Academic deans' perspectives on the effectiveness of responsibility center management

Responsibility center management (RCM) is a university budget management model that decentralizes revenue and expense to the unit level, influencing unit leaders to attain positive financial results. As the academic unit leaders, deans play a key role in the RCM structure. The reactions to RCM in the literature have been mixed. The central issue explored by this study was the lack of an evidence-based understanding of the effectiveness of RCM and how useful this budget model has proven to be to academic deans.; An original survey instrument was designed and administered to 279 academic deans at 27 doctoral research-extensive universities (10 public and 17 private) using RCM. Deans completed and returned 146 surveys, a 52.3% response rate. The 88-item survey addressed deans' opinions of the positive and negative outcomes of RCM. The data analysis, including t tests, one-way ANOVAs, and multiple regression, examined deans' opinions in light of several independent variables measuring institutional, college, and individual demographic characteristics. Factor analysis was used to reduce the items investigating the positive and negative outcomes of RCM into eight scales.; Four positive outcome scales investigated opinion of RCM and effectiveness as dean, accountability and entrepreneurialism, empowerment, and fiscal awareness. Mean responses were high on all four positive outcome scales, displaying an overall positive opinion of and support for the RCM model. Private university deans' mean responses on three of the four positive outcome scales were significantly higher than those of public university deans. Institutional control was the only independent variable that proved a significant predictor of the opinion of RCM.; Four negative outcome scales investigated increased competition among colleges, a negative impact on interdisciplinarity, fiscal priorities superseding academic considerations, and college priorities overriding university priorities. Mean responses were not as high on the negative outcome scales, demonstrating continued support by respondents for the RCM model. Hard discipline deans responded with significantly higher scores on all four negative outcome scales than did soft discipline deans. Implications and recommendations for university administrators are provided, as well as reflections on the impact of corporate models like RCM on the culture of higher education.