Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Amanda H. Goodall is a Leverhulme Fellow at Warwick Business School at the University of Warwick.

Von der hinteren Coverseite

"I started reading this book with some skepticism, since I was doubtful that a convincing empirical case could be made for its key empirical proposition--that research universities should be led by top scholars. I was wrong. This is a first-rate piece of work that combines sensitive use of quantitative data with strong qualitative data. Although the topic is obviously important and frequently discussed, I know of no other systematic study of it. The book should be read by people in the business of identifying university presidents, and also by students of leadership and organizational practice."--William G. Bowen, former president of Princeton University and coauthor ofThe Shape of the River

"An invaluable and convincing case for why knowledge-based organizations such as major research universities and R & D organizations would increase the probability of success by choosing for their top leadership roles those who are acknowledged thought leaders and experts in their field."--Warren Bennis, distinguished professor of business at the University of Southern California, author ofOn Becoming a Leader, and coauthor of Transparency

"This is a fascinating book, focused primarily--but not exclusively--on correlations between the excellence of universities and the academic distinction of their leaders. Goodall demonstrates significant such correlations, particularly for American universities. This is a book of considerable interest and significance, and it should be required reading for every university trustee or governor."--Robert M. May, University of Oxford

"Goodall argues that the best research universities are run by the best scholars--it is not enough for a university president to be a good manager. This is an important message that all universities need to hear. I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in the future health of the world's leading universities."--Sir Paul Nurse, president of Rockefeller University and winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in medicine

"Goodall dispels any doubts about the wisdom of selecting leaders for major research universities who are themselves well-recognized researchers. She demonstrates that the skills associated with a productive research career not only can coexist with those required for the effective leadership of a great university, but may even predict such leadership. This volume should be read by anyone involved in the selection of a university president or chancellor."--Susan Folkman, University of California, San Francisco

"Should research universities be led by top scholars? Amanda Goodall provides very compelling arguments why they should. This extraordinarily well-written book presents both quantitative and qualitative evidence and draws on a wide variety of social sciences.Socrates in the Boardroom is a must-read for anyone interested in the academic enterprise."--Ronald G. Ehrenberg, Cornell University

"The main argument in this well-written book--that top research universities should be led by top scholars--is tackled from a number of different angles using a variety of evidence and a range of examples.Socrates in the Boardroom is likely to appeal to a broad audience."--Rosemary Deem, University of Bristol

Aus dem Klappentext

"I started reading this book with some skepticism, since I was doubtful that a convincing empirical case could be made for its key empirical proposition--that research universities should be led by top scholars. I was wrong. This is a first-rate piece of work that combines sensitive use of quantitative data with strong qualitative data. Although the topic is obviously important and frequently discussed, I know of no other systematic study of it. The book should be read by people in the business of identifying university presidents, and also by students of leadership and organizational practice."--William G. Bowen, former president of Princeton University and coauthor ofThe Shape of the River

"An invaluable and convincing case for why knowledge-based organizations such as major research universities and R & D organizations would increase the probability of success by choosing for their top leadership roles those who are acknowledged thought leaders and experts in their field."--Warren Bennis, distinguished professor of business at the University of Southern California, author ofOn Becoming a Leader, and coauthor of Transparency

"This is a fascinating book, focused primarily--but not exclusively--on correlations between the excellence of universities and the academic distinction of their leaders. Goodall demonstrates significant such correlations, particularly for American universities. This is a book of considerable interest and significance, and it should be required reading for every university trustee or governor."--Robert M. May, University of Oxford

"Goodall argues that the best research universities are run by the best scholars--it is not enough for a university president to be a good manager. This is an important message that all universities need to hear. I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in the future health of the world's leading universities."--Sir Paul Nurse, president of Rockefeller University and winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in medicine

"Goodall dispels any doubts about the wisdom of selecting leaders for major research universities who are themselves well-recognized researchers. She demonstrates that the skills associated with a productive research career not only can coexist with those required for the effective leadership of a great university, but may even predict such leadership. This volume should be read by anyone involved in the selection of a university president or chancellor."--Susan Folkman, University of California, San Francisco

