Few of us would argue that addressing the challenges we face today as a nation – a recessive and stalled economy; aging and crumbling infrastructure; declining health and increasing healthcare costs; waning educational and manufacturing competitiveness; and progressive moral breakdown – requires new thinking, novel approaches, and innovative strategies.
To paraphrase a quote attributed to Albert Einstein…insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
But how do we, as an organization, ensure that we develop new approaches to old problems, modern solutions to age-old challenges…and more importantly, new strategies to overcome solutions we have yet to face, or needs we have yet to even identify?
Our people, of course, are our most important asset to finding these answers. And we are in the midst of a tremendous recruitment drive… finding new leaders for new positions….recruited from within…. and from without.
But which people are best to face our challenges? Those who are knowledgeable of the issue? Those who have been working (or at least facing) the challenge for some time? Or those who are new to the problem, who face the issue for the first time…perhaps with limited knowledge or understanding?
There is clear value to the insider. The insider often has a good grasp of where things are, of who matters, of what is hidden in closets and under rocks, of where the traps may lie. The insider often has demonstrated experience or at least knowledge of what the situation is and how we got here. And the insider often has demonstrated lasting power. All invaluable to an enterprise, a university, a city, a state, as it tries to figure out how to move forward, to ensure its continuing growth, excellence, and value.
However, I would also argue that the outsider… often with more limited information, generally unburdened by all the details of our past, by the minutiae of past lives… is a critical asset to facing the future. And most importantly to finding solutions to old (and new) problems.
Outsiders bring in fresh, eager eyes, new perspectives (like those optical games where one person sees a vase while another sees two faces), new ideas, new experiences, new approaches, new hope. And best of all…Outsiders don’t know it can’t be done. They just say… “Why not?”
The danger to overreliance on insider knowledge, or thinking that insider knowledge is always superior to knowledge possessed outside the organization is that it can lead to stagnation and missed opportunities. No one today would consider Apple a staid company, but that is what it was in the early 1990s when management lived in an insular world.
Of course, we should ensure that the outsiders we bring into the enterprise are fully informed, that they are protected, that they know where the pitfalls are, and where the bodies are buried. But we also should be careful to say “This is your challenge. Go and find a solution.” Because if the goal is a good one, then their (and our) job is to find a way to get there.
There is great value to understanding our history, the “How we got here” if you would. For the path to the future is guided (but not determined) by where we have been. But it is also critical to value the most important outsider asset: Novel thought.
While at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, one of our nation’s premier academic medical centers, I recall how hard we tried to ensure that we maximized the value and return on investment from individuals that were new to our institution – the people that we worked so hard to entice, recruit, and sign. Because we knew that they could often figure out a way to address problems we thought were insurmountable, or we had lost hope of resolving, or we had run out of spirit and energy to tackle.
And we also knew that once they became fully integrated into the system, they would also begin to see the challenges and problems as we saw them … and their value as critical problem-solvers, as ‘out-of-the-box’ innovators, would begin to diminish. And we even had a name for what was happening to them … they were becoming “Cedarized.”
We work hard to recruit the best and brightest. And yet, in the same breath, we work that much harder to ensure that they think like us. Often communities (and I use this term loosely to refer to all our constituencies we serve – patients, faculty, scientists, students and everyone in the cities we serve) work hard to assimilate outsiders as rapidly as possible, as if to protect them from harm. This is considered a good thing. A friendly thing. A hospitable thing.
However, as we do this we need to ensure that we do not “Cedarize” them too quickly and too completely, for we will begin to lose the value of our investment. Because we do not hire leaders and experts (generally) to tell us that our problems are insolvable, that our past failures will continue, and that there is no hope. We hire them to innovate, and we shouldn’t automatically discount their ideas once they become insiders.
To do that would be – to use another example from the business world – Xerox, circa 1970s. While the company’s management was focused on benchmarking the activities of its competitors, it failed to commercialize the discoveries of its own researchers, whose technologies included the Ethernet, the mouse and word processing software. All of those, as we know, were profitably developed by other companies and are still used today.
Clearly, maximizing the value of our recruitments and our leadership is simply good business. And I can suggest two ways that we can do this:
First, it is fine to tell new leaders about the successes – and failures – that transpired before their arrival. They need to know. But we should not tell them what can’t be done. Their job is to figure out a way to get it done. That’s why they are here.
Secondly, when you are too close to a problem you think is insurmountable, always be sure to ask yourself, “Am I assuming this can’t be fixed, because of what I believe? Should I get a fresh pair of eyes to look at this?” Because it may be possible that an outsider’s perspective can find the way.
We work hard to attract new leaders to our enterprise to ensure that it grows to provide greater value and impact to the state. Some of these professionals are recruited from outside our community, some were here once and are now returning, and others who have been with us a while are assuming completely new roles in our midst.
And so, let us always keep in mind that as we develop these new leaders, we should recognize that one of their principal values, and one of our critical assets, is their role (transient as it may be) as an “Outsider.” Let us embrace, foster and support their novel perspectives, thoughts, and solutions. Let’s not rush to “Cedarize” them.
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Woodrow Wilson
(1856-1924)
As we continue to move forward with the ASU-GHSU consolidation, two of the most common questions asked are“How will we be different” and “How will we change”? And the short answer is, of course, that none of us can foresee how we will change; none of us has the ability to see into the future.
And, of course, many things will not change. Our focus on educational quality, excellence, and success; our aim to retain affordability; our emphasis on transparency, inclusiveness, and fairness; our drive to maximize local, community and state value; the high value we place on the liberal arts; our goal of growing our research and discovery efforts; our obligation to be prudent stewards of state and philanthropic resources; our objective of providing excellent and cutting edge clinical care; and our desire to provide and coordinate access for those local students not fully prepared for university life. These and many other things will not change.
But it would be disingenuous not to recognize that number of changes, large and small, will occur as we become New U. The transformation is great and so will be some of the changes. Let me try and highlight some of the higher-level differences we may see.
- We will be a completely new comprehensive research University… and we will have to act like one. First and foremost, we must recognize that despite how much some want things to remain as they were we will be a completely new university. A comprehensive research university with an aligned and integrated health system. One university. There will not be us and them… or here and there. We will be one faculty, one staff, one student body, one university.
We will not be an overgrown GHSU, solely focused on the health care professions and health-related sciences. We will also encompass and value the liberal arts and humanities, the education and business professions, STEM education, and the many other disciplines that we have yet to identify and bring to our new university, in the near and far future.
And we will not be an overgrown ASU. So we cannot expect to solely focus on attracting and serving local students. Nor on simply emphasizing undergraduate studies at the exclusion of graduate pursuits. Nor can we shun research as if it was a foreign element in education and in university life. Nor will we be able to expect the same level of intimacy that has existed on the campus for so long.
We will need to act like the much bigger comprehensive university we will be, with state and national relevance, competing with national peers. For as we have noted before, it is our competitors who make us who we are, define us and drive us to excel, help us be ready and prepared to succeed when new challenges emerge… And our competitors will be nationally ranked Top 50 universities… Nothing less.
