about 61% of the age cohort (Commission on the Points System,1998).
the breakdown of barriers. The information society keeps its members under constant pressure to streamline their performance by facilitating the rapid and free–flow of information in society. Anything that gets in the way of that free-flow of information and innovation comes under pressure to change. That is why hierarchies of all kinds – are more vulnerable. In business, for example, small, dense networks of teams, with permeable boundaries and flexible roles that allow for speed of information flow and sharing, are the new organisational form.
The universities are also under sustained pressure to break down their traditional internal and external barriers, to loosen traditional hierarchies. To facilitate the intake of unprecedented numbers of young people looking for a third level education, they have to provide more flexible modes of operation, different institutional forms, more flexibility in access qualifications and routes. They are coming under sustained pressure from the Higher Education Authority to increase the quantity and quality of their research output and to streamline their performance by breaking down the traditional barriers across disciplines and even across traditional rival institutions.
empowerment of the individual. That free-flow of information has empowered individuals. Freedom of choice has exploded, intensifying the already historical shift towards individualism. This has not yet affected the universities, operating as they are in a high demand environment. But with the changing demographics, universities will increasingly have to compete for high quality students, will have to cater for more discerning, experienced mature students, and will have to negotiate with finance partners who have complex needs and demands.
a focus on services. In business, services has replaced manufacturing, as a source of wealth creation. Similarly, in the case of universities, a focus on providing innovative and appropriate ‘learning services’ rather than ‘education’ in the traditional sense will become a major criterion of efficiency and effectiveness in the eyes of potential customers, funders and policy–makers. who will increasingly look for a service, not solely defined as ‘education’ but as ‘a solution to a problem’ or ‘something that works’.
relentless competitiveness. Joseph Schumpeter (1960) coined the term ‘creative destruction’ to describe the need in a modern economy for the perpetual replacement of products and services with more efficient ones. Only those who will stay one step ahead of this process competition will survive. In a world where Bill Gates says that Microsoft is always two years away from failure, businesses are becoming acutely aware of the vulnerabilities of ‘the complacent incumbents’. These are the organisations that believe that their place in the world is assured, who make changes only reluctantly and under duress, and who then think ‘Well, that's OK now, we can go back to normal.’ But in the new era of relentless change, there is no going back to normal.
the fear of being left behind. With the relentless competition of globalisation comes a new anxiety: the fear that your job, your workplace, even your community may be changed at any moment by anonymous economic and technological forces that are anything but stable. This fear of being left behind makes people anxious or well motivated if you prefer, in a new way about their career paths, their continuing education and training, their individual competitive edge. This opens up like never before the possibility, indeed the absolute necessity, for the universities to initiate close cooperation between employers, trade unions and those voluntary and community sector organisations who represent those outside the work force. Only in such partnerships can universities open up a new dialogue about inventing effective and radical initiatives on lifelong learning.
the importance of the short lead. In the global era, the key to managing change for any organisation is to get out just far enough to capture the competitive lead. It has been estimated that in the world of business, a lead time of two years is all you need to capture that competitive edge. In the pre–globalisaion, pre-information–society era, if you missed something you could catch up. Now, if you are two years behind, you may never catch up. But learning to judge what will give you that short lead is the crucial modern skill.
For example, in Ireland, in less than a decade the shortage of labour has replaced mass unemployment as the urgent and critical policy priority. Less than a decade ago, I suspect that anybody addressing employers on the need for proactive and innovative policies with regard to recruitment and retention of employees would have had a very small audience. Yet, it is those few employers who, for reasons of deep value, instituted and invested in such policies now have the competitive edge.
Similarly, today, the points–system generation of students is so grateful to be inside the university gate that they are, for the most part, too busy, stressed, and anxious to stay there that that they make no real demands on the university, apart from getting them through their courses.
It is hard to imagine that in another decade this is likely to have changed dramatically, such that students will be able to appraise the choices of university open to them on the basis of a much wider array of quality indicators than they do today. These future students will approach third–level options not just in terms of narrow career choice, but rather with the attitude “Which university can offer me the quality of teaching, the quality of university life, the opportunity for personal development and the access to high quality graduate opportunities that I need? ”
By and large, universities have responded well to the challenges of the last decade. But there is much to be done. At the beginning of this paper I argued that the greatest challenge facing universities is to adopt and deliver an expanded mission that includes a commitment to equality/equity, to the provision of lifelong learning, and to total quality not just in research and teaching but also in governance and strategic management to achieve that expanded mission. How best can they manage that change?
