Title: Institutional success are measured by the reputation created by its Faculties not by its  Return on Investment     1. Challenge  Scenario: In recent times we have seen that there are Institutions, both promoters managed and  professionally managed, few are doing well while others have made a big mess which was  reflected clearly in the recent quality ranking which is actually depends on the Chairperson’s  Big Dreams and poor executions. In my state most of the Self-financing Institutions are family  managed with promoters being in charge of managing the Institution and only few are  professionally managed Institutions.   Family owned and promoter run Academic Institutions are playing a vital role in higher  education space for long term value creation in Tamil Nadu (India). We are witnessing a huge  difference in the style of management of our Academic institutions between the promoter  managed and professional managed, and many of these Institutions have had a mixed record in  attracting and retaining high quality Academic talents.   Inclusive of external professionals   Timing is an all important question. In the early stages of growth, too much management is  more dangerous than too little. There is some merit in living with some “chaos” and letting the  Institutions evolve in an ad hoc way. Yet successful institutions typically reach a point where  bringing in a different type of Academic talents is necessary to take the institution to the next  level.   The first step is for the promoter to realize that different professionals are required for the future  journey. Incidentally this is often the stage when an Institution progress is visibly slowed down  by the lack of formal structures, systems and processes. Going external might also be an  imperative if there is a sudden shift in the research domain and Accreditations which might  demand a certain set of skills that is not available in the current team.   2. Selection  The tool I selected here is “Learning launch”, according to our video lecture on this tool, we  need to have a hypothesis. Here my hypothesis is “Institutional success are measured by the  reputation created by its Faculties not by its Return on Investment”   Promoter managed   Since the promoters have their money invested in the institution they are more interested in  creating long term return on investment value versus the professionals who are more concerned  about short term profits because their remuneration and incentives are dependent on that only.  It is argued that since they have started the institution and withstood tough times to get the  institution to a respectable position they understand the culture of the institution better than  anyone else.   Professional Managed   Professional managers should be at the wheel of the institution say that promoters often lack  the specialized skills required to run an institution whereas professionals have better skill sets  to success-fully manage an Institution. They argue that promoters control the academic  democracy and are often dictate and tend to miss the opportunities because they don’t listen to  others   3. Application  A passionate workplace is a function of clarity of purpose and an empowering culture. The  essence is in how well the department and its heads have managed to inspire faculties through  their vision, how clearly faculties are able to see how their role contributes to department and  degree to which faculties are empowered to do their role. It is not just the promoter’s interest  but the work atmosphere and culture.

Faculty Participations   In the initial stage, faculties may have to adjust before being accepted into the system, but once  they succeed almost become innovators and creators in their own do-main.   As long as their results show up, faculties are successful. Good Institution does not look to  appoint just faculties but associates with multidisciplinary expertise and aptitude towards  Research activities. Decision making is faster in the successful promoter-led institutions. Once  there are clear positive atmosphere, faculties have the opportunity and freedom to think and act  as heads to drive growth   4. Insight  There are lessons can be picked from some of the successful Institutions, we have seen few  Institutions in my state they ran into trouble because of the dictatorship of those chairpersons.  And those successful Institutions appoint academic professionals those are better than them  and then leave them to get on with it. They also continuously look for people who will aim for  the achievements and not settle for the routine. However it is ideal to have the promoter has  the Chairperson of the Institution and he/she should be supported by professionals with diverse  skills because success of any institution not lies in ROI, it's about the reputation which created  by their faculties whom the institution recruits and retains.  5. Approach  Even this if this learning launch tool doesn't work, it was a learning experience, and I will still  apply it by designing the following framework:  Decision Making Framework: Role clarity alone is insufficient. Decision making clarity is  also needed. Who takes which decision and how? It is important to have protocols on areas  where the promoters will drive decision making and areas where they will support/endorse  decisions made by the professional. Only then is the Institutions ready to bring in an external  professional in a senior leadership roles such as Dean’s, Director’s and Heads of the  Departments.   There are certain competencies that are common to good heads, irrespective of the institutional  context – for example a strong drive for results, strategic thinking ability and the ability to lead  and develop a large department. However, over and above these general leadership  competencies, there are some traits that are core to Academic professionals who succeed and  thrive in promoter led organizations.