- We will be more fluid and change-oriented. To survive we will have to adapt. And that means having the ability to devise new approaches and new paradigms to address the many challenges we do and will face. No longer can we assume that we are somehow magically insulated from the outside world.
And the rate of transformation will initially have to be very high, driven by our need to tackle the many and growing number of issues that must be addressed as we consolidate… But even after this initial period of consolidation we will have to be persistently fluid, continuously adapting to an ever-changing environment.
To be clear, this is not about remaining flexible so that the external winds of change can bend us without breaking us. This strategy is about proactively seeking new paths, about learning to swim upstream against strong currents and endeavoring to ride the high currents of change as we steer over treacherous and uncharted waters. And as much as it seems impossible, we will need to learn to not only accept but to seek new developments and continued transformation.
- Pace will matter… and it will be fast. We will not have the luxury of assuming that somehow the speed at which time ticks is set by us, that somehow if we move slowly so does the rest of the world. The pace of our response and our implementation will have to match… no, actually it will have to exceed… the pace of our fastest competitors.
The swiftness and direction of our response will be molded by our need to deal decisively with a myriad of forces of all stripes, local, state, national, and global … In education, in demographics, in job market, in economy, in healthcare, in the liberal arts, in research and scholarship of all types, in science, in funding, in the political process, and so on and so forth.
Pace matters. It matters greatly. We cannot afford to be slow on the uptake, because in this environment we will simply fall further behind.
We will always get it right the first time? No. But we can reassess, and correct and adjust if necessary, as we continue the iterative process that is the creation of a new university. The fear of making mistakes should not paralyze us into inaction; it should simply force us to carefully assess all available data at the time and then, as all leaders should, make a decision. This is what I mean by ‘sculpting in clay’ – the phrase I chose as the name of my blog. We have to strike a balance between progress and perfection as we advance the great volume of work before us.
- We will need to increase our emphasis on leadership development and responsibilities. We will be a billion dollar enterprise, with more than 1,000 faculty, almost 10,000 students, over 10,000 employees, and half a million patient visits yearly. While ‘shared governance’ (more on that later) will continue to be key, decisions will have to be made… and made in an efficient, nimble, and timely manner. We will have to strive for transparency, although the need by some of exhaustively seeking complete consensus at every turn will simply not be possible.
Leaders will have to assume the full responsibility that they are given, a duty that they cannot and nor should they eschew nor shirk. Leadership development will be de rigueur. While the aptitude to lead may be inherent, the skills for leadership are learned. Choices will have to be made on the best data available at the time and with the greatest degree of engagement possible. That is the value and obligation of leadership.
Do not get me wrong. Leadership is not about titles. Leadership is a quality that all of us, faculty, staff, student, administrators, and managers, can and should demonstrate. But we should also recognize that leadership is not about being loud and obstructionistic. Leadership is not about trying to preserve “my current way of life”, “my own status”, or “my own objectives”. That is not leadership. That is self-preservation. That is self-interest. And there simply is no place for that in our new university.
Leadership is about understanding and trying to envision the challenges and conditions ahead and then identifying paths that lead us and, more importantly, others to a better future. Leadership is something we should expect from all members of this, the most enlightened institution of society… a university. Leadership is about being part of the solution… not part of the problem.
- We will be growth-oriented. Last but not least, we will have to focus on growing our new university. With regard to our consolidation, 1 plus 1 will not equal 2. 1 plus 1 must equal something much greater. We are not bolting on one university to another. This is a true consolidation, a true transformation. Staying the same is not an option. It will only ensure we get smaller, lose relevance, lose competitiveness. In fact, staying the same will have to be determinedly avoided.
To compete with the great universities of our state and our nation we will have to attract more students by offering more programs… in breadth, depth, and strength, by recruiting more faculty and staff, and by building more facilities. While we will be able to grow modestly with the same number of faculty, staff, programs, and facilities we currently have, growth will be limited and certainly not transformative. And as we grow and recruit new staff, colleagues and leaders, they must believe, as we do, that we are building the next great American university.
So how will we change? In a nutshell, we will be a completely new comprehensive university, competing with peers in the state and beyond, acting like the great American institution we will be, adapting and accepting of change, responding rapidly and decisively, emphasizing the training and responsibility of our leaders, and focused on growth and development.
Fear of change is rooted in the fear of the unknown and in the fear of the possible loss of status and privilege, of comfort and security, of the expected and the routine. And yet the opportunity the future now holds for us is extraordinary – a truly once in a century chance to create a lasting contribution to the education and welfare of Georgians and the nation, a chance that will enhance not only our community and our state, but the personal growth and development of all us. Let’s seize it.
On Thursday, April 12, I invited Georgia Health Sciences, Augusta State University, and the community at large to share suggestions for the name of our new university. Within the first 24 hours, more than 550 people had shared their thoughts – most submitting more than one name. According to the count we made right before posting this blog, nearly 950 individuals had submitted more than 1,100 ideas for our new university’s name – and the suggestions keep coming in. If you haven’t weighed in, please do so at asughsu.org/name
There are many approaches to naming universities. According to research conducted by communications expert D.F. Treadwell, categories of institutional names generally fall into four categories:
- Proper – based on the names of specific individuals
- Aspirational – suggesting a goal or a level of performance
- Geographic – reflecting a location or a geographic feature
- Governmental or public – suggesting a state, federal, or municipal institution
Treadwell’s research suggests that proper and aspirational names resonate the most with prospective students. We want a name that will resonate with prospective students and also with our faculty peers at other research universities across the state – a name that will capture the imagination and interest of our many stakeholders.
Naming the university after a philanthropist who recognizes the power and longevity of universities, and who chooses to invest in the future of the university may be the ideal manner in which a name should be chosen. It represents the ultimate win-win-win. A win for the philanthropist and his or her legacy, a win for the university… and most of all, a win for our students, past, present, and future.
In 1718, a wealthy merchant donated nine bales of goods, 417 books, and a portrait of King George I to a small school in New Haven, Connecticut. That merchant was Elihu Yale and the university that bears his name is widely recognized as one of the most prestigious colleges in the world. Similar stories are part of the histories of Duke University, Stanford University, Johns Hopkins University, Vanderbilt University, and so many other great institutions of higher learning.
And nearly 275 years after Elihu Yale’s gift, industrialist Henry Rowan and his wife donated $100 million to Glassboro State College in 1992, then the largest gift ever given to a public college or university in the history of higher education. Today the school is known as Rowan University in recognition of its benefactors’ generosity.
For the philanthropic community, the naming of our university represents a unique –once in a century – opportunity. For our new university, when consolidation is completed, will not be a smallish nascent entity with much work ahead required to show impact and sustainability.