"Should research universities be led by top scholars? Amanda Goodall provides very compelling arguments why they should. This extraordinarily well-written book presents both quantitative and qualitative evidence and draws on a wide variety of social sciences.Socrates in the Boardroom is a must-read for anyone interested in the academic enterprise."--Ronald G. Ehrenberg, Cornell University

"The main argument in this well-written book--that top research universities should be led by top scholars--is tackled from a number of different angles using a variety of evidence and a range of examples.Socrates in the Boardroom is likely to appeal to a broad audience."--Rosemary Deem, University of Bristol

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Socrates in the Boardroom

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

Contents

Acknowledgments...............................................................................................................xiPreface.......................................................................................................................xiiiChapter One The Argument.....................................................................................................1Chapter Two Leaders of the World's Top Universities..........................................................................24Chapter Three Deans of the Top Business Schools..............................................................................46Chapter Four Is There Longitudinal Evidence That Scholars Improve the Performance of Their Universities?.....................55Chapter Five Why Choose Leaders Who Are Scholars? What University Presidents Say about It....................................79Chapter Six How Do Leaders Get Selected?.....................................................................................106Chapter Seven Expert Leaders among Professionals, in Sport and the Arts......................................................124Chapter Eight In Conclusion..................................................................................................136Appendix One Data Collection.................................................................................................141Appendix Two Bibliometric Data...............................................................................................147Appendix Three The Sample of Universities and Business Schools...............................................................153Appendix Four The Decline of Nobel Prizes in Europe..........................................................................159Appendix Five Analysis of All Departments (Those Rated Top-5 in the RAE).....................................................163Appendix Six Notes from a Department Head....................................................................................167References....................................................................................................................169Index.........................................................................................................................181

Chapter One

Around the year 870, a bridge was built across the river Cam in England. In 1209, in that location, by then named Cambridge, one of the world's first universities was established. Nearly eight hundred years later, Cambridge University appointed its 344th and most recent president, or vice chancellor (VC), Alison Richard. Richard is the first woman to lead Cambridge University. She is a distinguished anthropologist who spent her academic career at Yale University, from which in 2003 she left the position of provost to join Cambridge. Just a year later, in 2004, another long-standing English university installed its 270th vice chancellor, John Hood. Hood became the first head of Oxford University since the year 1230 to be elected to the vice chancellorship from outside the university's current academic body. Indeed Hood, a New Zealander, is not an academic. He spent most of his career in business.

Why did Cambridge and Oxford choose two such different individuals to lead their ancient institutions?

The same year that Alison Richard boarded an eastbound jet, the Nobel Prize-winning biologist Paul Nurse left England for New York to become Rockefeller University's ninth president. He is not the only Nobel laureate to run a top American institution. David Baltimore, who stood down as president of the California Institute of Technology in 2006, is also a Nobel Prize winner, as is J. Michael Bishop, chancellor of the University of California, San Francisco. Indeed California has some of the most distinguished scholars in the world leading its universities. John Hennessy, at Stanford, is a prominent computer scientist; Robert Birgeneau, a Canadian who heads Berkeley, is a top physicist. At the University of California (UC), San Diego, Chancellor Marye Anne Fox is an eminent chemist, and at UC Irvine, the renowned atmospheric scientist Ralph Cicerone was chancellor until he left his position in 2005 to head the National Academy of Sciences. The University of California is arguably one of the best public university systems in the world (although it is currently enduring major financial cutbacks by the state government). The State of California is home to many great institutions. The success of UC is often attributed to its founding president, Clark Kerr, who was himself a distinguished economist.

Could it be that the high achievement of California's universities today is explained partially by the academic standards introduced by Kerr, and partially by the legacy left by a string of noted scholars who have led many of California's top institutions?

This book asks the question: is there a relationship between university performance and leadership by an accomplished researcher? The central conclusion, supported by evidence, is that top scholars should lead research universities.

