By Benjamin

Among the most important reforms at institutions of higher learning articulated so far are those concerning the top management posts, especially the vice-chancellor and president. Such positions should be elected by academic staff, not appointed by the education minister or board of directors, as is the case in many leading universities in the world.

I had the opportunity to observe the selection process of the new president of Harvard University while on a visiting capacity.

A search committee, comprising representatives from the board of directors (Harvard is a private university), associations representing the academic staff, general staff, the alumni, as well as the student council, are involved in the task of selection.

This practice is worth emulating. I would like to contribute these points for consideration:

• Election of those in senior management, such as vice-chancellor or heads of faculties;
• Independent committees of peers to conduct promotions

Elected top management

The top management posts should be limited to two to three terms, or not more than 10 years, and on a rotational basis. Two or three terms (six to nine years), is sufficient to implement ideas that they advocate. Being in the post for too long can impede academic research, something central to an academician.

Long tenures might jeopardise the democratic atmosphere. Nepotism and an autocratic culture may easily set in. The voice of the majority of the faculty members and the students may be sidelined.

The top management may monopolise most of the resources in the university, especially research grants, consultancy projects, collaboration initiatives and so on.

Faculty members may be pressured to include the names of management in the list of authors of a publication, something which they don’t deserve. Failure to compromise may jeopardise their confirmation, promotion or appraisal.

Fair promotions

Recognition should be accorded to deserving candidates to minimise migration and resignations. No university can afford to lose academicians because of this.

In many local colleges and universities, promotion is the sole discretion of the top management: it is monopolised by the top management and their cronies. Lower-ranked academicians are involved in the assessment of those of higher academic ranking just because they are the head of departments or deans.

Often, feedback is not given to the candidates due for a promotion. There is no avenue for the deserving candidates to appeal.

In Malaysia, promotion seems to favour academicians holding administrative positions and there is thus a great preference for pursuing administrative positions over academic and research excellence.

This may yield what the ex-VC of Universiti Malaya, Professor Syed Hussein Alattas, termed as “professor kangkung” or “political-administrative professors”, so to speak.

Currently, most leading universities exclude the top management from the promotion exercise. They set up independent committees for different disciplines. For instance, the Faculty of Humanities has its own committee, which is different from the Faculty of Engineering.

The committee members are experts from other institutions or the retired professors from the faculty. They are the ones who will recommend the assessors, scrutinise their reports and interview the applicants. They will then report to the top management.

Most of the time, the latter will respect their decision if there is no irregularity. This process might be a bit time-consuming but, more importantly, the principle of professionalism, fairness and transparency prevails.

Election of senior management

Elections should be held for other top management posts such as deputy VC, registrar, dean of faculty, and head of department. They should be elected by their faculty members, not appointed by the VC or president.

This is to ensure that they will serve the campus community, which includes academic and administrative staff in particular and students in general, not merely to serve the VC or president and their personal KPI.

Most of these KPIs aim to improve the university’s ranking and policies and are constantly changing to cater to the ranking requirements. This results in tremendous paper-work and exerts great pressure on lecturers and students.

The teaching and learning process is no longer fun and fulfilling as what Maszlee Malik pointed out in his first interview after being appointed as the education minister.

The fundamental objective of the university is to produce genuine knowledge and responsible graduates. This can only be achieved through a conducive environment. Ranking should not be at the expense of the above.

An independently-elected management team with adequate representation will help to enhance this process.

Benjamin is an FMT reader.

The views of the author do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.