An academic and a university manager have produced a joint paper contrasting the managerial philosophy of Taylorism with ¡°academic (Laurie) Taylorism¡±.

Margaret Wilson is faculty manager of business and management at Regent¡¯s University London. Philip Carr is professor of psychology (behavioural economics) at City University London. Their paper, ¡°Managing ¡®academic value¡¯: the 360-degree perspective¡±, has just been published in Perspectives, Policy and Practice in Higher Education.

For many years, they write, they have had discussions, ¡°sometimes heated by the fire of our different professional perspectives¡±, on how all the staff in a university can come together around the goal of ¡°core academic value¡±.

Yet the two ¡°sides¡± often seem to be at loggerheads.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

As evidence of this, Ms Wilson and Professor Carr cite an article published in Times Higher Education,?¡°Laurie Taylor on academics v administrators¡±?(28 May 2015), in which the sociologist and author of The Poppletonian argues that ¡°what used to be a mildly patronising relationship between dons and their administrative servants has now become more and more like a battle for control¡±.

A genuine ¡°focus on the central mission of the university¡±, the paper suggests, ¡°requires strategies to be put in place to align the perspectives, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours of all university staff¡±. It also requires people to be willing to face up to their own stereotypes.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Many academics, the authors write, see managers and administrators as ¡°too inflexible as regards regulations, processes and procedures¡±, and as sometimes ¡°encroaching on academic judgement¡±. They fail to take on board that the managerial team ¡°know they must adhere to policy and procedures, often with external scrutiny¡­and often have little latitude in how they go about their daily activities¡±.

Managers and administrators in their turn, continue Ms Wilson and Professor Carr, may think that academics are ¡°too focussed on their own pet projects¡±, ¡°unavailable when needed (¡®working at home¡¯)¡±, ¡°inflexible with respect to timetabling¡± ¨C and ¡°sometimes, arrogant, dismissive, superior in attitude¡±.

Nonetheless, such barriers are not absolute.

The paper cites another THE?article, ¡°University managerialism ¡®can boost academic freedom¡¯¡± (21 August 2015), showing that ¡°professional managers can actually boost collegiality among scholars¡± (even if cynics suggest that ¡°nothing gets academics working together better than a shared hatred of management¡±).

One simple suggestion for ¡°overcom[ing] divisions¡± is ¡°devolv[ing] managerial and administrative functions to departments and schools¡±, since ¡°a quiet word is usually a more effective means of communications than a, often protracted, flurry of emails¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°Many universities have gone down the path of centralisation of ¡®support¡¯ services and whereas there may be short-term financial savings there are likely to be long-term psychological costs which are bound to lead to actual financial costs,¡± they write.

matthew.reisz@tesglobal.com