It’s been interesting to watch over the years how priorities emerge on college and university campuses.
Some develop organically, whether in service of an academic program, to meet a perceived need, or at their best, to fulfill an institution’s strategic plan. They are part of the business of evolution, matching and balancing people, programs and facilities to available resources and aspirations. In these cases, colleges and universities differ little from other growing enterprises offering a quality product in a competitive marketplace.
The good news is tempered somewhat by the fact that these same strengths breed at best an incremental mindset that limits the potential of a college to be nimble, entrepreneurial and creative. For many internal constituencies — notably mid-level staff — creativity is a strange new world that threatens turf that many feel compelled to defend. For these administrators, it’s a “cat-and-mouse” game, in which the staff waits out the administration until the game resumes with new players.
For others, the game is all about process. It may be that the best outcome emerges, but the complaint can be that the perpetrators of change violated “standards,” “process,” and “protocol,” especially if the inherited guidelines and the roles assigned are unclear. It’s difficult to defend an institutional standard in the end if you can’t explain what it is exactly to those who violated it.
In this respect, some college and university staff behave more like bureaucrats, and sadly, discussions with them focus more on motivation than aspiration.
Yet you can claim that protecting an institutional standard is more important than advancing a common vision, participating as a team player, and being loyal to the vision developed by a college community and sanctioned by its board — especially if the vision might change your role as the chess pieces move. For long-serving mid-level staff whose members sometimes behave like tenured faculty without actually having comparable tenure, the problem can be addressed but seldom solved.
Most staff does not fall into this category, of course, and are hopeful, supportive and entirely professional, particularly if the institutional strategic vision has legs. But for those who defend turf, location and longevity offer a unique advantage. The rest of the college community may fear or admire them, but their colleagues will seldom confront entrenched, turf-oriented staff. Why make enemies among neighbors, colleagues and friends who you see at the community pool each summer and at church service every weekend?
