Prof Gareth Jones muses on the modern university and its need for professional administrators.
It is always encouraging to see the way in which Dunedin as a whole and the Otago Daily Times in particular take an active interest in the health and well-being of the University of Otago.
In a very real sense the university belongs to the city just as much as it belongs to the New Zealand university system. It is entirely appropriate therefore that this newspaper devoted an editorial to "The nature of the university" (21.11.11). As the writer pointed out, Dunedin depends upon the university on account of the latter's contribution to the city's economic, social, cultural and sporting foundation. I am therefore in complete agreement with the view that "discussion of the university's character is relevant beyond the campus".
Running a major institution like the university is a task of immense proportions that requires the input of a diverse array of expertise and wisdom, from those with immense credentials as leading academics and scholars to those with vast experience in the business and finance sectors. The last thing we want in any of these areas are amateurs who think that simply because they have expertise in one area they are capable of running a totally different area. This applies equally to academics and administrators.
The harsh reality is that a university of 20,000 students cannot be run in the same way as one of 5000. In the same way, a department with eight staff is a different beast from one with 120. Equally, a department with a budget of $500,000 has little in common with one with a budget of $10 million.
The challenges inherent in these contrasts are immense. It is easy to criticise "layers of bureaucracy" without asking exactly what it is one is criticising. Surely some bureaucracy is needed, by which I mean good administrative structures. These will in some cases necessitate having committees galore and yet at their best these open up the possibility of encouraging and welcoming diverse input and creative solutions.
I, for one, have no sympathy with imposing surplus layers that fail to add value to the whole enterprise. But by the same token I have never supported the view that professional administrators are an unnecessary luxury. They are essential in a multimillion-dollar institution, and decrease the amount of administrative work undertaken by academics.
Your editorial is quite correct in pointing to the nature of academics, with their predilection to question, analyse, and criticise, always seeking to find better ways of doing things. The task of university administration is to allow as much time and scope as possible for them to get on with what they are good at. Unfortunately, it is also true that some academics are far better at talking than at making day-to-day decisions about mundane fiscal and personnel matters.
Over my time at the University of Otago I served as head of the anatomy department for 20 years, and during that period of very considerable growth in the department was responsible for increasing very substantially the number of administrators. At no time have I regretted this, since they enabled academic staff to get on with the work they are appointed to do: teaching, research and community service. More recently, as deputy vice-chancellor, I was able to carry out a range of academic duties (speaking, publishing and even some teaching) simply because I could rely on the efficiency and integrity of an army of very high quality administrators.
I am completely in accord with the view expressed in the editorial that as flat a management structure as possible should be aimed at. However, it goes on to suggest that this will minimise the burden bureaucracy places on staff. While this is an appealing sentiment, I have doubts that it is true.
Flat management structures place more responsibility on staff close to the coal face. This is as it should be, but by the same token it requires these staff to undertake responsibilities they may actually be shielded from when decisions are taken centrally. Like it or not, large enterprises with large budgets require efficient administration that has to be done by someone.
Does this mean that we never encounter excessive central control in universities? Unfortunately, we do. It is not difficult to think of universities where the governmental demands on them are enormous. I have just reviewed a manuscript for a tertiary education journal describing the workload placed on heads of department in a new Asian university.
The writer's complaint was that heads of department had no time for research because they had to respond to layer upon layer of central university demands, as well as external political and governmental expectations. I could only sympathise, because that is a situation found in many Western countries as well. Whatever complaints we may have here in Otago, they are of a different order to that in some other countries. I hope this will remain the case.
I am not suggesting there are no problems locally. We need to be constantly vigilant. There is a balance between thinking we do everything well and do not need others to come in and help us improve our performance, and laying unnecessary burdens on ourselves and others.
One of the clear policies in the university is the explicit acknowledgement that heads of department are academic leaders and not simply managers. They are in general leaders within their respective disciplines, people who want the best for their own field of endeavour. Many of them are also effective academic administrators, something that is needed if they are to do their best for the staff for whom they have responsibility.
• Prof Gareth Jones is the director of the Bioethics Centre at the University of Otago. He was deputy vice-chancellor (academic and international) from 2005 to 2009. He wrote this article in a personal capacity.