The University Mission Vs. Economic Sustainability:

The Pros and Cons

Angela Januzzi

June 22, 2007

Today one of the greatest challenges in strategic planning for an institution of higher learning is the struggle that has developed between the “Mission Statement” and “Economic Sustainability”. In the former, management priorities and actions are guided by an adherence to the school’s characteristic values and ideals. In the latter, a school may alter its traditional goals and frequently adapt its curriculum, infrastructure and procedures, in hopes of better meeting market demands.

The schools most affected by the struggle between “mission” and “market” are the kinds of smaller research institutions and smaller private schools that comprise most U.S. universities and colleges.[1] Incidentally, for the majority of schools in the country, surviving and thriving during this time of growing applicants and costs requires a redefining of what motivates strategic plans of action. Below is a list of pros and cons for both the “Mission Statement” and “Economic Sustainability” strategies.

The Mission Statement Strategy

Pros

• Ensures an immediate sense of purpose. Works as a guide, not only for curriculum decisions and executive procedures, but also for the attitudes and behaviors of administrators, staff, and students.
• Highlights a school’s unique offerings and ideals.
• Enables school management to use its understood and established niche as a marketing tool.

Cons

• Narrows a school’s concerns and actions too much to exhibit the best possible student appeal.[2]
• Can possibly garner resistance from faculty or stakeholders if they do not align with the central mission.
• Limits changes and alternative roles the university/college could take in order to thrive.

The Economically Sustainable Strategy

Pros

• As a learner-centered plan of education, frequently assesses and responds to student demands. Contributes to optimum student satisfaction and increases probability of continuing demand from society and market.[3]
• Allows for future flexibility and creates the ability to change with the shifting needs of the professional world and societal interests.
• Because of its adaptability, provides assurance that the school possesses a higher chance for long-term survival and growth than economically non-sustainable schools.

Cons

• Causes inevitable friction between faculty and management, due to the necessarily constant reallocation of resources and priorities.
• Could possibly conflict with the school’s previous ideals, alienating stakeholders and investors.
• Usually requires a 7-10 year gestation period for first effects of sustainable changes to be seen.[4]

Ultimately, in today’s learner-centered system of higher education, it seems a school that enacts some plan of economic sustainability will benefit more in the long-term than a school that does not. However, recent studies have shown that within the past decade, colleges and universities have begun to modify their mission statements into statements which foresee changes in curriculum and infrastructure, promoting concepts of economic sustainability for their institutions.[5] Adhering to these sustainable innovations, though, will surely prove more complex than simply adding the concept into a revised mission statement.