WHY IT MATTERS WHO LEADS RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

My underlying assumption is that the world needs outstanding research universities, and, therefore, that it matters who leads them. Most importantly, there appears to be a positive externality effect on economic growth from the amount of money that governments invest in public or university research. This happens through spillover effects that research universities generate. Such spillovers occur when the creativity or knowledge in an individual or organization spreads outward, resulting in the growth of more creativity and knowledge. In short, good ideas rub off on other people. Research universities produce intellectual externalities of many kinds (and also nonintellectual externalities like jobs). Their most important outputs are inventions and ideas. Economic growth, at a national and regional level, can be directly traced back to governments' investment in research and development. A growing number of studies suggest that university research is critical to industry, R&D, and the development of new technologies, and also to the creation and expansion of new firms and start-ups. There is also a strong correlation between the location of top scientists and the establishment of biotechnology firms. In short, the social return from academic research appears to be high.

There are other benefits from the research output of universities. They are subtler. How is it possible to quantify the value of constant discoveries in medicine, physics, chemistry, or psychiatry, or the social science findings about the positive effects of education and the negative effects of poverty and discrimination? How much have we learned from history about civilization? What of the aesthetic and creative contributions of the arts and humanities? And on, and on. Moreover, and importantly, universities seek to develop and disseminate ideas independently from the state and pressure groups. This objectivity has proved essential in, for example, uncovering the phenomenon of climate change, which has been subject to much diverse political interpretation. All these are among the unaccounted externalities and spillovers of universities.

On the subject of the best form of university leadership and governance, interest has grown around the world. This is because the sector has become global and increasingly competitive. Major changes have taken place in institutions of higher education, and subsequently in the role and responsibilities of their leaders. This research is motivated in part by the recent emphasis on "managerialism" in universities and more widely in the public sectors in a number of countries. There has been a suggestion that managers as leaders may be preferable. This book argues that in universities, where the majority of employees are expert workers, having a leader who is also an expert is likely to be beneficial to the institution's long-term performance. The alternative argument takes the form: what a leader in a university or knowledge-based sector needs is primarily high managerial ability allied merely to some acceptable minimum level of technical ability. By contrast, what the later data in this study suggest is a fairly smooth relationship between the leader's level of scholarship and a university's quality. The greater is the first, the greater is the second.

The role of university presidents and their education and career history has attracted interest in previous important research, but relatively little attention has been given specifically to the scholarly background of academic leaders. This question, of whether or not to appoint a major scholar, has circulated around universities in the United States and Europe for a number of years. In principle, every president's Search Committee grapples with the issue. Yet there appears to be no consensus.

To my knowledge, this is the first study to address this question empirically. Given the centrality of research performance in many institutional mission statements-expressed through the quality of research produced and the scholarly reputation of staff-it seems logical to turn to the academic ability of their leaders.

Figure 1.1 presents the central argument in a schematic model that links the appointment of a scholar with the performance of a university. It suggests that if a governing body has decided upon a strategy of raising or maintaining the research performance of their university, then hiring a leader who is a scholar may be the right choice. The diagram oversimplifies a complicated process but serves to illustrate the point and to introduce the main conceptual claim.

In this book, I draw from four separate datasets. My research starts by looking at who currently heads the world's top 100 universities. I then focus on deans in the top business schools. Next I explore whether the characteristics of a leader in position today can tell us about the future success of their institution. Finally, using interview data from twenty-six university leaders in the United States and the United Kingdom, I present possible explanations for why better scholars may make better leaders. Interview material with presidents will appear throughout the book to illustrate points about leadership in universities. Table 1.1 above lists the heads of universities I met with.

It is important to emphasize early that scholarship will not be viewed here as a proxy for either management experience or leadership skills. An "expert" leader must have expertise in areas other than scholarship. Also, it should not be assumed that all outstanding researchers will inevitably go on to make good managers or leaders. Before their step to the top position, most university presidents have gained management experience as provosts, pro- vice chancellors or deans, or by running major research centers or labs. This was the case with virtually all of the four hundred leaders examined in this study. Moreover, to head up an academic department or school, one must first be a senior member of the faculty-usually a full tenured professor. Tenure is only granted after extensive publications have been acquired. Thus, scholarship is already a prerequisite of leadership in research universities. The book's concerns go beyond this basic point.

In this study I focus on research performance, because it is research quality that top universities prioritize. As suggested above, career advancement is reliant on scholarly productivity, namely publications. That is not to say that brilliant teaching is unimportant but that it alone will not usually lead to promotion in most research universities. This situation may differ in colleges and universities that prioritize teaching.

