Advertisement

Advertisement

News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education

Can Higher Education Manage Talent?

Much ink has been spilled lately about a looming talent crisis, with pundits and industry analysts warning that, in the not too distant future, American employers will not have the requisite talent to succeed competitively.

In theory, institutions of higher education know a lot about how to develop the skills required for success in the working world — skills like critical thinking and problem-solving. Contrary to the popular notion of the college campus as a cloistered ivory tower, most American colleges are professional schools that focus on preparing students for the marketplace; even within the liberal arts, we produce far alumni who go on into business than alumni who become poets or conduct basic scientific research. Indeed, examples abound of cooperation between colleges and employers to develop the workforce, and as the business community seeks to develop and retain talent, it seems increasingly amenable to turning to academe for its expertise.

But does higher education model what it espouses? One would expect that, in a knowledge economy, the producers of knowledge (those institutions of higher education) would value “talent management” and even have a competitive edge in that realm. But the data suggest that colleges lag behind industry in developing and retaining their own talent.

The American system of higher education is marked by incredible institutional diversity and one would assume that a key component of differentiation among all those schools would be a similar diversity of faculty. The facts suggest otherwise. For instance, some 50 percent of all faculty members are adjuncts, who often teach the exact same courses at “competing” colleges. Even among tenured faculty member, the average consumer of education would be hard pressed to differentiate “products” based on faculty. Do you think you could, without knowing the “brand,” identify a given institution on the basis of its faculty’s pedigree? Institutions trade faculty on the open market, and it is unclear that there are any real differences among the vast majority of them.

While most colleges do a good job of developing their students, they are less successful at helping their faculty and staff improve their skills. The very tools used to develop students are not easily available to the institution’s employees. Most colleges have in place some mentoring of junior faculty to help them make tenure, but few have fully realized strategies for talent growth and development. To date, I have not seen a single college that has the kind of “chief learning officer (CLO)” routinely found in Fortune 1000 companies.

Let me elaborate. A doctoral student at any Ivy League institution might receive $50,000 per year in non-taxable financial aid. But a college employee who takes the same courses at that same institution is most likely taxed on that professional development as if she were the sole beneficiary of the learning. Furthermore, while many colleges market continuing education courses to employers, few encourage or reimburse their own employees to take those same courses. One might argue that the sabbatical is the biggest investment a university makes, but that is limited to tenured faculty members largely and ironically, it is an unstructured professional development experience, if one followed the logic, then we ought to do away altogether with programs of study and curricula.

At the same time, many large companies recognize the value of strategic relationships with higher education institutions in developing talent. According to a recent study by the Council for Adult & Experiential Learning, many employee tuition remission programs have been reassigned to CLO’s as part of their array of professional development tools. Here at Penn, we have launched a program designed to develop CLO’s for companies and have found that companies are happy to pay their employees’ tuition.

There appears to be a mounting trend that has many companies advocating for the worth of talent development within colleges, while colleges themselves dismiss the notion. Companies are increasingly arguing that if, for example, sending an executive to a professional development conference is not taxable, then enrolling her in a Wharton program shouldn’t be either.

The great irony in higher education’s reluctance to join in the growing move toward workplace-based learning is that, with all the infrastructure in place (teachers, classrooms, technologies), colleges and universities face far lower marginal costs in providing such programs than do other employers. At a minimum, colleges ought to:

  • Ensure that all faculty and staff can take course or programs of study that develop them professionally whether the programs are for credit or not-for-credit.
  • Follow corporations’ lead and stop treating credit bearing courses — if they are for professional development — as a taxable benefit but rather as professional development.
  • Develop and implement 360 type evaluations for all employees, including faculty members.
  • Work with their own executive education programs to develop customized programs to train staff and faculty on things like leadership.
  • Develop comprehensive succession plans to develop leadership talent from within.

