Why are university managers so obsessed with change?

Revolutionary leaders will make do and mend, says Thomas Harrison

September 4, 2014

Source: Miles Cole

We operate in a kind of reputational economy, in which merely doing a good job is not enough. We must (appear to) transform base metal into gold

“There is only one argument for doing something,” wrote Francis Cornford in his 1908 satire of academic politics, the Microcosmographia Academica: that it is the right thing to do. “The rest are arguments for doing nothing.”

Cornford then goes on to review all the seasoned arguments that the academic politician might deploy to block a proposed change: the “rules of inaction”, as he terms them.

The Principle of the Wedge cautions that “you should not act justly now for fear of raising expectations that you may act still more justly in the future – expectations which you are afraid you will not have the courage to satisfy”. The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent advises that “you should not now do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case”. The Fair Trial Argument is paraphrased as: “I don’t intend to alter my lectures if I can help it; and if you pass this proposal, you will have to alter yours.” And the Principle of Unripe Time states that “people should not do at the present moment what they think right at that moment, because the moment at which they think it right has not yet arrived”.

Many aspects of Cornford’s satire remain fresh today. Many of his terms and phrases have indeed become commonplace. But in one central regard the culture he lampoons has been turned on its head.

The world of the Microcosmographia is one in which almost everyone agrees that change is to be resisted at all costs. As Cornford writes of the Dangerous Precedent: “Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.” Today, by contrast, change is held as sacred.

All of our programmes undergo perpetual “enhancement” – and yet the horizon of perfection remains tantalisingly beyond reach. Our research excellence framework narratives present our departments as restlessly improving on every front. Verbs or phrases suggesting continuity, such as “maintain”, are purged – replaced by the language of growth, development or transformation – to give the subliminal effect of an inevitable surge of research power. Where, for Cornford, to resist a proposal “it will often be sufficient to argue that a change is a change”, resistance now (as I was once coached, as a novice head of department, by a savvy planning officer) needs to be packaged in terms that suggest steadfast commitment to the overall programme of change. It feels at times as if we are trapped in a train running out of control.

Except that, as individuals, we all realise that this idealisation of change is baloney: a myth which we know to be a myth and yet to which we all nonetheless subscribe. My cynical planning officer certainly knew this. “It is important”, he said, “that your department be progressive and managed”, but “it is much more important that it should sound progressive and managed”. We operate in a kind of reputational economy, in which merely doing a good job is not enough, whether for the departmental head or for the lecturer seeking promotion; we must (appear to) transform base metal into gold.

“If we want things to stay as they are,” in the famous phrase of Tancredi, the young man in a hurry in Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s The Leopard, “everything needs to change”. The greater the noise of change, ironically, the easier it becomes for the rest of us to screen it out, and to focus, as we imagine, on the real business: of reading and writing, of teaching and research. Outwardly, we mouth the rhetoric; inwardly, we hunker down – and perhaps come closer to the “other world” that Cornford ultimately recommends when, as an academic politician, you have completed your “excursion in the world of unreason”: the “world within the microcosm, the silent, reasonable world, where the only action is thought, and thought is free from fear.”

The pity in this is that, contrary to the assertion of one 19th-century rabbi, not “everything that is new is bad”. Most of us will recognise, with an inward groan, Cornford’s picture of the colleague determined to deliver the same lectures till their dying day. But we also know that effecting the “transformational change” that universities seek (improving research performance, say) is a task that is impossible to achieve through any central fiat – and, conversely, that many of the most profound changes are unintended consequences.

As one academic year ends and another begins – and we all grow older and more jaded – it is perhaps time to call for a change. The really revolutionary university leader will be the one who champions consolidation, making do and mending where possible; the one who disavows massive overhaul for its own sake, or who calls for real change: the incremental rather than alchemical sort, which requires patient grind, genuine engagement and common purpose.

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Reader's comments (6)

Am I the only person who finds this article a bit depressing?
An interesting collection of broadly common extracts relating to the initiation of change but not related to the heading. Would have liked much more satire and irony if that was the intention - otherwise simply confused. The comment "The really revolutionary university leader will be the one who champions consolidation, making do and mending where possible..." relates to a timid and risk averse leader - don't we need more bravery? So much more enjoyment could have been extracted with more adventurous recommendations..
The 'horizon of perfection' will always be beyond our reach (so it is to be human?), but to give up pursuit of it is either to suggest (a) we are as close now as we are ever likely to get or (b) the cost of getting closer outweighs any potential benefit. To cite just two examples, given the representation of women and minorities in HE as a public profession and declining financial (and therefore social) support for not least the Humanities, I'm with Rachel Blackburn that this is a very depressing idea indeed. If there is an enemy here, it is not change but cynicism. If little benefit can be measured from centralised/structural change, the answer is not to do nothing, but to think about the ways and means by which centralised change is introduced. How are decisions made? How are results measured and evaluated? How are such evaluations (if any) used in the future? It's the job of academics to think bigger, after all. Not smaller.
Change in the abstract is meaningless. The issue is what kinds of change and with what effects. The reason why so many academics are fed up with the changes demanded by university managers isn't that we don't see the need for all kinds of changes; it is that the changes sought by university managers are almost invariably changes for the worse in terms of the substantive values of universities, and the interests of both staff and students. Change, now, invariably codes the kind of neo-liberal vandalism of the New Public Management - the effects of which are all too clear to see right across the public sector.
While I agree with the general point being made, has the author considered the relationship between the rate of turnover of VCs and the change offensive? Perhaps a new VC has to be seen to be doing something to justify their appointment to their council or board?


Featured jobs