...history programs are 3,672 in the country. Futures programs are one. We're interested in perhaps getting a little bit more balanced in that distribution, because indeed we need to study the past. That's where all the data is, that's where our experience is, that's where our traditions are, but unfortunately we forget the other side of the equation. What do we do every single day; what is this conference about except about the future? And I believe, unfortunately, as adults, as professionals, and as leaders, we are constrained and we are hampered because we carry around preconceptions, in many cases misconceptions, about the future, about leadership, about change, that we only learn about those things in the school of hard knocks and in the school of experimentation. What else is education about except to prepare us, not only for the future, but for managing the future. So I commend Dr. Prince and the organizers of the program committee of this conference that dedicated a certain amount of time to let's first consider the future before we consider the leaders of the future for the educational systems of the future.
We have a distinguished panel to address that question. I will begin with a certain broad overview of what we believe are the primary drivers of the future, and of course, of education in the future, and then I'm joined by three people from three different perspectives, futurists in their own rights of different sorts, but who have their own perspective on what these trends may be.
Before we start talking about the future, though, let me give you our view of leadership from a futurist's perspective: Leaders are those who promote fundamental change. We draw a big distinction between leaders and managers. Warren [Bennis] drew that distinction a long time ago and it's become part of the standard curriculum-managers do things right; leaders do the right things. Managers achieve pre-established goals while leaders establish new goals. We need leaders and we need managers for our institutions and our societies to be successful. There's a third distinction; however, which we draw in future studies, which I think is important for the discussion of leadership that we just had and for the one for the rest of your conference, because I believe there's a third function, and that's the function of authorities.
Authorities are oftentimes, in our loose language, called leaders, but as authorities they don't necessarily promote fundamental change. Authorities are given the responsibility to make binding decisions. They are the ones in charge. They're the bosses. The Dean, the president up here, and the previous panel were here because they were authorities, and they may be leaders, too. I hope they are, but that's not the job they were hired to do. They were hired to make decisions, to discharge the responsibilities of the school and of this university to make decisions about hiring and firing, about budget, about policy. They are the ones where the buck stops. That's an authority, and they have that power that Cortes talked about.
Leaders may be authorities, in fact, it helps if a leader does have authority because they can make certain things happen, but leaders you know that use only their authority do not get the willing commitment, do not get the motivation of people to strive for that fundamental change. Leaders cannot dictate the change; they have to enroll people as volunteers in the change. So Ernie Cortes was talking about leadership as we speak of it. They may be authorities-usually they are not-but they have that passion to create change, and that's what I believe this conference is about-how to be and how to educate people to be passionate for change whether they are authorities or not, whether they have management skills or not, and that's what we're talking about.
One definition of a futurist is a person who is, as historians are, experts on change. And as an expert, let me give you just a few distinctions. There are two kinds of change-incremental and transformational. The incremental change we're very good at. We see it every day. Continuous improvement, doing a little bit better, changing this, changing that, solving problems, creating policies, creating procedures. That basically is the work of a bureaucracy or a set of officials. They are improving things all the time. Transformational change, as you know, is a completely different ballgame. Something which not only does not just improve things, in fact, when you get a transformational leader going, things get worse before they get better. They create chaos. As Cortes pointed out, they stir things up; they don't just kind of smooth things over.
So leadership is about in the right time, in the appropriate way, creating transformational change, which is not just more of the same or better of the same. It's a completely new and different ballgame. The question that we have to ask ourselves as educational leaders-is this the time to stir things up, or in fact, are we going to have to stir things up, because there's another distinction that I'd like to make, another two different kinds of change that we futurists consider; the change that happens to us and the change that we promote ourselves. There is a world out there. Jack Welsh, the legendary CEO of General Electric says that if an institution or an organization is not changing as fast as the world is changing, it is doomed in the long run. Are we changing within education as fast as the world is changing? Sometimes if we do not, the change will be taken from our hands. The freedom to make that change will be removed and we will be forced, one way or the other, as many of the failed systems of history, most recently the communist vision, which was a vision, and yet a failed one because they did not change and adapt to the world as well as we did. And pretty soon the complete ability to maintain that system was taken from their hands. If we are not responding and changing to the transformational and fundamental changes going on in the world as rapidly as the world is itself changing, we may be in a similar position some day. Leaders, therefore, are those, first of all, who see that kind of change going on outside, and bring that in by talking about that change. Look what's happening, look what's happening. Even that very act of talk, however, can oftentimes be considered a subversive activity. People who are overwhelmed and burdened by the demands of their job and their careers of the institution and the problems do not want to hear about what's going on on the outside. Don't I have enough problems? Do you keep bringing all that stuff in? But leaders do it nevertheless, because they need to talk about change. When the organization is surprised when the world has changed, that's not a failure of the people of the organization; that's a failure of leadership.
