Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

End of the Business Simile

August 31, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It turns out that academics, at least in lore insulated from the pitches and rolls of the private sector, are not immune to the effects of recession. Even a cosseted tenured professor like me, creature of the humanities, unable to tell a bull from a bear, a credit default swap from a collaterized debt obligation, realizes that times are tight and that the economic downturn has changed everyone’s world. But as scary as words like “furlough” and “restructuring” are, it is the silence that unnerves me the most.

It has been months since somebody told me that “a university must run like a business.”

I’m alarmed to think that the era of the Business Simile is over.

I think I speak for many liberal arts types when I say how scary it is to lose that surety, that hard mooring in the results-oriented world, that comforting discipline of being told from across the conference-room table that the market imperatives must be paid heed, that we in the academy merely deliver a product to our clients, and that the efficiencies of the private sector can and must be brought to bear on the out-of-touch ivory tower. See, I liked that. There was a bracing firmness in such announcements. One the one hand, it fed my craving for intellectual loftiness — to be on the receiving end of such pronouncements allowed me to position myself as a defender of the faith, as true educator unsullied by a preoccupation with filthy lucre. On the other hand, I was secretly reassured when I heard that the important decisions — how to find the money, how to spend the money — were in the hands of realistic, highly-qualified, private-sector types who knew how the world worked. I wanted them on that wall. I needed them on that wall.

I admit that in the heyday of this tension between university-as-academy and university-as-commercial-enterprise there was some weird gendering going on that I try not to think about too much. “Business” was implacably male and strong, and the logic of the market (and all its attendant terminology whereby faculty became Full Time Equivalents and students became Credit Hours Produced) shone like Apollonian reason. Meanwhile the liberal arts, with their vague goals and misty-eyed idealizing, their lack of standardization and frustratingly inconsistent outcomes — well, they were female, areas to be protected and subordinated by a tough-minded business-oriented administration. Admit it: “pure research” has a virginal ring to it. So I confess that I liked being told that the university must be run like a business. After all, it left me time to think abstractly about big ideas (and picturesquely, I might add, leather-bound books at hand, maybe wearing a scarf). It allowed me scoff at the bean counters even as I consumed the revenue they wrung from the institution. I came to depend on the kindness of those strangers who understood accounting and statistics, core competencies and market niches. Who better to protect me from the real world than the agents of the real world?

But now the “university like a business” simile has been undercut by, well, the real world. Some of the most prominent companies in the United States are starting to resemble universities. They receive massive government aid, suffer from significant new government oversight, cling to inefficient fiscal models, and are buffeted by a howling public who sees tax dollars being thrown down the hole without concomitant results. But besides the human cost of such devilments, we must account for the metaphorical costs of AIG, Chrysler, and Bear Stearns: What happens the next time somebody deploys the Business Simile to eliminate a small, unpopular major (physics, I’m looking at you) or hire three adjuncts where once a tenure-track colleague might have served (hello, foreign languages)? It just won’t have the same effect. Now when somebody says “a university must run like a business” I won’t feel that same secret warmth of the Invisible Hand’s caress — too many businesses are looking pretty un-business-like these days.

We were all a lot happier when the Business Simile was untarnished.

Back in 2004, when my house was worth a lot more than it is now and my TIAA-CREF account was a lottery scratch ticket that always paid off, professor emeritus and former interim president of American University Milton Greenberg gave the Business Simile a good workout in Educause Review, pining that since business “involves the hierarchical and orderly management of people, property, productivity, and finance for profit,” then some hard-eyed pragmatics were in order. He riffs on the Business Simile with gusto: “Numerous realities define the business nature of higher education,” he says, and “claims that education is not a business are seen as cloaks for behaviors and expenditures that violate reasonable expectations of responsibility and accountability.” He winds up with a market-driven aria: “If higher education is to lead its own renewal, it must think about its people, its property, and its productivity in business terms.”

See, that’s the stuff … the Business Simile writ so large it is presented not as a rhetorical flourish, but as the conditions on the ground. We like our realities defined for us, our course charted, and that was what the Business Simile could be made to do in the hands of a master.