I believe that successful change has three components – a positive element – articulating a vision of where you want to go; a negative element – identifying the barriers to moving forward and a set of practical imperatives – managing the process of change in a coherent and practical way. The nature of the organic relationship between these three components could be expressed as multiplication, not addition. So, if even one of those elements is zero, there is no successful change. Thus, if universities have no compelling vision to integrate and enliven their expanded mission there will be no successful change. Similarly, universities can work out the most compelling vision of the future, but if it is combined with a culture of complacency, there will be no successful change. Finally, universities can shake off their complacency, and talk up the vision, but unless that vision can be delivered by an effective system of governance and strategic management, there will be no successful change. I will attempt a very brief sketch of how universities might approach these three elements.
Edmund Burke, in his great treatise on civil society described it in the following terms:
“Society is indeed a contract. It is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in any generation, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”.
Jaroslav Pelikan (1994) argues that there hovers over that passage a vision of the university. I too will take that as my starting point. Universities constitute, first, a partnership, a community of scholars who are committed to uphold and promote a set of core values that the university, more than any other institution in society, is committed to uphold and guard: the pursuit of truth, knowledge and intellectual excellence; the free expression and debate of ideas; a critical stance in relation to prevailing paradigms and orthodoxy.
That community of scholars must position themselves at the centre as it were, ever mindful of the tradition of scholarship that went before, attentive to the urgent and pressing needs of current society, and vigilant of the effects of their research on the generations yet to be born. Thus, the tension between tradition, relevance, and ethics is, or should be, ever constant for scholars.
That historic mission of the university – the pursuit of truth and knowledge – has a set of practical imperatives associated with its successful pursuit – respect for precision, accuracy, objectivity; personal dedication, collegiality. Much of university life and evaluation is concerned with such practical imperatives.
Universities must be ever vigilant that these fundamental values that underpin scholarship do not become distorted by pressure, external and internal, to conform to or become subservient to a more limited view of scholarship. Scholars cannot be a partnership 'in every virtue and in all perfection' if they concern themselves only with narrow career advancement, driven by a frenetic 'publish or perish' ethic, a kind of narcissistic turning inward, without due consideration for the ethical and value dimension of their work. Is it enough for a community of scholars to publish research on genetically modified crops without concerning ourselves about issues such as sustainability, the effect on third world communities, the possible adverse effects on those 'not yet born'? Can we really study law and not concern ourselves about justice? Can we research human intellectual and creative potential without concerning ourselves about the effects of disadvantage?
The philanthropy of individuals and corporate businesses in funding universities is to be welcomed. It is right and proper that research endeavours should attempt to meet the legitimate concerns of such doners. But the community of scholars also have a collective responsibility to ensure that the issues of central importance to poor, disadvantaged and socially excluded people are also researched and that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that research resources are allocated in such a way that ensures some parity of esteem for such topics.
But to that historic mission must now be added other vital goals: to achieve equity and equality based on the fundamental right of every citizen to education and personal development, irrespective of age, class, gender, race and disability. Within the framework of social solidarity and lifelong learning – goals that are articulated in government policy and in the new Partnership for Prosperity and Fairness – the universities have a unique opportunity to play a critical role in the socio–economic mobility of individuals who are the most dispossessed in society, to be part of a process that starts with preschool and continues right through into work and lifelong learning. They can lend their power and prestige to “ennoble the enterprise” (Gaffney, 1994).
These newer goals also have a set of practical imperatives associated with their successful pursuit. There are two ways of pursuing the policies that flow from such goals. They can be pursued as ‘add–ons’, the ‘deep–sigh’ items at the end of a long agenda. Their implementation can be assigned to a few individual staff members who are burdened by a social conscience. Or they can be embraced with a generosity of spirit, a vigorous stewardship ethic, informed by the cardinal civic virtues that are essential for the common good: the generous impulse, the readiness to be compassionate, to modulate self interest, the sense of fair play, the sense of duty. What universities need is an organisational mechanism, a connective tissue that will unite these civic virtues into an effective, coherent force for the pursuit of the universities' expanded mission that I outlined above.
