Changing Times,Changing Universities

Abstract

Universities worldwide are being challenged to be more focused, efficient and effective to meet the demands of a globally situated, technologically enabled, higher education market place. Governments are increasingly applying the rhetoric of markets to higher education public policy as they seek to enhance research and higher education as essential platforms for a knowledge economy. For their part, universities are engaging a business enterprise focus to ensure survival in the context of resource scarcity and frequent change in their operating environment. The key challenge for universities is to retain their academic integrity and their institutional, other-regarding, nature, including their accountability to the community, while maintaining their financial sustainability. To do this, those charged with leadership, governance and management of universities must negotiate inherent tensions within universities while operating in a dynamic environment. This paper draws on the experience of James Cook University in Australia to explore these inherent tensions and identifies the value of institutional distinctiveness and clarity of institutional vision in meeting the demands of change.

* A warm thank you to the reviewers whose comments and suggestions aided our thinking and strengthened our work.

Introduction

It is commonly remarked that the only constant in the universe is change, and it seems universities worldwide are not to be spared. Indeed, at this particular moment in history, change is rife and a new higher education ecology is in formation. New entrants into the higher education market place are challenging the preeminent place of universities in the provision of higher education. Universities are being challenged to be more focused, efficient and effective and to reconsider their operating models in the face of disruptive technologies that may prove to be game changers. At the same time, some national governments are investing in their universities, applying public funding to underwrite the major contributions universities make to their economies and national life, while others treat their universities as a source of budget savings.

After briefly setting the scene with an exploration of various theoretical perspectives on change as it affects universities, this article examines the recent experiences of an Australian university as it responds to and creates change in its domestic and global context. Lessons are drawn from this case study to inform contemporary approaches to organizational change, leadership, management and governance.

Universities—Leadership, Management and Governance

Universities as Sociological Institutions

Universities are a special type of organization: they are “institutions” in the sociological sense. 1 This means that universities, particularly publicly funded universities, are subject to expectations not generally applied to private, for-profit entities. Those expectations go to delivering more than a solid budget bottom line. Instead, they are to be “other-regarding” in important ways, delivering a broad range of benefits to the communities they serve. For example, universities are expected to provide high quality educational opportunities, engage in research of value, help drive innovation and undertake various outreach activities. Such outreach may span many areas of endeavor, from public access to libraries, theatres and art galleries, to supporting local communities’ social and economic development and much more.

The extent to which a sociological institution, like a university, delivers on this broader remit will determine, in no small way, the level of community support it enjoys. Without performing these extra and sometimes costly roles, an institution’s legitimacy 2 is at risk, and if that happens, it is less likely to be able to attract the funding it needs to operate.

Universities are special in another way too: they typically enjoy a long life-span. While new universities have emerged over the centuries, very few have disappeared, at least in a western context. The expectation is that once established, a university may exist for a century and more. This means that these are institutions that plan for the long term, the very long term. The long-term nature of universities does not, however, exempt them from the vagaries of short-term political and economic cycles or other major changes.

The traditional role of the university was to educate an elite, with research being a relatively new addition to universities’ repertoires. In more recent times, in many nations, access to higher education has been socialized, engaging a broader spectrum of society than ever before. These nations are investing in a highly educated population and high quality research to platform the innovation necessary for new economies based on advanced manufacturing, service and knowledge industries.

Other changes are evident too. Growing global mobility of both students and staff has meant that higher education has become internationalized. Competition for the best international students and top ranking academics is fierce. National and global networks have become increasingly important to both growing reputations and gaining an early line of sight on shifts in markets. 3 A strong global reputation is important as it enhances a university’s ability to attract fee-paying students, world-class academics, industry partnerships and philanthropy. Some universities have established campuses in off-shore locations, either working with others or as wholly-owned enterprises. New entrants into the marketplace at home and abroad are challenging universities’ traditional business models, as do new technologies and the differing expectations of prospective students, communities and governments.

