Articles

Where Is The Program Located Within the University?

Analysis. Ideally, an interdisciplinary program or center should be independent of any one college or department. However, it is hard to imagine this being beneficial from a practical point of view. There are great risks politically and systemically if the center is located outside an existing structure. As mentioned by several writers, including Narva (1998), Keyt (2000), and Upton (1998), centers need champions. By champion, I mean someone beyond the director who can promote and protect this innovative program. (The director, by definition, should be devoted and, yet, is somewhat limited because of the role’s demands.) Thus, this issue needs to be resolved prior to, or simultaneous with, the placement issue. Further discussion of the issue of selecting a champion appears below.

Following the premise that the program needs to be academically based, it typically needs to be housed in a college or other similar academic unit. Universities ought to be places were silos (areas that do not interact and overlap) do not exist. But given that the centers are typically innovative and likely to be perceived (at least by some) as a threat, adding the burden of operating a uniquely organized unit seems deeply flawed. If the program is based only on outreach and housed in an administrative department, then it is setting itself up to be founded upon (what is too often) the least valued of the three functions of the university. From funding to political clout to access to the key stakeholders of the university, using outreach as a foundation is fraught with risk (Upton, 2000).

Experience. Again, the origin for the idea of having a family business center arose from our dean and one alumnus. Several interested family businesses were called together and asked to invest enough seed money for the program to run it for one or two years. We then analyzed the need for a champion. In our case, it was fairly simple: our dean understood the idea, he was already positioned to be a champion, and he had proven he was willing to commit time and resources to the development of the center. He also was thoroughly capable of helping with the fund-raising function. Our external support originally came mostly from family businesses connected with the university. Based on this planning, surveying, finding a champion, and alignment with the university, we were able virtually from the outset to include the Office of Development in our discussions.

Unlike many centers that have the Development Office as an adversary, we were never seen as a threat and work with the Development Office to create opportunities that benefit both the center and the university.. One person from the Development Office even suggested that recruiting a key trustee/donor to be our keynote speaker at the Gathering (and subject of the first chapter in the book) was one of the best development ideas he had seen in a long time. This development effort gains even more power (and credibility) when one realizes that the idea for including this trustee came from one of the authors from another university who felt it would improve the book.

Also, I was chosen as director because I was a faculty member from the school of business with eight years on the faculty, business experience, and (perhaps equally importantly) several years of experience in two of my family's businesses. I brought credibility as a teacher and as someone able to develop courses (I had already developed one minor and helped in the development of a second minor). I also brought a history of working outside the school of business, having been involved with our liberal arts college as well with as our college of law. I believe that many universities have faculty with backgrounds that qualify them to align with the strategic vision of the center. (Another key factor in selecting the director is passion, but more about that later.)

Family businesses often emphasize business issues at the risk of dismissing the family issues. In a similar vein, my perception has been that many programs often seem to generate more focus on the business aspects and ignore (or put lesser emphasis on) the family dynamics. The reason this occurs is seldom based on need. More often, it may be what keeps everyone in his or her comfort zone.

As we chose to be housed in the school of business, we looked at the impact that choice had on our planning. We truly wanted to be interdisciplinary and not overfocus on the business aspects. So not only do we have a board of advisers that includes university personnel and faculty from outside the business school, but we also have a licensed family therapist who co-teaches one hour each week in the four-credit-hour introductory course. In fact, when Frishkoff reviewed our program, one of her comments was the need to make our then-proposed minor have more business. (We subsequently added a course on the business of family business.) However, the main point is that we chose to house the center in the business school, building on the strengths while managing the risks.

Summary. The key points to consider when selecting the location to house the center:

Factor in the role and position of the in-house champion.
Locate the center in an existing format/structure, but be mindful of the risks and strengths of housing the center in any one location.
Presume that the program needs to be housed in an existing academic unit, especially if the foundation is teaching or research.
Align the location with the strategic work and analysis already done.

Continue to Part IV