|
Page 1 of 2
3.2.5.1. Leadership
The current FU President – Prof. Dr. Lenzen - is perceived as someone who knows what he wants, as visionary and a as having a good feel for the press and politicians (FU management and administration 36). Lenzen, who taught at the FU since 1978 before becoming its vice-president (1999-2003) and then president in 2003, is known as a performance oriented and authoritarian leader, to the extent that some call it a presidential dictatorship (FU administration 19, in reference to: Kühne, 2006).
This is for example mirrored when observing the preparation for the Excellence Initiative. A “Special Squad” (Kühne, 2006) of confidants had been setup and is working extensive additional hours. The development is top-secret (“Reichs-Geheimsache” – FU management 28) and even the selected community that participates in the regular Monday breakfasts (FU management 27, Kühne, 2006), are restricted to a need to know basis. With Lenzen, the anti-authoritarian culture of debate has ceased to exist, and more traditional, ‘effective’ leadership has become the norm.
The president has a rather strategic and political focus, representing and lobbying for the university. Internally, the chief administrator (Chancellor) is the highest authority in charge of daily business. Both men are perceived as authoritarian leaders of change in their realms (FU multiple 23) and even though the institution has a bureaucratic committee architecture, they have – based on their extensive experience within the system - established effective ways to pursue their respective agendas. The relationship between the two has been described as good, pragmatic and utilitarian (FU Chancellor 24, FU management 25). The Chancellor himself described the collaboration as complementary; the president sets the vision and the chancellor implements the course and conducts the daily fire fighting (FU Chancellor 37).
While traditionally the Praesidium (the central administration close to the President) was a typical public administration institution, in recent years there is a more competitive and dynamic atmosphere. This has been attributed to the fact that the leadership of the FU has become more pro-active in lobbying and managing for greater efficiency. Even though the trickle down effects are slow in this environment, glacially- but surely, the winds of change are reaching all parts of the administration (FU administration 32).
3.2.5.2. Governance
In Germany, public universities have a ‘normalized’ [i] governance structure with an Academic Senate and a Council as central bodies and departmental boards with sovereignty in regards to academic matters as well as rather extensive autonomy in most practical matters.
Nevertheless, the FU has had a bustling and controversial governance history. As elaborated in the history section, the FU was created as an explicitly autonomous (free) university and because of the important role students played in its creation, they also had a decisive role in its governance structure from its very birth. For a relatively long period from 1969 till 1978, the faculty even lost the absolute majority in the main committees (FU web). This change is part of the first significant institutional reform [ii] which took place in the ‘revolutionary’ phase in 1969.
In 1998 the FU opted – after debate in the academic’s senate and through a decision in the council - to participate in a trial regulation program that is intended “to test new models of leadership, organization and financing, with the goal of simplifying the decision making efficiency, especially with regards to the acquisition of self-generated incomes” (BerlHG, 2003, § 7a).
The new governance structure gave clearer framed responsibilities to the vice-presidents and most notably eliminated the council, which was formerly the highest board, with its key functions being overtaken by an extended academic senate. Additionally the board of trustees witnessed a new personnel composition; now comprised of the senator for education, five independent eminent personalities, as well as four members of the FU, one from each stakeholder group [iii]. The new structure is meant to detach the board of trustees from daily business and cause it to engage in fundamental questions of strategy (FU, 2001, p. 12). Next, from this institutional change several committees have ceased to exist and responsibilities have been transferred to the presidency with the goal of enhancing the universities capacity to act (Handlungsfaehigkeit). The new model is still legally a trial, but has been positively assessed by an external expert group and is transferred more and more into official regulatory/law.
Accordingly, the leading political and practical role played by the students during the FU’s foundation was to organise themselves even before the official foundation and pass their statutes with their own autonomous voice. The statue provides for the institutionalization of students politics in the student convent (today student parliament) and the general student committee (AStA) as executive branch. Even though political interest and participation from students has slowed in recent years, there is still a rather well functioning and fertile practice ground for student self-representation at the FU.
--------------------------
[i] In fact legally defined through HEI law (Hochschulgesetz).
[ii] Also the administrative staff becomes more influence, and the election of the president and the administration of the departments is reorganized.
[iii] Students, professors, scientists, and other staff.
Users' Comments (0) 
|
|
|