Universities and Their Operating Environment

Given these myriad changes, it is reasonable to conclude that the global environment within which universities operate has become more dynamic, more fine-grained. 4 This is likely to present problems for some universities. Institutions like universities, particularly those that are older and larger, may be particularly prone to the negative effects of their “structural inertia”, meaning their capacity to adapt quickly to changes in their operating environment may be limited. In general, such institutions are better adapted to a coarse-grained operating environment where time is on their side as they seek to adjust what have been successful operating routines and processes. By contrast, smaller and younger organizations, while exposed to liabilities of smallness and newness, 5 may be more likely to thrive in dynamic operating environments.

Specialization can also be important to survival and growth in a dynamic environment. Generalist organizations, including perhaps more comprehensive universities, typically do well in coarse-grained environments, while specialist organizations are more likely to thrive in both fine- and coarse-grained environments. 6

In addition to presenting survival challenges, cross-cutting and deep change calls into question the extent to which universities have moved from being an institution in society to an instrument of society. 7 Acknowledging higher education, research and innovation as key drivers of developing and developed economies has given universities a negotiating platform to seek resources from governments, but it also positions higher education as a service rather than a social right. As Amaral points out, if students have become customers, then universities have become service providers, warning that if and when the university loses its condition of “social institution” it risks becoming “a mere ‘social organisation’ or administered entity.” 8

The Marketization of Higher Education

Furthermore, as the publicly funded sector has expanded in some jurisdictions to meet student demand, the cost to government has soared. Consequently, and despite commitments to building highly educated populations and research platforms as an investment in a nation’s future, concerns for cost containment has invited policy shifts that seek savings through the introduction of market mechanisms.

Gornitzka and Maassen characterize this as a shift towards a “supermarket” steering model where the role of the state is minimized. Such a move is based on the idea that the market is always more efficient than other resource allocation mechanisms. In this scheme, universities are service providers that can be assessed in the same ways that corporations are assessed: efficiency, flexibility and survival. In this scheme, the government’s role is reduced to ensuring market mechanisms are in place and promoting self-regulation. 9

However, while political rhetoric has shifted to reflect a “supermarket” steering approach, Gornitzka and Maassen draw on particular cases to conclude that “hybrid” steering models have emerged where “. . . the underlying institutions (rules, regulations, instruments) have not been adapted accordingly.” 10 Jungblut and Vukasovic draw on this hybrid steering concept 11 to explore the gap between political rhetoric on higher education markets and the stability of universities as sociological institutions suggesting that higher education has become “more important but less special.” 12

Interestingly, Amaral 13 suggests that the stability and longevity of universities to date can be explained by their special relationship with knowledge. He cites three important institutional characteristics: the predominance of experts and their professional autonomy; the concentration of power at the base of the organizational hierarchy—in the lecture theatres and research centers; and; the decentralized decision making that results from internal diversity within a university. It remains to be seen whether these traditional characteristics of a university survive the changes ahead and what, if anything, this may mean for the survival of universities themselves.

Leadership, Management and Governance

Contemporary leadership and management in universities has been forged in the cauldron of a globally competitive marketplace. There are three prime tensions.

The first tension goes to ensuring that the university continues to be an institution in the sociological sense, to be other-regarding and express and activate a concern for more than the budget bottom line. The legitimacy of every university resides in the extent to which leading, managing and governance can effect this core feature of the university and yet deliver financial sustainability.

Second, university leaders must manage through major and sometimes abrupt changes in public policy that may simultaneously seek to free and restrict the ability of a university to operate in a dynamic environment. Certainly, in Australia, tectonic changes in universities’ operations and operating environment can be made through changes to public policy. Recent policy changes in Australia have sought to free up universities, but also reduce their funding and manage them closely through regulation. A large part of management’s focus must be on seeking an early line of sight on prospective changes and developing internal resilience to cope with them. Clarity of institutional purpose, shared across the university and beyond, is likely to be important to the ability of a university to negotiate such shifts.