Fast forward to 2006. My house and my retirement account were worth even more then, and the Gallup Management Journal ran an admiring profile of late Drexel University president Constantine Papadakis, praising him for having “no patience with people who decry profiteering in the nonprofit world of education” and for his insistence that “academia should transition into business.” In the ensuing interview, President Papadakis, without irony, declares that in higher education, "If there's no profit motive, then you are doomed.” Vicariously and years removed, I still thrill to that kind of leadership. It is clear-eyed and results-oriented; it gives the term “businesslike” its good name.

Even as late as 2008, the year my home equity vanished and my TIAA-CREF statement actually burst into flames when I opened the envelope, one could against all odds still find Business Simile boosters. Business Week, which is apparently a magazine devoted entirely to business, ran an article in its August 3, 2008 issue exploring the conjunction of higher education leadership and the captains of industry. We’re told that Philadelphia University President Steve Spinelli helped found Jiffy Lube before becoming an academic, and that the Jiffy Lube experience helped him learn how to run his university “like a business.” Robert J. Birgeneau, chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, had to “professionalize” his staff, because, he says, a “university is a very complicated business enterprise.”

But the article, which should have assured us that the Business Simile is so inexorable that we can depend on it even as layoffs and cutbacks are endemic, ends on an unsettling note. Making the point that many universities are hiring corporate CEOs to help them through these troubled times, Business Week notes that the University of California at Berkeley turned to Citigroup for a new vice chancellor and Harvard just filled an executive vice president position with a former Goldman Sachs executive.

Wait a minute, says I, finally getting to use the word schadenfreude correctly. Goldman Sachs? Citigroup? That’s $55 Billion in TARP funding right there. We should note here that the former Goldman Sachs manager Edward Forst lasted less than a year at Harvard, but the existence of TARP funding, government bailouts, and the general collapse of the economy has led not just to a general crisis in business confidence, but more importantly a crisis in my confidence in business and, by extension, the Business Simile. We are witnessing the death of a once-potent figure of speech.

As long as “business” represented competence and “university” represented inefficiency, then the Business Simile was able to win many an argument. But similes die, and they die when their referents stop making sense. Hardly anybody says “in like Flynn” anymore because very few people remember who Errol Flynn was, much less that he was associated with skillful swordplay and copulation. Who says “like clockwork” anymore? Only those who remember what clockwork was, or those who use the simile as a nostalgic gesture.

And maybe nostalgia will be my refuge. The Business Simile will not end with a bang, here in the midst of the 2009 recession. It may linger on, neutered, in faculty senate minutes and university strategic plans, in the inauguration speeches of university presidents yet to come, invoked not because it is timely or sensible, but because it reminds us of earlier good times, like folks in Hoovervilles humming Al Jolson. One can “sleep like a log” even though few of us saw our own fallen trees and snoring can be treated medically. One may still “work like a Trojan” even though it is only those with spectacularly unmarketable Classics degrees who can explain why Trojans were once known as hard workers. But those similes refer to past time, not present realities. They’re as antiquated as Bob Seger singing that my Chevy (its GM warranty now looking suspect) is “like a rock.”

So I’ll pine for the old, sure Business Simile, but settle for a new formulation: “A university must run like a business, but without the crazy risk-taking, the lack of accountability, the bankruptcy and the indictments.” It doesn’t have the same ring to it, but in these times we must take our comfort where we can. I’ll miss you, Business Simile. Losing you hurts like the dickens, whatever that means.

Daniel J. Ennis is professor of English at Coastal Carolina University.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on End of the Business Simile

  • Business approach was never what it claimed
  • Posted by Jeff Senese , Academic Affairs at Johnson and Wales University on August 31, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • This is a great article. We have been running multimillion dollar higher education corporations for years and have done quite well by any so-called business metric. Learning is our forte and we have learned from business but I hope we do not see it as the panecea. Look closely at the business leaders of higher education institutions . . . they talk much and truly produce little chance beyond sound bites and platitudes and on top of that they often times are so disruptive to the community that it will take institutions years to emerge from the morass of poor morale, departures of key people and poor relationships with colleague institutions. All in all I will take a president with a humanities degree that came up through the academic ranks over a business type any day of the week.

  • Thank You
  • Posted by CC Prof on August 31, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • Thank you for writing this essay. I couldn't agree more, and I really liked the new formulation of the slogan.

