Inside Higher Ed. is now up and running again so here is the link to what I am discussing: Let Professors Choose. It seems that the buzz today is all revolving around money and the uncertainty coming from the economy and budget cuts. A good percentage of the articles online are discussing the effects of budget cuts and the effects they are having on institutions throughout the country.
Miller discusses in this article possible solutions to our growing problems. Hard times call for creative solutions. Institutions need to pool their resources to make it through. In reading Miller's article, it becomes an interesting proposal to solve some of these concerns over possible salary cuts to faculty.
Miller proposes to "Let the professors choose." He is referring to letting faculty take on more responsibilities on campus in order to alleviate the need for new hires while maintaining the same pay. Though an enticing proposal, it made me think if this theory would work, or how it would be viewed, and how to lead such a proposition.
Personally, I know that this theory would work, but the issue is with the precedents that it sets. Full-Time faculty could do more work, but they are already being asked to do more than teach to meet the "service" requirements of their position. If schools think they can keep dumping more and more responsibility on an already under-paid faculty, then where does it stop? It is a creative solution to the growing problem of money. Faculty can do more, but at what result?
For the sake of argument, how would the administration deliver and lead such a proposition? The proposal leads itself inherently to a path-goal style of leadership by the administration. There is a definite obstacle (lack of money) that is being overcome by taking a new direction. But how do you gain the support of the faculty who would most definitely be apprehensive to taking on more work, and work that might not necessarily be what they are comfortable with? I believe here that there needs to be a coaching approach to the faculty. Faculty would need to understand the dilemma and would need the nurturing and belief that they are doing the right thing and that it is a temporary fix. They would also need the technical support to effectively complete their new tasks.
I hope things don't get as bad as they are saying in all these articles. I noticed that this news is not something new as many of these schools have been cutting back for the past few years. I agree that it is time for creative solutions, but how much service are we willing to give on our already stressed schedules?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Josh,
Think the way you get things done by the administration and the faculty is by being a role model as the president. The challenge is for the president to be authentic in whatever he or she does.
The menu of choices and the bidding ideas mentioned in the article are interesting. Who gets to have the final word on the menu? This sounds like management more than leadership (notice the nod to seniority). Bottom line is sacrifices have to be made. Think most of us wait on the sidelines and need to be pushed.
The menu of options is an interesting proposal from the author. I agree with Francis - who will determine what goes on the menu and the bidding value - will tenured professors have a better pick versus a term or adjunct. How will that impact their performance requirements? Also, this could end up working against the schools that choose to implement this practice. Schools that don't have menus or bidding for extra work, will have an easier time recruiting faculty away. A lot of interesting logistics...some creative leadership will be mandatory!!!
Post a Comment