Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Introduction
Decision Support Methodologies
References
All Topics
Education
Higher Education

Administrative and Academic Strucures: For-Profit and Not-For-Profit

Profile image of Andrew CarpenterAndrew Carpenter

Abstract

In the United States, for-profit institutions of higher learning are typically led by highly-skilled business professionals with limited academic expertise; not-for-profit institutions are usually governed by highly-successful academics who occupy positions of administrative power but have little or no training in strategic management. The former are more effective at managing an institution to meet changing landscapes, but rarely have the educational experience or insights to build and sustain strong academic programs. The latter have greater capacity to build strong academic programs, but often lack the managerial excellence to support institutional foresight and agile responsiveness to change. The authors present a conceptual road-map of hybrid institutional structures better able to meet the changing needs of higher education in the 21st century.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. For-profit institutions excel in management but struggle with academic quality; not-for-profits reverse this dynamic.
  2. The text recommends a hybrid model combining strengths of both institution types to enhance higher education.
  3. Critical issues include access, financing, accountability, and measuring academic quality across higher education sectors.
  4. Effective decision support methodologies, including learning analytics, can optimize student outcomes and institutional performance.
  5. Four key distinctions—organizational structure, incentives, faculty roles, and curricular design—impact strategic management in higher education.

Related papers

Management of higher education institutions: issues and challenges
Dr. Heera Sharma sharma

2013

The paper discusses the conceptual framework of issues of management of higher education institutions. The paper discusses the dynamics of transformational and transactional leadership styles of faculties using secondary data. The paper explores theoretical debates on leadership in academic institutions. Transformational leadership inspires faculties to achieve their full potential and integrate personal goals with organizational goals. Transformational leadership characteristics lead to extra effort by faculty and higher level of job satisfaction. Highly transactional, contractual organizational culture and bureaucracies are characterized as attending more to self interest than to the interest of the organization. Laissez faire leadership style has negative correlation with follower satisfaction and follower extra effort. Integrating programs such as seminars, workshops and updates on school administration and leadership can sharpen the skills of institutional leaders on the job.

View PDFchevron_right
Evolution of the Missions and Management of Universities as Non-Profits Finding a New Model
Bulent Kanol
View PDFchevron_right
Business Practices in Higher Education: A Guide for Today's Administrators
Larry Correll-Hughes

Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
Higher Education Governance: Balancing Institutional and Market Influences
Joni Finney

1998

This report presents the results of a multi-state study of state governing structures for higher education, focusing on the complexity of general patterns of higher education governance. The study focused on higher education governance in seven states--California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas--and was based on a review of relevant documents and interviews with over 200 administrators, faculty, staff, and policymakers. The report presents a conceptual framework that suggests that statewide governance of higher education is best understood as the result of interaction between a policy environment shaped by government strategies to achieve balance among academic and market forces and a system design that determines provider responsibilities, capacities, and linkages to each other and to elected leaders. It stresses the need to align educational policy across the macro, system, and operational levels to meet impending challenges, along with the importance of public policy and policy leadership in achieving balance among institutional and market forces in the context of continuity and change. (Contains 23 references.) (MDM)

View PDFchevron_right
Reforming higher education from within: Lessons learned from other mature sectors of the economy
Stewart Sutin

International Journal of Educational Development, 2016

Transformative organizations are innovative, adaptable, contextually aware, and cross the divide between leaders and their employees to provide products and services at prices that appeal to their customers. Such enterprises continuously adapt, maintain competitive advantages, hire the right people, strategically prioritize goals, and effectively manage performance to achieve outcomes. Effective leadership is characterized by dedication to operational soundness, product innovation and reliability, embracing leading edge technologies to improve performance and service delivery, and after sale service quality to inspire customer confidence and loyalty. Community colleges, colleges and universities who apply these lessons will be better positioned to meet the expectations of their students and other stakeholders. Institutional business models must align with institutional priorities in delivery of the basic educational mission in higher education. The original research for this paper draws upon broad professional experiences in private industry, and a 29-year career as an executive in the banking industry.

