Leading Academic Excellence

Response to 

Think Differently: towards the entrepreneurial university presentation by Steve Maharey, 2010

The presentation focused on the need for universities (although theoretically we could map on top of this any educational institution) to shift from inward looking to outward looking to function more effectively in the 21^st century.  Of course it could be argued that the polytechnic sector has long being doing that in comparison to universities. 

Maharey used Massey University as a model for change towards thinking more about the increasing demands of the external environment and accountability for educational institutions to respond to various communities’ inquiry and investment of how institutions serve the broader environment. While presenting this model Maharey was clear about the Massey University’s vision for a programme of change and the autonomous nature of academics as experts in a field (perhaps as opposed to teachers).  He listed (see below) elements that need to be activated to enable such a transition.

While attention to all listed items here needs to dovetail and is relational, Maharey’s reference to “culture, not structure” as forming an important aspect of moving towards a more entrepreneurial institution resonated with me.  This attitude also, in my opinion, greatly increases gaining buy in from staff and stakeholders.  While Maharey mentioned that structures have to change, he placed emphasis on the development of the culture of an institution; the need to cultivate a sense of what an organisation stands for, for empowering members of that organisation to feel supported in taking risks, looking for new opportunities and to clearly understand the cultural landscape of the institution.

Development of a culture of creative thinking, critical inquiry and reflection in the School of Visual Arts is something I try to emphasis in my role as Principal Lecturer (Teaching and Learning). I do this ‘on the floor’ in teaching situations and in fostering discussion with staff and students about what kind of environment we want to create in the studios, in our thinking and, in my conversations with my managers, in the running of the school and Faculty.  Wherever possible I try to talk about developing shared (but not dictated) values and philosophies towards teaching and learning.  With the relatively young formation of our new faculty I see this construction of culture and building of foundation as key to success in our new degree and development of a collegially supportive environment.  

At times, I wish there was more emphasis on the bringing of people together (synonymous in my book with building culture) further up the hierarchy.  So the question for me is sometimes, how can I lead in this area when this may not appear to be one of the most important goals of the Faculty head?  This has me recall something Tim Wilson said in his presentation: “just do it anyway, so I guess that’s what I do.

It also brings to mind consideration of the recent Right-sizing exercise in place at MIT (is there anything that doesn’t bring that to mind at present?).  If, according to Maharey, the building of culture is more important to affect change, how does the Right-sizing exercise relate to that argument?  The process seems to be very focussed in structure and changing infrastructural organisation.  Where does building (or rebuilding of culture) sit within this?