Then, of course, there is what to do about it, and that's where the people come in who promote fundamental change. Our job here for the next hour or so is to give an idea of the external world. What is happening out there that you and others need to consider as we both perform our responsibilities as leaders, and as we educate those who we hope someday will also be leaders.
When I think of the "out there" I have to have a certain concept or a certain model, and I will share my basic overview trends, which will set the tone for this panel, which will put things into more sharper perspective with six items that I believe is true of any social system, be it an institution, a state, a community, a nation, the world as a whole, and those six items are characterized in just a little phrase-people-every system is built on its people, living in a natural environment. We are, after all, a biological species. We have a habitat and we need to preserve that habitat for our own good and the good of future generations. Use technology to manipulate the environment for our good, provide our needs, necessities, wants, luxuries, within an economic system which determines what technology gets developed, how it's deployed, who does it, how much is produced, how much it costs, who gets, who doesn't get, where it is distributed, within a larger political context of governance, governments setting the rules, establishing the game plan, deciding what is in terms of the common good as opposed to the individual good of economics, and that all within a larger matrix of culture. Of language, norms, values, and ethics.
People, nature, technology, economics, government, and culture are what I would propose to you as the matrix of change that leaders need to take into account. Now, that is the broadest possible vision, the broadest possible perspective that I can think of, but it has to be broad because in the long run specialists do not know what is going on. Economists deal with the economy, government policy analysts deal with the government, technologists and demographers, and you name it, they all have their niche, but sooner or later that niche will be invaded by all other five things. So when we consider leadership and fundamental change, which by definition takes a long time and requires long-term vision, we have to consider all six, or whatever your model is, of these factors and forces of change simultaneously, else we will be captured by one little thing.
Let me give you then, just the barest capsule summary. I have a set of charts in the handout materials, which you can look at if you'd like. This is not what I'm going to be talking about directly, but having been an old stat teacher I believe that we ought to start with some data. Let's talk about the people. The people of the nation, the people of the community, the people of the educational system, and of course, we're going through a trip transition in those types of people. The one clear forecast the futurists make of which they do not back off from is that ten years from now we will all be ten years older. No doubt about that. As some one person said, "It's better than the alternative."
So aging of our society, of all of the industrial countries' societies around the world, is a fact, and we will be facing up to that fact in a short ten years, as the baby boom finally reaches that golden age of 50 when they want to retire, or 65, when many of them will start drawing on their Social Security. That is a fact of our society. The distribution of aging will look more like today's state of Florida than like today's state of Texas.
A second part of that transition is the transition of family life. Women returning to the workforce in the 1970's, the traditional family, the nuclear family as we thought of it does not exist really much anymore, less than 20 percent of families fulfill the model of one-wage earner, a couple of kids, as an original family. Two-thirds of many children of some groups are born out of marriage completely, and more than 50 percent of children will not live with their two biological parents throughout their life. The family is more diverse, it is adapting, it is being crunched by the economy and by other social forces, and it's obviously something that we need to take into account.
The third part of the demographic transition then, is the increasing diversity of our society. And we in Texas, of course, simply looking out on this audience, it's something to celebrate. I call it the first global nation. The first nation that represents most of the people's of the world, not perhaps in exact proportion, but there are significant numbers of every single ethnic and racial group in the world in this country, and indeed in this state. I was struck by Ernie Cortes' comments about his previous life, of the community and the church, the party. He was talking about a very homogenous subculture. Everybody, he said, was Catholic. Everybody was Mexican. Everybody was democrat. How do we form those kinds of communities in a society with diverse interests and diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives? It's an awful challenge. And we in education, the first group to shape children's views of other people have that responsibility more than anyone else. So the demographic transitions in our society are profound and providing us leaders all challenges.
Nature-we all know about the natural-global warming, ozone, pollution. Can we have a robust economy without destroying our native habitat as a species? A big question, and that, of course, people are discussing both in the realms of science and in the realms of educational classrooms.
Technology is the word on everybody's lips, the third element, of course, creating that transformation. It is the Internet, it is the wireless, it is the destruction of old borders and boundaries. That's what the Internet has done. And it's done that by de-materializing most of what we do. Information used to be attached to material things. It used to be on stone tablets or papyrus or parchment or paper or buildings. Something had to hold that writing, had to hold that code of language, and now it's stuck away somewhere on a disk and only appears now as a set of ephemeral electrons projected on a display screen-de-materialized. Currency, entertainment, communication. What happens when we can deal with all of those things without having to be any particular place or having to hold any particular thing, where it comes up to us out of cyberspace and returns there without making a mark? What about education, an intensely material activity to date. Buildings, teachers, classrooms, desks, books, blackboards, meeting. Going to school is going to a place, but education in the future, going to school will be click, click, click. You will be at school for maybe five minutes, and then we will return to what we were doing before. It will become seamless. As Tom Friedman in The Lexus and the Olive Tree says, "The cold war era was about boundaries and the global era was about flow." It's about attractions. It's about moving things around as opposed to defending and holding up walls and trying to make distinctions. Education, unfortunately, in my estimation, is still in the business of trying to create boundaries and distinctions as opposed to offering flow.
The economy we know is an up and down process at the national level, but the big transformation is the globalization of that economy. We are no longer an individual sovereign nation when it comes to our economy, nor is any other nation. We are all now subject to the movements of the global financial, food, oil, and other markets. Can we actually live in a world and be competitive? Can our citizens, can our students be competitive in a world without that kind of global competence, realizing that they are not sovereign anymore?
Government transition-the transition we just had was an historic moment in the history of our nation, but to me the big transition was the peak of government intervention under the leadership of the person to whom this school is labeled, the Lyndon B. Johnson School, and from then on has been a retreat from that vision, that vision where government would effect and do things for people. And if you think about it, the last 35 years has been a movement toward the other pole of that, people working for themselves, somewhat more selfishly, but also more individually. The conservative parts of what Ernie Cortes talked about-individual responsibility, freedom, liberty, has been more important than the intense activities of government. And education, primarily, has been a government activity. But now we're talking private, we're talking voucher, we're talking market forces, and that's what educational leaders will have to deal with in the future, not being government officials, but being entrepreneurs facing a consumer market that has a choice. That's the government transition.
And finally, the transition of culture, of language, of norms, and that's where we come down to the other theme of this conference and ethics. The challenge is that the one value that the United States is promoting among any others, I would submit, unfortunately, is not justice, but freedom. And they don't have to be incompatible, but they are oftentimes taken to be that, and how does one project, how does one have an ethics in a free society? In a society that values liberty above all else, where does one find the common core of values, the common core of behavioral norms to suggest, to teach, and to enforce a system of ethics? I believe that in a free society it's a real challenge to have an ethical basis, because the person can say, "Hey, that may be your trip, but that is not mine, and I choose to be the way I will be." That's the challenge of ethical leadership. It's not just to get things done, but to get the right things done that are both good and moral and just inn a society that values individual freedom and liberty above all other values.
These are the trends that are going on today. Each one of them, I submit, is a major transformation. Now, none of these are surprising. We see them all the time. But if we were to appreciate that a leader today has to deal with at least this dozen or so things that are transforming the outside world, and then respond to those appropriately first by communicating them to the people, and then by sharing and suggesting responses. That's the way a futurist sees the leaders' challenge today. It's an enormous one, and I commend this school and this university for taking the time to point that up, because if we don't have educational leaders we will never have leaders that emerge from our educational institutions, and we will be doomed, as Ernie Cortes says, to be a group and a society of people who need to be taken care of, rather than those who take care of themselves.