The key to successfully managing the change process, at an individual or organisational level, is learning how to manage threats. Reacting to real or perceived threats in a defensive way keeps people stuck in an endless cycle of reaction and counter–offensives rather than in creating pro–active responses. It is my view that universities are very engaged in defending against any perceived threat to their autonomy. I believe, as I set out in the beginning, that the ancient autonomy of the university is one of its deep core values. But I also believe that universities exaggerate the scope of that autonomy. The core value is independence of mind, the right to critique ideas and express ideas freely.
But universities are far more vigilant about perceived external threats to that autonomy than they are to existing internal threats. For example, there are already many forms of subtle constraints and controls of that traditional freedom. To be published entails a high degree of conformity to the prevailing paradigms, the conventions of journals, the fads and fashions in intellectual thought. The real or perceived sensitivities of corporate funders may act as an unarticulated constraint on that freedom.
Scholars must and should be vigilant about such controls on their intellectual autonomy. But they cannot extend that traditional autonomy to freedom from social responsibility; freedom to ignore the equality provisions of the Universities Act. Many universities continue to be walled–in organisations, remote from the spirit and practice of social partnership that pervades many publicly funded institutions. Central government itself, through the social partnership process, has moved from its traditional roles of allocating, directing, administering and underwriting monopoly representation to the new roles of policy entrepreneurship, obliging and supporting others in monitoring and benchmarking a wide range of policies, facilitating deliberation by the social partners, supporting interest group formation (National Economic and Social Forum, 1997). Government departments, traditionally highly centralised and autonomous, have radically changed the way they conduct their business. In return for the shared authority the government extends them, social partners, in turn, have to share some of the responsibility. Thus, ICTU, IBEC, the farming organisations and the often poorly resourced voluntary and community sector routinely participate in a huge range of government–sponsored working groups and committees that deliberate on issues that are well outside the scope of their own self–interest.
The Higher Education Authority (2000) has made it clear that not just must third–level institutions develop policies in relation to equity and access, but must go much further than that and embrace 'a partnership approach involving individuals, institutions, governments, policy makers and special interest groups'. Universities have a way to go in that respect. Many universities continue to be structured by a culture of tradition, precedent, rigid demarcation, and an exaggerated view of their own uniqueness. Much of their lobbying continues to be about issues that are within the scope of their own self–interest.
I referred earlier to how businesses have tried to face the challenge of rapid change by a commitment to total quality. They have adopted management systems, such as the Excellence Model, Total Quality Management, that aim to promote excellence at every level of an organisation through a coherent system of leadership, and managing policies of strategy, partnership and resources.
Universities are already familiar with the concept of quality Assurance. But what I am talking about is a system of Total Quality Management that links the corporate strategy or mission of an organisation to functioning at every level of the organisation, including the specification of specific targets, critical success factors, staff rewards and appraisal systems. This constitutes a quality philosophy which will be reflected in how the organisation is run at every level, for example the provision of high–quality training to achieve the objectives and the development of a human resources strategy that attempts to align individual competencies and development needs with that corporate strategy.
Visionary and competent leadership is a key component in the delivery of such a system. Such a strategic framework is more then than a collection of initiatives. It is about interlinked initiatives that draw from that vision.
If we were to examine universities in terms of how they strategically deliver and administer the different elements of their professed vision, I think we would find that there is a hierarchy of achievement. In terms of delivering the research component of their mission, there is a high degree of coherence: the corporate strategy is communicated to staff and students, it is clearly linked to performance indicators of success, it is openly rewarded. There is generally clear communication and unity of purpose between the university and the outside partners.
In terms of delivering the teaching aspect, there is less coherence. Universities state that they expect staff to be equally adept at research, teaching and administration. But in practice, research is more highly valued in terms of reward and appraisal. There is generally no dedicated funding for the development of teaching skills, no senior university appointment dedicated to teaching and learning, for example, a Dean or Vice President of Teaching and Learning. (University Teaching and Learning: Policy and Practices, 1998).
When it comes to delivering on equity and equality there is virtually no coherence. The extremely low participation rates of students from disadvantaged backgrounds has been repeatedly documented (see Clancy, 1995). The targets set for an increase in those are minimal or very modest (eg an increase of 500 nationally in the entry of disadvantaged students). The targets for mature students, who now only account for 5.4% of the full time entrants, are slightly better. Moreover, over half of mature students were under 30 and a sizable minority (29%) were accepted on the basis of having a Leaving Certificate, so they might be better described as delayed–entry rather than mature or second–chance students. Mature students are 5 times better represented in UK universities than they are here in the Republic. The differential between rates of participation in the Republic of Ireland and the U.K. are especially noticeable, given the similarity in demographic profile (Lynch, 1999a).
