The second most viewed post on this
blog is titled, “Revenue Sharing and Support for Branch Campus Growth.” (http://branchcampus.blogspot.com/2010/02/revenue-sharing-and-support-for-branch.html). I tend to write shorter, more focused posts,
these days, but so it goes. Among other
things, I described the approach to funding in Ohio, which worked well for a
very long time. Unfortunately, recent
changes may make things harder for university branches; I am concerned about
the long-term implications for enrollment.
In the same month, I also wrote a post
titled, “On Being an Entrepreneur in Higher Education.” (http://branchcampus.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-being-entrepreneur-in-higher.html) That post stemmed from my frustration with
institutional leaders who claim to be entrepreneurs, but do not appear to understand
what it means to empower innovation, especially in a disruptive environment.
Good information is available on how to
develop and empower strengths-based teams that can release energy and
creativity in organizations. There are
people who really “get it,” and they are more likely to be found on branch
campuses and in those units that have experience in continuing education or
lifelong learning than in the offices of those whose career focus has been
within traditional academic units.
I do not question the good intentions
of presidents, vice presidents, and deans, but in typical academic fashion, too
many try to be “innovative” or “entrepreneurial,” without ever talking
seriously with people who have been there and done that. It’s frustrating, in part because I believe
there is a lot at stake for most institutions.
Entrepreneurial efforts are intended to
develop products and services that will attract new audiences to the
institution or that will significantly change its competitive position with
existing audiences. Therefore, units
charged with innovation require autonomy to allow flexible, quick engagement
with audiences and partners, as well as the ability to make investments
consistent with their rate of growth. When
universities bury these efforts in their colleges or hinder their progress with
policies and practices that are inconsistent with speed and responsiveness,
innovation will proceed slowly, if at all.
I think most institutional leaders
would be well served if they think of their institution as a kind of holding
company, with a variety of businesses, each of which can and should be managed
on its own terms. (I know some people
don’t like business-related metaphors, but I’ve long since stopped worrying
about that.) Each “product line”
requires structure, policies and practices that enable success within its own
market. Each requires leadership that
understands the specific mission, the competitive environment, and the elements
of a successful strategy.
That’s not to say that leaders
shouldn’t insist on appropriate internal partnerships or that some activities
and services shouldn’t be centralized, but the effort should emphasize the word
“partnership,” and should serve the legitimate interests of each partner. (With respect to academic programs, I’m
suggesting that faculty still should lead and oversee program development and
quality, but decisions about offering programs at branch campuses or online
should be market driven, and processes for program development and approval
should be streamlined.)
Give branch campus leaders an
opportunity, and many will understand how to engage with their audiences in a
high quality, high touch way that can succeed.
Keep them under the control of mid-level main campus administrators, and
they will not be able to compete effectively with newer options. Force innovative initiatives to fit within
your academic, financial, human resource, and political traditions, and you
will be on a very dark road.