As I said, to expand and to sharpen the images that I have laid out here, I have three distinguished panelists, each with a different perspective, and I'll be happy to introduce each one of them in turn. The first I'd like to introduce is Tom Abeles. Their full biographies are available in your packet. I met Tom a long time ago, almost 20 years ago when I first entered into the futures field. He gave me some good advice which I hope that I have filled out since then. Tom is a retired, tenured academic professor who is now a practicing consultant and businessman, so he's seen this educational leadership from both sides. He hails from Minneapolis, Minnesota, and he is also recently the newly appointed editor of a very interesting newsletter and journal in the field of education called, "On the horizon." Tom is the second editor of that journal whose purpose is to point out to educators what is just there on the horizon, helping them on a monthly basis keep in touch with new ideas and new trends. I think Tom's perspective on the context of future education is one reason, and is the main reason that I asked him to join this panel, and I look forward to his remarks.
As Peter said, I'm an ex-academic. I resigned tenure in 1976 and I figured I'm too young to work for a living. So I'm going to come at this a little bit differently, but I'm not coming at it as a consultant in this area, or as a consultant in the area of distance learning, and I'm not going to come at it as an ex-academic. I'm coming at it as the editor of On the Horizon, as Peter mentioned is the journal that I've taken over. On the Horizon was created originally by Jim Morrison at the University of North Carolina, published by Josie Bass here in the United States. It was primarily U.S.-based, primarily focusing on post-secondary education. Late last year, as an investment banker, and as a colleague, I helped leverage that publication out of Josie Bass into a new publishing house looking to turn academic publishing on it's ear, called Camford out of England in Cambridge, and we changed the focus. We changed that focus in two directions. First, it's my belief that the disciplinary world of higher education is coming to an end, that it's moving from disciplinary to transdisciplinary. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be disciplines, but the drilling down, and the ability to protect turf and to focus narrower and narrower on fewer and fewer things, getting more like the angels on the head of a pin. And with modern computing technology, the ability to do data mining, searching, as well as the ability to communicate with bio-computers on the Internet, as Peter mentioned, the ability to do transdisciplinary research and education within the context of the moment is going to dramatically change how people learn, how they demonstrate competencies, and what it is that they need to know. So one is we're going to see a tremendous shift in education moving from disciplinary to transdisciplinary, both in the research aspect and in the education aspect. K to gray.
The second issue is that we are widening it because the hegemony of the academic institutions as they exist today, as most of us here represent-or most of you, since I've resigned from that world, has been expanded. Corporate universities, many of which are certified at the same caliber of ability to offer a degree as the University of Texas, the University of Minnesota, are growing exponentially. Five years ago there were about 400, today there's 1,200. 2010 estimates that corporate universities, fully licensed to kill, are going to be over 4,000. That's roughly 25 percent more than the existing number of academic institutions today. The question one has to ask is, looking at leadership, looking at ethics, looking at programs they're offering-what do corporate universities who are licensed offer that they're not getting from the traditional academic institutions today is the question to ask, and how do you respond to that?
The second area that's moving into this is the private sector. The private sector is the private, for- profit University of Phoenix is the paradigmatic example, over 100,000 students. Campuses on six Sigma institutions, such as Motorola. Obviously they're doing something that people are accepting as correct, because the degrees are accepted. The other thing is, how many of you don't know what Yahoo is? Anybody not know what Yahoo is? Yahoo, on their site, said the best educational site on the Internet is Fathom.com. Fathom.com is a private, for-profit venture started by a small institution called Columbia University. We're starting to see medallion institutions doing coop-etition. That's Columbia, Chicago, I think the London, Cambridge- globally, forming ventures to work together. So you've got private, for-profit institutions, you've got universities that are doing private, for-profit education. You have to ask yourself what can a university that is so free can offer what it wants to offer doing with creating a private, for-profit venture? What is happening internally at the university that forces it to go outside of these liberal bounds of being able to create new knowledge to create new structures? So that's the second.
The third group in here is investment community. The University of Phoenix, last time I looked, its market capitalization would make a number of endowments at even big universities pale. So you have to ask yourself why...
...quality of affiliated institutions. The IAUP, the International Association of University Presidents, already has to establish a commission on global accreditation. So the 600 or so affiliated institutions are constantly looking at what is going to happen in terms of possibilities of gaining accreditation across borders. It's a very impressive growth also of international mobility, and that has led to the concern about accreditation internationally. A lot of the governments are still keeping the control of certification itself, of the professionals, when it comes down to the exercise of the profession. But looking at the accreditation of courses internationally, this is growing. This is growing very significantly and we believe it will continue to grow in the next decades. With the concern of quality also is another point, which is the concern for the pertinence of the contents of the curricula, and that is also a cause for concern with international organizations.
And then finally, something that would be connected to the main theme of this conference, and that is the ethical domain. Whether we accept it or not, one of the greatest challenges for our universities today and into the future is in the domain of values. This has already been mentioned also from the beginning by Peter. The former Director General of UNESCO, Mr. Frederico Mayor, indicated that the ethical dimension of the work of universities has particular relevance today in an era of rapid transformations. These transformations affect almost all aspects of our individual and collective life, and threaten to destroy the moral foundation that we need to construct our future. In other words, if we do not look carefully at the ethical dimension, this may cause our own destruction. In many ways, values are the most important mission for the future of higher education. The preservation of what would make our world more livable, such as the environment, for example, have truly advanced, among other values. Modern man, unfortunately, has lost sight of some of these values.
What are the implications for leadership? All of these developments and trends have clear implications for leadership, in general, and for educational leadership, in particular. In a globalized society and an internationalized university, the kind of leadership we need already in the present, and certainly for the future, has to have certain characteristics and certain skills. For one thing, leaders must be globally competent individuals as defined previously by me. Additionally, they must possess the necessary skills to handle information technology adequately, to carry out teamwork, to assume responsibilities or even risks. They must be open- minded, creative, and flexible, but they must, at the same time, be aware of the need to preserve and promote an ethical attitude in the exercise of their leadership. In steering the forces of globalization adequately, they must seek to maximize the benefits of globalization and minimize its negative consequences. In the case of leaders of educational institutions and associations of universities, they will face enormous challenges in the future. Certainly, to shape educational institutions in such a way that they are well-equipped to prepare individuals according to the future needs of our social and culture environments. This task includes the very important mission to prepare the future leaders of society as well as the future university leaders themselves.
Recently it was expressed at a seminar organized by the UNESCO in Columbia, in Latin America, in August last year, that universities have the obligation to contribute to the creation of our future, not only to foresee it, but to shape it, anticipating events in order to orient them, to make sense out of them, and not simply to let themselves be overtaken by them. In one simple sentence, we have the capacity to build our own future, and universities will be a very important element in doing so. Thank you very much for your attention.
Peter Bishop: Thank you very much Al, for reminding us that the boundaries of national and state to educational institutions don't apply anymore. The mission is global, and the students need to be prepared for a global society and the challenges that leaders of today are taking into account.
You've heard from an academic futurist who studies these things. You've heard from a business person who sees the educational enterprise as a corporate entity. You've heard from an international perspective, but we wouldn't be complete in our panel were we not to hear the words from somebody in the front lines. I don't need to refer to my notes here to introduce my good friend, Glenn Goerke, most recently President Emeritus at the University of Houston, Glenn was actually the president of four different universities, three of which were part of the University of Houston system, a small rural university, a suburban professional one, and the comprehensive University of Houston. Since retiring from straight-line academic administration, Glenn has pursued two different interests which are appropriate for our consideration here, the trends of future education. First of all, he's interested in the relationship of universities and the private sector, particularly business university cooperation, and consults with that around the world. Secondly, he is also the director for the Institute for the Future of Higher Education, and in that aspect considers further aspects of education throughout. I asked Glenn to be part of this panel and to wind us up with a view of the future of ethical leadership in education from the perspective of 40 years experience of actually leading and being a tremendous leader in education. Please, Glenn.
Stand up for a minute, please, and turn around and leave for lunch because half of you are already asleep and I'll lose the other half by the time I get up here. Now don't tell me I'm not a good leader. One of the great parts of being last is being last. Who said that? I'm going to try and bring us in on time. To do that I'm going to move around parts of my presentation and skip some things which would have kept us here until two o'clock this afternoon. Somebody said it much better than I ever could when they said, "The difference between leading and being chased can be four steps." And sometimes I think two steps, sometimes six, sometimes eight, and I think it changes from day to day. A good leader makes sure that that dynamic tension is already there and stays there. If you're not borderline being chased, it's time to join me in retirement, because a leader is also a challenger, and it's critical that that tension stay there. This whole topic is a very large one, very complex. I'm going to try in a short period of time to touch just one four ongoing transitions that I think relate to higher ed leadership today. And I'm looking at this from a perspective of a president of a public institution. Private institutions have in a different mix the same problems, but they are in a different mix.