Universities have been criticised for not supporting ‘user friendly’ approaches that meet the needs of such students (as well as those disadvantaged students); of not developing and supporting more user friendly access courses and of not guaranteeing access to those who take such courses; of not developing systems for the accreditation of prior experiential learning; for not having a proactive policy for the admission of socially and economically disadvantaged students; for not developing different modes of delivery including modularisation and the use of alternative pedagogies; for inflexibility in assessment, especially in insisting on written examinations (Lynch, 1999b).
Universities might respond that such changes would cut across their traditional high standards; would interfere with their right to set and regulate entry and outcome requirements. Yet, universities can and do radically change their working practices when they have to, for example, when the HEA's Programme for Research in Third–Level Institutions (1998) includes guidelines that actively encourage cross university collaborative research efforts. The development of coherent research strategies by universities may well cut across the traditional autonomy of colleges and individual researchers to set their own research agenda. But such inconveniences are set in the context of the larger goal of enabling a strategic and planned approach to the long–term development of their research capabilities.
The lack of coherence in pursuing even the limited and modest goals of equity and equality is also evident in other ways. For example, even when there are corporate goals with regard to equity, equality and lifelong learning, the structure of universities is such that individual faculties and departments can simply refuse to go along with the policy, apparently without sanction. These are the invisible gatekeepers of tradition and privilege in universities who cannot be held to account.
Similarly, the appraisal and rewards structures of universities generally do not give high value to the work done by staff in access programmes and actively penalise those who attempt to redefine the purpose of the academy. For example, public service work to promote social inclusion is not regarded as legitimate university work; lectures, consultations and involvement with non-academic bodies are not counted as achievements (only lectures or addresses to peers are counted as of high standing; yet, public lectures and involvement with statutory and voluntary agencies must be undertaken if the dissemination of research findings is to be effected beyond the confines of the academy. As Lynch (1999b) points out, given that the production of academic knowledge is often legitimated on the grounds that it will contribute to progress and to the general social good, it is hard to see how this will happen without its dissemination outside the academy in accessible contexts and language.
Each university is already required, under section 36 of the Universities Act, to prepare and put in place a statement of its equality policies. But each university will need to put flesh on the bones of their equality statement. for example by the voluntary adoption of an ambitious Charter for Equality. This would set out the vision and strategic framework designed to deliver the best possible programmes and courses to achieve the designated goals. It would be informed by a definition of equality that is developmental and progressive, not just equality of opportunity, but equality of access, equality of participation, and equality of outcomes (see National Economic and Social Forum, 1996). The Charter would recognise the different and complementary contributions of the different stakeholders in that strategy and would be linked in an institutionally meaningful way with the other elements in the university, including reward and appraisal structures.
Finally, there is the issue of accountability. The Report of the CIRCA Group Europe for the HEA on the Assessment of University Research (1996) coined the wonderful phrase ‘low accountability environment’ to describe the performance of Irish universities.
‘By comparison with European practices, the Irish Universities are a low accountability environment. The quality of reporting on research performance is quite dismal. Only one faculty at one university produces a formal Research Report, and the others simply provide a listing of project titles. There was no financial statement, no manpower data... nothing by way of a synthesis, statement of general orientation, priorities or strengths overview’ (p. 211).
If that was the universities’ performance in relation to their most treasured mission, research, how will their performance and accountability in relation to equity and equality be reasonably described? I look forward to the HEA statutory review of the equality policies of universities due to be published next year.
This is not to deny that issues of equality of access and retention of economically disadvantaged students, mature students and those with disabilities are easy to resolve. The recent HEA commissioned Report on Access and Equity in Higher Education acknowledges that there is no single royal road to dealing with these issues. Other countries also experience difficulty. Moreover, decisions and directions can be informed by international experience but not determined by it. The cumulative disadvantage that makes it so extraordinarily difficult for some students to access higher education must be tackled at many different levels.
