In recent columns, I have written about the way in which neoliberal managerialism focuses on creating particular roles and expectations for people in those roles who then behave in ways to meet those expectations.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Part of this is the expectation that senior managers are far too important to engage with the workers in an organisation (they are off doing serious stuff), and therefore it is absolutely necessary to put in place layers of middle and junior management to act as buffers.
This means that approvals and ideas are required to go through multiple layers. There is research suggesting that the more layers through which an idea has to progress, the more likely it is to be rejected. This generally results in an organisation that is not innovative, as these ideas do not make it to the levels where they might be approved for action.
In the education sector, it generally means innovations in teaching and learning and in the kinds of courses that are developed are almost impossible to achieve.
At the same time, those in senior management might have innovative ideas, but their ability to turn them into action is also stifled by the way in which information is filtered as it is transmitted down the hierarchy.
All humans have different knowledge, different backgrounds and experiences and we all use these to shape the way we understand a particular issue. When we then have to communicate that up the hierarchy to someone else, we communicate our understanding, not the understanding of the person below us who first alerted us to the issue.
At what point do we see the assumption of power by a group as an attack on democracy?
The further up the chain the issue passes, the more it becomes distorted, just like a game of Chinese whispers. Those at the lower levels of the hierarchy become frustrated as something they see as clear-cut comes back down to them in an action that makes no sense from their perspective. Those higher up in the hierarchy are frustrated because, as they see it, they acted reasonably on the understanding they had, and cannot understand the reaction they receive.
A flat management structure is an idea that has been around before and is coming around again. Internationally, there are moves towards flatter management structures given the research that indicates these structures are more agile, and organisations more innovative when there is less hierarchy.
Holacracy is a management style where power is distributed throughout the organisation (sometimes called distributed leadership), so that staff have more freedom to self-manage, while still addressing the organisation’s purpose.
In many ways, universities have traditionally operated on a kind of holacratic model, where the academy were significantly involved in decision-making.
In the distant past, professors (as the permanent members of staff) determined who was to be admitted to degrees, and who would work in the university. In more recent times, the academic board was the key decision-making body for issues related to teaching and learning and the academic board predominantly consisted of members of the academy.
However, under neoliberal managerialism, times have changed and the academy is increasingly being excluded from decision-making. Across the country there are concerted efforts to limit, or remove altogether, staff representation on key decision-making bodies of the university, including university councils/senates.
The power of the academic board is being increasingly curtailed and the increasing number of members from management on these boards often mean that the voice of academe is stifled.
All of this is occurring at a time when our vision for higher education is under attack; when neoliberalism prioritises the development of human capital for employment in contrast to a focus on developing the critical skills needed to provide a check and balance for society.
At what point do we see the assumption of power by a group as an attack on democracy?
Read more Class Act: