industry & research campusreview. com. au
Toxic universities: Part 2
The rise of managerialism and academic capitalism in modern universities.
By Sarah Chua, Duncan Murray and Tricia Vilkinas
In our first instalment, we described how universities now operate along capitalist competitive lines, and have adapted their behaviours accordingly. Managerialism is the dominant organisational mantra, and the professoriate is increasingly directed to achieve corporate visions of the university as business. We proposed that this system facilitates and legitimises toxic leaders.
In Part 2 we present case studies to support our proposition. We should note that while the case study evidence we present is retrospective, and fully in the public domain, we infer from the examples to highlight how these situations may reflect the underlying existence of features of the three parts of the toxic triangle. However, we also note that not all leaders are toxic and that there is still power in the academy.
We mentioned in the last paper that for a toxic leader to arise, three components are needed: the leader, the followers who allow it, and an environment or system that provides legitimacy for toxic behaviours.
Let’ s start by considering this last point, a work environment that creates a context in which toxic behaviours are normalised and perhaps even favoured.
Michigan State University( MSU) has recently been the focus of substantial negative press due to the Larry Nassar scandal. Nassar was found guilty of sexual assault against girls as young as six, which resulted in a sentence of 175 years – to be served after a 60-year federal sentence. But how does this relate to a toxic environment at the university?
Disturbingly, reports have surfaced from a number of sources( including The Chronicle of Higher Education, ESPN’ s Outside the Lines and The Detroit News), that there were people at MSU who knew about allegations of abuse for more than two decades before the scandal publicly surfaced.
In addition, these allegations were not limited to Nassar, with many women coming forward with assault and sexual assault stories against star football and basketball players.
The US Department of Education had been investigating MSU’ s handling and reporting of sexual abuse cases since 2014, a fact the university has tried to suppress. A former MSU sexual assault counsellor Lauren Allswede, who resigned in 2015 due to her frustration over inaction, stated, " As a Big Ten university with high-profile football, basketball and hockey programs, they want to protect the integrity of the programs – don ' t want scandal, don ' t want sexual assault allegations, or domestic violence allegations … None of it was transparent. It was very insulated..."
Allswede’ s experience mirrors the reality of toxic environments described by Matson and Prusak( 2010). Rigid systems of managerial control result in only certain staff being listened to, with cultural and organisational barriers further delegitimising staff who do not buy into the corporate mantra.
The accounts provided by various sources suggest the environment at MSU appeared to legitimise and facilitate toxic behaviour. Still, MSU is not alone in this. The Penn State sexual abuse scandal is still salient in the minds of many.
So how does this relate to managerialism and academic capitalism?
Like most tertiary institutions, MSU had migrated to a managerialist structure, with greater authority for decision-making and control with the board of trustees, president and centralised administrators. Reduced state funding results in reduced involvement by the state in the business of the university. This creates an environment lacking external( state) regulation and reporting, removing appropriate external checks and balances.
Internal investigations, as per the many conducted by MSU, have a habit of finding little evidence of impropriety if the uncovering of said impropriety impacts on the bottom line of the business. Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser( 2007) argue the toxic environment is characterised by a lack of stability, a perceived level of threat, a lack of
16