But, despite the challenges, the HEA, under the leadership of Dr. Don Thornhill, is unequivocal in putting the universities on notice that these issues must be tackied and that 'Policies and practices in relation to equity and access are among the most important policies of a third–level institution (Thornhill, 2000). Accountability must be buttressed by mechanisms for review, monitoring and reporting. The Act gives a specific review function to the HEA. The forthcoming HEA sponsored Forum on equity issues later this year will provide an opportunity for third-level institutions, social partners and policy makers to consider how the issue of accountability is best structured – what mechanisms and processes are required to make accountability a real and dynamic force for reform and change in relation to equity and not simply a paper exercise. I would strongly urge third–level institutions to take the lead on this issue, to ‘go the extra mile’ and to consider the following. I believe if the Universities were really ready to demonstrate their seriousness of purpose about equality and access they would ask the HEA to link their funding to the achievement of set access targets and to the establishment of equality proofing of university structures and processes. This would give third-level institutions and universities who heavily invest in equality and equity a real competitive edge over those who neglect it.
In this first year of the new millennium, at a time of unprecedented wealth, persistent disadvantage and social exclusion could endanger and undermine the solidarity of Irish society. The universities are the guardians of the most precious national resource, knowledge and learning, that communities of disadvantaged and excluded people desperately need to be put at their disposal. Opening the university gates to such communities is a daunting challenge and one where there is no great succour in international experience. But we must not be daunted. Ireland has invented and pioneered a model of social partnership that is unique in the world. (National Economic and Social Forum, 1997). We have shown that by developing a common understanding of economic and social problems, by developing a problem-solving approach that transcends sectional interest, and by demonstrating a collective determination to mobilise behind finding a solution, that the seemingly most intractable problems can be effectively dealt with.
If the universities fail to respond creatively to the challenge of democratising their resources, the challenge of enfranchising the most dispossessed and marginalised citizens, history will judge us harshly. Let me return to Edmund Burke. According to Burke, each successive generation possess their society's laws and governance in the form of an entailed estate, given them for a lifetime use, with the condition that it be passed on, at least not diminished and hopefully enhanced, to the succeeding generations. We are, said Burke, but ‘temporary possessors and life renters in it’ and should not act as if we were the entire masters. That conception of the partnership between the generations, of stewardship of a precious resource, now seems particularly relevant to those charged with the stewardship of the universities. What will be asked by future generations is how the men and women who hold such office exercised their brief authority, whether in the words of WB Yeats, they could ‘hold reality and justice in a single vision’.
Burke, E. Reflections on the Revolution in France. C. Cruise O'Brien (Ed.). (1969). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Clancy, P. (1995). Access to College; Patterns of Continuity and Change, Dublin:
Higher Education Authority.
Commission on the Points System (1998) Consultative Process – Background Document (1998). Dublin: Government Publications.
Gaffney, M. (1994). Equity in higher education: Ennobling the enterprise. In The Role of the University in Society. Dublin: National University of Ireland.
Higher Education Authority (1996). A Comparative International Assessment of the
Organisation, Management and Funding of University Research in Ireland and
Europe; Report of the CIRCA Group Europe. Dublin: Higher Education Authority.
Higher Education Authority (1998). Programme for Research in Third–Level Institutions 1999–2001. Dublin: Higher Education Authority.
Higher Education Authority (2000). Access and Equity in Higher Education; An
International Perspective on Issues and Strategies. Dublin: Higher Education
Authority
Irish Universities Training Network (1998) Colloquium Proceedings; University
Teaching and Learning; Policy and Practice, Dublin: Irish Universities Training
Network.
Lynch, K. (1999a). Equality in Education. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.
Lynch, K. (1999b). Equality studies, the academy and the role of research in emancipatory social change, The Economic and Social Review Vol.30, No.1, January, pp. 41–69.
National Economic and Social Forum (1996). Equality Proofing Issues.
Dublin: National Economic and Social Forum
National Economic and Social Forum (1997). A Framework for Partnership – Enriching Strategic Consensus through Participation. Forum Report No.16.
Dublin; National Economic and Social Forum.
Pelikan, J. (1994). A partnership in all science, a partnership in all art. In The Role of the University in Society. Dublin: National University of Ireland.
Schumpeter, J. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.
New York: Harper Brothers.
Thornhill, D. (2000). Launch of the Access and Equity in Higher Education: An
International Perspective on Issues and Strategies.
Dublin: Higher Education Authority
Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave.
New York:William Morrow.