Within public institutions there is a festering toxicity fostered by a corporate culture. It is a conflict that has two sets of objectives juxtaposed to one another and this has been recently reflected with the publicized dispute at the University of Alberta.
There was an institutional shift in the 1990s that saw how universities and colleges, along with other public institutions, were administered. There was a move toward a corporate strategy that brought with it its own culture; ideals of competition and business objectives became the norm, as they now looked to find efficiencies and improve productivity. Alliances were developed with the business world, and private investments would flow in to help alleviate the costs.
Unfortunately, with these measures, donor expectations began to creep in and the ideals of a university began to change. The corporate mindset began to set out a plethora of policies to protect the interests of the universities and their investors from contrarian ideas, which altered the universities from the bastions of critical thought and creativity to places of vocational training for the corporate world: education had become a commodity for a shifting middle class that would move from an entrepreneurial and a problem-solving spirit to that of a functionary, focused upon policies, titles, among other bureaucratic values.
These institutions have become top-heavy, as, within the bureaucratic world, to progress up the corporate ladder one needed to earn more and have the illusion of leadership. The operational objective of efficiency was maligned by the need to pay administrators more for savings found elsewhere: their self-interest began to conflict with the raison d’être of the institution itself, and a sense of injustice began to creep in and resentment has become the norm.
The bitterness that has arisen reflects some deeper issues, primarily the loss of control of one’s own destiny: the restricting of creativity, the demeaning of value of the liberal arts (for the most part) has nurtured this animosity to the Administrative class. There is a growing sense of “us and them”, as administrators continue to dictate business values, and this is coming to a head.
Such conflicts bespeak of a looming paradigm shift, and in this case it would be how one leads. Strong leaders lead by example, they listen to their teams, empowering and collaborating with them, as their goals are the same. To move forward though, something else has to change: the language that is used by all sides. Language is the conveyor of culture and values, and the problems that exist within public institutions today reflect this. The various sides, as there are usually more than just two, are speaking different languages, and this is setting them on different trajectories: a divided team will rarely win, but one that can read from the same script will fare better. Internal competition is not the answer, and a new era of cooperation may be the solution.
John Kennair is an international consultant and doctor of laws who lives in St. Albert.