Our new university will, overnight, be a more than one billion dollar enterprise, with state-wide and national reach, among only five percent of Carnegie Foundation institutions classified as doctoral-granting with high or very high activity research, with well defined and recognized professional schools and research activities, including eight colleges, nearly 10,000 students, more than 650 acres of campus and nearly 150 buildings that would cost more than $5 billion to recreate elsewhere, more than 1,000 full-time faculty, with an aligned, integrated and well managed health system, and a growing athletics program that includes back-to-back NCAA Division I national championships.
And even rarer is the opportunity for a university of the size, breadth and relevance that we will be, to readily accept and be able to fully leverage a new name. In contrast to most other ‘naming’ opportunities, which primarily were ‘renamings’, we genuinely will be a new university, with little baggage from previous branding efforts. A truly rare and unique opportunity! Imagine trying to rename, no matter the amount of the gift, UNC, UGA, or OHSU!
University names that tend to resonate with stakeholders can also reflect an institution’s or a community’s aspirations. In 2001, Beaver College in Pennsylvania changed its name to Arcadia University, after a region in ancient Greece, a country associated with the birthplace of modern thought and learning where philosophers pursued independent thought and inquiry. Arcadia selected its name as a signal of their intention to instill these principles in the lives of their students. A year after the institution changed its name, enrollment and applications were both up as was awareness among perspective students. Prior to the change, applicants hailed from 35 states. Just one year after the change, Arcadia was receiving applications from 48 states, nearly every state in the union.
I have said publicly that our new name would include the word “university” and would not include the words “health” or “medicine” in light of the fact that we will be a comprehensive research university when consolidation is complete. And I have also articulated my hope that the new name of our new university would be relatively concise, including three words or fewer.
Click table to enlarge
This is not simply my personal desire. We recently studied the top 100 universities in the United States to find out what kind of name patterns we could elucidate. Our research on university naming conventions revealed that of the nation’s top 100 institutions of higher education (by the USNWR rankings), 90% use the term ‘university’ in their name and more than 60% have names that use three words or less (see Table). Interestingly, only 38% public institutions had names with 3 or less words, compared to 80% of private institutions. See Box for other interesting factoids regarding the names of the nation’s 100 top universities.
If we aspire to be one of the nation’s great universities, we have to look like one, act like one, and sound like one. Calling ourselves something along the lines of the Central Savannah River Area Consolidated Institute of Arts and Medicine won’t get us there.
And we also know the name of our new university will not be Augusta State University or Georgia Health Sciences University. We are undergoing a consolidation. We are unifying two different institutions to create a completely new university – a consolidation… not a merger.
Other than these basic parameters, all options are on the table. Well, nearly all. The “Azziz School for Smarties” will not be a contender, but I certainly appreciate the good humor and playfulness many of you are demonstrating with your suggestions.
That said, naming is a serious matter. The name of our institution should be focused on the future – our future students, the future of our graduates and faculty, and the faculty we will recruit in the future to be a part of this new university.
Our name will be our public face. It is our handshake. It is our ‘first impression’. It is a central part of our identity and will influence the opinions of all who come in contact with us. Writing about corporate rebranding, Laurent Muzellec, a branding consultant and lecturer at Dublin City University, a relatively young university in Ireland, observes that:
“… a new corporate name must bundle together a collective sense of purpose, while encompassing the unique combination of history, leadership, strategies, and values, and being accepted by the varied stakeholders.”
Will we identify a name that pleases every one? I can assure you we will not. But we will identify a name that reflects what our new university will be, a name that will positively position us in the national and global marketplace. And, we will invest in a branding strategy that gives that new name every chance of success.
As I indicated in my invitation to share your naming ideas, the University System of Georgia Board of Regents has asked us to provide a list of three possible names no later than July 1. They will make a decision based on those recommendations with a goal of having our new name announced this fall.
Please know this … whether our new university carries a name that is aspirational, geographic, or bestowed in honor of an important benefactor, we will continue our efforts to build the next great American university. And even more than our name, the tangible results of those efforts will speak volumes about our good work to the citizens of Georgia, our alumni, the nation, and the world.
|
What’s In a University Name? Summary of Analysis
Word Analysis
Namesake Analysis
Prepared by the Office of Institutional Research, February 15, 2012 |
Mayor Deke Copenhaver
For many years now, I have stressed the need to view our city and our community as a living, breathing organism with each part connected to the other. In order for a human being to achieve an overall state of health and wellness, each part of the body must be healthy.
In essence, if our heart or our lungs are not functioning in a healthy manner, there is no way for the other organs to function at their maximum potential. In order for Augusta to be healthy, both socially and economically, we need all parts of our city, from neighborhoods and our educational systems to our business and arts communities, to be healthy and thriving.
When one segment of the overall community suffers, whether it is from long-term neighborhood disinvestment or a lack of a strategic and collaborative initiative to address our city’s poverty levels and major public health concerns, the community as a whole suffers as these unhealthy segments become a drain on city resources.
With this being said, the combined Augusta State University and Georgia Health Sciences University – which I will refer to now simply as the “University” – will flourish here in the Garden City and play a major role in the overall health of our community for generations to come as a vital engine both towards economic growth as well as towards fostering a more educated citizenry.
As Augusta grows into one of the most thriving mid-sized cities in the nation, this major University will create intellectual capital daily and help our city recruit the best and brightest minds from throughout the world to our doorstep. This will help to ensure the sustainable health and wellness of our community and our entire region.
We now live in a new economic reality brought on by the Great Recession. Economic development efforts will become more and more competitive, and cities that embrace a commitment to innovation through collaboration will outpace and outperform their competitors. Both nationally and internationally, universities are driving engines for innovation as they foster an ecosystem of intellectual activity that can ultimately be commercialized with a dual economic and social benefit, whether it be curing infectious diseases or simply building a better mouse trap.
Through community outreach and partnering efforts, the University can also be used as a vital tool to improve both public health and educational outcomes. Thus, a strong and thriving University will result in a stronger and more thriving city on a multitude of levels.
As our city continues to move forward, I firmly believe our new University should be viewed as a key and vital element in leading the way towards a bright, healthy and prosperous future for Augusta the likes of which may today be hard to imagine.
“A man is not idle because he is absorbed in thought.
There is a visible labor and there is an invisible labor.
To meditate is to labor; to think is to act.”
Victor Hugo
(1802 –1855)
Les Miserables, Book 7, Chapter 8
| thought•ful ( thôt“f…l) adj. 1. Engrossed in thought; contemplative. 2. Exhibiting or characterized by careful thought: a thoughtful essay. 3. Having or showing heed for the well-being or happiness of others and a propensity for anticipating their needs or wishes. thought “ful•ly adv. thought “ful•ness n. |
As we face the challenges of the future and work to ensure the continued and increasing success of future generations, we must carefully consider what our fundamental role as a university is.
We clearly want to ensure that we generate individuals prepared to succeed in and contribute to society, providing support and structure to their families, and further ensuring the progressive success of future generations. And so we strive to prepare individuals skilled in the myriad of technical, analytic, and professional expertise that a complex and competitive society requires.
We want to ensure that our future citizens have a great level of knowledge concerning the workings of the past, the present, and that which the future may hold. How do things work? Why do they work that way? We should keep in mind that 60 percent of tomorrow’s jobs will require a college degree in disciplines that may be quite different than what we offer today.
I would argue, as I did recently when discussing our moral imperative for future generations over breakfast with a colleague, that a most important task, as educators, as mentors, as leaders, as an institution, a state, and a nation, is to also produce individuals who have the capacity for ‘thoughtfulness.’
How to define ‘thoughtfulness?’ The American Heritage Dictionary tells us that ‘thoughtfulness,’ as the noun of ‘thoughtful’ (see box), loosely refers to the use of careful thought or contemplation resulting in an individual who has or shows concern for care for the well-being and happiness of others, and does so by trying to anticipate their needs or wishes through thought, i.e., thinks ahead.
To me, more specifically, thoughtfulness reflects the ability of an individual to go beneath the surface of what appears obvious. The ability to comprehend that complex issues have no simple answers… or simple questions. The ability to understand that every action has a reaction. That every plan has an unintended consequence. That every benefit has a risk. And the ability to predict these… or at least attempt to predict them.
Thoughtfulness also reflects the ability to understand that if the answer was simple… then it would have likely been addressed before. It is marked by a desire to understand the deeper aspects of what we do… or do not do… and the drive to dig deeper than what our multiple sources of instant information would suggest. The ability to comprehend, assimilate and respond to the ethical, moral, spiritual and cultural implications of actions and events within the context of a global, heterogeneous, multi-variegated environment.
Thoughtfulness is a capacity of critical importance as we address a future that moves at an ever faster pace, and providing a quantity of data that is ever greater, forcing all of us to make split-second decisions on issues that have long-lasting consequences.
A future that speaks in pixels and petabytes, in 10-second sound bites, and 140-character tweets.
A future that requires us to ensure that our future generations do not mistake data with truth… or worse, analysis. That they do not believe that a sound bite is the summary of all that is real. A generation that will have to learn to contemplate, to carefully consider consequences, and to heed the wellbeing and happiness of others.
An often-told story in the business world speaks to the perceived difference in how the U.S. and Japan value contemplation, meditation, and thought. It is said that in the Japanese business culture, if someone enters your office and finds you gazing out the window, deep in contemplation, they will quietly retreat to allow you to complete your thoughts. In our business culture, we would more likely see this time as “open” and feel free to interrupt since we assume the other person is ‘doing nothing.’ We are a nation of action. We are not always a nation of thoughtfulness. But as a colleague of mine contends, we all need more time to “go to Japan” – to have uninterrupted time to think, to engage in creative, disciplined visualization, to simply slow down, step back and ponder the meaning and significance of what we are doing and what is going on around us.
How do we – as the educators of future generations – do this? How do we create a culture that values the ability to think – not simply study, retain, and regurgitate? This has been, and remains still, the great challenge of our nation’s universities.
And herein lies one of the great values of the humanities and the liberal arts to the remaining disciplines. Science explains ‘The How,’ but it is humanities and the liberal arts that lead us to ‘The Why.’ And it is contemplation that stands at the heart of a liberal arts education.
Jean Gregorek, a long-time literature professor at Antioch College, has described liberal arts colleges as “green spaces for the mind.” She writes:
“In terms of the elusiveness of their value they can be thought of in much the same way as parks and wild places. These educational ‘green spaces’ are equivalent to non-commercial space. Like literal green spaces, they are not profit-producing business enterprises, but they make vital – although hard to quantify – contributions to American life and communities nonetheless. Here are institutions which set aside four years for non-instrumentalized lines of inquiry—for silence, reflection, musings, experiment, practice, the gaining of knowledge, the trying out of ideas and art forms, the bumping up against Otherness and Other points of view, and always, for Questioning.”
As we continue down the transformative path the University System of Georgia Board of Regents has put us on with their decision to consolidate Georgia Health Sciences University and Augusta State University, let us not lose sight of our responsibility to future generations.
We must be a community of thought. A community of contemplation and of determined action. And we, as the institutions educating the future, should focus on generating a thoughtful people.
In the historical consolidation of ASU and GHSU, our communities of faculty, students, staff, alumni and supporters naturally will assist in defining many fundamental aspects of a brand new university. Mission, vision, and values, for instance, will be addressed carefully and transparently in the months ahead.
As we have begun this effort, one of the important questions that has been asked, particularly by our ASU colleagues and friends in our community and beyond, has to do with the kind of university we will be once we consolidate: Why a “research university?”
Why, the question asks, if we believe the principal purpose of a university is to educate and train our future generations, should we be striving to transform ourselves into a “research” university? Won’t this detract from our mission of education? Won’t the educational experience of current and future students suffer? Won’t this mean that the faculty we currently have will be obsolete?
Let me try and address each of these concerns.
Institutions are classified by a number of factors, including their mission, what and how many degrees are offered, their setting, whether research is done and to what extent, the size of the faculty and student bodies, any special emphasis, and so on. These classifications are important. They allow for fair comparisons between institutions; they determine eligibility for certain types of federal, state and private funding; and they may determine basic levels of tuition and fees.
There are multiple systems of categorizing universities, although the two that are most relevant to us today are those of the University System of Georgia and the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (from the Carnegie Foundation).
USG classifies universities into Research Universities, Regional Universities, State Universities, State Colleges, and Two-year Colleges based on a series of qualities (http://www.usg.edu/inst/group/). GHSU is categorized as one of four Research Universities in the System; ASU is currently classified as a State University.
Under the USG system, our new consolidated institution will automatically be classified as a ‘Research University.’ Why? Mostly because the consolidated university will have as part of its portfolio and mission carrying out a significant amount of ongoing research. I invite you to read the full core mission statement of USG Research Universities at http://www.usg.edu/inst/mission/category/research_universities. Please note that the mission statement compels such institutions to have “a commitment to a teaching/learning environment, both inside and outside the classroom, that sustains instructional excellence, serves a diverse and well-prepared student body, provides academic assistance, and promotes high levels of student achievement.”
What about our Carnegie classifications? GHSU is currently classified as a “Special Focus Institution-Medical schools and medical centers ” and ASU as a “Master’s Colleges and Universities (larger programs). “Special Focus Institutions are those “awarding baccalaureate or higher-level degrees where a high concentration of degrees (above 75%) is in a single field or set of related fields,” and Master’s Colleges and Universities are those generally including “institutions that awarded at least 50 master’s degrees and fewer than 20 doctoral degrees during the update year (see http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/basic.php).
How will our new university be classified by the Carnegie Foundation? Our new university will likely be classified as Doctorate-granting University (i.e., an institution awarding at least 20 research doctoral degrees during the update year, excluding doctoral-level degrees that qualify recipients for entry into professional practice, such as the JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.) and within this category, as a High Research Activity University (i.e., with a mean of ~$50M annually in Science & Engineering Research & Development [S&E R&D] expenditures).
And we will be joining an elite group of universities. While there are over 4,300 institutions of higher learning in the U.S., only 207 (~4.8%) are classified as “Doctorate granting ” with “high” or “very high” research activity.
