To Those who Build Academic Units

Universities are complex organizations. The diversity of ongoing work, especially in liberal arts institutions, stems from the mission of extending and transmitting human knowledge in all its aspects. Therefore, it’s not surprising that the processes that are employed in this work, also, vary greatly across the organization.

Some academics do their work in solitary endeavors. They may have like spirits in their departments or on other campuses, but they are not in active collaboration doing shared work. Instead, they pursue their passion of their minds by themselves. Of course, the products of their work are disseminated and receive critique and commentary from others. But the production of their work is solitary.

Others work in teams. These teams often involve both faculty and staff, sharing goals of pursuing knowledge building or knowledge transmission. In these units, the distinction between faculty and staff often disappears. The joint work requires close ties and share work flow, such that joint dependencies between faculty and staff are constantly evident.

Since universities tend to be decentralized and knowledge is dynamic, new units of work may be desirable. This is a post about those who build such new units.

“Entrepreneurism” is too often associated only with new organizations whose goal is profit. Academic entrepreneurism involves actions by one or more academic staff who recognize a new goal in knowledge creation or transmission. Such work builds new undergraduate majors, new graduate programs, new research centers, or new collaborations among multiple units.

Unfortunately, the standard reward system among faculty does not explicitly recognize such work. In their formation as scholars, faculty must generally complete their dissertation by themselves; they pursue their pre-tenure activities in a manner to demonstrate that they by themselves are building a distinctive research portfolio of new knowledge; the reward system of professional associations honor individual achievement. Everything nurtures a self-oriented person.

Hence, the choice to build a new unit within a university requires unusual attributes. A conceptualization of a new structure must be created. Argument or evidence must be brought to bear that the new structure would advance knowledge or improve the educational enterprise over the existing structures.

Given that financial resources are scarce, critiques from existing unit members are natural. Dealing with financial implications of a new initiative is often a new task for academic staff. What source of revenue can be used to establish the unit? What risks exist that such a source will disappear in future years? Can the unit be self-sustaining financially?

So, it takes a special kind of personal initiative, the ability to see things as they could be, for those who build new units in universities. This is risk-taking behavior because it would be much safer to work within the existing reward system of one’s field.

The most successful new research and educational units appear to be those built by not just one person, but multiple faculty sharing a vision. They are often accompanied by staff who share the vision and work side-by-side to achieve it. While the leaders must successfully articulate the vision to those in authority or those with financial resources, in the early days, they also tend to be hands-on doers of the work. In that sense, they are less selfish, they are focused on the work, not on individual prestige. They derive their internal rewards from seeing the vision emerge.

The value of involving multiple faculty and staff is robustness. A group of diverse minds offers greater chance of success than one alone. Multiple people avoid the real threat that the unit is built around such a unique viewpoint that it cannot endure past the first leader. Small research centers built around a single powerful character rarely survive past the departure of that character. Multiple founders increase the likelihood of leadership succession and evolution over time.

In addition, the most successful new units are open systems. They build a culture of invitation that is attractive to many, both committed new members and those with partial affiliation. The joy of the work is a magnet for staff, students, and faculty. Hence, the leaders of such units are servant leaders, more selfless than most, interested in group achievement not just their individual achievement.

These are rare traits in any work organization, but especially so in academic environments with their emphasis on individual achievement. Without such academic entrepreneurship, however, universities struggle to evolve. Hence, those among us who conceptualize and build sustainable new units are precious colleagues.