Let’s be honest about weak leadership, say Australian educators

Australian higher education will only thrive if it weeds out the “egomaniacs” who abide “toxic high performers” and celebrate “arrogance and hubris” rather than honesty and humility, a new essay argues.

A frank appraisal on discussion platform The Higher Good (THG) lists symptoms of “weak leadership” including “jobs for mates”, “continued failing upwards”, “secrecy around the worst behaviours”, no “accountability measures” and enterprise agreements that discourage bosses from tackling poor performance.

Refusal to acknowledge bad appointments is among the “most egregious” failings, the article says. “Sometimes the emperor is literally walking around starkers and that needs to be said out loud.”

THG is the brainchild of strategist-turned-lobbyist Ant Bagshaw, analyst Angel Calderon, equity consultant Nadine Zacharias and researchers Hamish Coates and Gwilym Croucher. Describing itself as “critical commentary with purpose”, THG aims to provoke “debate and dissent” – often by exploring the “unsaid”.

Professor Coates said the leadership shortcomings listed in the article were a subset of a “uniquely Australian phenomenon” that had emerged over the past decade. “We basically have education institutions run by corporate interests,” he said.

“You can’t make a higher education system through a succession of short-term corporate plays. It is ultimately an academic business.”

But in the “quest…to become huge”, Australian universities had “run away” with a corporatisation narrative and “forgotten that it’s the academic side that keeps their feet on the ground. In and amongst all that, you get all sorts of executive-type largesse and behaviours that come with people that basically aren’t in it to serve one particular institution.”

He cited massive consultancy spending and the routine use of non-disclosure agreements. “If the leaders are so wonderful, why do they need to constantly outsource? It didn’t used to be like that. It’s an Australian special.”

The article lists other issues borne of universities’ growth mindset. “What if there were incentives to provide students with only the minimum amount of education to serve their needs?” it asks. “What if we were serious about targeting research efforts? We should talk about whether there’s a need for every institution to pursue doing everything.”

Professor Coates said academic leadership had been supplanted by a “revolving door” of career chief executives. “They’ve often had very little contact with the institution. They often don’t stay there for very long. They might not have any teaching experience whatsoever. They might have come from other sectors.

“It’s assumed that if you can run one, you can run them all.”

Course audits used to involve people “sitting around the table having academic arguments about truth”, he said. “Now we get a bunch of lawyers sitting around the table making sure that we’re compliant with standards. That’s not intellectual leadership.”

He said that in the corporate world, failing executives and boards could be replaced, but there were no “performance metrics” to do likewise in higher education, which was better served by “collegial” structures.

“If you have a collegium, you don’t need all that corporate stuff [and] the problems that [come] with it. It doesn’t work [in] an academic environment. It’s oil on water.”

Professor Coates said active teaching should be the “litmus question” for university leaders. “If you’ve removed yourself from that and you’re basically running a…large tech firm that issues credentials, you are in a different space than the people doing the core business.”

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com