View PDFchevron_right
Managing Higher Education Institutions
Dil Prasad Shrestha

Administration and Management Review, 2009

This paper briefly describes the importance of the application of management functions to improve educational outcomes. It tries to highlight changes in management paradigm and traces a brief history of the rise of strategic management. Changes in management paradigm and the rise of strategic management have helped education managers improve their organizational performance. The paper also identifies some serious challenges facing education managers in order to achieve educational goals. Finally, the environmental context of managing higher education institutions and its implications to education managers are also briefly discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
Higher Education Institutions as Strategic Actors
Jean-Claude Thoenig

European Review

How to assess and enhance the strategic capacity of universities? This article suggests a managerial perspective derived from evidence-based social science knowledge. It lists major facets any local strategizing should address. It underlines the key role endogenous organizational capabilities play to make it happen or not in a sustainable manner. Three sets of social properties are evidenced: the way academic human resources are actually managed, the cultural norms appropriated by its members about their affiliation to their institution as a community, and the organizational governance at work between the various parts of the institution. Reminding us that the capacity to strategize is an outcome of actual organizational fabrication processes, the article also lists a series of booby-traps to avoid.

View PDFchevron_right
Universities, Governance, and Business Schools
J.-C. Spender

Multi-Level Governance of Universities: The Role of Strategies, Structures and Controls, 2015

View PDFchevron_right
Remodelling University Governance in Public Universities to Respond to the Dual Challenges of Academic Research and Commercialization
Anil Narayan

Corporate Ownership and Control, 2012

Using an in-depth case study, this paper examines how the governance of a public university responds to the dual challenges of academic research and commercialization. Our findings indicate that the stakeholder model of institutional governance for academic research strongly underpinned by new public management ideologies conflicted with the research commercialization mission dominated by a profit seeking objective. To be governed responsibly, commercialization requires some degree of corporatization, and the corporate governance model seems to offer many advantages to public universities. The study demonstrated that the best way forward for public universities may be to adopt "dual" stakeholder and corporate governance models and utilize complementary and collaborative governance strategies to meet the challenges of academic research development and commercialization.

View PDFchevron_right
What Governing Boards Need To Know and Do about Institutional Change. On Change IV. An Occasional Paper Series of the ACE Project on Leadership and Institutional Transformation and The Kellogg Forum on Higher Education Transformation
Madeleine Green

2001

View PDFchevron_right

References (18)

  1. Bach, C. (2010). Learning analytics: Targeting instruction, curricula and student support, Conference Proceedings from the 8th International Conference on Education and Information Systems, Technologies and Applications, Orlando, FL.
  2. Bach, C. & Carpenter, A.. (2010). Learning Assessment: Hyperbolic Doubts Versus Deflated Critiques. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, 30(1), 1-11.
  3. Bedford, L. A. (2009). The Professional Adjunct : An Emerging Trend in Online Instruction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(3), 1-7.
  4. Breneman, D., Pusser, B., & Turner, S. (Eds.) (2006). Earnings from Learning: The Rise of For- Profit Universities. State University of New York Press: New York, NY.
  5. Carpenter, A. , Coughlin, L., Morgan, S., & Price, C. (2010). Social Capital and the Campus Community in J. E. Miller (Ed.), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development, Vol. 29, 201-215. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
  6. Campbell, J and Oblinger, D. (2007). "Academic Analytics", Educause Quarterly (October), 1- 20.
  7. Cox, MD & Richlin, L. (1993). Emerging Trends in College Teaching for the 21st Century. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 4, 1-7.
  8. Dad, D. (2011). Interstate Protectionism, Inside HigherEd, May 9, 2011. Downloaded from http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions_of_a_community_college_dean/interstat e_protectionism on May 15, 2011.
  9. Drucker, P. (1988). The Coming of the New Organization. Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb, 45-53.
  10. Hudd, S., Apgar, C., Bronson, E., & Less, R. (2009). Creating a Campus Culture of Integrity: Comparing the Perspectives of Full-and Part-time Faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(2), 146-177.
  11. Keller, J. (2009). As Berkeley enrolls more out-of-state students, racial diversity may suffer, Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov 4, 2009. Downloaded from http://chronicle.com/article/As-Berkeley-Enrolls-More-Ou/49049/ on May 15, 2011.
  12. Policastro, C. (2008). The Roles of Contemporary Faculty, Unbundled. Distance Learning, 5(3), 65-70.
  13. Tierney W. (Ed.) (2004). Competing Conceptions of Academic Governance: Negotiating the Perfect Storm. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD.
  14. Tipple, R. (2010). Effective Leadership of Online Adjunct Faculty. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(4), 1-14.
  15. Tobin, T. J. (2004). Best Practices for Administrative Evaluation of Online Faculty. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2), 1-12.
  16. Velez, A. M. (2009). The Ties that Bind : How Faculty Learning Communities Connect Online Adjuncts to Their Virtual Institutions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(2), 1-6.
  17. West, E. (2010). Managing Adjunct Professors: Strategies for Improved Performance.. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 1-13.
  18. Westheimer, J. (2003). Tenure denied: Union busting and anti-intellectualism in the corporate university, in Steal this University: The Rise of the Corporate University and the Academic Labor Movement (Johnson, B, Kavanaugh, P & Mattson, K) (Eds.). Routledge: New York, NY, 123-138.