Title : Institutional success are measured by the reputation created by its Faculties not by its Return on Investment 1 . Challenge Scenario : In recent times we have seen that there are Institutions , both promoters managed and professionally managed , few are doing well while others have made a big mess which was reflected clearly in the recent quality ranking which is actually depends on the Chairperson ’s Big Dreams and poor executions . In my state most of the Self - financing Institutions are family managed with promoters being in charge of managing the Institution and only few are professionally managed Institutions . Family owned and promoter run Academic Institutions are playing a vital role in higher education space for long term value creation in Tamil Nadu ( India ) . We are witnessing a huge difference in the style of management of our Academic institutions between the promoter managed and professional managed , and many of these Institutions have had a mixed record in attracting and retaining high quality Academic talents . Inclusive of external professionals Timing is an all important question . In the early stages of growth , too much management is more dangerous than too little . There is some merit in living with some “ chaos ” and letting the Institutions evolve in an ad hoc way . Yet successful institutions typically reach a point where bringing in a different type of Academic talents is necessary to take the institution to the next level . The first step is for the promoter to realize that different professionals are required for the future journey . Incidentally this is often the stage when an Institution progress is visibly slowed down by the lack of formal structures , systems and processes . Going external might also be an imperative if there is a sudden shift in the research domain and Accreditations which might demand a certain set of skills that is not available in the current team . 2 . Selection The tool I selected here is “ Learning launch ” , according to our video lecture on this tool , we need to have a hypothesis . Here my hypothesis is “ Institutional success are measured by the reputation created by its Faculties not by its Return on Investment ” Promoter managed Since the promoters have their money invested in the institution they are more interested in creating long term return on investment value versus the professionals who are more concerned about short term profits because their remuneration and incentives are dependent on that only . It is argued that since they have started the institution and withstood tough times to get the institution to a respectable position they understand the culture of the institution better than anyone else . Professional Managed Professional managers should be at the wheel of the institution say that promoters often lack the specialized skills required to run an institution whereas professionals have better skill sets to success - fully manage an Institution . They argue that promoters control the academic democracy and are often dictate and tend to miss the opportunities because they do n’t listen to others 3 . Application A passionate workplace is a function of clarity of purpose and an empowering culture . The essence is in how well the department and its heads have managed to inspire faculties through their vision , how clearly faculties are able to see how their role contributes to department and degree to which faculties are empowered to do their role . It is not just the promoter ’s interest but the work atmosphere and culture . Faculty Participations In the initial stage , faculties may have to adjust before being accepted into the system , but once they succeed almost become innovators and creators in their own do - main . As long as their results show up , faculties are successful . Good Institution does not look to appoint just faculties but associates with multidisciplinary expertise and aptitude towards Research activities . Decision making is faster in the successful promoter - led institutions . Once there are clear positive atmosphere , faculties have the opportunity and freedom to think and act as heads to drive growth 4 . Insight There are lessons can be picked from some of the successful Institutions , we have seen few Institutions in my state they ran into trouble because of the dictatorship of those chairpersons . And those successful Institutions appoint academic professionals those are better than them and then leave them to get on with it . They also continuously look for people who will aim for the achievements and not settle for the routine . However it is ideal to have the promoter has the Chairperson of the Institution and he / she should be supported by professionals with diverse skills because success of any institution not lies in ROI , it 's about the reputation which created by their faculties whom the institution recruits and retains . 5 . Approach Even this if this learning launch tool does n't work , it was a learning experience , and I will still apply it by designing the following framework : Decision Making Framework : Role clarity alone is insufficient . Decision making clarity is also needed . Who takes which decision and how ? It is important to have protocols on areas where the promoters will drive decision making and areas where they will support / endorse decisions made by the professional . Only then is the Institutions ready to bring in an external professional in a senior leadership roles such as Dean ’s , Director ’s and Heads of the Departments . There are certain competencies that are common to good heads , irrespective of the institutional context – for example a strong drive for results , strategic thinking ability and the ability to lead and develop a large department . However , over and above these general leadership competencies , there are some traits that are core to Academic professionals who succeed and thrive in promoter led organizations .