1. Leading and Managing Research
Universities: Why we Need
Scholars in Charge
Dr Amanda Goodall
www.amandagoodall.com

2. My central argument is
If expert knowledge is the key factor
that characterizes an organization, it is
expert knowledge that should be key
in the selection of its leader.

3. My empirical setting
Research universities

4. Background
• In 1209, Cambridge University, one of the
world’s first universities, was established.
Nearly 800 years later, Cambridge
appointed its 344th and first woman Vice
Chancellor, Alison Richard.
• Richard is a distinguished anthropologist
who spent her academic career at Yale
University, where she left the position of
Provost to join Cambridge in 2003.

5. • A year later, in 2004, another very old
English university installed its 270th Vice
Chancellor, John Hood.
• Hood became the first head of Oxford
University (since the year 1230) to be
elected to the Vice Chancellorship from
outside the University's current academic
body.
• Hood, a New Zealander, is not an
academic. He spent most of his career in
business.

6. Why did Cambridge and Oxford
choose such different individuals to
lead their ancient institutions?

7. • The same year Alison Richard went east‐
bound, the Nobel Prize‐winning biologist
Paul Nurse left England to become
Rockefeller University's ninth President.
• He is not the only Nobel laureate or highly
cited scholar to run a top American
university …

8. – David Baltimore, Nobel & former President of
California Institute of Technology;
– J. Michael Bishop, Nobel & Chancellor of University
of California, San Francisco;
– John Hennessy, at Stanford, is a prominent
computer scientist;
– Robert Birgeneau, a Canadian who heads
Berkeley, is a top physicist;
– At UC San Diego, Chancellor Marye Anne Fox is an
eminent chemist;
– UC Irvine, a renowned atmospheric scientist Ralph
Cicerone was Chancellor until he left his position in
2005 to head the National Academy of Sciences.

9. The success of California
• California (population 36 Million) has
some of the most distinguished scholars in
the world leading their universities, and it
has had one of the best public university
systems.
• The success of UC is often attributed to its
founding President, Clark Kerr, who was
himself a distinguished economist.

10. My research question

11. Who should lead research
universities?
Good managers?
Good scholars?

12. Appointment of a Scholar on a Continuum between
Extreme Researcher and Extreme Manager
GOVERNING BODY
Long Term Strategy
IMPROVE RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
CHOICE OF LEADER ON CONTINUUM
Extreme researcher Extreme manager
Change in Research
Performance of University

13. Scholarship is not a proxy
• For management experience or
leadership skills.
• Most academic administrators in senior
leadership positions are tenured
professors ‐ led departments, run
research centres and laboratories, acted
as deans or provosts.

14. Key Findings
1. The best universities are led by top
scholars
2. Top scholars seem to improve the
later performance of their
university

15. The Research
• Two cross‐sectional studies
100 top universities and 100 business
schools
• Longitudinal study
Performance of 55 universities in the RAE
1992, 1996 and 2001
• Qualitative data
26 interviews with university leaders in the
US and UK

16. Stage 1 of research
Who are top universities
currently appointing as their
leaders?

17. How do we measure a top scholar?
By hand‐counting and normalizing
lifetime citations into a P‐Score
P‐Score = President’s lifetime citations
normalised for discipline

18. How do we identify a top university?
Academic Ranking of World Universities
(2004), Institute of Higher Education,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University

19. This study
Examines the relationship
between the position of a
university in a global ranking
and the lifetime citations of its
leader.

20. Conclusion 1
The best universities are led by
the most‐cited researchers.

21. A Cross-Tabulation of Presidents' Lifetime
Citation P-scores by W orld University Rank
(in quintiles)
Presidents' Lifetime Citations
(Normalized into P-scores)
1-20 2 1-40 41-6 0 6 1-80 8 1-100
University rank (1 is Harvard)

22. Is the Finding Statistically Significant?

23. Results of Cross‐Sectional Correlations of Presidents’
Lifetime Research Citations by University Rank from
Four Different Sub‐Samples
Pearson’s (1) Presidents (2) Female (3) US (4)Presidents
Correlation of top 100 presidents presidents from the rest
Coefficient universities (n=15) (n=51) of the world
between
(n=100) (n=49)
Lifetime
Citations and
Rank
0.344*** 0.690** 0.375** 0.140
***p < 0.001 **p < 0.01

24. How do US universities compare
with those in Europe?

25. Share of Nobel Prizes Awarded to
Individuals in Institutions in Europe
and the USA 1900‐1950

26. Share of Nobel Prizes awarded to individuals
in institutions in Europe and the USA 1900-1950*
USA
Europe **
* Nobel Prizes awarded in chemistry, medicine and physics.
** European Countries are: Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands,
Sweden, Switzerland and UK. Data from www.nobelprize.org.

27. As compared with:
Share of Nobel Prizes Awarded to
Individuals in Institutions in Europe
and the USA 1951‐ 2007

28. Share of Nobel Prizes awarded to individuals
in institutions in Europe and the USA 1951- 2007*
Europe **
USA
* Nobel Prizes awarded in chemistry, medicine, physics and economics (added 1969).
** European Countries are: Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands,
Sweden, Switzerland and UK. Data from www.nobelprize.org.