  • Well Said Prof.
  • Posted by Janet Stanley-Marcano , Programme Director, Restructuring and Decentralization at Ministry of Education on August 31, 2009 at 7:30am EDT
  • Thank you very much for your strongly articulated observations, subtleties and all. While the import of good/best practice undoubtedly can and does add value, one must always be suspect of any desire to fully transform the nature of one discipline into that of another. Cautious must always be the word for it cannot be done "hook, line and sinker"

  • End of business logic too
  • Posted by bevo on August 31, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • If we have really reached the end of the business simile (and I too hope we have), then can we please stop calling our students, customers? They are not customers. They are, at best, semi-formed adults who represent the transmitters of our knowledge from academe to general society.

  • An interesting article
  • Posted by Tom Bazis , Business Development Mgr at EducationDynamics on August 31, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • My thoughts and feelings regarding this is that students are actually customers. They are purchasing (for quite a large sum) an education (which is the product) and they are expecting a return on investment from that education.

    Since tuition is responsible for paying salaries, providing nessecary space/equiptment/resources, it's interesting to me that most schools don't understand how they are acquiring students in terms of the metrics involved. It is my belief that step one in efficiency is understanding return on investment of a customer, then working to maximize that return on investment, and then scaling your product to be able to either turn a greater profit and make your product better, or offering it to more people for less. I personally would like to see a higher level of accountability towards the acquisition of students, because there is quite a lot of waste in the recruitment process.

  • Not so fast . . .
  • Posted by Keith Hampson , Director at Ryerson University on August 31, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Beautifully written. A true pleasure to read. And while I agree with some of the finer points, I disagree with the notion that businesses now "resemble universities" and as a consequence, we no longer look to business for insight into how run our colleges and universities.

    The trend of using business logic and practices to shape university practices is far deeper and longer-term than the effects of a 12-month old recession or the government bail-outs of a handful of high-profile businesses. The trend is driven by fundamental changes in higher education over the past several decades, including the need to serve 50+ percent of the population, rather than 5%. Universities will continue to adopt certain aspects of business that help them achieve their objectives.

  • Posted by talleyrand on August 31, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • The weakness of "the business simile" has always been that the role of money in higher education is fundamentally different from its role in business. Financial value is not the driving "metric" as the business folks are pleased to call it. At least to the extent that liberal arts education can withstand the movement (which seems to be gaining momentum, or did) to become vocational training, we are measuring ourselves by different, and unavoidably less readily quantifiable, outcomes, such as citizenship, critical thinking, the capacity to see situations from others' perspectives. What is the accounting formula for such things?

    There are other differences in the way money is used as well. Businesses have no donors (well, except the Obama administration). They have no restricted endowment. And so on.

    Moreover, I dispute the metaphor of tuition as payment for product. The institution exists not to deliver product but, again, to form persons. There are expenses associated with that process, and tuition expresses the reality those being formed can appropriately bear some of the cost of that social good. I don't know of any non-profit institution whose tuition covers the cost to the institution for educating a student.

    Certainly accountability and transparency are crucial to build trust in the institution, but the "business simile" has always imported values and processes that distort higher education.

  • Odd
  • Posted by Bart on August 31, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • This does not make any sense at all, when you have Chinese Communists lending the USA $900,000,000,000.00.

    Clearly, the Chinese and their "Market-Leninism" -- who would also find thsi odd -- think management discipline works.

    English departments, being so over-supplied with job applicants, would be well advised to think.

  • Unfortunately...
  • Posted by David B. , International Ed at a Canadian U on August 31, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Fantastic article.

    I agree with Tom and Keith in part, but have reservations.

    That very reliance on the business model has robbed universities of much of their ability to meet their responsibilities to society in ways that do not include the credentialling of undergraduate students. Metrics and key performance indicators may provide an easy, quantitative method by which to evaluate and provide much prized 'transparency', but force aspects of their mission that are not easily measurable onto the margins.

    While I am no advocate of handing the reins over to faculty and eschewing the pragmatic application of business models to certain aspects of institutional management, I am hopeful that the there may be a positive side effect of our current financial woes. Some doubt regarding the business models we've relied upon so heavily will temper their unquestioned and over-broad application to our institutions.