Related papers

Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives
Patricia Gumport

Higher Education, 2000

A perennial challenge for universities and colleges is to keep pace with knowledge change by reconsidering their structural and resource commitments to various knowledge areas. Reflecting upon changes in the academic landscape of public higher education in the United States over the past quarter of a century, the author diagnoses a macro-trend whereby the dominant legitimating idea of public higher education has changed from higher education as a social institution to higher education as an industry. Three interrelated mechanisms are identified as having advanced this process: academic management, academic consumerism, and academic stratification. This pattern of academic restructuring reflects multiple institutional pressures. While public universities and colleges have increasingly come to rely on market discourse and managerial approaches in order to demonstrate responsiveness to economic exigencies, they may end up losing legitimacy as they move away from their historical character, functions, and accumulated heritage as educational institutions. Thus, responsiveness to compelling economic pressures that dominate contemporary organizational imperatives in an attempt to gain legitimacy in one dimension may result in loss for another. Wholesale adaptation to market pressures and managerial rationales could thereby subsume the discourse about the future of colleges and universities within a logic of economic rationality at a detriment to the longer-term educational legacies and democratic interests that have long characterized American public education.

View PDFchevron_right
The Limits of Organizational Change: Developing and Embracing Institutional Change and Flexibility in Higher Education Organizations
Roy Y. Chan

What are the limits to organizational change? Is organizational change necessary for all colleges and universities? In this new century, executing and promoting organizational change is often viewed as a difficult task for many leaders and mangers within the higher education sector. Nowadays, any changes done or proposed are often slow because higher education leaders and presidents are constantly changing and growing. Most colleges and universities have long examples of their inability to change because many senior officials are often resistance to change. More specifically, higher education stakeholders are usually required to comply with strict regularity and rules, and to overcome many barriers and constraints in order to maintain a sense of stability within an organization. Furthermore, most colleges and universities are required to fix unresolved issues in their own academic structure or unit, such as, non-existence institutional planning, bureaucratic structures, as well as weak leadership between university administrators and senior staff. Moreover, any changes done are often imprisoned by the present because higher education organizations are now seen to be anarchies federations of loosely coupled parts (Weick, 1977) or autonomy-seeking agents (Gouldner, 1954) (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, 156). Despite the fact that most leaders and managers desire to promote some type of change within an institutional structure or unit, numerous past studies have indicated that colleges and universities are often reluctant and resistance to organizational change because any changes done may result in the erosion of their academic freedom and can perhaps weaken the interdependencies between governance, finance, human resources, epistemic norms, and organizational culture. This paper explores how do colleges and universities change in the 21st century. More specifically, this paper argues that organizational change does occur in spite of the barriers impeding it. Moreover, most transformation in higher education often goes through a series of phases that requires considerable length and time, and that promoting organizational change is neither good nor bad, or beneficial nor injurious; rather, organizational change is simply necessary for organizational survival. Institutions are no longer just organizations but rather set of values, norms, and habits that influence thought and behavior. Stakeholders in higher education must develop a clear articulated vision that can inspire and encourage leaders and presidents to formulate a solid direction in which an organization can move forward and achieve organizational change. Without a clear articulated vision, promoting institutional change and developing effective administrators and leaders can easily dissolve.

View PDFchevron_right
The Contemporary Provision of for-Profit Higher Education: Mapping the Competitive Market
David Breneman

… from learning: The …, 2006

View PDFchevron_right
Turning the University into an Organizational Actor
Frank Meier

Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change, 2006

View PDFchevron_right
Institutional Adaptation: Demands for Management Reform and University Administration
Patricia Gumport

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 1999

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Higher Education
  • Higher Education Management
  • Quality assurance in Higher Educ...
  • Higher Education Leadership
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved