A short story by Munshi Premchand, ‘Pariksha (the test)’ is about selection of an administrator (Deewan) for the State of Devgarh. An advertisement appeared in the newspapers that the State of Devgarh is looking for a Deewan, those who consider themselves fit for the job are invited to report – they will be treated as state guests and observed for their capabilities and character – it is not necessary to be a graduate. Several candidates reported.
One day there was a hockey match. In the evening all the players, tired during the game were returning to guesthouse. They saw an old peasant struck in a muddy drain with his cart. They ignored the person and moved ahead except one person who had injured his leg and was dragging himself slowly. He came forward to help the peasant and got down into the mud of the drain to rollout the cart with great difficulty. And he was given the prestigious job of Deewan.
Let us compare it with current advertisements for an institutional leader: Ph. D, 10 years of teaching experience as a Professor, publications in national/international journals…. Do we expect him to do research or teach or write papers, do they have time to do all this? Without research if somebody is publishing, he is publishing somebody else’s work. How about if the focus shifts to “a visionary digital leader who can connect with all stake holders – faculty, staff, students, parents and perspective students”.
Selection process: personal discussion/interview of 20 – 30 minutes, totally unstructured, unprepared selection committee. Whatever HR practices/tools should not be used are used in the selection process. How about having a structured interview with focus on what we precisely want.
The job description is hazy, the advertisement is irrelevant and the selection tools are inappropriate. It is happening even in institutions teaching MBA courses covering selection tools and processes.
Institutional leaders are real drivers of their institutions and higher education in the country as well as institutional rankings. The admissions in higher education – engineering and management are dwindling because institutions are unable to do value addition for meaningful employment. Who has to shoulder the responsibility?
MHRD continuously depends on UGC/AICTE/Institutional Leaders without realising that this is what has brought the higher education in India to its present state. MHRD is invariably asked for more money/resources and the resources are allocated to the extent possible. However, the results are not visible.
It is time to take bold decisions. Our institutions need ‘digital leadership’ to connect with all stake holders, listen in real time, listen through layers, scan the environment and share information.
MHRD need to realise that in the fast changing world, the rigid guidelines of AICTE are not working. It has to go for advice beyond the people who are constantly holding the higher education as unacceptable. Instead of common syllabus, we need to move for greater autonomy to our institutions. Instead of copying the west, let us remember that we have been world leaders in education and research. Let us be again what we have been and how we have been.