Higher education is big business. Here in Philadelphia, the University of Pennsylvania is the largest private employer in the region, and across the country, small towns are often as not “college towns,” where the college is the engine driving the local economy. As an industry, higher education ought to better manage its talent.

More important, if colleges want to be perceived as part of the solution rather than a major cause of the looming crisis, they must examine their culture and policies to better align them with what we collectively know to be true — that access to knowledge and talent is the key to a future society that is both just and wise.

Doug Lynch is vice dean at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education.

Got something to say?


Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Advertisement

Comments

Efficacious?

A walk through the average college office would reveal (1) costs higher than average and (2) productivity below average. As noted by Vedder (Ohio U.), that is why tuition has risen faster than the average rate of inflation — low productivity.

By itself, more education cannot increase productivity and lower costs. Incentives, including privatization and cost controls with quality metrics, do.

Russ, at 7:45 am EST on November 27, 2007

The real work of most institutions is accomplished by full-time faculty.

Administrators tend to move around too much as they climb the administrative ladder...so although they may deal with administrative issues many of those so-called issues seem to be ways of generating more work for faculty so the administrator can take credit for taking leadership and implementing some type of institutional overhaul.

My institution prides itself on turning out student “leaders"... but give only lip service to faculty leadership.

They encourage faculty creativity and leadership but, by golly, if a faculty member comes up with some idea that doesn’t fit within the administration’s plan then it’s shot down. So in reality faculty should be creative and exemplify leadership as long as whatever one does fits within the administrator’s plan...which doesn’t fit with my definition of creativity or leadership.

The whole concept of “thinking outside the box” doesn’t apply at my institution. Even students who don’t follow the “chain of command” in the presentation of innovative ideas are reprimanded.

What we need is a program that teaches administrators how to listen and value diverse ideas presented by students and faculty. Institutions could then begin to capture and retain creative individuals with leadership skills.

clueless administrators, at 8:50 am EST on November 27, 2007

Russ

Thank you. I’m fascinated by this whole question of productivity and maximizing (rather than excluding) talent.

See Alfie Kohn, _Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes_ (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993,1999). And Kohn’s _No Contest: The Case against Competition—Why We Lose in Our Race to Win (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986,1993).

Yes, “competitiveness” and “incentives” and “privatization” which are empoyering to business owners but not necessarily to employees, do seem to increase “productivity” in the short run, the perpetual short run. But such extrinsic motivators may also undermine productivity too, and kill what makes for productivity over the long haul: namely, intrinsic motivation. I’m really fascinated why our society seems to think only a relatively small part of the population is “talented” and should therefore get most of the goodies and control most of the resources. See also Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, _The Political Economoy of Participatory Economics_ (Princeton University Press, 1991) for a mathematical model of an economic system that might more truly maximize human talent. Just some ideas to throw out within the context of today’s article.

By the way, this does not imply that the office you walk through, though it is not “privatized,” is not already dispirited by the overall climate in the larger economy. To conclude that such low morale needs the whip of privatization may miss the point.

Russ Also, at 9:40 am EST on November 27, 2007

FYI—Kaplan University has a CLO.

Now You Know One, at 9:50 am EST on November 27, 2007

Manage talent?

” .. See Alfie Kohn ..”

How pertinent. Someone who went to p-r-i-v-a-t-e schools, who tried to run a private school, can lecture the world about the Public Education Monopoly. Of course.

BTW: Kaplan uses an immense amount of privatization.

Think your plan is so much better? Then pay for it, with your crew. Others, having been burned already, don’t have to burned again to prove something.

Russ, at 10:35 am EST on November 27, 2007

Talent Management

Although it is easy to place blame on administrators, we should work proactively together (faculty, staff, & administrators) to solve the looming talent crisis in higher education.

As director of strategic talent management for University Advancement at UC Irvine, we are taking a proactive approach at addressing the lack of development officers in the marketplace by focusing on strategic recruitment, retention, and professional and career training programs for our staff. Although our program is in its infancy, we have had tremendous success in only 12 months of implementation.

As the author suggests, we are clearly behind our for-profit peers regarding talent management initiatives. We should collaboratively seek solutions before we fall further behind in acquring and retaining high performing employees at all levels of higher education institutions.

Zach Smith, Ph.D., Director of Strategic Talent Management at UC Irvine, at 12:00 pm EST on November 27, 2007

“development” model long abandoned

In reality, academic management has long since abandoned the “human resources” and “human capital” model of helping employees to develop.

The current “quality” models of employment maximize productivity by permatemping, deskilling, and outsourcing wherever possible.

Rather than develop complex working human subjects, current models seek to radically simplify, automate, and industrialize every component of the education experience—with the explicit intention of substituting low-wage workers.

If you actually read the discourse of academic management (see any of Bill Massy’s terrifying articles lauding the HMO as a model for higher ed, or his creepy Virtual U management training game, funded by the Sloan Foundation), what you see is an overt, unapologetic intent to accumulate endowment and fixed capital at the expense of human capital.

The reality of academic employment is that the vast majority of employees are in fact higher ed customers already: the largest group of employees on any campus is typically the undergraduate worker, followed by graduate students and nontenurable adjuncts, many of whom are enrolled in degree programs: the next largest group are staff, many of whom are also in degree programs.

Higher ed’s “customers” are already its cheap labor force. The extent to which this experience contributes to human development is highly questionable.

http://marcbousquet.net

Marc Bousquet, author, How the University Works, at Santa Clara University, at 1:10 pm EST on November 27, 2007

Talent management technology might be an answer

As the author of a survey on the state of technology adoption, that includes talent management applications, I was intrigued to see confirmation of our survey trends. Basically, higher education is a “late adopter” of HR-related technology. I’ve always believed that technology is a catalyst for change. So if higher education institutions are interested in becoming more savvy about talent management, they might look into technologies such as workforce planning, talent acquisition, learning management, performance management, succession planning, and most importantly, competency management.

Lexy Martin, Director at CedarCrestone, at 4:15 pm EST on November 27, 2007

“What we need is a program that teaches administrators how to listen and value diverse ideas presented by students and faculty...”

You forgot staff.

Then again, most people in academia do.

Donna, at 8:25 am EST on November 29, 2007

Advertisement

 Jobs Related to Can Higher Education Manage Talent?

or search for jobs directly.

Recruiter-Graduate Enrollment
DeVry University

As one of the largest degree-granting higher education systems in North America, DeVry University provides high-quality, ... see job

Human Resources Asst IV, AA& D Human Resources
Cornell University

Located in Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University is a bold, innovative, and inclusive teaching and research university of ... see job

Associate Vice President of Human Resources
Howard Community College

Howard Community College is seeking a dynamic individual to lead the Human Resources area. This administrator will be ... see job

Director of the Graduate Program in Education
Gordon College

Gordon College is seeking a Director of the Graduate Program in Education. The College offers the M.Ed.—Initial Licensure ... see job

Human Resources Generalist
San Bernardino Community College District

San Bernardino Community College District EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Position Information Posting Number Title Human Resources ... see job

Compensation Specialist
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology

The King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) is being built in Saudi Arabia as an international, ... see job

ITS HR Assistant
University of Colorado

Posting Description: Open Competitive Position Examination HR ASSISTANT (Technician II) H4M2TX Posting # ... see job

Director III (Director of Workforce Development Initiatives)
Penn State University

The opportunity to shape and define workforce development programs with state, national, and international leadership and ... see job

Director of Talent Acquisition
Loyola College in Maryland

Director of Talent Acquisition Loyola College in Maryland Loyola College in Maryland has a unique opportunity for a strategic ... see job

Employment Assistant
Weill Medical College of Cornell University

Founded in 1898, and affiliated with what is now New York-Presbyterian Hospital since 1927, Weill Cornell Medical College is ... see job