That our new institution will be a “research university” simply means that on the basis of its mission it will carry out significant amounts of research and award a significant number research doctorates. Nothing else.
Concerns about the type of university we will be after we consolidate tend to make two assumptions:
- First, that research universities do not emphasize or value teaching, or do not provide high quality teaching.
- Second, that being part of a research university means that all faculty should do research.
In other words, many assume that somehow cutting edge research and quality education are mutually exclusive. This is not true. Nor is it a new assumption…
Jonathon Cole, Columbia University’s former Provost and Dean of Faculties and author of ‘The Great American University’ (PublicAffairs, 2010) observed over many years of listening to the university’s community that “many in that audience presumed that commitments to both world-class research and teaching at a great university reflected antagonistic goals [and] that most people do not fully appreciate what our world-class research universities have been designed to do. There is little sense, even among well educated segments of the population, of how the transmission of knowledge and its creation are interwoven and highly compatible.”
All universities, by their nature, emphasize education. That is why they are universities. Without students we do not have a university. We could have an institution dedicated to research, like many free-standing research institutes around the world, but it would not be a university. And as we will see next, the vast majority of faculty, even at the great research universities, focus on teaching.
What we teach and how we teach our students to think is important. So we should always strive to teach the latest knowledge, ensuring that students understand both what is known and what is not. Knowledge is ever-changing and it is a student’s responsibility to not only stay current with knowledge but also to understand that the rules, dogmas, tenets, and other fundamentals on which their education is based are often built on progressive assumptions that may or may not be correct. In essence, we want to ensure that we educate inquisitive and thoughtful students, who value creativity, and are committed to life-long learning.
Which is why including researchers and research opportunities as part of the academic offerings available to students provides for a better education. Because who will educate the scientists and innovators of the future? Scientists and innovators of today of course. Often those who opine that research should be incidental to education seem to ignore the fact that scientists are also educated, a product of our higher learning institutions. They do not grow on trees.
And as Dr. Cole so eloquently states in his book, and as experience has shown, the process of research, scholarship, and discovery provides opportunities for students of all stripes to further expand their intellectual capacity, to understand the creative process, and to learn to adapt to a changing environment. Witness the efforts of many universities to include research in the student experience, including ASU’s own “Center for Undergraduate Research & Scholarship (http://www.aug.edu/curs/).
Let’s also look at data. Of the 207 universities categorized as ‘Research Universities’ by Carnegie, fully 81% are included in USNWR Best Top 200 Universities 2012. Not that USNWR ratings are the end all… but they do provide a rough measure of stake-holders’ and external communities’ assessment of the overall quality of the education being offered… and drive the best students to those institutions.
And, of course, research generating novel discoveries and scholarship generating innovative ideas drives a university’s branding and greater recognition. And the greater and more widely the institution is recognized, the greater the value of the graduates’ diploma and the greater the ability of the institution to attract the best students and faculty.
But what does this mean to the faculty? Does being part of a ‘research university’ mean that all faculty have to do research? The short answer is no. And it isn’t expected. But let me elaborate.
Firstly, even at research-intensive institutions (i.e., those whose mission includes carrying out quality research and discovery) the number of faculty who do any significant research is relatively modest. For example, at GHSU today only 17% of full-time faculty have any significant degree of research funding (i.e. >$100,000 in extramural funding in FY11) and only 28% of full-time faculty dedicate more than 20% effort to research.
Secondly, we should recognize that demonstrated ‘scholarship,’ however loosely defined, is part and parcel of being a university professor. It is generally expected that these doyens of knowledge, these guardians of academic integrity, are also, in some manner, experts in their field, and that this level of expertise mandates that these individuals also contribute to original thinking in that discipline. Scholarship creates a more competitive faculty body, and ensures that the knowledge of today does not become the obsolescence of tomorrow.
Quality scholarship is not necessarily research, as demonstrated by the many successful faculty who in their own right produce great works of visual art, literature, or music, enhancing their own and the institution’s reputation, and their students experience. But while few would argue with this thought, the devil lies in the details, as evidenced by the continuing struggle facing promotion and tenure committees in defining what acceptable scholarship actually is… or is not.
Thirdly, we need to recognize that there is inherent heterogeneity among the faculty at any great university.
The confusion lies in assuming that while the research university is committed to the missions of education, research and, in our cases, clinical care and community service (and in a later piece I will argue that all university faculty also have the added mission of leadership), that all faculty must also be adept at performing all missions. And so we need to differentiate between the mission of the university and the expertise of the faculty.
It is absolutely true that a comprehensive research university has to exhibit excellence in all mission-based arenas: education and training, research and scholarship, leadership and civic service, and in our case, clinical care and service. Thus the sum of all parts needs to equate to a complete whole. But how the institution meets those goals varies.
In general, the colleges (or schools) of the university will also be expected to exhibit excellence on all mission fronts, with few exceptions (e.g., we would not expect excellence in clinical care in a non-health science college). But each college dean will have to determine how she/he will strive to meet these missions. Is it by mandating that all departments meet all missions in some manner?* Or is it by creating specialized units (e.g., a special research unit) that will ensure that the college as a whole meets a specific mission?
But each college’s (or department’s) plan to fulfill the missions of the university has to rely on faculty. And this is where good planning and careful faculty recruitment, retention, and development come into play.
Few faculty today, considering the degree of competitiveness of the various arenas, can actually be considered ‘multiple threats’ with expertise in all arenas. As for any other complex organization, faculty will vary in their capabilities and focus. Some may be excellent teachers and researchers, others great educators and clinicians, some sought out teachers and scholars, and, less frequently, some who excel in only one arena, such as education or research. And that, of course, is the reason that less than a third of faculty, even in a research intensive university, actually do any significant research.
What is certain is that all faculty need to support all missions. While some researchers may not excel in teaching, they need to recognize the critical value of good teachers and support this role, directly and indirectly. Likewise, great educators should recognize the value that new discovery and excellent scholarship brings to the programmatic array and the quality and variety of the teaching provided, and should likewise be supportive.
I have referred to the end result of our consolidation as “the next great American research university. “And the new university will indeed have that potential. But it will also be a new kind of research university: one that marries high-level opportunities in research and scholarship with a firm dedication to teaching and learning for students, particularly those who are diverse in preparation and interests. This potential lies precisely in the respective and quite different strengths of GHSU and ASU.
Over the months and years to come we all will need to be focused on building the next great American university. We need to do so with determination, coordination, and unity, as the competition is tough and the demand high. And we will be weaving the tapestry of this great university using the many different colored threads of our staff, faculty and students.
——————————- o ——————————-
*In fact, a good test for determining what units of academic activity should or should not be considered Departments is often whether the unit in question can define a plan to support all relevant missions of the institution.
Last month the Board of Regents announced one of the most transformative initiatives they have addressed in decades – the consolidation of multiple campuses around the state.