29. Number of Nobel Prizes awarded to individuals
in institutions in France, Germany, UK and USA
per decade between 1900 - 2007*
60
France
Germany
50
UK
USA
40
Number of Nobels
30
20
10
0
1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year
* Nobel Prizes awarded in chemistry, medicine, physics and economics.

30. Results
• The higher up the university is in the global
ranking, the more likely it is that the citations
of its president will also be high.
• In other words, better universities appoint
better researchers to lead them.
• US universities select more distinguished
scholars as leaders compared with
universities in Europe and the rest of the
world.

31. What the cross‐sectional correlations
tell us and what they don’t
Media‐generated league tables are not a
dependable measure of quality.
The findings do not prove that top scholars
actually make effective leaders.
Top universities and business schools may be
more likely to seek out top scholars as leaders,
and better institutions are also likely to be
more attractive to the better scholars.
Rational assortative matching.

32. The correlations may be explained through
unobservable heterogeneity.
Statistical coincidence of this time period?
Unlikely that the same result would occur in
both sets of institutions.

33. So what evidence is there
that scholar‐leaders
improve performance?
5 October, 2010

34. Conclusion part 2 of study
The higher a president’s lifetime
citations, the more likely it is that their
university will improve its performance in
future Research Assessment Exercises
(RAEs)

35. Longitudinal Study
– Panel of 55 UK research universities.
– 147 university leaders.
– Improvement over time in Research
Assessment Exercise (RAE).

36. Results
First, the correlation exists in raw
longitudinal data

37. Universities that Improved the Most in the
RAE Between 1992-2001 Were Led by Vice
Chancellors With Higher Lifetime Citations
(n=55 universities)
14
The Mean Lifetime Citations (normalized into P-scores)
12
of Leaders Between 1992-1996
10
8
6
4
2
0
5 Most 5 Least 10 Most 10 Least
Improved Improved Improved Improved
Universities Universities Universities Universities

38. I used multiple‐regression
equations to identify a causal
association.

39. What is the size of the effect of P‐score?
A hypothetical 1 point move up in a
president’s P‐score is estimated to be
associated with 0.4 extra top
departments in 2001
0.3 extra departments when other
variables are included
NB: Mean P‐Score = 5
Mean University Performance = 7

40. Checking Robustness
1. Does this test ‘favour’ institutions that have
further to move?
A check for this is to include a variable
controlling for an institution’s original
position. The main finding is robust to the
inclusion of this variable.
Therefore, institutions that improve the most
appear not to be doing so merely because
they had the furthest scope to change.

41. Checking Reverse Causality
2. Are today’s leaders not merely a reflection of
yesterday’s performance?
Checks for reverse causality done in the
equations by introducing a series of lags.
Second test (spirit of Granger causality).
When leaders’ P‐scores in 2001 are regressed
on universities’ RAE performance in 1992
there is no statistically significant
relationship.

42. Why Might it Matter if a Leader
is a Top Scholar?
Four possible explanations arose
from interviews with 26 heads in
UK and US research universities.
Part 3 of the study.

43. Explanation 1
A leader must be credible to
followers. An accomplished
scholar appears more credible,
which enhances a leader’s
influence.

44. “The rationale for ranking academic
excellence very highly is the enormous
importance we place on the president
having the respect of the faculty. Without
that, it is very difficult to lead a research
university.” Shirley Tilghman, President,
Princeton

45. Explanation 2
Leaders with high technical ability
have developed expert knowledge
about the organization’s core
business ‐‐ research and teaching.

46. “A leader who is an academic helps to
mobilize people. People are much more
important in academic institutions than
conditions. Everything in a university
flows from the academic value of
faculty.” Anthony Giddens, former
Director LSE

47. Explanation 3
It is the responsibility of leaders
to set the academic standards.

48. “Leaders are the final arbiters of
quality. Therefore it is right to expect
the standard bearer to first bear the
standard.” Patrick Harker, former
Dean, Wharton School

49. Explanation 4
Selecting a top scholar to lead a
research university sends out a
signal about priorities.

50. “Being a researcher sends a signal to
the faculty that you, the president,
share their scholarly values and
general understanding. It also sends
an internal signal to colleagues that
research success in the institution is
important.” Amy Gutmann, President,
University of Pennsylvania

51. An important consideration
• There must be a strategic fit between
the leader and the organization.
• This means there is no point putting a
Nobel Prize winner into an institution
that sees itself as predominantly a
teaching university.
• The head must be able to relate to his
or her core workforce.

52. What effect might scholar‐
leaders have on faculty and
university strategy?

53. What is the core business of
a research university?
1. Research and teaching.
2. The core workers are faculty.
5 October, 2010

54. The conditions under which
core workers will flourish
If a leader has prioritized research
all their life, they may know the
best conditions under which other
scholars will develop and prosper.
5 October, 2010

55. Managerialism in UK universities
Between 2004 to 2009 ‐ the number
of managers rose by 33%
Academic staff up 10 %
Students up 9%
(Source: UK Higher Education Statistics Agency).
5 October, 2010

56. To change a university you need
to change people’s incentives
• Don’t use managerialism (box
ticking) to change behaviour ‐‐ use
incentives.
• Managerialism breaks down trust.
5 October, 2010

57. Thank You
This work appears in the book
‘Socrates in the Boardroom’ published
by Princeton University Press, 2009.
Papers: www.amandagoodall.com
Email: amanda.goodall@wbs.ac.uk