  • The times, they are a changin'
  • Posted by Tom Bazis , Business Development Manager at EducationDynamics on August 31, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • While I do agree that in it's purist form, education should be celebrated for education's sake, and that the formation of an individual through higher learning is paramount to the growth of our society, steps have been made by certain parties to change the game.

    I'm speaking of the for-profit institutions who are gaining significant market share and taking "business" that would have been secured in the past by traditional brick and motar institutions whose goal in education may be more altruistic in the end. The question then becomes, do you throw buckets of water at the ocean, or do you adapt, change, and become aggressive and intelligent towards student acquisition and recruitment. At the end of the day, programs are competing for students, and the ones that attract them efficiently are winning out. Just the fact that marketing budgets exist is proof of the fact that competition is firmly rooted in the higher ed space. The growth that names such as Phoenix, Devry, and Walden have experienced is tremendous. It's because they speak, act, and think in the standard terms of business. Application to matriculation rates are closely watched, drop out rates monitored, and solutions are put into place to fix problems in their conversion funnels. Is this the best education? I'm not the one to answer that question, but they have the opportunity to impact a huge % of our society that is returning to school.

    On a falculty level, the most important thing is to teach and help minds grow. Perhaps a different group of people should be wholely responsible for the yearly repopulation of the student body thereby providing the best of both worlds.

  • To Tom Bazis
  • Posted by James W. Gettys on August 31, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • My understanding of "customer" over against "student" is that the former purchases a good or service more or less passively while the latter enters into an active learning relationship with the school: hence the term, "student" (one who receives and makes use of instruction; one who studies, one who thinks, citiques, generates innovative ideas).

    I think that "education" needs, for personal growth and citizenship, to go some way beyond mere "return on investment" although the latter is a vital consideration. This going beyond is another crucial factor which, for me, renders the term "customer" inadequate and crassly misguided.

    If not for the "beyondness" of education--I think the article is trying to tell us--our civilization will hollow out a culture capable only of perpetuating the business cycle, along with the many problems of top-down globalization under which the world is now languishing.

  • lets be pragmatic and not dogmatic
  • Posted by Chris Shea , Managing Partner at Cross Hill Partners, LLC on August 31, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • A very well written and fun article. Having spent the bulk of my career serving the private sector, I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that academia should not aspire to run like the soulless business world. However, academia has not yet achieved perfection and could benefit from by utilizing some disciplines and practices of the business community to help it become more efficient in achieving its mission.

    Just as with anything else, the more dogmatic our devotion to an ideology becomes the less able we are to adapt to a changing world. The language of business provides a framework from which we can assess efficacy, make informed decisions and, of critical importance in today's world, communicate the "value proposition" of an institution to funding sources and prospective students.

    The recession is "raising the bar" on us all. Academic institutions will increasingly be called upon to justify their tuition increases, report their effectiveness in achieving their missions to individual donors and funding sources. As Jack Welch famously said: "Control your own destiny or someone else will".

  • Student as Apprentice
  • Posted by Bradley Bleck , English Instructor at Spokane Falls CC on August 31, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • I am among many who reject the "student as customer" notion. First, in any public institution, the student (or the parent) pays somewhere from 25 to 50 percent of the actual cost of the education via tuition. The rest of the taxpayers pick up the remainder of the tab. If the student wants to be a customer, maybe a private institution is the way to go, but I doubt most faculty there would be in favor of that notion as well, because it doesn't work.

    First, a student doesn't consume an education the way they do a latte. The latte (for example) does little to add to the public good, the sort Adam Smith, John Lock, and John Stuart Mill would have education do. Yes, the latte comes as a service, but beyond some personal enjoyment, that's about it.

    With education, I'm hoping to pass along a body of knowledge and skills that I possess, knowledge and skills the student needs, to get a degree at least, and maybe to function as a better citizen (and maybe a better consumer as well) in society. In this respect, the medieval model of the master and apprentice is a closer fit. I have something a student needs, and sometimes wants, but it isn't an instantaneous transaction as it is with the latte, but the result of concerted, somewhat long-term efforts on the part of both, a social compact if you will, with obligations that go beyond mere consumption of what I (or other teachers) have to offer.