More specifically, the mandate to consolidate the Augusta State University (ASU) and Georgia Health Sciences University (GHSU) campuses represents the single-greatest event in the history of our respective universities since GHSU became a free-standing health sciences university in 1950 and ASU became a 4-year university in 1963.
And that is saying a lot, considering a history that is as long and deep as ours is, with GHSU beginning in 1828 in what is now the 13th-oldest medical school in the United States, and ASU tracing its roots back to Richmond Academy in 1783, the oldest such institution in Georgia.
Is this a good thing? I will be brief, because we will have plenty of time in the weeks ahead to flesh out the opportunities (and challenges) we are facing.
In the most simplistic of terms, one could view this consolidation as a mutual opportunity for explosive and enormous growth.
What is an Academic Health Center?Strictly defined, the term ‘academic health center (AHC)’ is used to describe an enterprise that contains the following:
|
Through this bold, future-oriented move, the ASU campus, faculty, and students will make the state’s Academic Health Center (AHC; see What is an Academic Health Center), the jewel of the University System of Georgia, and a massive economic engine, their own. And for the GHSU campus, faculty and students, they will become part of a nascent comprehensive university, with all the opportunities it implies.
And yet, this simplistic reasoning begs the question “is it true that the consolidation will be good for both campuses?” And while only time will tell we can look to data to begin to answer this question.
To ASU, the consolidation serves as an enormous accelerator in the natural course of its history. The consolidation would – overnight – increase the number of graduate programs available, and enhance the educational and experiential opportunities to all students. And the consolidation will not only provide new prospects and directions, but would also allow us to better continue its traditional mission of ensuring constant progress in student undergraduate learning outcomes, enhancing the success and graduation rates of students who enter with less than desired academic preparation, and developing and maintaining programs geared to the specific needs of the community. Why? Because added resources and opportunities will allow us to serve those students better.
To GHSU, the consolidation also represents a giant step in its natural evolution. The stand-alone health sciences university is becoming more difficult to maintain and grow… the reason that only a handful of successful models remain nationwide.
Because growth in a health sciences university, particularly in student body, is limited by the narrow focus of its curriculum. Because the ability to enhance the diversity of its student body is limited by its restricted ability to engage and foster the development of promising undergraduates. Because the ability of the health sciences disciplines to articulate a broader meaningful impact on greater society is enhanced by the availability of other disciplines, such as business, education, and the arts. And because innovation in thought and approach is broadened by the wider array of disciplines available… notwithstanding the many good partnerships we develop.
We need to keep in mind that at the end of the day we are not just trying to enhance ASU and GHSU… we are creating a brand new university. The fourth public comprehensive research university in Georgia.
A new university that will be stronger and whose future is far more promising than that of either institution individually. A university that will have a much greater potential of becoming a top-50 research institution. A university that will also be able to offer a greater array of opportunities to its students and faculty, fostering the development of new and collaborative educational and research programs. A university that will be able to partner more closely with our community to create an ever-richer campus life, encouraging both local and statewide students to choose us as their alma mater. A university that will enhance the value of the effort and investment students, faculty, staff, and the state of Georgia already make.
But what is the data suggesting that having an AHC as part of your university is a good thing for the institution, its students, and the state? To answer this question we studied all top 50 American universities represented in the three principal rankings used to categorize such institutions*. Of the 56 universities included at in at least one of these rankings as ‘Top 50,’ fully 70% (39) included an AHC. In contrast, there are only another 60 or so AHCs in the US, but well over 4000 colleges and universities. Overall, the probability of being ranked as a top-50 American university is 50 times more likely if the university includes an AHC.
Why does having an AHC as part of a university appear to serve as a strong catalyst for greater growth and ranking? Contrary to what some may think, it’s not because it has a medical school. In fact, universities that have a medical school, but not an associated AHC, do not do any better and may actually do worse than if they had no medical school at all (more on that in a later blog). It’s primarily because the clinical enterprise of the AHC is able to generate financial capacity for growth not present in other university ventures. Growth that benefits the entire university. And having an AHC also fosters greater recognition and branding opportunities through its research, discoveries, clinical care, and service, offerings that often resonate widely with external audiences.
And is being part of a comprehensive university a good thing for an AHC? To try and answer this question, we began by studying medical school and nursing rankings**. Our data (See: Relationship between an AHC and its university, and medical and nursing school rankings) indicates that 100% of medical schools in an AHC that is part of a smaller proximate comprehensive university were included in the top 50 in at least one of the rankings. Furthermore, these medical schools had the highest ‘Top 50’ ranking potential for research (94%) and total NIH dollars (76%). 100% of these medical schools – a ranking potential greater than that of medical schools that are part of larger universities (68% and 65%, resp.), those serving as health sciences campuses of distant universities (45% and 42%, resp.) , or those part of free-standing health sciences universities (40% and 28%, resp.). However, we should note that the ranking potential for Nursing Schools (41%) and for Primary Care (47%) was lower when they were part of a smaller proximate university, suggesting we should be vigilant in this regard as our consolidation moves forward. Thus, the new consolidated university being formed through the merger of ASU and GHSU has a high potential for eventually yielding a ‘Top 50’ research university.
Why should its research potential be higher when an AHC is part of a smaller proximate university? Likely because being part of a comprehensive university fosters greater opportunities for creative and academic synergy between the health sciences and the non-health educational and research programs.
And why a small proximate university above all? Because, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that being part of a large proximate university would drain a greater amount of funds from the AHC than would a smaller proximate university, potentially hampering the growth of the AHC. A disadvantage that would be compounded even further by the limited synergy that would occur if the comprehensive large university campus were remote to the AHC.
But isn’t consolidation of two different universities complicated? Yes, and while I will try to address the challenges ahead in later blogs, the good thing is that lots of other institutions have consolidated before us… and succeeded. Showing us the way and presenting us, not only with what we should consider doing, but also what we should consider not doing. And importantly, still others have assiduously explored these options, but due principally due to a lack of political will, community support, and conflicted governance, were unable to do so. This is where we differ for the better.
For example, the fact that our two institutions are under a single governance structure, the USG Board of Regents, is a massive advantage for the state of Georgia over other states, where perhaps each public institution has its own governing board. The USG system and the state of Georgia can then maximize its higher educational assets speaking with one voice and a broad view to state value.
And we are fortunate to enjoy the vocal support of many of our community leaders in regards to this transformative initiative. For that is what leadership is all about… seeing into the future and ensuring that we are prepared to meet it… as a university, as a community, and as a state.
Finally, our own efforts over the past 18 months to integrate GHSU with the Georgia Health Sciences Health System, in leadership and administration, have provided us with an important advantage, that of experience. And that experience, although still ongoing, is yielding numerous strategies and best practices to consider… lessons that will be extremely helpful in the months to come.
To be sure, there is still much that we do not know … And in the days ahead we will be trying not only to find the right answers, but also to ensure we ask the right questions. But we need to understand that there is no specific roadmap drawn, that we are exploring new territory…. That we are sculpting in clay. But as long as we have a clear and compelling vision, that of the great American University, we will not lose our way.
