Some interesting thoughts there Matt, ones I think are good to contemplate as this organisation rumbles towards some kind of imagined more efficient and sustainable future state.
Here are a few of my own in response:
- Great to see Henry Mintzberg getting a mention. He had for me the most compelling account of managerial processes I’ve encountered, and one I have practiced – that set of practices around informal management that I think are key to understanding how to manage people.
- I also like that he names what for many of us in quality would be a familiar role, that of the informational manager. It relies to a significant extent on a capacity to seek, absorb, review, critique and convey information from a wide range of sources. So in our world, networks and communities of practice are incredibly important to doing this well.
- There is quite a ‘trend’ in and around this theme of policy and rules as friend or foe. I'm thinking of Ezra Klein’s book Abundance – which is something of a critique on rule making in liberal cities becoming barriers to liberal policy outcomes. And here I think he makes a mistake in labelling it liberal, for it is a politically agnostic problem. He points to it as a problem with liberal law making in particularly around housing and infrastructure. It’s all very “well, DOGE is too much, but maybe there is a point in working for government efficiency." And I think he ignores how bad actors use these rules to their own ends (astroturfing anyone?).
- These ideas are having a moment, and that is clear in NSW where the Minns Government is keen to set aside 'handbrakes' on housing development by setting aside 'zoning' barriers.
- What it of course misses, is that the rule making power of the state can be turned in different directions, Hence Title 5 of the Civil Rights Act is the anvil on which Harvard and other enemies of the US administration are being hammered. Be careful what you wish for. Rules for the powerful and unaccountable are useful tools not obstacles.
- Last one - one of our old VCs reckoned that much of his role could be replaced by well trained AI that could determine in any given situation whether any decision he was considering making was within or outside policy. Interesting.
Thanks Dominic - I always take pride in having written something that provokes someone of your calibre to critically engage with a comment.
Critical questions for me are how we get better rules rather than some arbitrary goal of more or less rules and this is hard to achieve in a rule complex, resource constrained, and ill-defined capability context. There is no standard qualification for managers of quality in higher Ed.
Better rules should be politics agnostic and support effective implementation.
On the informational manager - one of the more influential books ainhave read was “Managing without Leadership” which emphasised effective knowledge flows across organisations rather than adherence to flawed leadership theories - different author but similar concepts.
Some interesting thoughts there Matt, ones I think are good to contemplate as this organisation rumbles towards some kind of imagined more efficient and sustainable future state.
Here are a few of my own in response:
- Great to see Henry Mintzberg getting a mention. He had for me the most compelling account of managerial processes I’ve encountered, and one I have practiced – that set of practices around informal management that I think are key to understanding how to manage people.
- I also like that he names what for many of us in quality would be a familiar role, that of the informational manager. It relies to a significant extent on a capacity to seek, absorb, review, critique and convey information from a wide range of sources. So in our world, networks and communities of practice are incredibly important to doing this well.
- There is quite a ‘trend’ in and around this theme of policy and rules as friend or foe. I'm thinking of Ezra Klein’s book Abundance – which is something of a critique on rule making in liberal cities becoming barriers to liberal policy outcomes. And here I think he makes a mistake in labelling it liberal, for it is a politically agnostic problem. He points to it as a problem with liberal law making in particularly around housing and infrastructure. It’s all very “well, DOGE is too much, but maybe there is a point in working for government efficiency." And I think he ignores how bad actors use these rules to their own ends (astroturfing anyone?).
- These ideas are having a moment, and that is clear in NSW where the Minns Government is keen to set aside 'handbrakes' on housing development by setting aside 'zoning' barriers.
- What it of course misses, is that the rule making power of the state can be turned in different directions, Hence Title 5 of the Civil Rights Act is the anvil on which Harvard and other enemies of the US administration are being hammered. Be careful what you wish for. Rules for the powerful and unaccountable are useful tools not obstacles.
- Last one - one of our old VCs reckoned that much of his role could be replaced by well trained AI that could determine in any given situation whether any decision he was considering making was within or outside policy. Interesting.
Thanks Dominic - I always take pride in having written something that provokes someone of your calibre to critically engage with a comment.
Critical questions for me are how we get better rules rather than some arbitrary goal of more or less rules and this is hard to achieve in a rule complex, resource constrained, and ill-defined capability context. There is no standard qualification for managers of quality in higher Ed.
Better rules should be politics agnostic and support effective implementation.
On the informational manager - one of the more influential books ainhave read was “Managing without Leadership” which emphasised effective knowledge flows across organisations rather than adherence to flawed leadership theories - different author but similar concepts.
Thanks again for reading