Replacing the Australian National University vice chancellor is a necessary first step to rebuilding the reputation of the ANU and restoring its legitimacy.
That an investigation will be led into the corporate governance, leadership and culture at the Australian National University is a broader signal about how we govern our public institutions and why that matters for every Australian.
Given the scrutiny on ANU leadership, there will be many, and probably a vast majority, of university staff who would be relieved to see it result in the end of ANU vice chancellor Genevieve Bell’s leadership of the institution. Regardless of whether they think she was the right person for the job when she started, everyone hoped that her time at the top would be successful.
However, walking around Acton Campus this week, it’s nearly impossible to find anyone who thought the last two years had been a success.
But that relief should not slide into joy, let alone triumphalism.
First, there is a very human story caught up in the chaos. Even those most opposed to the VC’s decisions must recognise that she has a deep affinity for the ANU. To reach the very top of one’s professional career, and then face scrutiny in a job you have coveted less than two years into a five-year term, must be devastating.
No more devastating than being told you are being made involuntarily redundant – as many ANU staff have – as part of a change-management plan, of course. But devastating nonetheless.
The second and more important reason to keep the champagne on ice is that a change in leadership does not guarantee a change in policy.
Replacing the ANU vice chancellor is a necessary first step to rebuilding the reputation of the ANU and restoring its legitimacy. But it is not a sufficient step. If there is a change of leadership, there has to be a change in where the ANU is being led to.
“The first and most immediate change in direction should be to rescind all involuntary redundancies.”
There is much about the stated principles of Renew ANU that the university community can get behind. A public institution like the ANU does need to manage taxpayer money and student fees as efficiently as possible. One of the principles of Renew ANU is:
“The academic strategy and operating model must support research priorities, teaching excellence, and financial viability. Resources, funding, and workforce planning will be data-driven to align with student demand, research funding, and strategic priorities”.
We have veered so far from that principle that listing it on any ANU document at the moment is disingenuous at best. More accurately, it is pure gaslighting.
A principle like this wouldn’t lead to massive cuts in student recruitment and support, nor would it threaten the jobs of highly cited researchers or popular academics. It wouldn’t trim areas that generate millions for universities through public policy work, or lead to the arbitrary disestablishment of long-standing institutions.
Most importantly, an institution that respected its staff and its students would see involuntary redundancies as the absolute last resort, not the easy option. If we can’t tell future academic superstars that a continuing position actually means something, why would they come here and commit their professional life to the ANU?
A change in leadership creates an opportunity. But that opportunity only means something if it leads to a genuine change in direction. There is a change that needs to happen immediately, over the next year or two, and in the much longer term.
The first and most immediate change in direction should be to rescind all involuntary redundancies. Not just a pause, but a recognition that the premises and data used to support the vast majority of targeted redundancies were flawed. It will take time to build back the trust
and confidence of those staff who have been targeted and the areas in which they work. But the time to start is now.
The medium-term change in direction is to rebuild the university for the second quarter of the 21st century, but to do it properly. What would that look like?
It would involve a genuine, compelling vision for what we want the ANU to be – including the sources of revenue that will get us there.
The ANU should be completely open about its finances. This includes being clear and transparent about how budgets are set for colleges, schools and portfolios, and then adjusting those formulas where needed – and believe me, they are needed.
Governance reform
It would involve setting up good data and good systems before firing good people. And using in-house expertise in the first instance, rather than expensive consultants.
If, having done that, a restructure of colleges or schools or portfolios is needed, then a strong and compelling case should be made. If there are underperforming staff and areas, then performance manage. But don’t do it under the cover of change management, such language no longer convinces staff and students.
We need to start again on our journey to financial stability, but do it properly this time.
The third and most important genuine change needed, though, is governance reform. Bad governance is what got the ANU into this mess. Good governance in the long term is going to be what gets us out. Pressure for this is coming from government, as it should.
But ANU and ANU Council need not wait for that. Corporate governance principles are important reference points for a large organisation like the
ANU. But they are neither sufficient nor fit for purpose. The ANU’s role is to serve the public good through world-class research, teaching and policy engagement. Financial stability is important, but it is not an end in and of itself.
A university is not a corporation with lecture theatres and labs – it is a public trust.
There are several clear directions ANU governance should be taking, and that can be undertaken without waiting for government to intervene.
They include increasing the representation of student and staff elected representatives in decision-making, strengthening democratic accountability of council members and the executive, bringing executive pay into line with community standards, greater openness and transparency with council meetings and decision-making, and frequent independent audits of governance processes and outcomes.
Ultimately, why is it that the vice chancellor’s leadership is facing pressure? Is it because of a few poorly worded emails and a domineering manner in meetings? If that’s the only reason, then it is a pretty flimsy basis, and a change in leader is unlikely to impact on the staff and students that
much.
Or is it because she presided over a poorly designed, poorly delivered and poorly communicated set of change proposals that had real, demonstrable negative impacts on staff and student morale and wellbeing, and tanked the ANU’s reputation and standing among the community and its academic peers?
If it is the latter, then a change in leadership has to coincide with a change in direction, and a change in structure.
If governance and policy direction doesn’t change, it won’t matter who sits in the vice chancellor’s chair – the outcomes for staff, students and the public will be the same.
Nicholas Biddle is head of the school of politics and international relations at the Australian National University.
I mean. We have to choose this one yeah?