"Fresh" from two professional conferences --
admissions in Colorado and financial aid in New York -- where I had many
opportunities to be re-reminded that there is unanimous agreement that highered
will change and, in fact that it IS changing (by drift and reaction rather than
intentional leadership, now).
When queried about this presidents, provosts, and pundits
cite cognitive dissonance, collegiality, and many of the other situational and
"cultural culprits" Professor Kilbourne mentions in his excellent article
(below, reader comments are very good too at http://chronicle.com/article/Moving-at-the-Speed-of-Academe/134890/).
We all know leading change is difficult and that failure to
lead is a demurral of responsibility that will only put highered in a more
constrained, reactionary position.
Moving at the Speed of Academe
by John Kilbourne, professor of movement science at Grand
Valley State University
Last year I met with a former student whom I had mentored
during his early years in college. Today he is the founder and chief executive
of one of the largest and most successful fitness-and-wellness programs for
children in the world. As many children practice his programs as watch the
popular television program SpongeBob SquarePants.
During our meeting he shared with me the speed at which his
company acts and responds to ever-changing trends in technology, business
markets, and health and fitness. He said, "John, if I have an idea on
Friday, we implement it on Monday." Sadly, I shared my frustration at
being, in higher education, on the opposite end of that continuum. I replied to
him by saying, "If I have an idea on Friday, I consider myself lucky to
have it approved by the first of what might be three separate committees during
the first year."
The importance of my friend's comments came into clearer
focus shortly afterward with the attention given to the death of the Apple
co-founder, visionary, and entrepreneur, Steve Jobs. It seems that much of Mr.
Jobs's success was a result of what co-workers at Apple called his
"reality distortion field," or RDF.
The RDF was Jobs's intense enthusiasm for convincing others
that the task at hand was doable, often within very short periods of time.
What's more, much of the current literature on the best ways to prepare college
students for careers shows that taking risks, thinking creatively, and moving
swiftly are key, affirming Mr. Jobs's formula.
It is unfortunate that many colleges, which are charged with
preparing the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators, embrace a
culture of time-consuming, unhurried progress when it comes to curriculum,
personnel, and governance. Nowhere is this more evident than in their committee
structures.
For example, at my university, to make any changes to
existing courses, propose new courses, or make program changes, faculty must
navigate through three separate curriculum committees. Too often the members of
such committees have zero connection to the subject area or content of the
proposals under consideration, yet they are free to voice their concerns,
objections, disapproval, or approval.
A few years ago, I proposed content changes in a course I
teach that is required of all majors in my department, to reflect current
trends and practices in the field. The changes I proposed were the result of my
consulting with several department faculty members over an entire semester.
After my home department's curriculum committee approved the
changes, and after I received the support of the department faculty, the
proposal went to the college curriculum committee. It took nearly a year for
that committee to approve it. It then moved to the university curriculum
committee, where it was approved and sent on to the provost for final approval.
The entire process took nearly three years of time and
effort¬—time I feel would have been much better spent on what I and others do
best: teaching, providing meaningful service, and contributing to our fields of
study. By the time the course received final approval and was ready to appear
in the university catalog, I had to revise it again to keep up with recent
changes in research and scholarship.
As a professor, I often feel that I live a divided life. On
one side of the divide I am engaged with students in and out of class, sharing
with them information from a rapidly changing world, hoping to keep them up to
date and informed so that they might somehow use this information to follow and
achieve their dreams. On the other side of the divide, I face a world consumed
with sluggishness, personified by committees and committee structures at the
department, college, and university levels.
At my university there have been several actions in my
department—curriculum proposals, sabbatical applications, contract renewals,
tenure and promotion decisions—that were unanimously approved by the department
faculty only to be denied or rejected by a college committee. One rejection
letter said, "While your current proposal has not been approved, we do
encourage you to revise, strengthen, and resubmit a proposal for the following
academic year."
The following year! One entire year gone, and the efforts of
the department faculty wasted.
What's to be done? Colleges can bridge the divide and
promote more efficient use of people and resources by putting greater trust in faculty
at the department or unit level. After all, these are the people who know the
subjects and content best. Let's work to remove the unreality distortion field
of higher education. If faculty have an idea on Friday, let them put it into
effect on Monday.