Finally, there is an inescapable tension between traditional notions of collegial management and a business enterprise focus. Under conditions of resource scarcity and myriad public policy changes thrust upon universities, more traditional approaches to leading and managing at universities have been melded with, many would argue supplanted by, a more managerialist approach, evincing a more generic “service provider” market logic and orientation. The challenge for leadership in contemporary universities is to pay respect to collegial traditions even as a sharp business enterprise focus must be engaged to compete successfully in contemporary national and international contexts.

This third tension goes to a deeply respected and activated duality that both sets universities apart from other organizations and conditions leadership approaches within them. To this end, “relational leadership” 14 that seeks to build trust and confidence is important in a university setting. Such leadership engages a sense of enterprise stewardship, given the long-term nature of universities, and pays respect to the complexity and interconnectedness of a university’s operations. 15 There can be no doubt that a university’s legitimacy is affected by the level of respect afforded to academic processes based on collegiality. Leaders’ and managers’ ability to enable members of the university community to fulfill their roles in creative and dynamic ways is integral to meeting some of the complex social, environmental and political challenges facing local and global communities as well as the challenges facing universities themselves.

Governance is an important aspect of corporate operations across the world. The role of a governing body goes to many important matters, such as appointing the Chief Executive Officer and determining strategic direction as well as providing governance oversight of the operation of the organization in line with the strategic direction they have approved. A Council, Board or Senate typically undertakes the governance role in universities, with a membership that has traditionally engaged students and staff as well as external experts. As in all organizations where governance and management find separate expression, it is critical that these two are deeply in tune, each respecting the others’ role in the service of the University. 16

The Australian Higher Education Sector

Australia has 39 universities providing bachelor and postgraduate qualifications, two overseas universities that offer qualifications from their home country and one university of specialization. Of these, 36 have been established by governments, three have been established by churches 17 and one 18 is privately owned. All are not-for-profit entities and all, apart from Bond University and mcd University of Divinity, receive government funding to teach students. It is important to note that “university” is a controlled term in Australia, meaning that higher education providers that do not meet particular criteria may not use this title. 19

In addition to universities, the Australian higher education system includes approximately 136 non-university higher education providers, consisting of a mix of public institutions and private colleges (both for-profit and not-for-profit) that are accredited to provide recognized higher education qualifications mostly at the sub-bachelor level, with some at bachelor and postgraduate level. 20 To date, these providers have not usually attracted federal government funding, although most students are able to access government loans to cover tuition fees.

Until 2012 the Australian Government controlled the number of Australian undergraduate student places each university could offer. Once this restriction was lifted from bachelor degrees, enrolments grew by around 17 per cent from 2009 figures. 21 The government, to date, has set standardized fees that can be charged for Australian undergraduate student places. By contrast, universities are empowered to set fees for international students and Australian postgraduate coursework qualifications without reference to government.

In May 2014, the newly elected Australian Government announced, through its budget process, a major reengineering of the higher education sector. The proposals, which at the time of writing are being considered in the Australian Parliament, would see government funding spread to include additional providers and additional courses. First, government funding would be extended to support all sub-bachelor courses (diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees). Second, funding for sub-bachelor and bachelor programs would be extended to include private universities and accredited higher education providers (both non-profit and for-profit). This proposed expansion of the funded system is accompanied by other significant announcements, including the proposal to increase the interest rate on student loans, and a 20 per cent reduction of government funding per Australian student place. This reduction comes on top of previous reductions in funding delivered by former governments.

At the same time, the government is proposing to enable universities to generate additional revenue by allowing them to set fees for Australian undergraduate students 22 while directing that one-fifth of undergraduate fee income above current levels must go to a scholarship pool. The reforms would also enable universities to charge postgraduate research students a fee, however this fee would be regulated by the government, and responds to a proposed 10 per cent reduction in government postgraduate research funding. These measures are consistent with notions of “hybrid market steering” by government that simultaneously frees up and controls universities.

As far as leadership, management and governance is concerned, Australian universities are led by a Vice Chancellor, some of whom have “President” added to their title, and who are typically drawn from academic ranks. Vice Chancellors are aided in their task by various senior executives with portfolio responsibility.

