November 16, 2009, 05:14 PM ET

Can Consultants Save Universities?

Yesterday The New York Times ran a piece by Tamar Lewin reporting that major universities were hiring consultants (like Bain & Company) to help them reduce redundancy and administrative cost, just as “many executives in private industry do.” That should come as no surprise, and in principle there is nothing wrong with hiring management consultants, although considering what large businesses our major research universities are these days, it is surprising that that they are in such urgent need of outside management expertise. After all, The Chronicle has just published its list of the salaries of the highest paid university presidents, and once again the justification for their very high salaries is that they must be paid consistent with their role as CEO's of large educational firms.

The university CEOs quoted in the Times piece are at pains to make clear that their consultants are advising them only on business matters such as procurement, information technology, and human resources. Lewin reports that “in each case, the management consultants examined business functions but stayed away from academic issues like courseloads and tenure.” That’s good, but how many of us are naïve enough to believe that there is no relationship between management and education? The “business” changes currently being imposed in the universities are after all producing a profound difference in how we teach and research.

The Bain consultants at North Carolina have apparently recommended “reining in the more than 100 centers and institutes that have sprung up around the university,” and the UNC chancellor bragged to Ms. Lewis that “The Institute for Outdoor Drama isn’t getting any more state funding.” Well, I have no idea what the IOD is or does, but I am pretty sure that the Chancellor named it to indicate that “outdoor drama” was not socially useful enough to justify its existence on the state dole. Perhaps, but then why was the institute in the budget in the first place? Or was it doing something important for the educational mission of UNC? And what about the “more than 100” centers that clutter Chapel Hill and all other comparable campuses? Should the consultants tell chancellors which of those research centers to close? I don’t think so. Or to take a less obvious example, should we have confidence that consultants will understand the IT needs of departments and institutes? Will the consolidation of management systems have no impact on teaching and research? I doubt it.

The problem is not in the hiring of consultants, although I have to say that several of the nonprofits on whose boards I serve have hired large consulting firms to appraise their operations, and in my judgment not one of the consulting groups has fully understood the practical mission of the organization being appraised. (Too many of the trustees do not understand, either.) The real problem lies in the failure of the organization itself to analyze the relationship between management and educational outcomes. A Bain partner is quoted by Lewin as justifying the hiring of outside consultants by saying that “most doctors don’t do self-diagnosis, and the same reasoning applies in higher education.”

Quite right, but doctors seeking a diagnosis of their own illnesses consult other doctors, not plumbers. The education business is diverse and complex. Educational management requires both sympathy for and understanding of higher education. Our challenge these days is to trim budgets while doing as little damage as possible to the educational mission. Our mantra ought to be, “first, do as little harm (and as much good) as possible.”

E-mail

Comments

1. marka - November 16, 2009 at 09:22 pm

Well put - "not one of the consulting groups has fully understood the practical mission of the organization being appraised. (Too many of the trustees do not understand, either.)" This applies to many contexts, public & private, for profit & not, small & large. Being a 'consultant' myself, one of the verities is that the good consultant interviews the front-line workers, solicits their comments & suggestions, and re-packages that for upper management. Too often, 'consultants' reverse the process, interviewing upper management, and regurgitating the latest buzz words. The disconnect between 'management' and 'work' usually grows with the size, and age, of the institution. One reason why institutions should reinvent themselves much more often -- the tendency is towards ossification. And the line-workers are often in the best position to know where many problems are, and often how to solve them. The added value of an outside consultant is in giving some context & perspective, and framing for management, often by giving a few examples of success (and failure) in comparable institutions.

2. judithryan43 - November 17, 2009 at 05:55 am

"Doctors seeking a diagnosis of their own illnesses consult other doctors, not plumbers." Hilarious, and so, so true!

3. garlanjc - November 17, 2009 at 10:06 am

In my own administrative career, I have found competent, well-chosen consultants to play a very helpful role.
Examples are:

1. Advising our development vice president on organizing a large fund-raising campaign.
2. Reviewing a campus radio station to help it define its mission and goals and evaluate listenership issues.
3. Helping a vice president deal with morale and performance issues among senior staff hired by a predecessor.
4. Helping the Admissions Office develop a recruiting campaign for minority appicants.
5. Providing guidance to our Financial Aid office to target financial aid more strategically.
6. Assisting dining hall and catering services to be more competitive and to improve menu choices and marketing plans.

In my experience, search consultants are the most iffy group. The best can be very helpful at identifying and matching candidates to institutional needs. But many mostly seem to trade in gossip about who is "on the market" and are unable to identify unorthodox candidates who might actually do a fine job in the position.
Consultants can also play a helpful political role, but assuring nervous boards of trustees that a planned controversial institutional change has been thought through careful by the administration. --Jim Garland
www.savingalmamater.com

4. 11159995 - November 17, 2009 at 10:19 am

As Jim Garland's post suggests, the more specific and well-defined the consultant's task is, the more likely useful advice will be forthcoming. In my arena, university press publishing, I know of many instances when such consulting, often done by current or recently retired press directors, has proven very beneficial. I am also aware, from one experience I had as a consultant to another university about the future of its press, that the university just wanted to find some reasons, based on expert advice, to close its press. In this instance, the not so hidden agenda was to use the funds saved to beef up the basketball team! --- Sandy Thatcher

5. thenomad - November 17, 2009 at 11:44 am

I also agree that consultants can play a useful role. While it's true that they may not always understand the mission or needs of an institute of higher education, it's also true that academics promoted to positions of senior management don't necessarily have managerial skills and good business sense. I've been able to sit in the seminars of a couple of consultants, and rarely was I asked for input, at least in a way that was private and confidential. I'm a student recruiter, and our office tends to be quite top heavy. We have lots of managers going on expensive "relations" trips, but those of us who actually bring the revenue from international students are quite outnumbered by them by more than double. So far, we have been disempowered to give our voice to the consultants we've met and yet I know that they can be really helpful given the opportunity.

6. suomynona - November 17, 2009 at 04:15 pm

As a former consultant, I'm still waiting for someone to tell what is a 'managerial skill' and what is 'good business sense.'

If I run an academic lab, through a grant that I acquired, and bring on researchers to work in my lab, and pay them with the funds I have availablle to me, and coordinate that effort with my university and my department and the administrators involved, how is this any different, in terms of the skill set required (and acquired), than a corporate management situation? Would I need a business background of some sort, or business experience (many academics have this, myself included), or an MBA to prove that I have 'managerial skills'?

As for 'business sense,' it's an entirely meaningless term, I think; so much so that I won't even attempt to make a guess about what is meant by this term in this case, and why a professional consultant would have this anymroe than anyone else.

7. annadis - November 18, 2009 at 11:17 am

I agree with the need for higher education consultants to have backgrounds and experience working in higher ed. It's one of the reasons I found it satisfying to work with Keeling & Associates who, interestingly, have as one of their operating principles "First, do no harm."

8. chris_shea - November 19, 2009 at 11:32 am

The fact is that consultants are often hired to provide an independent "validation" of senior management's plans. Rather than having senior management "take the heat" for proposing painful structural changes that might alienate the organization, they hire consultants to produce a report. It is an old, time-honored tradition in the private sector.

9. goxewu - November 19, 2009 at 03:36 pm

Re #7:

"Brainstorm" now has product placement, or is this comment a partial transcription from an infomercial? (One of my operating principles is, "First, no gratuitous plugs.")