CHE | Getty
Academic leadership — provosts and deans and presidents and chancellors — should not be exempt from scrutiny. It is commonplace for faculty to note and complain about the growth of academic bureaucracy, and they are right. There is no reason to think that academic leaders are any less subject to Niskanen’s theory of bureaucratic motivations and dysfunctions. They too may seek to equate staff growth with core mission or as central to the college’s strategy. But as with other administrative realms, staff growth — even among the upper echelons of leadership — is not core to a college’s mission and development, and as such it must take a backseat to the core functions that, via Baumol, define the special nature of a transformative education.