    Students pay for the opportunity to learn and grow. They can fritter that payment away, or they can take full advantage of it. Teachers give what they can but whether it takes is more in the control of the student (all things being equal) than it is in the control of the teacher. The latte consumer wants the latte, and walks away with it. All too often, the student walks away from the education they and society are paying for. They are free to fail, to be unhappy because they didn't learn anything even if they made no effort to learn. They are also free to engage in blaming the teacher, which is a tried and true method of dodging their culpability.

    Anyway, rant over. Teacher, master of the classroom (and I don't advocate simply lecturing ad nauseum by this) and the student is the apprentice, the one with much to learn, if they are willing to make the required effort.

  • Education as Product
  • Posted by Brenda D on August 31, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • Great article. Having worked in both higher ed (admissions) and financial services (product management) I have to argue that education is a product. Not a latte, as a previous poster had pointed out – it’s too passive. Better to think of it like exercise equipment. A treadmill is a product but unless the purchaser is an active user of the product, the benefits of the product can’t be realized. (Unless of course, you purchased it to be displayed as a piece of modern art in your “home gym” because of its sculptural qualities.)

    I agree with other posters that measurement is an important factor in applying a “business” model to education. Are you “selling” degrees or “courses”? Should the desired outcome defined by the institution or by the consumer?

    Back to exercise equipment as education metaphor; some consumers may buy the treadmill to improve cardiovascular fitness. Others may be using it to lose weight.

    You cannot assume that everyone is using the product in the way in which the product design team intended. Nor can you assume a single purpose. You must constantly monitor consumer response to all aspects of the product (including outcomes). You need to identify expected outcomes at the time of purchase and track how those change over time.

    It’s expensive and time consuming but without this type of monitoring, you don’t know what new development is needed. Nor can you measure how well your product is performing against expected results.

    Does your institution need more degrees? Different degrees? More locations? Fewer? What if a segment of your “consumers” are not looking for degrees at all? How do you act on the data to promote the mission of the institution? Are your “consumers” aligned to your mission?

    While the business model isn’t appropriate for every aspect of education, examining education as a product may provide some insights into how to better position your institution today and for the future. Education is too important not to use every available tool to improve it.

  • Ennis: Trapped by the Source of His Infection
  • Posted by Razanarchista on August 31, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • I agree with the idea that the "business simile" is near its end and that it has been severely undercut by reality; however, the conditions that produced the crisis in the first place will continue to fester as long as their roots are not severed. Rather than construct an alernative vision of higher education that is not dominated by neo-liberal economic theories and practices, Ennis appeals to a mere reformulation of the simile and calls for more accountable business practices within institutions of higher education. Basically, Ennis is not willing to take the Kirkegaarding "leap of faith" and free himself from the source of his infection. Let's put it this way: as long as capitalism remains the dominant business practice or market ontology for insitutions of higher education and America in general, we will always experience crisis. As long as institutions are subordinated to capitalism, and as long as people resign to regulation theories to salvage what is left of capitalism, the brutal referent of market opportunism and instability will never go away. It is sad that educators even bought into the mysticism of the business similie to begin with. The referent of the business similie is not dead, so it is up to us to euthanize it on the altar of historical sacrifice.

  • Posted by WTF on August 31, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • The Business Simile will never disperse until and unless all the MBA/CEO presidents, provosts, and boards of trustees are replaced or diluted by actual scientists and humanists.

    Anyone other than me see this not happening any time soon? I mean, all sorts of business-types just lost their jobs. Where will they look now?

    Where they always did before: in higher ed. It will take at least a generation to remove the stain of business model. And that would only be if there were a concerted effort to out the spot.

    Ain't. Gonna. Happen. Too many universities are invested in the groupthink that this model is successful.

  • First, destroy the one,
  • Posted by What a Straw Man on September 1, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • And then institute the other. Then, you can say the first should have been destroyed, so then the other is logical.

    Can anyone else think of Saul Alinsky?

    Or, perhaps, the demise of Adolf Hitler? Saddam Hussein? Blah-blah-blah?

    Such is the extent of 'Higher Education' today.

    Whatever works, people. Just kill them first, and then let God sort them out, I guess.

  • I'm convinced
  • Posted by Frank on September 2, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • Scenes from the local CC --

    Syllabi dated from three years ago. Racing into class without a schedule. Lack of social graces. Old stories told for a 17th time.

    Yup, I'm convinced. The tenured faculty could really care less.

    Great job -- keep it up -- your level of commitment shows.