I heard some say that we will see the benefits of this consolidation 25 years from now… And while it may take a decade or even two to reach our full potential, I am certain we will be able to see tangible benefits much sooner…. some almost immediately, others in the next two to five years.
And no, I am not being an overly optimistic Pollyanna. There are many difficult challenges and tough decisions ahead. But we will succeed. Because, simply put, this consolidation is “The Right Thing”.
It is the right thing for our students, our faculty, our community, and, most of all, for Georgia.
Our Chancellor, our Regents, and our community leaders should be congratulated on their boldness, vision, and courage.
In today’s recessive flat-lined economic environment much discussion centers on drivers of job growth and economic development. As Governor Deal emphasized in his recent presentation to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce (http://gov.georgia.gov/00/press/detail/0,2668,165937316_165937374_180347101,00.html), much of the solution to our current financial crisis lies in job creation and consequently improved consumer confidence.
So what are the businesses that will drive this growth? Examining the 2008 US Census Bureau statistics (see Table) we note that approximately 98% of firms in Georgia employ less than 500 individuals and are generally defined as ‘small businesses’. And so much of our job recovery will rest on ensuring that these small businesses, the fabric and backbone of many communities, continue to thrive and grow. Witness efforts in many states, including Georgia, to develop systems that will facilitate and support the ability of these small businesses to offer health care insurance (more on that later).
So how can we ensure that small businesses continue to develop in Georgia? Closer scrutiny of the data (and analysis) in the Table also demonstrates the following: while only 2.2% of firms in Georgia employ more than 500 individuals (i.e. are considered ‘big business’) these firms account for 55% of the total employees and 60% of the total annual payroll in the state.
Why does this matter? Because addressing our economic situation will require leveraging the entirety of our employer portfolio. Smartly.
There are four reasons to ensure that we also focus on the growth of big businesses in Georgia. Firstly, growth in these industries has an extremely high return on investment. For example, a 5% job growth in the 2% largest industries in Georgia could translate into a 2.5% growth in jobs overall in the state. Enough to normalize a large portion of our unemployment. Georgia Health Sciences (GHS) own return on investment exceeds $50 for every dollar of state appropriations provided. In addition, while many small businesses excel at innovation, as noted in a recent editorial in The Economist, big businesses can often be more inventive than smaller ones (http://www.economist.com/node/21541826/print 12/31/2011). And those innovations will benefit us all. All considered, a huge return on investment.
Secondly, we want to ensure the growth of those businesses that bring in new monies into the local economy (versus principally encouraging recirculation of currency and economic activity). And while many small businesses generate activities that attract resources from external markets, large businesses are more likely to do so and on an exponentially larger scale. Even universities and healthcare systems can do this to the extent they have true regional and national reach. For example, the GHS enterprise has a state-wide economic impact of greater than $12 billion on a budget of $1 billion, bringing in over $100 million in medical tourism dollars and $90 million in research grant dollars. Large military or federal installations (e.g. Ft. Gordon and the Savannah River Nuclear Laboratory in Augusta) also bring new dollars into the local economy.
Because while many big businesses enjoy state or federal support (e.g. federal dollars to defense industry giants) that in itself does not mean that they are not bringing in new dollars into our communities. For example, the Georgia Health Sciences enterprise receives approximately 16% of its revenues from state appropriations… and generates 84% of its revenues from other sources. And much of that revenue is in new monies from sources outside the state… from research discoveries and business ventures, from federal and foundation research grants, from providing health care to non-Georgians, and so on.
Thirdly, growth in big businesses generates wealth for many small businesses. Many small businesses will thrive as demand for their goods and services increases as the number of individuals employed by larger businesses grows. Our supermarkets, dry-cleaners, and clothing stores. Our auto repair shops, realties, and entertainment venues. Our gas stations, local healthcare providers, accountants, and the like.
And fourthly, because often it is an unrecognized and underutilized opportunity. Because we frequently do not understand how to make big businesses in our communities grow further. Because many of us assume that if a business is big then they are likely to be as strong and as large as they can be… an assumption with no basis in reality. And because the growth of many big businesses is based on a complex formula, dependent on many factors that often appear to be outside the influence of most individuals not at the helm of the enterprise.
This appears to be particularly true for academic health centers and universities, where many communities, and even the institution’s own leadership, are often more focused on keeping the machinery running at its current pace than on growing the enterprise.
And why should we care? Because health systems and universities are ‘big businesses’. So while only 14% of all employees in Georgia (about a half million lives) work in the healthcare, social assistance, or educational arenas (http://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/2008/ga/GA–.HTM), over 50% of these are employed in firms with greater than 500 employees – big businesses.
Take the Georgia Health Sciences University (GHSU) enterprise. GHSU is the state’s health sciences university… But it is also much more than a university – GHSU is also an Academic Health Center (AHC), one of only 80 such institutions nationally. AHCs often rank among the largest employers in their city, region, and/or state. AHCs are massive economic engines (see Box).
In fact, the Georgia Health Sciences enterprise is one of Georgia’s top 20 employers and our region’s 2nd largest employer, the largest for higher paying salaries. It has an annual economic impact that exceeds $12 billion statewide. And with the future consolidation of GHSU with Augusta State University, the enterprise will become an even larger economic engine as the merged institution joins the ranks of the next great American research university. AHCs and universities are, after all, big business.
So the question arises… how do we help big businesses grow in our state? Or more specifically to our industry, how do we foster the growth of large AHCs and universities?
To craft an effective growth strategy we need to understand the drivers of the business in question. In AHCs and universities the drivers include… student demand, clinical growth, faculty recruitment and retention, facilities growth, philanthropic support, and strategic vision.
More students who demand greater educational and training opportunities. A greater need for specialized clinical services. A greater number of faculty recruited and retained to educate the larger number of students seen and provide the added clinical services sought… and coincidently carry out a greater amount of research and discovery. The growth in research, educational and clinical activities that demand greater facilities, whose growth in turn permits the recruitment of additional faculty, the clinical care of more patients, the development of new R&D, and the education of additional students. The philanthropic dollars necessary to ensure that the facilities and the recruitments required to fulfill these demands are available. And the strategic vision synergizing these drivers, charting a clear path to growth and the future.
There are a number of strategies and tactics that can be implemented to meet and enhance each of these drivers. Improved cultural and lifestyle ambience (the ‘cool’ factor) to facilitate student and faculty recruitment and retention. An increase in available and accessible student housing to attract out-of-state students. City support for the development of private-public partnerships to create the necessary facilities. Shared clinical and research facilities fostering translational science. Unique partnerships fostering collaborative educational, research and clinical opportunities… and so on and so forth. Many strategies and tactics that we will explore in the years to come.
And it is these strategies that communities, together with the AHC and university leadership, should identify, test, implement, and reassess continuously, ensuring the sustained growth of these critical enterprises. And ensure new job creation.
The economic development and growth of a city, community, or state, particularly in this difficult and challenging ‘new normal’, must be planned and stimulated strategically, with resources allocated consistent with potential economic impact.
