Academia And Business

If I recall correctly, it was in the 1980s, during the Thatcherite and Reaganomics era, that the notion that businesses were inherently efficient came to the fore. The contrast class to this claim was that governmental and similar arrangements were supposed to be inherently flawed. The rise of this pair of claims had the effect, and still has the effect, of making the idea that the adoption of business principles popular as a means of reforming institutions, including academic ones.

This phenomenon is seen from time to time on campuses when administration types come up with 'bright' ideas, like departments developing 'business plans'. The same set of values also appears to motivate the current epidemic of private consultants from industry being hired for their advice. My contention here, is that these are a fundamentally misguided set of ideas.

The goal of a business, or a corporation is to make money, or at the very least (for public entities) to increase shareholder value. Thus, a fiscal measure is the simple metric of success in this environment. There is nothing intrinsically problematic with this, unless this metric is applied in the wrong circumstance. It seems to me that academia is an environment where this measure is really a very poor fit.

The first thing to keep in mind is that there has been a history of businesses and corporations indulging in questionable practices in order to achieve their goals. The history of the downfalls of Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson and similar organisations stand in mute testimony to how the profit motive can lead to bad choices. Of course, the recent list of corporate scandals provides many more instructive examples. In each of these cases, ethical considerations were given a secondary role to pecuniary advantage. This should be a red flag that there is an incompatibility between academic values and business values.

One of the most important virtues in the academic world is (or at least, should be) high ethical standards. We expect (hope?) that students will not plagiarise. We assume that researchers do not falsify their results. While there are some checks and balances in place and there have occasionally been some well publicised cases of fraud, by and large trust is the main currency in the Ivory Tower. Without this, we would spend more time checking up on one another, than actually doing any productive work. So, if an assumption of high ethical standards is fundamental to academia and the world of business does not adhere to these same standards, then there is an intrinsic problem with any attempt to graft business practices into the academic environment.

There is also a deeper confusion which lies at the heart of the assimilation of business values into academia. In business, value can be measured in monetary terms. However, such a measure is not applicable in academia. What is the 'value' of a good paper in a first rate journal? How many dollars should be applied to inspiring a student to pursue further study of a subject? There have been naive operationalist attempts at quantifying such things, but the results are at best laughable. More abstract values associate with academia, like the value associated with a well educated populace, that is skilled in critical thinking, are impossible to measure in a manner similar the the simplistic monetary metric. The point crucial point here is that there are many kinds of values. These values cannot be reduced to one another.

Now, this is not supposed to mean that academia should be permitted to engage in fiscal irresponsibility. Deans and other administrators have to ensure that units operate within budgetary guidelines and in a sensible manner. However, these guidelines merely provide the parameters within which the broader goals of increasing knowledge and educating the populace have to be achieved. These latter goals should always have precedence.

Thus, the attempt to use the business model in academia is doomed to failure, at least in terms of being a method for achieving academically proper goals. While people insist upon trying to enforce the ideology of business in academic circles, the results can only be detrimental to the main goals of academic institutions. So, such attempts should be resisted by every means possible.

The CP

Academic Values -- NOT!

Consider the following scenario: At Slavery U, there is a small Meatheadology program. There is also a rather new program in interdisciplinary Jackass Studies. As Jackass Studies was being established, Meatheadology was given an extra faculty line, in order to help support the new Jackass Studies program.

The history of this new faculty line has been mixed. The original holder of the post simply resigned, due to the various shenanigans at Slavery U. The post was vacant for a while, as various factions tried to capture the position. Eventually, a good person was hired, but they got poached away. The position has been advertised several times, but no candidate has taken the position, largely because of the profound inefficiency of Slavery U. Most reasonable candidates had taken other jobs, by the time the offer was made. This year, the position is being advertised again.

The hiring committee consists of three people. Professor X is a full professor from the Pumpkin Department and is cross-appointed in Jackass Studies. He has served on many Meadheadology committees, including hiring committees, thus he knows what he is talking about. Professor Y is an associate professor who is in Meatheadology and is also cross-appointed in Jackass studies. Professor Z is an assistant professor of Meatheadology. He knows nothing about Jackass Studies. However, professor Z has nonetheless been given 'administrative tenure', due to the fact he is currently in charge of Meatheadology.

Now, also in Meatheadology is a visiting assistant professor, Dr. Omega. He and professor Z are fast friends. Although Dr. Omega is quite good at Meatheadology, he knows nothing about Jackass Studies. However, he likes to claim the he does know something. Dr. Omega also has no publications.