There is a link between teaching and research. The material taught to students has come from research. Interestingly, there is somewhat limited evidence that better researchers also make better teachers. A relationship has been shown to exist between a university's success in the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and the standard of its teaching instruction, as established by scores obtained in Teaching Quality Assessment (TQA). TQA scores correlate highly with RAE scores. In other words, those institutions that perform best in research tend also to obtain the highest teaching scores.

Henry Rosovsky contemplates the link between research and teaching, and suggests: "Research, especially academic research, is a form of optimism about the human condition ... Persons who have faith in progress and therefore possess an intellectually optimistic disposition-that is, teacher-scholars-are probably interesting and better professors. They are less likely to present their subjects in excessively cynical or reactionary terms."

Rosovsky also makes the point that teaching the same subject for years is likely to lead to boredom or burnout. Being a researcher not only keeps the information fresh and up to date, but also keeps the teacher from "falling asleep at the very mention of the assignment."

Thus, those who are committed to research are possibly also more passionate about the topic, and therefore may be better educators. But the jury is still out on this question.

THE KEY ARGUMENTS IN THE BOOK

It is hoped that the evidence presented in this book will inform those involved in the selection of university presidents. The mission, or core business, of research universities tends not to differ across countries, nor to change through time. It is research and teaching. The discussion about why better scholars might make a difference to university performance is also explored using interview material with twenty-six leaders in universities.

The main propositions in this book are:

1. Research universities should be led by individuals who have been accomplished scholars in their academic careers. It is not sufficient for university presidents to have management skills alone.

2. A president's appropriate level of scholarship will depend on where the university currently is-in terms of its research ambitions or position in rankings-and where it wants to be. How good should a scholar-leader be? A possible rule of thumb is that the prior research success of a leader should be equal to or better than the top 10 percent of faculty in the institution that he or she is to run.

3. University presidents need power if they are to lead. Presidents in the United States in general have more authority than those in European universities. Great Britain is moving in the direction of the United States-many heads can now select their own top management team. However, in other European countries, important strategic decisions are still being made by committees elected by large numbers of faculty.

4. Organizations linked to university policy-making or funding should also only be led by noted scholars. These would include government agencies like the National Science Foundation in the United States, the Higher Education Funding Councils in Britain and the European Union, the UK's Economic and Social Research Council, and trusts and foundations.

5. The reasons why presidents should be able scholars are fourfold:

a. Scholars are more credible leaders. A president who is a researcher will gain greater respect from academic colleagues and appear more legitimate. Legitimacy extends a leader's power and influence.

b. Being a top scholar provides a leader with a deep understanding or expert knowledge about the core business of universities. This informs a president's decision-making and strategic priorities.

c. The president sets the quality threshold in a university, and the bar is raised when an accomplished scholar is hired. Thus, a standard bearer has first set the standard that is to be enforced.

d. A president who is a researcher sends a signal to the faculty that the leader shares their scholarly values, and that research success in the institution is important. It also transmits an external signal to potential academic hires, donors, alumni, and students.

6. The notion of leadership introduced in this book builds upon the idea that a leader's expert knowledge-about the core business of an organization-informs his or her decision-making in a way that has not been sufficiently studied. My central argument is that where expert knowledge is the key factor that characterizes an organization, it is expert knowledge that should also be key in the selection of its leader.

SETTING THE SCENE

Leaders matter. Much empirical work exposing the link between leaders and performance has emerged recently. Economists have shown in a number of settings that CEOs can substantially affect the profitability of firms. Similarly, the identities of particular leaders of nation-states have been linked to nations' later growth rates. Central to my arguments about leadership is the way universities are categorized. Research universities should, I argue, be viewed as knowledge-centered organizations. Their core business is that of generating understanding of the world, by research, and disseminating it through their publishing and teaching. This depends on the knowledge of experts, not generalists. In many countries, universities have traditionally been seen as an extension of the public sector. The role of leadership in the public and private sectors is often looked upon differently. This, I believe, is a mistake. The exact sector is largely irrelevant to the key issue; instead, it is the core business that should determine, or at least contribute to, the identification of appropriate institutional heads.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Socrates in the Boardroomby Amanda H. Goodall Copyright © 2009 by Princeton University Press. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.