The four things that I'd like to take a look at are generational differences, societal expectations, educational alignments, and learning technology. Doris [Kerns Goodwin] in her Leader to Leader book in 1998 said, "The art of leadership is to mobilize people to care about the tasks ahead." And what she said has an instant appeal when you read that, however, what is left unsaid in her comments are the issues of ethics, of the appropriateness of the task, and the definitions of mobilized and leadership, because the devil is certainly in the details of leadership. Thus, my discussion of the future of higher ed leadership starts with a sense of what that term means, and let me take the definition in the Kellogg Foundation's recent report, Leadership Reconsidered- Engaging Higher Education in Social Change. The authors, Astin and Astin say, "Leadership is a process that is ultimately concerned with fostering change, in contrast to the notion of management, which suggest preservation or maintenance." Leadership implies a process where there is movement from wherever we are now to some future place or condition that is different. Leadership also implies intentionality in the sense that the implied change is not random, not change for change's sake, but is rather directed towards some future end or condition, which is desired or valued. Accordingly, leadership is a purposive process, which is inherently value- based. The leader challenges, the leader guides, the leader is purposeful, the leader is informed, and the leader is good, honest, and open. However, all of these attributes beg the question of which value should guide the leadership process, toward what ends leadership efforts should best be directed, how one initiates change, and how leaders evolve, to name but a few. For example, every process in higher education is value-laden, from what counts is good scholarship, to admissions practices to course grading. The leader has to address those issues forthrightly and openly.
My colleague and I, when we worked on this paper, and in a larger format it's going to be published in the next couple of weeks, arrived at this juncture with what we called an untested observation. Together, we have 65 combined years in higher education, and literally thousands of interactions with presidents across the country, and I stand here today and tell you I see precious few leaders in higher education-precious few leaders. What I do see are people with excellent management skills, public relations and fund raising skills, conflict resolution skills, and with great import today, survival skills. What we don't see very much of is world-class leadership in the vein of Jack Welch, Bill Gates, Norm Augustine, Herb Keller, one of our own, and many others who have emerged in the past few decades outside of government and academia.
Now, I'm not going to stand up here and tell you I'm arguing for corporate leadership of the universities. I am not. I am, however, interested in higher ed beginning to spawn a generation of superb leaders in line with the attributes outlined by the Kellogg commission, and we'd better be about it.
Let me take a look transition and generations for just a minute. The first reality for every higher ed president is that his or her job is a collage of parts. Part leader, part manager, part functional, part symbolic, part internal, part external, part proactive, part reactive, part celebrity, and part every person, part giver, part receiver, part visionary, futurist, seer, and part anal retentive, crisis managing, mediative pragmatist. As we look at the trends in leadership, what intrigued me is not so much that the basic job is changing. It's not changing very quickly. But rather, the people whoa re assuming the jobs are changing. Gender-in '86 nine percent of university presidents were female, 16 percent in '95, 19 percent in '98. Moving up. Age-interestingly enough. In '86 the median age for a president was 52.7, in '95 it was 56, in '98 it was 58. Interesting trend line, isn't it? Ethnicity-in '86 eight percent of the presidents were ethnic minorities, in '95 eleven percent, in '98 still about 11 percent. Time management-what do presidents think they do? They reported they spent most of their time on planning, fund raising, personnel issues, and budgeting. And that's from a survey by AC, I believe, in '98.
Now, I've got all kinds of marvelous tidbits of data here because Peter told me you're supposed to do that at a futures conference, but what struck me most, I think, was the following five trends among many. The face of college presidents is not reflective of American society, but it is moving in that direction. The experience base is increasingly traditionally academic, although those who are academic have deeper faculty roots. Colleges and universities are now gravitating to older, more experienced presidents, although there are fewer of them. Presidents come to the jobs more confident as managers; they're less well-prepared in the areas that require leadership and vision. Presidents are further away than ever generationally, from the people they serve- students. Those presidents who are about 55 years of age and over come from a generation that Strauss and Howe, in their new book The Fourth Turning, call the silent generation. We're in between 1925 and '42 and I won't tell you which. This group was described as people who grew up as the suffocated children of war and depression. There are a few of us here.
