Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs & Provost

Higher education is at a crossroads. We live in an increasingly competitive world. Yet, this competition presents remarkable opportunities for those of us in higher education. This competition will serve to strengthen our system of higher education here in the United States. This is true largely because of the considered way in which the best universities, and their university communities, respond to challenges and to change.

Although universities are often mischaracterized as places deeply resistant to change, great universities have proven to be enduring institutions precisely because they have responded to social and economic trends in a steadfast, creative, deliberate, and consultative way. That is, they understand as institutions how to learn collectively within an environment of competition and change.

In large part, this is because the greatest universities have been aspirational and committed to focused excellence. These values unite their communities in a larger purpose and they amplify values the university engages each day and across its diverse academic disciplines. Change universities do—but that process of change is deliberate and calibrated to institutional values of aspiration and excellence. In fact, one cannot learn without changing. And the greatest learning can be truly transformational. Universities understand this “culture of learning” in ways that many other entities cannot. We link in profound ways our classrooms and other learning environments to our broader task as institutions and places of change.

In planning for change in a “culture of learning,” I’m reminded of my own law school classes and the need (explicitly and implicitly) to recognize the impact of a culture of learning for the students individually and for the class as a whole. Based on my experience, we learn individually and together, especially when guided by a structured experience. This includes, in the teaching setting, deftly inquiring and probing what we know and from there carefully and thoughtfully revealing to the students (and to the class and to ourselves) what is yet unknown and in some instances, perhaps, “unknowable.”

This form of teaching and learning reminds me of a quotation of Justice Holmes, from his dissent in the Abrams case: “We all are working,” Holmes wisely observes, with “imperfect knowledge in life's experiment.”  For me, this “imperfect knowledge” is precisely the foundation for guiding and shaping our students into rigorous and careful questioners and thinkers. It is the philosophically pragmatic open-ended, “experimental” type of critical thinking and problem-solving that itself contributes to realizing change.

I believe excellence, individual and institutional, is built through a coherent and persistent vision—tempered by an appreciation of our “imperfect knowledge.” And having a vision (and thinking at the macro level) is an essential characteristic of a leader. To paraphrase the philosopher William James, a leader’s vision is the most important thing about him or her. One simply cannot lead without a great vision. And without a strategic plan, that vision or strategic thinking cannot be realized or implemented.

This “vision” requires an intense effort, a concerted effort, to remain focused. Contrary to some good conventional wisdom, while strategic planning may seem like a “marathon” rather than a sprint, we should be able to see the end and plan for it. For another example from the classroom: When I used to teach trial practice many years ago, I found it very effective to start my first class with the closing argument exercise. In other words, I began with the conclusion—where the students wanted and needed to be at the end of the case. And, it would become clear over time what the students needed to do to get there. In some ways genuine change is only possible with a clear (and feasible) goal in view.

So, with almost two tears of Provostial experience and a deep and prolonged immersion into strategic positioning there are many lessons to share.

1) Effective change is never easy or simple, no matter what the organization, but especially so for public institutions. I think one key to success is a careful, fair, process—working through all the steps—with a plan that excites, engages, and inspires. There is a need to reach across and within the university to derive the utmost wisdom and experience from all levels of the organization—to learn from those like and unlike ourselves.

2) It may be necessary in some instances to significantly change a university’s culture. That especially can be difficult in an established university where people may hold a long institutional view. The literature cautions us that some, in perceiving that their environment is increasingly (and at times fiercely) competitive and restless, will “tune out”—assuming, incorrectly, that events are well beyond their control. The potential for this type of reaction necessitates constant reminders to the entire university community of the influence of imagination, resolve and vision.

3) In many cases a realistic goal is only limited by a lack of wise leadership, courage, and institutional or political will. There is the need for being deliberate about managing and leading change. There are, of course, differences between leading and managing: “management” requires organizing, planning, motivating, economizing, and careful attention to detail. Leadership attunes itself (not solely) to the larger or macro view: Thus the imperative for vision.

4) The place of collegiality, and the influence of collegiality, in universities is a powerful one. I’m reminded of its value, albeit in a different context, from Judge Harry Edward’s recent and revealing University of Pennsylvania Law Review article exploring how collegiality in a Federal Court of Appeals can produce results much greater than the sum of its parts and that diversity—in all its forms—promotes and contributes to this synergy.

On the other hand, we also must be aware how effectively change, if carefully and responsibly exercised, can be accomplished by a single person acting in concert with others.  This is particularly so when conducted with great subtlety, sensitivity, and diplomacy. Of the greatest leaders, Nelson Mandela certainly comes to mind,  especially his insights from his autobiography Long Walk to Freedom on a leader’s need to let sometimes “the most nimble go on ahead, whereupon the others follow” all the while leading by direction.

5) We, as research universities, now face global competition for talented students and faculty. It is extremely important to acknowledge this and to prepare for this competition. It is the essential reason why we at the University decided to look at ourselves in the world market, and not the United States. We are tracking academic developments in universities across the globe—in India, China, the European Union, and elsewhere. We recognize that we directly compete for faculty and students on the world stage and that we are held increasingly to world-class standards.

6) One should not focus on the short-term nor manage to the rankings. Rather, an institution should focus on rigorous performance and outcome measures. Our goal of becoming one of the top three public research universities in the world is expected to be realized during the next decade. We are urging within our university community to look forward—beyond the present and beyond the past. We understand that innovation at the scale we envision will take time but we are confident that a decade is optimal. As to rankings: We should manage all our universities in a way that point instead to benchmarks or output, and that focus particularly on productivity, results, and impact. If we do that well, in the end reputations improve and, consequently, increases in ranking will follow.

Indeed, if we do things exceptionally well in our research, teaching, and public engagement with all the administrative effectiveness that is necessary to achieve this, if we're a path-breaker in solving society's big problems, and if we are changing the paradigms for thinking, we will be noticed.

7) Strategic Positioning is, and must be, an ongoing consultative process and a multiyear endeavor. It is dynamic, it is changing, and it is not static. This is consistent with the view that our knowledge is “imperfect” and also that learning, like change, is never complete. It is also congruent with what I suggested at the outset: as we continue to change, we continue to learn and as we continue to learn we continue to change.

In conclusion, learning is more than (though it importantly consists of) increasing our store of personal understanding. Instead, learning is also about creating a profound institutional knowledge—critical, subtle, and “ready” that continues to develop a sense of ourselves as a community who learn together, share and participate with each other in important forms of thinking and understanding, and change together.

All our great universities are outstanding human places, as well as remarkable academic places. A culture of learning, in my view, is a commitment to cultivating an experience of growing, of building understanding in all its forms, and of transformation—personal and institutional. A culture of learning, or so I see it now with the benefit of broadened experience, is intimately related to a culture of change. Our best universities should be advancing simultaneously a culture of learning while engaged in a culture of change.