Governance is the responsibility of a governing board, typically referred to as the Council or Senate. The governing board is chaired by a Chancellor and comprises up to 22 members, some of whom are drawn from the community and appointed by the Governor-in-Council, 23 while others are elected from staff, students and alumni. In most jurisdictions in Australia, these positions are not remunerated. The Vice Chancellor is an ex-officio member of the Council/Senate.

Case Study: James Cook University

On the face of it, one of the older Australian universities, based in a large metropolitan city and with myriad benefits conferred by one hundred years and more of public rents, may seem a worthy case study to explore the dynamics of changing times for universities given that such institutions may appear to be best placed to take advantage of increased student interest and mobility. However, their long histories mean their success may be hard to replicate in the short to medium term. Furthermore, while they tend to be well positioned in a global marketplace, structural inertia coupled with market instability at home and abroad may mean that they are more exposed to significant risk in the current circumstances.

So, instead of exploring one of these institutions, the more specialist James Cook University will serve as a case study for dealing with the challenge of change. This is a middle-aged university in Australian terms with a clearly defined mission. Despite not benefiting from the years of investment experienced by Australia’s older universities, James Cook University features areas of genuine research excellence and has worked hard to carve out its niche. It aspires to become a great university. While no less exposed to a dynamic operating environment, there are lessons here that may be engaged readily by others.

By way of introduction, James Cook University is located in the Tropics—the zone adjacent to the earth’s equator bounded by the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. By virtue of this location and legislative intent expressed when established as a “University of the Tropics”, James Cook University has, from the very beginning, enjoyed a distinctive purpose focused on the issues of the tropical world that has set it apart from other Australian universities. 24

More than 50 years on, the University has achieved some considerable success. It is ranked at position 303 in the Academic Ranking of World Universities 2014 based on research excellence. With three campuses across two countries—Townsville and Cairns in northern Queensland, Australia, and in Singapore—the task of leading around 22,500 students, 25 4,700 staff working across seven academic colleges supported by two academic divisions, 26 two institutes, 27 two national centres 28 and four enabling divisions, 29 and local communities to a sharpened focus on that founding vision, the James Cook University case provides insight into contemporary strategy, organization, governance and management in what has become a hyper-competitive and dynamic national and global context.

A University for the Tropics: 1960-2006

From the early 1960s, both the Australian and Queensland Governments envisaged that the new James Cook University would become Australia’s “University for the Tropics.” Starting life in 1960 as a University College of The University of Queensland and based in Townsville, James Cook University became a university in its own right in 1970. 30

Other campuses and study centers followed. In 1987, a second campus was established in Cairns, 350 kilometers north of Townsville, with just 117 students. In 2003, James Cook University had the opportunity to become a shareholder in a third campus—in Singapore—an important step towards broadening its tropical footprint. This opportunity to expand and consolidate activities in Asia coincided with the Singapore Government’s ambition to establish that city-state as a high quality education hub in the Asia Pacific.

James Cook University was led by five Vice Chancellors between 1970 and 2006 and grew in that time from 1,200 students, to 15,322 students. Like any institution, over the years the University has experienced many ups and downs. 31 It has great stories to tell, featuring periods of significant success 32 and times when the University’s very survival was at risk. 33 For the most part, however, the University remained true to its founders’ ambition, quietly building a strong reputation for research in areas relevant to the Tropics while delivering high quality educational programs for both Australian and international students.

A University for the Tropics: 2007-2014

The appointment of a new Vice Chancellor and President in 2007 provided an opportunity to reconsider the University’s special “tropical” mission. It was the University’s focus on the Tropics, and the unique position the University held in the Australian and international higher education environment that attracted her to the role.

The prime objective suffusing the new Vice Chancellor’s approach to advancing the University has been to underscore the importance of the Tropics. Accordingly, and with a highly supportive Chancellor and University Council, both governance and management action at the University in this period has gone to making the case about the importance of the Tropics, pointing to a new global dynamic, to sharpening the institution’s focus on the Tropics and building organizational strength in aligned areas.

Governance and management processes have included developing a Statement of Strategic Intent and a tropically focused University Plan. While many reorienting changes were made in the period 2007-2012, their prime purpose was to prepare for significant change as the University sought to more powerfully embrace its mission.

