Why we...believe higher education needs better management

Higher education consumes £6 billion of public money and 30 per cent more from non-government sources. With expansion, it will have to eat up even more. It makes a significant impact on many people's lives and produces more than two-thirds of the nation's fundamental research.

No one would dispute that it is a key industry and needs to be well managed to compete internationally. The decision to block top-up fees has cut one potential source of revenue. Expansion without better funding is a real management challenge.

Universities and colleges are getting larger and more complex. They are widening their functions far beyond the core business of teaching and research. They are becoming agencies for regional development and economic growth. They are collaborating extensively with industry and demonstrating more professional concern for the commercial exploitation of research. They are making strategic alliances with institutions, often on the other side of the world. They are expanding recruitment of students from overseas and also from local areas of social and economic disadvantage.

But their missions are fragmenting. Operationally, universities and colleges are under acute pressure because of the demand for financial stringency, accountability and competition. This makes them increasingly difficult organisations to manage effectively. The Treasury allegedly believes higher education institutions are over-administered and under-managed. Whether this is correct or not, it is no longer controversial to say that management could and should be improved if they are to remain competitive.

There are three significant weaknesses. The first is a growing compartmentalism. As institutions get larger and information technology solutions are embedded, professional careers become more specialised, professionals communicate with each another less and academics moving into management increasingly not only lack understanding of management skills but also of the underlying strategic thrusts of academic disciplines outside their own area. Academic support staff are becoming more isolated from central policy-making just as their skills and know-how are in greater demand.

Second, few institutions have a policy of developing staff for management in the way that automatically occurs in academic disciplines. Able people are not being prepared for senior management posts and too often find themselves asked to make or contribute to strategic decisions when they have no real background in institution-wide policy issues.

Some specialists who could make a real contribution find that their professional expertise acts as a glass ceiling through which they cannot pass because of doubts about their wider experience.

Third, there is debate about what management is and who should do it. The confusion between managerialism and the need to manage an institution effectively to get the best out of its resources, human, financial and physical, represents a critical barrier to institutions realising their potential.

To tackle these weaknesses, the Institute of Education in London is launching a masters programme in higher education management intended to widen the catchment for senior managerial positions. It is aimed at academics, administrators and support staff who have the potential for senior management and it will be taught in intensive one-week residential bursts.

The programme hopes to stimulate participants to continue to exchange ideas about problem-solving, good practice and innovation after they have completed the programme, both among themselves and those taking part in the course in future years.

It is time higher education gave the quality of its management a greater priority.

Mike Shattock and Gareth Williams, Centre for Higher Education Studies Institute of Education University of London