The Administration of Higher Education - Term Paper Example

The Changing Paradigm of Corporate Gifting to Higher Education Introduction The administration of higher education in the modern context of institutional development is particularly elaborate with regard to handling of general organization as well as students’ development. Traditional administration style is fast losing ground to corporate values of organizational management. In light of the relevant management requirements that higher education institutions have, the ever adaptive corporate culture has found its way into the needs of these institutions bringing with it dramatic changes. Modification of major modern corporate world practices has enabled the handling of organizational administration in a fashionable way (Himmelstein, 1997) - one that fits in the corporate American model. Coincidentally, the corporate world has continued to feel comfortable with the higher education sector to such an extent that absorption of university graduates in the labor market is keenly being facilitated. Besides identification and customization of appropriate labor force needs right at the training level, philanthropic giving from the corporate world has dramatically increased. A conglomeration of the factors presented to higher education by the corporate world reveals a close cooperation between the two sectors on a mutual basis. While the higher education sector gains through corporate giving, the graduates produced by the universities possess an element of the active contribution that the corporate world makes through internships. Other collaborative projects that the two sectors engage in facilitate internalization of the market demand for professional labor. In order to ensure that these paralleled interactions enhance education quality and integrity of the education system as a learning culture, the management offices of the two institutions need to pull in tandem (Bok, 2003). Understanding how the coordination of the corporate sector and the higher education sector management takes place must unravel development questions raised. In this study, the interaction between these two sectors is analyzed with respect to similarities and differences in their organizational structure, culture and leadership employed. Similarly, disparities in the systems are analyzed and mitigation solutions offered to maintain a good working relationship. Process of Creation of Corporate-Giving Programs (Old and New Paradigms) Traditionally, universities would plead to donors to fund major research projects that they were unable to fund using the limited resources allocated to them. Over the years, it increasingly became clear that looking for alternative sources of revenue for the institutions to fund their own research projects was the only way to self sustenance. However, with the rise of corporate interest in research in the past few decades, the trend has changed with the corporate bodies taking charge. Institutions of higher education and research almost certainly find it easier to access funds from the private sector rather than from the government where research is concerned (CERI & OECD, 2010, p157). Reasons Why Universities Request Funding While universities ought to be independent learning institutions, the research that they conduct is increasingly determined by its relevance to current and future needs in the modern business environment (Bok, 2003). To keep up with the pace of modern needs, universities have to upgrade their research projects through modernization of their research facilities. As such, soliciting for funding by higher learning institutions is most often aimed at increasing the research capacity that universities have. By handling more expensive market oriented research projects, the universities realize that the major beneficiaries of such research are actually non-academic stakeholders in the name of corporate organizations. Apart from research activities, universities also request funds in some cases to improve their buildings, or to establish systems for offering new services. When for example a university wants to establish an engineering faculty, it needs a lot of funds. It may appeal to private institutions for funding to help establish such systems. Reason Why Corporations Provide Funding According to the Council for Aid to Education (2011), funding of American higher education reached 28 billion US dollars in 2010. The enhancement of intellectual capability among corporate staff and management is one of the driving factors for this huge investment. In most cases, corporations fund courses that they largely have an interest in but also extend funding to other areas of study (Berg, 2005). According to Berg (2005), research is expensive to conduct alone and corporations find partnerships a better channel than doing it alone. One other reason behind corporate giving to university is for the purpose of fulfilling corporate responsibility according to Himmelstein (1997). In such cases, the organization may give funds to a university not with an aim of benefiting directly or in directly from the university’s activities but in solidarity with the society in its pursuit for continuous development. This for example happens when an organization releases funds to be used for scholarships or constructing facilities that will benefit students in one way or another. When the organization does this in light of the media, the organization tends to receive a lot of credit in the public eye and is considered by the society, far and wide, in good light (Himmelstein, 1997). Yet again, corporations may seek to gain brand visibility as they go about helping institutions in one way or another. This is mainly the case where the organization has introduced a new product in the market that it seeks to publicize or market as noted by Leonie and RMIT (1998). Funding in such cases may be directed at a wide range of university activities including sports and purchase of building materials. Typical Research University Organizational Structure and Culture By the use of a model university, Berg (2005, p100) illustrates that there is a clear hierarchy at various levels. Various decisions are made in the university by people who are not at the same hierarchical level, major strategic decisions normally being made at the university senate level. Various levels of power among the departments are aerated by the structure with clear flow of command, duties and privileges. Using the same model and considering the University of Phoenix as an example, organizational culture in American universities can be said to comprise clearly identifiable organizational routines. The institutions follow a preset code of action to issues that arise, while routine decisions are made at lower management levels. University Leaders Typically Involved in Corporate-Giving According to Hentschke, Lechuga and Tierney (2010, 57) administrative authority and discretion regarding financing of university programs such as research are