Let's contrast that group with the fast-emerging boomer presidents, again from Strauss and Howe, the boomer generation are those born between '43 and '61-bask as children in Doctor Spock's permissiveness, suburban conformism, Sputnik era schooling, Beaver Cleaver friendliness, and Father Knows Best family order. Now, contrast the emerging leaders with the young faculty and the current crop of students. The so-called Generation 13's, those born between '61 and '81 who survived the hurried childhood of divorce, latchkeys, open classrooms, devil child movies, and a shift from G to R ratings. Now as generalized and overdrawn as those generational profiles may be, they offer a glimpse into a very real generational clash that higher education is facing and will face. There's going to have to be some real, real studied dialog across those generations to make things work comfortably and smoothly.
Transition of expectations-what we see are trends towards more schooling, but less engagement in the learning process. We see society viewing higher ed as a means to an end. We see more accountability and regulation, and concomitantly, less state support relative to the total cost of running a university. And like so many other areas of society, people want higher ed to be faster, cheaper, more convenient, more customized, and more user-friendly, to borrow a term from the PC world. That is both personal computer and politically correct. I'll use that in two places.
Transition of alignments-I talked about that earlier. In this context, alignment refers to the attainment of an entity's goals through the process of calibrating its various subsystems, such as the education, political, social, economic, technical, information-other subsystems within an institution. Therefore, alignment is the capacity to demonstrate a positive relationship between those various critical subsystems and accepted measures of performance. Operationally, the question becomes, how do all of these moving parts line up with the strategic plans of the university? We've got to spend a lot more time on that.
I tell people today that if they're going into a presidency they're about to become the Chief Executive Officer of an edu-info-tainment business. Educational institution, an informational institution, and an entertainment institution. Those of you who are presidents are nodding your heads-even some of the deans. It's a different, complex set of constituencies that we serve, our products are varied, and will continue to mount in terms of both complexity and numbers. Those subsystems and the languages of the subsystems increasingly make it difficult to lead. We have people on our campuses who speak business and industry. We have people who speak computers. We have people who speak a lot of things, and unless you get them all at the table and talk about where it is we're going, we can have difficulty and begin to come apart at the seams.
Somebody said recently that to achieve an appropriate alignment, that we need to change our metaphors. And it's interesting-shifts from the military, sports, and psychobabble metaphors of so many institutions to at least three different ones and new ones. Try these. First a neural biological metaphor: universities grow, change, breed ideas, and human ecological systems. They evolve. They concern themselves with cellular and molecular explanations of development, behavior and learning that are both intellectually satisfying and relevant to problems of human behavior.
Second, an architectural metaphor: universities design systems for thinking, living, interacting, learning, creating new knowledge, and manners of expression. Thus, it's important to recognize and appreciate the styles, fashions, functions, and human and natural systems interacting within the institution.
And third, and investment model: in simplest terms, universities invest their resources-people, talent, money, time, and culture to achieve certain desirable ends-returns on investment, capital improvement. No pun intended. These outcomes have internal consequences and they have external or societal consequences. Imagine how different university conversations would be today if we just shifted to those metaphors.
We talked a little bit earlier today out in the hallway about some of the changes that are about to take place, not only here in Texas, but I think throughout the country. Our governor-our new governor-we sent the other one on to get another job, you all remember. Our new governor is talking about giving students vouchers. Higher ed in this state has been funded on semester credit hours and a variety of other interesting gimmicks. If, in fact, we are now going to hand to a student a voucher to go anywhere they want to go, it's going to be a very interesting shift in budgets. It's going to be a very interesting shift in tier I institutions. How you remain profitable when your primarily thrust is not to get those vouchers. And if you're going to get the vouchers, you're going to have difficulty in terms of staying a research, way up at the top, where you do things at the level of sophistication that you may not benefit from by opening up an institution that's supporting 50,000 or 60,000 students. That's going to be fun to watch.
