AUTONOMOUS institutions aim to have the flexibility to make decisions and steer the institutions through ever-changing situations. These situations can be administrative, financial or academic. Effective leaders plan and assess the risks of potential actions to meet institutional goals. Universities are autonomous because professors and other stakeholders work together to address societal and market challenges. However, in most cases, the reality differs. Various stakeholders influence the institutional bodies to make these institutions as ‘see me’ autonomous. I have intentionally used the word ‘see me’ which means look at my wish or desire first or get my blessings first and then act.
It also shows people in power want to see every move in the institutions according to their desires and wishes. It reflects that the decision-making of higher education institutions (HEIs) lies with individuals who want to make right or wrong decisions without following set procedures. The semi-autonomous universities become a liability to the Government overtime. Such organizational behaviour occurs due to regional or national interference in routine operations and it leads to directionless systems that cause gradual decline, eventually making institutions dysfunctional.
Institutional autonomy means having the freedom to govern independently without external control over institutional structures whereas in our case professional programs are governed through councils, the Centre of Excellence is independent within University, and Chairs have the political, religious or cultural style of working. The interference of various individuals, institutions and groups makes a complex system that is difficult to govern. On the other side, autonomy allows institutions to be agile and quickly adopt policies, resources and programs to meet emerging needs. For example, a university could swiftly launch new majors or research centres to prepare students for growing industries and businesses. However, complete autonomy is rare, as Institutions usually operate within a complex framework of stakeholders like governing boards, regulators, funding agencies and many more. Excessive stakeholder control limits agility.
In such a complex system, the stakeholders i.e. Administration, BoG members, Faculty and regional individuals often influence the decision making which distracts the institution’s direction and resultantly it becomes directionless. This fragmented way of governance limits the progress in terms of academic and research work, especially in the long term, the universities become a useless entity. On the other hand, involving stakeholders in every decision-making sacrifice timeliness and innovation in various tasks. Influential stakeholders may force compliance with conventional thinking rather than empowering exploratory initiatives. For instance, university administrators may feel pressured to offer traditional disciplines instead of trailblazing ones to satisfy accreditors and governing entities. However, playing it safe squanders opportunities to lead with novel academic programs that address modern student and societal requirements.
It is observed that too much external involvement in institutional decision-making as well as in operations develops a toxic culture of dependency and inaction within different organs of the institution. Gradually, institutions become incapable of making even minor decisions without the blessing of higher authorities or powerful individuals. This tendency signals a troubling loss of autonomy and strategic direction of the institution, the working of the institution is paralyzed. Although, it assesses risks but fails to ever enact change due to the complexity of the approvals involved in the system. Such a working style stops progress and institutions gradually slip into maintenance mode, merely maintaining day-to-day operations rather than innovating for the future.
For universities, intensive regional, state or national level involvement in their businesses violates academic autonomy. It undercuts professors’ academic freedom to teach and research topics in the manner they deem which ultimately affects most academically rigorous and relevant topics. Restrictive policies treat professors like cogs in a machine expected to conform to uniform standards rather than as specialized experts training the next generation of leaders in their disciplines. Academically disempowering professors impairs universities’ ability to nimbly evolve teaching and learning.
Excessive external control breeds an institutional culture of compliance where success is determined by the satisfaction of bureaucratic metrics, not by upholding stakeholder values. Learning becomes teaching to rigid standards rather than nurturing students’ critical thinking skills. Research narrows to safe, fundable topics instead of illuminating new frontiers. Policies emphasize containing costs instead of strategically allocating resources to fulfil the organizational mission. Soon, checking the boxes to keep authorities satisfied overshadows genuine commitment to stakeholder needs.
Maintaining institutional health requires judiciously balancing external involvement with internal autonomy. Stakeholders should actively collaborate to shape an aligned strategic direction while empowering institutions to independently execute day-to-day decisions. For universities, regional and national entities could provide broad oversight while granting flexibility for localized innovation. Leaders must proactively communicate how institutional programs deliver value to stakeholders rather than passively reacting to external requirements. A dynamic equilibrium between external collaboration and internal autonomy fosters agile, resilient institutions capable of evolving to future challenges.
The path to institutional strength begins with leaders who embody purpose-driven autonomy. The universities can provide an interface with stakeholders to be solution providers and gather wisdom. They must rely on their own strategic vision for achieving excellence in their area and to guide the other institutions. The leaders at higher education institutions are not constrained by convention. They spearhead proactive change, communicate persuasively and build a culture of empowerment. With an empowered culture that retains autonomy while considering external perspectives, HEIs can tackle emerging challenges creatively. Trailblazing leaders who skilfully balance external collaboration with internal freedom keep institutions productively moving toward their intended purpose.
—The writer is Director at Higher Education Commission, Islamabad.
Email: [email protected]
