Santiago Iniguez, Dean of Instituto de
Empresa Business School. 
If managing complex organisations is a challenging task, being at the helm of academic enterprises takes the biscuit. Several singular factors make managing educational institutions particularly hard. First, its objective, education -a common good- is subject to special scrutiny by governments, this derives sometimes into overregulation. Second, the number of stakeholders in education is larger than at other businesses, and many have representation in governance bodies. This requires outstanding diplomatic and negotiation skills from education managers to council the concurrent interests of different groups. Third, academics, a core-stakeholder group, are less manageable than other mortals, partly due to the way they are trained. To top it off, sources of income at academia are often more diversified and elusive than at other businesses, which demands sometimes a real juggling act to keep the balance. However, if life is so stressful at the top of those institutions, why do some people feel attracted to the job, despite that they are remunerated worse than in business?
I am almost sure that John Hood, University of Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor, is currently experiencing the pressures described above. Last year, Businessweek devoted a cover and a main story to this New Zealand born and ideal personal blend of academia and business. Now in his second year at office, he will probably face the most relevant test challenging his leadership next fall –or Michaelmas Term in Oxford’s nomenclature- when the “White Paper on University Governance” will be presented to the “Congregation”, the university parliament, for approval. The document has been discussed at two open sessions held in June and has encountered a large number of critics, most of them insiders.
The main proposal of the White Paper is the creation of two governing bodies, the Academic Board and the University Council, departing from the unicameral structure that exists today, mostly composed of university members. The Board’s main responsibility is to oversee the academic activities –i.e., teaching and research- at the University. The Council is conceived as the major executive body of the university and it has competencies over investment and remuneration, among other things. It will be composed of 15 members, seven of them “lay” –i.e., outsiders to the university or independent-, the Chair being a lay member too. The role and the composition of the Council is the main target of the White Paper critics and some academics demand more presence and representation in the future executive bodies. A good summary of some of these criticisms may be found in the latest issues of “Oxford Magazine”, “Oxford University Gazette” and “Blueprint” (the newsletter of the University of Oxford).
The current episode about the White Paper at Oxford is typical of academic institutions since debate is the substance of academic life and any institutional reform will inevitably meet the same tortuous treatment at traditional places like Oxford. I still recall the debate, held only ten years ago and also published in the Oxford University Gazette, about whether management was a “proper social science” and had room in the curricula of studies at the university. Finally, common sense prevailed and the university accepted the seminal donation to create the Said Business School. At the same time, Vice-Chancellor Hood deserves trust and empowerment, which were given to him two years ago. He has the experience and seems to be on the right track.
Something admirable of the University of Oxford is its transparency and openness to the world (see its Corporate Plan for the coming five years) Here, the academic world seems to perform better than most businesses.
Comments