In Augusta, Georgia, like many other communities around the state and the nation, it makes sense to not only foster and support small businesses, but to also invest in the growth of the community’s top employers. And in Augusta, Georgia many of these top employers are educational, military, or health care enterprises. Fostering their growth by ensuring a better and more ready workforce, by identifying partnering opportunities for growth, by ensuring branding and recognition, by facilitating recruitment and retention, by proactively identifying needs and barriers that may be surmounted collaboratively, and through many other strategies.
For if our larger employers grow there will be revenues to share, monies to circulate, and employed persons to partake in the offerings of our many other smaller businesses.
Georgia – All industries – by Employment Size of Enterprise
|
Firms
|
% total Firms
|
Paid Employees
|
% Total Paid Employees
|
Annual payroll ($1000s)
|
% of Total Annual Payroll
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All firms |
179,576
|
3,633,431
|
$142,779,694
|
|||
| Firms with 1 to 4 employees (or with no employees as of Mar 12) |
108,496
|
60.42%
|
178,649
|
4.92%
|
$6,456,452
|
4.52%
|
| Firms with 5 to 9 employees |
29,082
|
16.19%
|
191,039
|
5.26%
|
$5,964,620
|
4.18%
|
| Firms with 10 to 19 employees |
17,858
|
9.94%
|
237,778
|
6.54%
|
$7,733,624
|
5.42%
|
| Firms with 20 to 99 employees |
15,920
|
8.87%
|
580,402
|
15.97%
|
$19,777,345
|
13.85%
|
| Firms with 100 to 499 employees |
4,218
|
2.35%
|
466,351
|
12.84%
|
$17,530,967
|
12.28%
|
| Firms with 500 employees or more |
4,002
|
2.23%
|
1,979,212
|
54.47%
|
$85,316,686
|
59.75%
|
Firm – A firm is a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments in the same state and industry that were specified under common ownership or control.
Annual Payroll – Total annual payroll includes all forms of compensation, such as salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, vacation allowances, sick-leave pay, and the value of payments inkind (e.g., free meals and lodgings) paid during the year to all employees.
Modified from US Census Bureau. Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2008: All industries: Georgia
http://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/2008/ga/GA–.HTM
Academic Health Centers & the Georgia Health Sciences Enterprise:
|
Thankfully, the sedative was taking hold of my senses, as the pain doctors strived to place the infusing catheter and electrode through the side of my neck, snaking them to just over my right brachial plexus. Small electric bursts made my biceps, triceps, and lots of other muscles surrounding my shoulder twitch… the Versed erasing the pain (or its memory) of the involuntary spasms. Electric shocks needed to find just the right spot for my shoulder block (“covering the three branches” I was told) before my surgery.
Often, as health providers we are reminded that, while most of our patients know we cannot perform miracles, they do expect us to provide the highest quality, compassionate, and trustworthy care humanly possible. Always. Absolutely.
But what we should not forget is that patients, from the moment they know they’ll need our help, are also looking for any and all clues that will reassure them they are getting just that – the best care possible. Because, while we may trust the intentions of our doctor, our dentist, our nurse, our physician assistant, entrusting the entirety of the complex system that is our modern healthcare requires additional proof – lots of it.
And so, when our very lives are at stake our senses become acutely focused and hypersensitive, as we try to pick up all and any sign of danger in the jungle of uncertainties that we face. It is an extension of our ingrained ‘flight or fight’ reaction if you would.
And this hypersensitive search for clues is heightened by our sense of vulnerability, of helplessness. Because we all feel vulnerable when we put our limbs, our function, our future, our very lives, in the hands of other humans.
It is true that some of the patients we take care of are so ill, so hurt, so traumatized that they care little about the nuances of their surroundings.
However, most patients are in full possession of their faculties, alert to their environs, keen to find those clues that will ensure them the greatest chance of recovery and salvation. And we do get over-focused on what some would consider the “small stuff”.
IMAGINE WHAT IT COULD SOUND LIKE…
“Does that look between the nurse and doctor indicate a problem they are not saying out loud? Is the bored tone of the receptionist signaling an enterprise that doesn’t care? Does my difficulty understanding the speech of a nurse’s aid suggest he is not well trained… or has different sensibilities than I… or worse still, doesn’t understand me? And what about the parking attendant? Does her carelessness translate to the entire hospital? Or at least to how carefully they screen their people?”
“And what about the ‘mistakes’ we so often hear about? Even small mistakes. Because maybe those are the only ones that I can detect? Like a drug that should have been stopped at 7:00 am… but wasn’t until 8:30 am? Or the wrong kind of food ordered? And what about that ‘Oops!’ from the startled nurse. Oops? Oops… what?”
“And are they communicating among themselves? To be clear… are they communicating about ME. If so, why do they keep asking me the same questions over and over again? Yes, I am still allergic to Sudafed. And no, I am not taking Nexium. Does anybody know me… or why I am here?”
“And I have lots of time to study in excruciating detail my surroundings… Staring at the ceiling and walls… waiting… and waiting… and waiting. Is that dust in the corner? Can it get into my wound? What about that broken roof tile? Does it have asbestos? Are you sure? And the chipped paint around the door handle? Don’t they have enough money to fix things around here? Are they going bankrupt, like an airline that leaves you stranded on Christmas holiday (as Eastern Airlines literally did to me long ago)?”
“And just because I sound increasingly paranoid, well… doesn’t mean I’m not right! Because in my hyperaroused, ‘circle-the-wagons’, ‘protect-myself-at-all-costs’ state I have been able to watch all things ever so carefully and in agonizing detail, almost in slow motion… through a lens I normally do not have and in a light that is generally not there. Seeing things usually unseen… unless you are that somebody who is placing their life in the hands of pretty much complete strangers….”
And so in this fairly hyperacute hypersensitive hypercritical state I had my surgery and recovery at Georgia Health Sciences… So how was it really…?
IT JUST MADE ME PROUD!
Yes, I learned a great many things this Christmas. That rotator cuff surgery is quite (yes it is…) painful. And that you shouldn’t train to throw the first pitch at a season’s opener like you are training for a triathlon… especially if you’ve never pitched a baseball before! And that I should have learned to type with both hands.
And my hypercritical patient-centered scrutiny gave me a sharper focus on one of our great assets… The truly wonderful people on our staff!
The health professionals who go out of their way to give us the compassionate and quality care we expect from one of nation’s great academic health centers…. Always. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week (and 365 days a year… Christmas not withstanding!).
But most of all my surgical experience reminded me that if we are to become the best healthcare system possible, we should keep in mind that all patients feel vulnerable… regardless of who they are and how much they want to trust us.
And that the subtle clues of their environment are as critical to our patients’ satisfaction as are the outcomes we can provide. Subtleties may presage a positive outcome, and signal a caring, quality, and carefully controlled environment and become elusive qualities that we sometimes overlook in our hurry to save and better lives. Nuances that we should strive to identify, understand, and address… proactively and strategically.
