University Leaders - it's a relay race not a wrestling match

In my capacity as the leader of one of the world's most recognized league tables of universities I have had the good fortune to meet a great many Vice-Chancellors, President's, Rectors, Provosts and Principals. In most cases this is a privilege, typically these individuals have had glittering academic careers and have achieved genuine scientific or cultural progress in their own lifetime. Inspiring people.

Perhaps in countries where such positions are politically decided, it is more forgivable, but all around the world I have seen examples of these impressive people appearing to behave like children when it comes to some fairly basic principles of sustainable leadership. Academic leadership must certainly strive to transcend party politics wherever it can, but this goal is less within reach than attempting to eliminate the playground politics that often surround the arrival of a new leader. This tends to be particularly profound in public institutions and the general absence of it may be the single biggest advantage that private universities have over the next twenty years.

In party politics, the opposition makes a career out of stating a counterpoint to the current government's position, often regardless of whether or not the individuals concerned genuinely disagree. Whenever a change is made, the opposition make a point of finding the 0.1% of the populace that will suffer as a result and giving them a name and a face. The result is that when they eventually come into government they are expected to reverse all the decisions the previous government made and focus purely on what the previous administration did poorly. In doing so, they invariably overlook the things the previous administration did well. What results is a pendulum effect: a sense of constant motion, but a lack of any real progress.

What results is a pendulum effect: a sense of constant motion, but a lack of any real progress.

Where university leaders are connected to party politics then, they might be forgiven for avoiding saying or doing things that are politically unpopular and for pulling in an opposing direction to their predecessor. Yet this effect is not limited to places where such positions are politically appointed. I have seen examples where institutions have changed the direction of research with the arrival of a new President, where Deans and VPs have been systematically replaced, where international strategies have been abandoned, where promising international partnerships have been allowed to wither and where branding developments have been reversed or discarded.

It seems to be about establishing a legacy. The relentless desire to leave one's own mark on the history of the university.

University league tables attract comment and observation as to the fortune of universities. Frequently the sort of reaction we get is \"but we have done so much and improved so many things, how can we have gone down\", well perhaps you've lost ground in the things you were previously good at, the pendulum has swung back in the opposite direction, there's activity and investment but little collective progress. Is everybody else standing still?

A lack of consistent, responsible, sustained, selfless leadership is at the heart of the problem for many universities and much of this is within your own control, as a university leader, to change. And unlike much of what you might need to do, it's inexpensive. It is not your job to spend your term wrestling with the ghost of your predecessor, but to gracefully accept the baton from them and keep running in the same the direction.

By all means strive to run faster and further.