Statement of Strategic Intent / University Plan

The James Cook University Act 1997 prescribes, inter alia, that the University is “to encourage study and research generally and, in particular, in subjects of special importance to the people of the tropics.” In 2008 the University moved away from a more traditional, general and wordy vision and mission statement to embrace a succinct Statement of Strategic Intent. James Cook University’s distinctive intent is to create, “A brighter future for life in the tropics world-wide through graduates and discoveries that make a difference.” The Statement, developed collaboratively within the University and unanimously approved by the University’s Council, sets out four themes to focus its learning and teaching and research: Tropical Ecosystems and Environment; Industries and Economies in the Tropics; Peoples and Societies in the Tropics; and; Tropical Health, Medicine and Biosecurity.

The Statement also pledges to achieve genuine and sustainable reconciliation between Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the wider community, to embrace the diversity of the communities the University serves in Australia and Singapore and to create opportunities and enduring benefits for the region and beyond. The Statement commits to the principle of sustainability, ensuring that actions today do not limit the range of social, cultural, environmental and economic options open to future generations. It also lists a set of values—excellence, authenticity, integrity, sustainability, mutual respect and discovery—that underpin James Cook University as an international university. The Statement has a five to ten year outlook and was revisited and reaffirmed within the University community and by the University Council in 2011.

The University Plan provides a framework for short to medium term planning, and usually has a three to five year outlook, currently 2013-2017. 34 It is structured to set measurable objectives for three core activities—learning and teaching, research, and engagement—as well as setting objectives for the enablers of those activities—organizational effectiveness, human and intellectual capital, finance and resources and physical and virtual infrastructure. Taken together, these objectives operationalize areas of priority to give effect to the University’s Statement of Strategic Intent.

Early actions as a result of the first University Plan, finalized in 2008, included committing to the recruitment of some of the best academic talent in the world, focused on tropical issues. Thirteen “Tropical Leaders” were appointed adding substantially to the University’s capacity to lead research and the development of new knowledge on issues facing the Tropics. At the same time, research was focused within a refreshed and more limited set of University Institutes and Centers. The university curriculum was refreshed to ensure a focus on the Tropics, new relationships worldwide were forged and others that did not align were discontinued. This strategic planning and action provided a platform for the jcu: The Future project and the major change that was to come.

jcu: The Future

In an email to all staff sent in June 2012, the Vice Chancellor mused about what it would take to make James Cook University a “great” university. The email set out a process to re-imagine the University and invited members of the University community to play a role in helping to shape the institution’s future.

A taskforce was formed, with clear expectations that some areas and activities would be “powered up” and some “powered down”, while others would be started or discontinued. The major, early outputs of the project were captured in two reports, Crystallising Our Purpose and Review of Operations and Services.

Crystallising went to defining the future of James Cook University and introduced a grand challenges framework. 35 This report was the product of over 1,000 submissions from staff; the most extensive consultation process in the history of the University. The Review also engaged the community deeply in search of improvements in the University’s enabling functions. Both reports recommended restructuring the University so it may realize its ambitions.

The University is in the final stages of that restructure. This has involved: creating an academy made up of seven colleges supported by two academic divisions; 36 consolidating the functions of global strategy and engagement in a new division; merging two administrative divisions; and, maintaining two divisions dedicated to learning and teaching, and research and innovation, respectively.

Other non-structural elements of the change are the subject of intense activity at this time. These include the implementation of the jcu Model for learning and teaching, that is: focused on the Tropics; research rich; student focused; connected to community; internationally engaged; and; culturally informed. Specialist and signature programs that align with the strategic intent, meet market demand, satisfy community interests, while being financially and competitively viable are being identified. Further, a focus on developing a robust curriculum management system is underway.

This organizational reset and subsequent structural change represents the largest change undertaken at James Cook University since 1997. While the expected benefits of such a significant change are far from being realized, there is a strong sense that the University is on its way to greatness.

A Word about Singapore

Given few universities wholly own and operate offshore campuses, it is worth providing some insight into this type of operation. In 2003, James Cook University commenced operations in Singapore at the invitation of the Productivity and Standards Board, an entity of the Singapore Government. The Singapore campus expressed the University’s commitment to better understand and engage with Asia.

However, it was not all plain sailing. The early days of the campus were challenging and, at one stage, it appeared possible that the University would withdraw from Singapore. New leadership in Singapore in 2006 and alignment to the University’s refreshed tropical focus from 2007 provided the necessary confidence to reaffirm commitment to the campus, contrasting with a number of other international universities who have withdrawn from their Singaporean operations during the last decade.

After buying out the minor shareholder in 2011, jcu Singapore as it is known, became a wholly owned entity of James Cook University. A deal of work aimed at harmonizing operations between the Australian and Singapore locations followed the buyout. Governance and management across jurisdictions is complex and will always present challenges. jcu Singapore is established as a private limited company in Singapore and is overseen by a Board of Directors, chaired by the Vice Chancellor with campus operations reported to the University Council.

jcu Singapore is yet to be formally recognized by the Singapore Government as a “branch campus” of James Cook University. Instead, it is regarded as a “private education institution”, subject to oversight by the Council for Private Education. jcu Singapore sought the highest level of quality accreditation in Singapore, EduTrust Star, 37 as this may assist with attaining branch campus status. Operating a university is not the same as operating a private education institution and the University must work hard to understand Singapore’s requirements, and to be understood.

jcu Singapore, while participating in the jcu: The Future project, has been largely untouched by the consequential organizational change and restructure. Of course, at one level, any change at the University will have consequences for all its parts as the new structure and changed programs have broad impact. On another level, jcu Singapore, as a separate legal entity located in a different country with different legislative imperatives, has not been directly affected by the change. Recognition of jcu Singapore as a branch campus of James Cook University by the Singapore government will draw the Singapore and the Australian operations closer together.

Insights and Lessons

It is time to bring some threads together, drawing on both theoretical perspectives and elements of the James Cook University case to reveal insights and lessons about universities in changing times.

Universities as Institutions: The Power of Distinctiveness

While it may be more conventional to imagine that larger, wealthier, and older universities are more likely to survive a changing environment, smaller, more nimble and focused universities like James Cook University may have better odds of survival and success.

Clarity of vision, particularly when that vision or strategic intent is distinctive in setting an institution apart from its peers, is very powerful. If that intent is compelling, authentic and attainable, and makes good sense in the circumstances, it will excite and engage others. Such an intent provides both confidence and the basis for an institution, in this case a university, to set its own path in areas that others in a competitive environment find hard to copy. A powerful and authentic intent can rally others to the institution’s cause.

This has been the James Cook University experience. Not only has the University attracted some of the world’s best scholars, it has received outstanding support from governments in light of that intent, including in the form of funding for major facilities. Such support means that research can be focused and greater strength is possible. This does not eliminate the risk to the University from radical change in the public policy environment, but it does serve as some protection when policy makers are aware of, and support, a distinctive institutional mission and action. There is a chance that external changes may take account of such an operation.

While some students will not choose a distinctive university, others will travel from afar to study there. As a result of James Cook University’s special tropical focus, the university has a very different international student profile when compared with other Australian universities. While students join the University from around the world—the Americas, the Pacific, Asia, Africa—the United State is the home country of the largest group of full degree international students studying at jcu’s tropical Australian campuses. Many of these students come to study marine and tropical biology, earth and environmental sciences, tropical health and medicine, archaeology and anthropology and linguistics, to name a few areas of special focus. Their personal and professional aim is to make a difference in the world, particularly in the Tropics. This type of motivation aligns neatly with the University’s strategic intent.

A distinctive mission also means that the University can engage in different ways, beyond its organizational boundaries, to focus on a bigger picture. For James Cook University, that larger focus is expressed as the James Cook University led State of the Tropics project. That project engages 12 universities and research institutes from around the world and has resulted in the State of the Tropics 2014 Report 38 launched by Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi in June 2014.

