Higher education administration is a distinctive professional field — drawing on general management theory but operating within an institutional context shaped by academic culture, shared governance, complex stakeholder relationships, and public accountability pressures unlike those of most organizations. ED7855 develops the foundational understanding of how colleges and universities are administered, what theories explain administrative behavior and structure, and how effective leaders navigate the complex intersection of institutional mission, organizational dynamics, and administrative challenges.
Theories of higher education administration
Theoretical frameworks for understanding how higher education is administered
- Bureaucratic and rational-legal models: ED7855 examines Weber's bureaucratic theory as applied to higher education — the formal structures of authority, hierarchy, rules, and procedures that characterize university administration. While higher education is often characterized as loosely coupled (Weick, 1976) — with units that respond minimally to central direction — it also contains bureaucratic elements that are essential for compliance, consistency, and accountability. The course examines where bureaucratic administration serves higher education well (maintaining regulatory compliance, implementing governance decisions consistently, managing financial controls) and where it conflicts with academic culture's values of autonomy and peer authority
- Organized anarchy and garbage can theory: Cohen, March, and Olsen's (1972) seminal characterization of universities as "organized anarchies" — with problematic preferences, unclear technologies, and fluid participation — remains one of the most influential frameworks for understanding higher education decision-making. Their "garbage can model" of organizational choice describes how solutions looking for problems (available tools and programs) connect with problems looking for solutions in unpredictable ways during organizational choice opportunities (meetings, crises, planning processes). ED7855 develops the capacity to apply this framework to understand why higher education decisions often seem irrational by standard management criteria — and what this means for administrative leadership
- Institutional theory: Meyer and Rowan's (1977) institutional theory and DiMaggio and Powell's (1983) elaboration on isomorphism explain why universities so strongly resemble each other despite the diversity of their missions and contexts — coercive pressures (regulatory requirements, accreditation standards), mimetic pressures (imitating peer institutions to reduce uncertainty), and normative pressures (professional norms and training) drive institutions toward structural conformity. ED7855 applies this framework to understand why institutional change is so difficult and why innovative institutions face intense legitimacy pressure to conform to established practices
Leadership versus management in higher education
ED7855 develops a nuanced understanding of the leadership-management distinction — critical in higher education where the two are often conflated or where leadership is idealized at the expense of recognizing the essential contributions of effective management. Drawing on Kotter's (1990) influential distinction (management produces order and consistency through planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem solving; leadership produces change by establishing direction, aligning people, and motivating and inspiring), the course examines how this distinction applies in higher education contexts where administrative roles combine both functions in varying proportions. Department chairs are primarily managers with supervisory responsibility for faculty, course scheduling, and budget compliance — but they also exercise leadership influence over departmental culture, curriculum direction, and faculty development. Academic deans combine managerial responsibility for college administration with leadership responsibility for academic vision and external representation. Provosts exercise primarily strategic leadership — establishing academic direction, managing the president-faculty interface, overseeing the academic portfolio — while delegating most operational management. Presidents exercise leadership over institutional strategy, external relations, and governance, with effective management delegation being a critical presidential competency. ED7855 develops the capacity to identify when situations call for leadership versus management approaches and to exercise both effectively.
Institutional policies and procedures
ED7855 examines the policy frameworks that govern higher education administration — and how administrators develop, implement, and improve policies. Academic policies (admission standards, academic progress requirements, grade appeals, academic integrity, curriculum approval, general education requirements) reflect the institution's academic standards and values, require faculty involvement in development and governance, and have significant legal implications. Administrative policies (employment practices, financial management, facilities use, information technology, records management) reflect operational requirements, legal mandates, and institutional values. Student affairs policies (student conduct codes, housing policies, student organization recognition, campus safety) balance student development goals with institutional responsibilities and legal requirements. ED7855 develops the policy analysis skills to evaluate existing policies (are they achieving their intended purposes? are they equitable in their application? are they legally defensible? do they reflect the institution's stated values?), the policy development skills to design effective policies through appropriate stakeholder engagement, and the policy implementation skills to translate policy intent into consistent administrative practice.
Administrative challenges specific to higher education
ED7855 examines the distinctive administrative challenges that higher education leaders face. Shared governance: the formal and informal involvement of faculty in institutional decision-making (through senates, committees, curriculum governance, and appointment processes) creates a distributed authority structure that requires skill in building consensus, managing deliberative processes, and distinguishing areas of faculty authority from areas of trustee and administrative authority. Enrollment management: attracting, enrolling, and retaining students in competitive markets while meeting institutional mission, diversity, and net revenue requirements is one of the most complex administrative functions in contemporary higher education. Resource allocation: higher education's multiple revenue streams (tuition, state appropriations, grants, gifts, auxiliary revenues) create complex budgeting challenges, with responsibility-centered management and other resource allocation models raising difficult questions about institutional cross-subsidization and mission alignment. Accreditation management: maintaining institutional and programmatic accreditation requires systematic self-study, evidence collection, continuous improvement documentation, and effective engagement with accreditation visit processes. The course develops the administrative competencies needed to navigate these challenges effectively.
ED7855 assignments include administrative theory analyses, policy evaluations, leadership case studies, and governance analyses
Our higher education specialists deliver expert support for ED7855.
Get Help With ED7855
Administrative theory papers, policy analyses, leadership case studies, shared governance evaluations.
Place Your OrderView All ServicesRelated courses
Frequently asked questions
Shared governance is both one of higher education's most distinctive institutional features and one of its most persistent sources of administrative frustration — and ED7855 develops the understanding to navigate it effectively rather than simply resenting it. The principle of shared governance holds that faculty, administrators, and governing boards each have legitimate authority over different domains of institutional decision-making: faculty have primary authority over curriculum and instruction, standards of academic performance, and professional competence (hiring, tenure, promotion); the governing board has fiduciary authority over institutional mission, strategic direction, financial oversight, and senior executive appointments; and administrators manage the operational implementation of board decisions within the framework of faculty academic authority. The AAUP's 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities articulates this framework and remains the normative reference point, though its application in specific institutions varies enormously. In practice, shared governance is challenging for several reasons. First, the boundaries of faculty authority versus administrative authority are contested and contextual — curriculum decisions can have financial implications (expensive programs); financial decisions can have academic implications (faculty hiring freezes affect teaching quality) — and these boundary disputes generate persistent conflict. Second, faculty governance processes are typically slow and deliberative by design, creating tensions with administrative needs for timely decision-making in competitive or crisis contexts. Third, not all faculty participate equally in shared governance — a relatively small number of engaged faculty carry most of the governance work, creating problems of representativeness and burnout. Fourth, the growth of contingent and adjunct faculty — who often have no governance voice — creates a significant gap between the faculty who teach (many) and the faculty who govern (tenured/tenure-track, a shrinking proportion). Effective higher education administrators develop the relationship skills and process knowledge to work with faculty governance rather than around it — recognizing that decisions made through legitimate shared governance processes are far more likely to be successfully implemented than decisions imposed by administrative fiat.