The High Roost of Vice-Chancellors by Hazman Shah

 

Quite some time ago, a Professor who is an architect from UTM observed that it is easy to identify where the VC and his top management team of the university rule from. It is the highest building or it is in the central zone or it is fabulously decored or something to that effect. His point was that the power within the university is symbolized in the physical campus which militates against the collegial leadership culture that is still claimed in public universities. Granted each VC brings his or her own style to the office but generally, the VC office and the chancellory tend to project the power and the privilege of the VC’s office. This is probably their job, orientation, and training. But is this collegial leadership that we often associate with universities?

The culture comes to the fore when the VC receives a title or when his birthday comes by, then his or her office goes into high gear. The celebration often gets a bit uncomfortable with every key academic leader expected to put out messages of congratulations which are sometimes followed by gifts. These days it is social media that carries a flood of felicitations. This practice gets replicated for the DVCs too. Is this an indication of common courtesy or a reflection of something more fundamental - the reification of leaders? You can make the argument both ways.

One obvious case of the reification of leaders was when the chancellory in one public university insisted on the portrait of the VC being placed beside those of the King, Queen, PM, and MB. The chancellory staff even went around checking if the portraits were up as instructed! One of the deans of the university got an earful for not abiding by the dictate. The announcement of the arrival of the VC at official functions could be easily mistaken for the arrival of the King! Overzealous staff or culture of reification of the office?

In comparison, the Presidents and provosts of private universities and international branch campuses are less reified. Their offices are much less ostentatious and are not in the center of their campuses. In fact, on some campuses, it is difficult to guess where the CEO’s office is located. The office, the references to them, and communication with them are much more reflective of a collegial culture. The VC is a colleague, albeit an important one!

Are there two noticeably different types of leadership in higher education as I have remarked? Is it historical, cultural, institutional, or simply individual? Which one is more amenable to the concept and idea of a university? Is the reference to VCs as CEO (like in a private company) in fact even appropriate? AKEPT may have some observations on these as it develops and conducts leadership courses for higher education.