The committee has earnestly been collecting and reviewing applications for the position. Professor Z had already told the Provost that Dr. Omega was the best choice for the position, before the committee actually met to agree a short list. When the committee met, professor Z favored only Dr. Omega, while professors X and Y had deep concerns about Dr. Omega's ignorance of Jackass Studies and lack of publications.

Another candidate caught the attention of some committee members, candidate A. Candidate A is a very strong candidate, with many publications. Candidate A clearly knows both Meatheadology and Jackass Studies. Professor Y made some calls. Candidate A has no job offer currently. Professor Z, during this process sent several e-mails explaining why Dr. Omega could be the only possible candidate.

Eventually, professor X suggested that candidate A be talked to further. If that did not work, then candidate B could be invited for a visit, then a choice could be made. Professor Y voted to support professor X's proposal.

Today we learn that Professor Z will not consider candidate A at all, as he considers this candidate too strong. He also disagrees with the rest of professor X's proposal. He again suggests that Dr. Omega is the only possible candidate. In the meantime, professor Y objected that 'due process' needed to be followed. Finally, professor Z announces that he has made up his mind. Dr. Omega must be the preferred job applicant. He is sorry that there is no consensus among the committee, but this is the only reasonable choice, in his view. Thus, Jackass Studies loses out to Meadheadology, because assistant professor Z is prepared to overrule full professor X and associate professor Y.

It has yet to be seen what will happen up the administrative food chain. However, things do not look good. The Provost seems to have taken a vow of silence. Professor X is none too happy, but feels that he cannot interfere too much in the internal affairs of Meatheadology. The head of Jackass Studies is also annoyed, but also does not want to interfere. Professor Y is as mad as hell, not so much at the outcome -- after all, Dr. Omega is a nice enough fellow, but rather at the total disregard for due process. Naturally, professor Z is happy, as he has hired his friend. Dr. Omega is also happy, he now has a job he does not deserve and is not fully qualified for. Of course, it is possible that the lack of due process may yet prove to be Dr. Omega's undoing with certain external powers, on that we will have to wait and see.

So, if you are applying for an academic position this year and you do not get a position, learn from the way things happen at Slavery U. It may not be your fault.

The CP

Confidentiality and Bureaucracy

Today, the ever informative Tenured-Radical has a post about Confidentiality in academia. The general argument is that the main role of confidentiality is to keep the tenure granting process and others like it, utterly mysterious to junior faculty and others. The argument is highly persuasive. I recommend the post.

It turns out that there is another related post over at the Life apparently blog, that discusses rejection letters in the context of an academic job search. This is not a blog I have read before, but I spotted a link to it on the InsideHigherEd site. The post makes some very sane suggestions for people making academic hires.

What these two posts have in common is a good strong dose of common sense, applied to the way things get done in academia. It is perhaps too much to hope that the people who most need to read and internalise this type of information, will actually do so. However, the fact that two bloggers are prepared to articulate and assess their experiences is in itself highly valuable. This I believe demonstrates one of the intrinsic values of blogs, especially somewhat anonymous blogs. What other medium would permit the easy dissemination of these kind of insights?

I am strongly of the belief that administrative actions in academia are almost always inherently messed up. There is too much quiet lobbying and gossiping, for things to be otherwise. Indeed, it is often the least capable and productive members of a faculty who have the time and the energy to devote to this kind of intrigue. I know of one individual of lowly rank, but who has tenure who began a campaign to get two junior faculty members denied tenure, prior to each of their third year reviews. This in part explains why bad decisions so often made. I have written about another related recent example on my own campus.

I actually have a secret theory about bad administrative decisions. It has always slightly shocked me that administrators like, or often feel the need, if they are male, to wear ties. I am against ties, for the simple reason that the knot used on most ties much too closely resembles a noose, for comfort, in my view. I also believe that a tie can easily impede the flow of blood to the brain. In fact, this is why I think that administrative decisions are so often badly made. The people making the decisions, who all too often are male, suffer from low grade, though long term mild ischemic insults to their brains.

Perhaps this theory is too generous. It could just be a special case of the age old problem that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. It could of course be some combination of these and other factors. Who knows?

Fortunately, I do know where it is possible to find a complete and comprehensive handbook to all the odd and weird strategies that a bureaucracy will give rise to. I strongly recommend the Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister Series, produced by The BBC and written by Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay. This series provides worked examples of bureaucratic strategies, in a humorous context. Although what is presented is supposed to be funny, it is the best catalogue of this kind I have ever come across. This series should be an object of serious study for anyone who has to deal with moronic and ignorant people with agendas, especially on committees. As they say, 'forewarned is forearmed'. Sometimes reality and fiction coincide. This I believe is one of these cases.

The CP