Learning Resources

Abstract: A strategic plan is supposed to “bring the future into the present so that you can do something about it now.” Almost every college or university has such a plan because accreditors and governing boards require one. The question is: Why do so many higher education institutions seem to be unprepared when they take drastic actions (e.g., eliminating programs, cutting faculty and staff members, etc.) in uncertain times? The author studied more than 250 colleges and universities and suggests the answer in this article.

Abstract: Implementing Sustainable Change in Higher Education: Principles and Practices of Collaborative Leadership
by Brent D. Ruben
Stylus Publishing: Sterling, Virginia: 2022
229 pages
ISBN: 978-1642674415

How should higher education leaders take on the challenges of change? In Brent Ruben’s Implementing Sustainable Change in Higher Education: Principles and Practices of Collaborative Leadership, the author says there’s no simple approach. Instead, he encourages leaders to “understand and leverage the dynamics of change; lead collaboratively and meaningfully; engage one’s colleagues; and adopt and pursue a shared vision of organizational purpose and aspirations.”

Abstract: Shared Leadership in Higher Education: A Framework and Models for Responding to a Changing World
Edited by Elizabeth M. Holcombe, Adrianna J. Kezar, Susan L. Elrod, and Judith A. Ramaley
Stylus Publishing: Sterling, Virginia: 2021
256 pages
ISBN: 978-1642672251

Abstract: An agile mindset exercised by leadership and distilled down into organizational culture is the prerequisite for any higher education institution planning to transform itself in an age of constant disruption. The post-pandemic world will continue to present new challenges for colleges and universities as they seek innovative solutions to plan for an ever increasing volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment. Higher education leaders would serve themselves and their institutions well by learning how to practice the six attributes of an agile leader in a volatile world.

Abstract: by Fred M. Hayward
State University of New York Press
Albany, NY
2020
292 Pages
ISBN-13: 978-1438478456

Abstract: Few studies have investigated how academic deans enact their authority in Responsibility Center Budgeting (RCB), despite its widespread adoption. In this article I explore findings from a study that investigated how deans crafted a confidential annual budget report at an American university. Ultimately, deans adopted one of three approaches to crafting the report: delegating, distributing, or dominating authorship. Deans who distributed authorship collaborated with their senior teams to establish a shared sense of priorities for their colleges. In contrast deans who delegated and dominated authorship ignored and alienated members of their senior team during the budget review, engendering confusion and frustration.

Abstract: This article describes the philosophy and delivery of a strategy designed to proactively cultivate the knowledge and ability of mid-level academic administrators to understand and conduct integrated strategic planning. The strategy combines theory, content knowledge, and leadership development to enhance the capacity and effectiveness of future higher education leaders. As opposed to traditional on-the-job training, this strategy can eliminate early career mistakes and enhance planning skills in executive positions to improve the effectiveness of academic leaders. This article uses a conceptual framework grounded in teaching and learning, with strategic decision making emanating from key higher education knowledge bases. The strategies presented in the article cultivate the knowledge and decision-making capacity of mid-level faculty and administrators, enhancing the higher education leadership of tomorrow.

Abstract: This article presents a range of approaches for linking budgeting to planning. After briefly discussing the natures of planning and budgeting, it presents four conceptual categories of ways to link the two. The article defines these as structural, adaptive-incremental, devolved, and holistic/advanced. No one approach will be correct for all institutions. Even where there is a system in place to link planning and budgeting, this is unlikely to be enough unless there is firm, skilled, aligned, and distributed leadership to keep the system on track toward institutional goals.

Abstract: After its first application nearly 40 years ago, responsibility center budgeting/responsibility center management (RCB/RCM) is now in place at nearly 70 major North American universities. An unstudied fact is that despite its popularity RCB/RCM is rarely deployed to its fullest extent. Instead, it usually exists in parallel with conventional planning and budget models. This study asks why, instead of fully implementing RCB/RCM, universities have chosen to apply it partially. The study finds multiple explanations. On the revenue side, some universities hold back a portion of income to create funds that are used to underwrite institution-wide strategies or subsidize mission-central academic programs that cannot be fiscally sustained under RCB/RCM. In other cases, revenue is held back to fund shared “public utility” services, while in still others the practice of holding back revenue for allocation by some other means is due to difficulty in drawing a functional line between the “academic” and the “non-academic.” On the cost side, some universities have limited the application of RCB/RCM in order to limit market behavior and forestall “fragmentation” (Burke 2007). The study points to several problems in both the practice and theory of RCB/RCM. For example, models meant in theory to complement RCB/RCM may in practice compete with it or promote monopolistic behavior.