If we observe closely, many higher education institutions have suffered because they are unable to compete and compete openly. Lately, the competition has been ‘head to head’. Such a thing is inevitable. Competition is something that becomes a must in an era that is already open, flat, and globalized. This article will led you in understanding how to boost managerial capacity of university.
Today while reading this article, we can watch and read a lot of universities that compete to market or advertise their institutions to be chosen as one of the learning goals by our students who have just graduated from high school. We are also fully aware that the choice of the determination to study in an institution is not only determined by the onslaught of advertising and campaigns but much determined by the trust, reputation, and ‘brand’ of that institution. Our society is smart. They see those ads and campaigns as something part of ‘free market’ life that wants to capture their hearts. They also know that behind the ads and campaigns there are also ‘wraps’ or ‘packaging’ that are not necessarily by the promised content. They do all that because they do not want a ‘crisis’ in the educational institutions they manage. They had to fight diligently to promote their institution to ‘the number one.
But we also need to realize that everything is not static, silent, and final. There is always a dynamic movement. That’s what I often call change. Our educational institutions must always be ‘cared for’, improved, enhanced institutional capacity so that they can flexibly accept and deal with the change. We want that our educational institution can develop impressively, stay healthy, even if it is possible to continue to grow and grow so that he is not only good at playing at the local level but also he can play at a greater level. That’s why, for institutions to survive, in my opinion, the capacity of institutions must always be increased.
The question is through what can we increase our educational institutional capacity? The short answer I can propose here is our ability to manage educational institutions using change management models or methods. Change management I mean is our willingness (everyone involved in the organization of educational institutions) to start to improve themselves, organize ourselves, see the strengths and weaknesses that exist in our organizations and institutions. We must be honest and objective about the state of our institutions so that we can map out all the problems we are facing. Mapping ourselves. Determine our position within the overall context of our educational institutions. Then we also prepare ourselves to enter the competition, after improving in a planned, regular and consistent every weakness that we have.
The management of higher education institutions using a change management model may be easier to understand if I express the following question statement: Have the people who exist and are involved in our educational organizations changed? Is the way we interact — both internal and external— to develop our institutions has changed? Is it to fight in an open competition, the power we have today is strong enough to change? Is the technology we choose also in line with the changes? Have the ways we service have also changed? Has the look of our organization changed? Have the standards of production of our educational institutions also changed? Has the bureaucracy of our educational institutions also changed? Has the position of commitment to the achievement of our organizations and educational institutions changed? Has the way we manage our educational institutions changed?
If we simplify, the increase in the institutional capacity of the organization can be focused on three main elements, namely changes to institutional structures, changes in the orientation of individuals or people in a more advanced direction, and changes to functional specialization in the process of completing tasks and responsibilities. Structural changes for example can be done through formulating and rebuilding university institutions / higher education by the ‘brand image’ to be developed. Thus, there must be our willingness to let go of ‘outdated myths’ about fewer institutional signs that can give a positive image to the future viability of our higher education institutions. We must also be able to adapt to the integration of technology controlled by strategic institutions outside of us.
While changes in individual orientation are directly related to our cultural attitudes in the organization. We need a transformation of traditional attitudes based on unfavorable customs, customs, myths, or conventions to more rational, critical, clear, measurable attitudes with motives of acting to achieve the highest achievements. Aspiration of achievement, spirit to be the best, egalitarian spirit that should come to the fore. Such a spirit gives many opportunities for modernization processes in the improvement of our educational institutions. That’s the kind of spirit we have to build and increase its capacity.
In a more strategic language, educational institutions must always innovate so that the products they produce can still be ‘consumed’ by their customers. Prospective strategies do not have to be done by making new product innovations, but they can also be implemented with techniques to update their old products to stay in line with the demands of the times and the possibility of changes in the behavior of our customers.
Or maybe we can also do things differently altogether with strategies like the one above. We can also develop what I call socializing efforts. This effort is done by way of us together identifying and mapping our competitors. We gather as much information as possible about what we have, what is the power, what is characteristic, and what is the ‘core’ of the products of our educational institutions’ competitors. If we then feel that we can do the same, develop the same product, the same major, the same academic concentration, the same service—and then those same products can be developed prospectively—then we can also produce it. In this position, with full awareness, we are actually ‘laughing’ that our educational institution is considered enough to be the number two player. This position, theoretically, is not a problem. The sticking point is the position of our higher education institution in ‘number two’ which accompanies ‘number one’. We can defend our institutions as ‘escorts’. In such a position, our institution will still be maintained as an institution that is considered number two. This is the strategy that allows us to enter into the harsh currents of change and competition. The ability to place positions, by developing similar or similar institutional products, must also be the capacity possessed in the management of higher education institutions. Moreover, we realize that the educational institutions that we foster today still have weaknesses here.
The most conservative strategy we can also implement. We can ‘stand tall and stay’ on products that have traditionally been the powerhouse of our educational institutions. As such, we hardly want to launch new products. We don’t want to expand new majors, we don’t want to add new programs. We put ourselves as defenders or educational institutions that want to survive in the power of old products that have been built and developed. In principle, the development of this kind of organizational strategy is okay, but this strategy will only work effectively if at the same time our institution makes efforts to increase efficiency on almost all fronts. The popular jargon we repeat is efficiency, efficiency, and efficiency.
The choices towards strategy development as above, of course, must always pay attention to the vision and mission of the institution that we have formulated together. Because, building an organization is not only a matter of developing strategies, but also we have to strengthen the organizational culture. This organizational culture can be increased by paying close attention to the process of forming the organizational culture, the quality of people in the organization, exerting strong control over the formation of the organization’s culture through the construction of a more certain and measurable institutional system. If such things can be done patiently, diligently, and consistently, then we can expect that the management of our higher education institutions can improve significantly. “Go to our reason.” The reason is an important end.