left to the institution’s top management. While the authors note that the change of administration paradigm under the modern approach gives more discretion to lower level administrative units, major policy issues still remain the prerogative of top administrators. Corporate giving is generally under the care of top management officials such as professors who have discretion over such sensitive matters as research (Hentschke, Lechuga and Tierney, 2010). Where compliance with government regulations seem to be tough such as regarding financial administration, specific decision making is mainly restricted to representatives of various departments and top administrators who make up the senate or governing council (CERI & OECD 2010). Typical Ways of Leadership Operation in University Settings The typical university setting is confined by premise as an advanced educational institution and hence, the setting is typically highly organized. According to Hentschke, Lechuga and Tierney (2010), protocol issues at the university are highly observed just like any other bureaucratic institution would be. The leadership hierarchy is organized in definite departmental sections that facilitate education, most of the issues to being handled at lower levels. Top university management takes care of isolated or complex cases and in handling issues related to external bodies. Simpler administrative issues are tackled at the faculty or departmental levels. Typical Multi-National Corporation Organizational Structure Based on modern bureaucratic organization models, it is clear that corporations have a management structure that facilitates coordination of activities as would best enhance objective achievement. According to Morgan (2006), rationality in the organizational control and planning takes the centre stage in modern corporate management. The author states that management theory used to make the best corporate organization has it that a certain hierarchical arrangement of jobs with a clear command flow is the best. Combining engineering principles of design, the chain of command is established and brings out power element under bureaucratic arrangements. The management structure of the typical university is normally specified with regard to job descriptions, educational level and experience. Typical Multi-National Corporation Organizational Culture The social developments achieved in America under the information age have been flanked by intellectual prowess gained through higher education. On the other hand, corporate organizational culture today is largely a reflection of social developments as noted by Morgan (2006). With a well educated population, the society at the multinational level expects a regime that takes consideration of the cultural advancements achieved. As such, corporate management and leadership take note of intelligence achieved under the education system. Research for the best corporate practices at the university is one of the ways in which the corporate world responds to such demands. Corporate Leaders typically involved in Corporate-Giving At the corporate world, any representative that would enhance the competitive advantage that a corporation has in the market should technically have the mandate to facilitate such agreements as research partnership (Richard, 1995). Among those who are involved in corporate funding decisions include fund raising officers, university chancellors, CEOs, and marketing managers, Presidents and Vice Presidents. The tricky part comes in when authorization of the funding comes into play - that is if the official can not easily facilitate the transfer of funds. However, since most research projects are expensive undertakings aimed at benefiting both parties, funding as a form of promotional campaign is a top managerial decision. Potential for Accord and Discord in the Cultures A major strength that has been demonstrated by the partnership between higher educational institutions and corporate entities is in regard to the facilitation of research in some areas where funding would otherwise not be forthcoming. In such areas, private input is important to supplement overstretched government funding. In spite of a few issues raised regarding the manner in which funding is done and the accountability of those involved in managing the funds, a huge contribution has been realized under the such partnerships. On the other hand, commercialization of funding is likely to affect integrity of research and university appointments as suggested by Bok (2005, p99). Future engagement of professors in management level posts may end up being based on their funding soliciting capacity rather than their relevance or academic contributions as noted by Kors (1999). As such, loss of independence and compromise of integrity of research may affect the position of higher education in the US as noted by Bok (2005, p113) Discord Mitigation by University Management Together with the national government policies of accountability, independence should be supported by the university management at all times (Lewis, 2006). Diversification of the university income such as engaging in extra revenue generating activities should be applied so as to enhance and sustain research in various fields. Furthermore, all funding accorded to institutions should be openly communicated to the stakeholders and the public for appropriate scrutiny. References Berg, G. A. (2005) Lessons from the edge: for-profit and nontraditional higher education in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Bok, D. C. (2003) Universities in the marketplace: the commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Bok, D. C. (2006) Our underachieving colleges. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press CERI & OECD (2010) Higher education to 2030: globalization. New York, NY: OECD Publishing Council for Aid to Education-CAE (2011) “Contributions to Colleges and Universities Increases to $28 Billion,” Retrieved from: http://www.cae.org/content/display_press.asp?id=79 Hentschke, G., Lechuga, V. & Tierney, W. (2010) For-Profit Colleges and Universities. Sterling, VG: Stylus Publishing LLC Himmelstein L. (1997) Looking good and doing good: corporate philanthropy and corporate power. Philanthropic studies. Jerome Indiana University Press. Kors, A. (1999) The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on Americas Campuses. Harvey Silverglate. Simon and Schuster. Leonie A. and RMIT (1998) University Corporate giving and Japanese marketing strategies Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Lewis, H. R. (2006) Excellence without a soul: how a great university forgot education. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group Morgan, G. (2006) Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Richard F. (1995) Philanthropy and economic development. Volume 162 of Contributions in economics and economic history. Greenwood Publishing Group. Washburn, J. (2006) University, Inc., New York, NY: Basic Books, Perseus Books Group Read More