The responsive university : restructuring for high performance

The Responsive University: Restructuring for High Performance, edited by William G. Tierney. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. 162+ pp. $29.95 We are indeed witnessing an explosion in higher education research: on employee motivation, faculty work, leadership, governance, the role of the modern university, managing various schools, units, and divisions. Clark Ken's old adage, the only thing many in academe share in common are grievances over parking, should be amended. We share an unending propensity to study, dissect, promote, reevaluate, champion, and analyze, both ourselves and our institutions. Many who comment on work and culture in academic environments stand somewhere on a "crisis" continuum. On one end of the spectrum are those who bemoan the state of higher education, its lack of accountability, declining public support, perceived inefficiencies in teaching, research, service, and the like. On the other end are those who find that faculty, by and large, are pleased with the work environment, our institutions have not been bought by foreign competitors, and, yes, certain sectors of academe are indeed robust, and enrollments are climbing (but graduate students are organizing! ). Why are so many reluctant to admit that, in spite of the culture wars, politicization, legislative incursions, and apparent loss of leadership, American colleges and universities, as organizations, are, by and large, healthy, fulfill an important and recognized societal niche, are desirable places to work, and are still viewed, throughout the world, as the best models to emulate? Set in this context is The Responsive University. It sits somewhere in the middle of the crisis continuum, although leaning decidedly toward a more optimistic end. As Kent Keith says in his excellent summary chapter, "This book is about getting out of the box, it is about rethinking fundamental assumptions that worked late in the twentieth century but can trap and immobilize our institutions in the twenty-first century" (p. 162). We are offered a glimmer of hope, the possibility of redemption, tempered by the notion that whatever works well in the present will probably not work in the future. Nevertheless, despite the deluge of studies reevaluating academe, I enjoyed this book and found myself arguing with its premises as I lurched through my daily routine of meetings with lawyers, promotion and tenure committees, accountants, housing directors, faculty, police, and gardeners. The notion of a responsive university holds great attraction to individuals who, like myself, are actually responsible for administering academic organizations, and who, like most senior executives, are forced to spend the majority of our time responding to others' agendas, not promoting our own solutions or ideas. Themes stressed in this book include service to students and society, tenure, internal decision making, governmental policy, and institutional accountability. Treatment of issues is innovative. The authors identify an emerging university, one that is "responsive," e.g., responsive to those being served--students, parents, businesses, nonprofit organizations. Each chapter, in its own fashion, stresses that "public s" will judge the university in terms of the quality of relationship and, as well, by the outcomes of those relationships. Responsiveness, in this context, includes a service orientation, proactive and outcome-oriented relationships between faculty members and administrators, e.g., those that support planning and evaluation processes, lateral decision-making structures, and the like. The idea that higher education should focus on outcomes relevant to the needs of those who work and live beyond campus walls is thoughtfully stated. Ellen Earle Chaffee argues that we must be unafraid to use the term "customers. " William Tierney, editor and author, suggests we look past arguments over tenure and seek to encourage faculty to meet performance goals. …