Technology-frankly, from a leadership standpoint, this one's easy. It's not about technology; it's about what we do with technology. That's trite, but it's true, and I don't have to spend 10 minutes saying that to you. It's what we do with technology. Unless we all become different enough to take off the competitive disadvantage that we're now in, we're in trouble. We can be a little bit like Phoenix; we can be a little bit like Motorola. How do I know that? Because if you go up to Motorola, you know who's there teaching? Us. Us. Why can we do it there and we can't do it at home? Some of those things need to be talked about.
I'm going to wrap up with where does all of it lead us? And let me conclude with a mention of but three of the many implications of this full report. I tried to select three in tune with the conference theme. Systems trend number one-the hyperlinked culture of the university. Everything relates in one way or another to everything else-technology, competition, changing attitudes and values, and an influx of brilliant and innovative entry-level personnel are changing the way universities operate. A hyperlinked culture involves empowerment-back where we started this morning-and faculty, staff, student involvement and decision-making. The basis for this concept is simple-many universities have or will have fewer faculty and staff and more to do. More involvement increases productivity and morale and reduces turnover. A hyperlinked culture also encourages building relationships with peers, leaders, and followers, internal and external to the institution. These strong relationships can't be overemphasized. Love for colleagues and the organization is healthy; it's not unhealthy. It's no longer acceptable for us to simply get the job done if our leadership practices stifle and fail to value our people. It won't work.
Systems trend two-sharpening the distinction between systemic problems and technical challenges. Systemic problems have no ready answers. For instance, low faculty morale or societal prejudice. These problems force us to examine, even change our values, use new strategies and learn new ways of doing business. Technical challenges tend to be more mechanical in nature-process improvement or payroll system retrofit. When systemic problems are treated as technical problems, the results are masked symptoms and little or no improvement to the root problem. In universities, for example, retention problems, a systemic problem, are often treated with a technical solution, rewarding successful recruiting efforts. A system view enables us to make the distinctions and to proceed accordingly.
System trend three-celebrating culture, personal growth, and the personality of the campus. The demographic societal alignment and technology shifts mean diversity in all of its many connotations. That will be the campus norm. Without a vision that includes inclusion, the concept of a learning community is hollow. A great vision appeals to core values shared by both the leader and followers and earns their voluntary commitment. The great presidents ensure that faculty and staff are properly trained to do their jobs, as well as assuring students receive an outstanding educational experience.
Joel Arthur Barker wrote about the business of discovering the future and he identified three keys for any organization, profit or non-profit, that wanted to participate fully in the 21st Century. Anticipation, innovation, and excellence-these three capabilities are necessary to gain a competitive edge in a highly competitive society, where frequent, intense, and rapid change demands quick responsive and agile leadership. Thank you.
Peter Bishop: Thank you very much, Glenn. I appreciate your rounding our panel out, because these are lessons hard learned over 40 years, and we appreciate finishing off with those kinds of perspectives. Our job is done. We've been asked by the Program Committee and by Dr. Prince to give you a view, our view of what is changing out there. Leaders, therefore, take that into account.
Let me end with two points. One, our charge was changed, and if you feel overwhelmed, we feel overwhelmed as well. Our charge was not to emphasize, was not to be balanced. We realize, as well as you, that many things do not change; many things ought not to change. This is drinking espresso in a big, big cup. It's a little bit strong, and I appreciate your patience with us. At the same time, this is also a little test of leadership. While initially overwhelmed, leaders are also energized by a panel like this, because people who want to create change, welcome change, because they see the external change as the vehicle by which they can implement the internal change. They can't promote change in a system that is so rigid and whose environment is static because there's no rationale. So we hope we leave you not only with some good ideas, and with some perspective on change, but also for the rest of this conference to say, "Hey, there's some opportunities here." We can start talking, we can start using, we can start tapping in to the pulsating world out there which is creating and offering for us, almost for free, the energy to transform our institutions to make them more effective and better places to live, work, and get an education. And that's where the challenge of leadership comes in, and with that, I charge and wish you the best for the rest of this conference. Most of us will be around for a while. We'd love to talk to you about these topics. Thank you very much.