As a result of this work we now know that the Tropics is the fastest growing region in the world and will become the home for the weight of the world’s population by the 2030s. While there are many challenges facing the Tropics, there are many opportunities too. In short, the report profiles the growing importance of the Tropics as a zone, adds greatly to our geopolitical understanding and points to the acute need for global action. This important project emerged from, and was made sensible by James Cook University’s special distinctiveness and its role as a sociological institution.

All universities push boundaries of intellectual inquiry. If it is well managed, a distinctive university may garner external support even as it brings a qualitatively different perspective. In no small way, James Cook University is an institution that is, ironically perhaps, “on the edge” even as it resides in one of the two great axes of contemporary global growth—the Tropics. 39 Embracing the University’s geographic footprint, the rich and deep knowledge of its local peoples, and the talents of those who are drawn here, empowers people to think and act differently in the world. This distinctive edge adds potently to the University’s important tropical mission.

Universities’ Internal Operating Environment

There can be no doubt that leading and managing universities is a complex task. Universities in Australia have evolved into multi-million dollar, multi-national operations, subject to myriad regulatory requirements and are gripped by the need to deliver a sustainable business operation.

Addressing the three key tensions—reinforcing the University as an other-regarding, sociological institution, working to survive and thrive in the face of public policy gyrations and balancing collegial and managerialist approaches to organization and management—have exercised James Cook University and most other universities in Australia at both governance and management levels.

While there is no perfect solution to managing these tensions, both theory and practice indicate that these are tensions that must be resolved, or at the very least worked through to deliver a solution crafted for a specific university. In Australia, the stakes are high in light of growing global competition and acute pressure resulting from public funding reductions.

Failing to maintain sustainable business operations in the face of shifts in public policy risks the very survival of a university. Failing to respect the collegial aspects of universities’ operations and their essential other-regarding nature likewise risks the future of a university. In this latter case, the organization may survive, but it may no longer be recognizable as a university.

The approach taken throughout the jcu: The Future project has sought to chart a course through these competing needs. The project was initiated by the Vice Chancellor and lead by the Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor working with other senior executives. The process of change has been focused on the University’s tropical agenda and has sought to be highly consultative, with that consultation greatly informing the direction of the change and the emergent organizational structure. While not all suggestions or critiques were taken up, explanations were provided when a particular idea was not incorporated. Ultimately, decisions on direction had to be made, and they were made by the Vice Chancellor, with the University’s Council responsible for considering and approving the final structure.

This approach to leadership and management is relational and informed by a sense of stewardship of the long-term, institutional vision. However, it is too early to tell whether the particular collegial/managerial-mix deployed by management at James Cook University in recent years will prove important in helping to secure the University’s future.

Large-Scale Organizational Change

Despite the strength of its history, it is no simple matter to realize James Cook University’s ambition to be a great, enduring university with a special focus on the Tropics. While positioned well, neither survival nor success is guaranteed.

Indeed, it is far easier not to change or challenge the status quo, to “satisfice” 40 rather than drive for greatness based on a unique, authentic and powerful expression of difference. Large-scale change is risky. Defining a specific and distinctive purpose means not being all things to all people and that feels risky too. The preferred change approach at James Cook University from 2007-2012 can be characterized as a series of steps that served to align the University’s efforts and operations with its tropical mission. This quiet and steady phase of the change process provided the time needed to build relationships and inspire confidence across the University community 41 that the tropical focus needed to be engaged seriously, that there was an exciting and strong future there for the University. With that platform built, the deeper and more comprehensive strategy and structural change process could begin.

Undoubtedly, it is at times of great challenge and change that the collegial-managerial nexus is most keenly felt and must be managed with great care and integrity.

Operating across Multiple Sites

It goes without saying that it is far easier and less expensive to operate a university on one site. Apart from the obvious cost of maintaining significant assets across sites, there can be both challenges and tensions as each site seeks to achieve the attention and investment it needs, and to develop in aligned yet distinctive ways.

In addition to working across three tropical campuses in Cairns, Singapore and Townsville, the University has 31 operating sites. These sites are truly diverse: residential, teaching and learning and research facilities on Orpheus Island in the Great Barrier Reef; the Daintree Rainforest Observatory featuring a rainforest canopy crane; Fletcherview, a cattle property in the dry tropics/savannah; the rv James Kirby, the largest research vessel of any Australian university; and residential facilities for medical students on placement in the Torres Strait and Mt Isa. Diverse sites and multiple assets have significantly enhanced the University’s capacity to deliver its strategic intent as Australia’s University for the Tropics. It is however very costly indeed to maintain such a complex enterprise.

Add Singapore into the mix and, while it is a discrete legal entity at this time, it is yet another important part of the University striving to attract attention from the Australian operation. Sound and aligned leadership with a “one university” ethos is vital to the successful operation of a multi-campus university.

Responding to Public Policy Change

Publicly funded universities and those established by statute are particularly affected by changes in public policy. Key changes may go to the regulation and funding of education and research, but changes in other portfolio areas can have a significant impact as well. For example, health policy may affect the availability or cost of student placements, industry priorities may mean more or less research funding in a given domain and immigration policy may affect the attractiveness of a country as a study destination.

The goal for universities faced with public policy change must be to respond effectively. Systems and operations must be resilient and nimble to negotiate a changing policy environment. While there can be no absolutes here, clarity of vision, sound management and maintaining legitimacy by ensuring the university is an institution in the sociological sense places universities in the best possible position to cope with the winds of policy change. However, the finest leadership, management and governance processes will count for little if the quality of a university’s core business—education, research and engagement—is lacking.

Finally, a critical role for any Vice Chancellor is to ensure that their university is well understood and respected. Meaningful engagement with politicians and policy makers has become a central role for contemporary university leaders. Solid support from these quarters may help ameliorate the worst effects of policy change or may even help shape effective policy.

In sum, managing the inevitable tensions of being a university—its essential, other-regarding nature, exposure to the gyrations of public policy and the relationship between collegiality and managerialism—is a prime focus for Vice Chancellors. Members of the university community will, by their very nature, express their concern if management does not take such matters seriously.

Conclusion

Using James Cook University as a case study, the unique contribution of contemporary universities and their particular ways of operating have been explored.

At a glance, there may appear to be little difference in the approach to leadership, management and governance in the contemporary university compared with profit-making or other types of not-for-profit operations. There are undoubted similarities, and these have grown over time as both resource scarcity and the marketization of higher education have challenged the sustainability of operations.

Changing times demand changing universities. Clarity of vision and the ability to deliver on intent and community expectations are powerful tools for any organization, but perhaps even more so for contemporary universities. These sociological institutions must stay true to their other-regarding, education and research mission and yet they must find a way to differentiate themselves and what they have to offer in a dynamic and emerging market. While universities will have different leadership, management and governance approaches, they all wrestle with a set of common challenges: to remain true to the idea of a university, to integrate collegiality and managerialism with harmony, and to develop a business enterprise focus in order secure their future in a globally competitive market.

Ironically, the survival and success of national economies may well reside in universities’ abilities to remain as institutions, rather than mere higher education service providers. It may be universities’ abilities to apply the traditional tools of the university—to question deeply held assumptions, to allow alternatives to emerge and ultimately converge in order to produce new knowledge and new approaches, 42 and to develop the capacity of citizens to do the same—that will be the key driver of the knowledge economy that is in formation.

Some sectors of business understand this possibility. Catherine Livingstone, the President of the Business Council of Australia, has recently spoken about the need for investment in what she calls “knowledge infrastructure”. She argued that “future growth is as much in the people you have and the ideas they generate as distinct from what you can actually see.” 43

In conclusion, perhaps it is changing universities that stand at the forefront of our changing times. While political rhetoric positions the market as the mechanism for transforming universities into more competitive and efficient service providers for industry and society, the essential transformation of the market itself inevitably depends on high quality higher education and research. These critical ingredients for economic success in turn depend on vibrant universities that both deftly manage the tensions inherent in their operations and remain true to their role as other-regarding, sociological institutions.