Skip to main content

We Need More Time! Breaking the Four-Year Barrier by Rethinking University Leadership Terms

Within the capitalist system, the functioning of the world can be broadly divided into two parts: those who 'give money' and those who 'receive money'. Employers provide wages to employees, expecting corresponding or, at times, greater productivity in return. Those on the receiving end get paid as a reward for the added value and utility they provide to those who give the money.


Consider the term 'draw' commonly used in a business environment, from this perspective. 'Draw', literally meaning 'a tie', represents a so-called 'honeymoon' period – a temporary phase where an employer tolerates the absence of corresponding returns to the resources invested, such as wages, training expenses, and employee benefits. This usually happens when a new employee is hired or moves to a new position.


It's evident that generating immediate results commensurate with the received wage is not an easy task, regardless of the organization or the rank and status of the employee. But what about universities? Specifically, how much 'draw' or 'time of patience' can be granted to key officers, including the university president, who as top managers, make crucial decisions every day?


In conclusion, it might be challenging to afford ample latitude. Their short term of four years certainly compounds this problem. It's intriguing to ponder how much 'draw' is permitted socially, and within the university organization system, after a university president commences their new term. This is not just applicable to the president but also other key positions in a university, typically assigned with very short terms of two to four years.


As the crisis of the higher education in South Korea’ becomes a reality today, and as the year 2023 witnesses the beginning of new terms for several university presidents, including those of Seoul National University and Korea University, the significance of the university leadership is immensely high, challenging to capture in words. 


Major issues in higher education, such as 'strengthening global educational and research competitiveness', 'reformation of higher education financial support system', 'increasing tuition and other financial reinforcements', 'competition for attracting domestic and foreign students', the 'humanities invasion by science and engineering students', and even 'ChatGPT', confront university presidents who embark on their terms with bold visions. These complex challenges need to be addressed from day one post-inauguration, presenting a formidable task indeed.


However, the time afforded to them is simply too short. Regardless of the process and pathway that leads to their appointment as University Presidents, the time they have to exert their leadership to its fullest extent for university advancement is typically constrained to a mere four years. Considering the 'draw' period, an unavoidable phase after the start of their term, and the lame-duck that gradually reveals itself in the fourth year of a typical term, the timeframe in which a President, as the topmost leader and decision-maker of the university, can effect meaningful fundamental changes falls drastically short of this. It begs the question: to what extent can the leadership of a president, who aspires to genuine innovation, impact the diverse constituents and stakeholders within a 'loosely-coupled' university organization in such a limited time?


Among opinion leaders who point out the issues with the fixed-term system for University Presidents, the most socially influential would arguably be former POSTECH President Kim Do Yeon, who served as Minister of Education, Science and Technology. It's worth noting that he recently announced a third term for the University President at Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, where he is Chairman of the Board. 


However, even without borrowing his view, it is apparent that the agenda of conceiving a roadmap for university innovation and development, setting stage-by-stage tasks to be accomplished, achieving them effectively by communicating with internal members of the university and key external stakeholders to build consensus, and mobilizing the organizational capacity, must be driven persistently with long-term vision and dedication. Regrettably, most universities in our country are stingy in permitting this 'long-breath leadership'.


The paradox of the 'four-year term for University Presidents', defined by the Education Civil Servant Act and the Private School Act of South Korea, reveals itself in two aspects. 


Firstly, even if a university leader has accomplished much and possesses admirable virtues and social respect, they must vacate the presidency not long after the 'draw period' has elapsed. It would be desirable if the subsequent President continued the policies and innovations of their predecessor, but sadly, we know from experience that such continuity is hard to come by in reality.


Secondly, if a president lacks the competence and character to sufficiently contribute to the advancement of the university, their tenure becomes a literal 'lost four years'. Some may retort, "How does someone without such competence and reputation become a University President?" but it's not uncommon to see instances where significant disappointment arises after they have taken the position.


If we review related literature published in the academic community of our country, it's easy to see that there is a dearth of works on university presidential leadership. There must be reasons for not choosing this as a research topic. I attribute the reason to the 'short term of the Presidency'. It's challenging to exert effective leadership that produces significant achievements within a short period of four years. 


Even if achievements exist, it's difficult to ascertain whether they are indeed due to a particular president's outstanding leadership. There's even cynicism to the extent that 'there's little a President can do'. The necessity is to establish a university leadership and governance system that allows those who do well to continue doing so, and those who don't to quit as early as tomorrow. This is a prerequisite for our country's universities to advance abundantly by setting grand visions.


With a desire to envision the leadership that will rescue my country’s higher education from crises, I exclaim: "We need more time to spend with our President!"


------------------------------

*Disclaimer

This content is a translation of an article originally composed in Korean language, which was published in April 2023 on the University News Network, a premier media outlet in South Korea dedicated to higher education. For the original article, please visit https://news.unn.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=544293

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Export of Education: Korean Universities' Path to Internationalization in post-COVID World

The COVID-19 pandemic has held sway over the globe for over two years now, yet the fervor of countless experts involved in internationalization at local Korean universities remains undeterred. In January, approximately 230 faculty and staff members from various local universities converged at the 22nd regular general meeting of the Korean Association of International Educators in Jeju. The gathering served as a platform for them to engage in fervent dialogues on innovation and development in international exchange, as well as the management of foreign student recruitment. This could be attributed not only to their concerted efforts toward internationalizing domestic universities, but potentially also to their experience working in American universities operating within Korea. The idea of 'internationalization' has entrenched itself as a top policy priority in our universities for over two decades. Despite apprehensions over rapid quantitative growth and the manifestation of uni

Beyond Traditional Models: Analyzing Tuition Policy Change with Brand-new Conceptual Framework

The university tuition policy is a critical issue from the perspective of "Who should bear the cost of higher education services?" It's a significant higher education policy intertwined with many societal interests and a political agenda, drawing substantial attention from educational policy authorities and the political realm. Research on university tuition fees has largely focused on the justification and development direction of tuition policies in terms of educational finance, social and historical interpretations, and analysis of tuition fee determination processes. Some previous studies have used the Multiple Streams Framework for policy formation and change analysis, but they generally rely on the traditional Kingdon model, resulting in a superficial description of policy change phenomena.  Efforts have been made to refine and apply these models in educational policy analysis, both domestically and internationally. This study combines the Modified Multiple Streams

10 Years of Incheon Global Campus: Achievements, Obstacles, and Future Prospects

In 2012, South Korea initiated a global educational hub called Incheon Global Campus (IGC) as part of government-led efforts to globalize higher education. This article explores the developments at the US campuses in Korea over the past decade. South Korea is globally renowned for its contribution to international student mobility, with roughly 200,000 Korean students enrolled in higher education institutions worldwide in 2020. Notably, the most popular destination was the US, followed by China, Japan, and Canada. However, this student mobility is largely outbound, with the number of Korean students studying abroad significantly outnumbering incoming international students. This has led to a substantial trade deficit in education. In an attempt to balance this situation, the Korean government, inspired by globalisation and international pressures, encouraged educational exchanges by setting up the IGC, inviting prestigious universities to establish campuses in Korea. This initiative ai