University Senate Bylaws & Governing Concepts Committee
Subcommittee on Leadership and Management areas
Ken Farr & Mike Whitfield
Birnbaum, R. 2004. The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 127, Fall.
Governance is the term we give to the structures and processes that academic institutions invent to achieve an effective balance between the claims of two different, but equally valid, systems for organizational control and influence: one system, based on legal authority (trustees and administration), the other based on professional authority (faculty).
The various systems for consultation and decision making created by individual institutions to operationalize the shared aspects of governance appear today to be working well and are generally supported by both faculty and administrators (Cox, 2000).
Calls to revise governance systems to permit institutions to respond to the environment in a more timely fashion appear to accept two questionable assumptions: first, that today’s colleges and universities have not been responsive enough, and second, that speed in making decisions is an asset in academic institutions. (Goes on to counter those two assumptions.)
“Academic’ and “Market” Institutions
A simplification of a multidimensional construct by suggesting that institutions can be placed on a continuum of purposes. “The university as a social institution, vs. as an industry; as a curiosity-driven institution in the cultural belief system, or …. as a service enterprise according to a utilitarian belief system.
These comments are meant to apply only to those institutions nearest the academic pole of the continuum; that is, those espousing norms and values that identify them as social institutions concerned with education primarily as an end and not as a means.
“Hard” and “Soft” Governance
“Hard” (or rational) governance refers to the structures, regulations, and systems of sanctions in an organization that define authority, relationships, prescribe certain organizational process and encourage compliance with enacted policies and procedures
“Soft” (or interactional) governance encompasses the systems of social connections and interactions in an organization that help to develop and maintain individual and group norms.
(A lot of good stuff, but on to the ….)
Conclusions
Decisions made in social systems are more likely to be accepted when the procedures creating them are seen as legitimate and fair. What is considered fair is related to the expectations of people involved in the process, expectations that are learned through processes of socialization.
People are more likely to defer to the moral authority of structures and processes when they are developed so as to be consistent with existing social norms.
Changes in social systems are more likely to be accepted when they do not challenge the social status of participants in that system and are less likely to be accepted when they do.
Systems that provide forums in which people can interact on matters related to their group norms and personal values help to create dense networks of interaction that increase social capital within the system. Higher levels of social capital, in turn, lead to increased trust and cooperation, which are related to organizational effectiveness.
Informal social controls may be more effective than formal legal controls in influencing social compliance with organizational values. The strength of these informal controls will decline as the frequency of interaction within organizations decreases.
Attempts to design utilitarian systems to increase organizational effectiveness may instead reduce effectiveness because they are inconsistent with participants’ sense of what is proper.
In summary, normative, backward-looking processes may be more likely than utilitarian, forward-looking processes to support compliance in social systems, and they do this by increasing social capital and trust.
________________________________________________________________________
Kaplan, Gabriel. 2004. Do governance structures matter? ? New Directions for Higher Education, no. 127, Fall.
This is a report on an empirical study looking at a broad array of four-year institutions in the US.
Governance refers to the means and actions by which a collective entity decides matters of policy and strategy.
This study looks at the how the actual decision-making structures are chosen and how those structures relate to the implementation of decisions.
The findings from this study demonstrate only a moderate relationship between institutional decisions and the assignment of authority for those decisions. Faculty with significant authority appeared to be no more likely than administrators with significant authority to make self-interested decisions.
Also found little relationship between governance structures – such as faculty senates, academic senates, faculty advisory councils, and others – and the decisions that institutions subsequently implemented.
Two major points: First, structures of governance do not appear to account, in a significant way, for variance in outcomes among institutions of higher education. Second, where effects could be observed they often ran counter to predictions based both on the self-interested behavior and conflicting interests of all groups
The findings suggest several possibilities.
First, explicit forms of governance may not matter that much.
Second, outcomes in higher education may be more significantly related to factors beyond structural arrangements.
Resource flows may be more important.
Cultural conditions specific to a campus may trump structural arrangements.
More fruitful avenues for future research on governance would be to explore the processes by which institutions engage the structures that they have in place.
________________________________________________________________________
Pope, Myron L. 2004. A conceptual framework of faculty trust and participation in governance. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 127, Fall.
In the literature there is an implied notion that trust is paramount to establishing and maintaining positive relationships, whether at the interpersonal or organizational level.
Most of the research in this regard has focused on the corporate world. More work needs to be done in higher education.
The Foundations of Trust Theory
Definition – A willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectations that that party will perform an action of importance. Thus, trust is an element in a consensual relationship in which there is equal risk and equal benefit as perceived by the parties involved, and there is a belief that the other party will act in a reciprocal manner.
Vulnerability – The transference of control over a situation to another party.
As one party becomes more vulnerable to another as a result of increased trust, it has been suggested that the trusting party may “voluntarily” place resources at the disposal of another.
Dimensions of trust – Competence, openness, benevolence (concern), and reliability have been consistently cited in the literature.
Again, lots of good information, however …..
Conclusion
As a construct, trust is an adequate indicator of the status of organizational culture. He suggests that examination of the place of trust in institutions of higher education would likely improve the effectiveness of shared institutional governance.
________________________________________________________________________
Kezar, A. 2004. What is more important to effective governance: Relationships, trust, and leadership, or structures and formal processes? New Directions for Higher Education, no. 127, Fall.
Two views re: campus governance – Radical alternations of structure and formal processes – vs. – relationships, trust, and leadership. The latter views, rather than reengineering are keys to enhancing governance.
Robert Birnbaum, in Management Fads in Higher Education (2000) demonstrates that restructuring and reengineering have failed to bring the improvements that were claimed for them. Instead, he suggests, enhancing leadership, developing training, and building relationships might be more effective methods for improving institutional operations.
Governance – the process of policymaking and macro-level decision making within higher education (HE)
Effectiveness – Birnbaum (1991a) – A match between the expectations of constituents and how the process and outcomes evolve.
Structures would be important on bureaucratic campuses or within bureaucratic units of a campus, whereas relationships would be more important on small, collegial campuses.
Working with individual people and developing relationships can be a more arduous, unpredictable, and long-term task.
Seems that structure may have an impact on efficiency, but does little to improve effectiveness.
Structures and processes are not the heart of organizations – people and relationships are.
Organizations thrive only to the extent that participant relationships are central to decision-making processes.
Several studies have found that interpersonal dynamics, group processes, group motivation and interest, and committee membership are among the most significant issues that campuses should focus on in order to improve governance.
Certain relationships were particularly critical; for example, interpersonal dynamics between the president and the senate chair are instrumental to the success or failure of governance.
Stories from Campuses with New Approaches to Governance
New structures were only as successful as the leaders that emerged on campuses.
Consistently, individuals serving on effective governing bodies described a leader (or group of leaders) who provided direction, movement, and priorities.
Governance became an activity that participants could see meaningfully shaping their environment and creating an effective context for learning as well as a thriving institution.
“What came out was a real sense of appreciation that this was not another committee, it was a group that had made meaningful decisions for the future.”
Why are relationships critical? Effective governance depends on people being willing to share their insights and ideas.
Relationships of integrity are crucial if people are to get outside of personal agendas and work together toward institutional policy setting.
When bonds among participants in the group are tightened, the group becomes better able to work as a team and to develop cognitively complex decisions and policy – that is, decisions that take into account more perspectives and evidence.
Conclusion
The evidence suggests that leadership, trust, and relationships supersede structure and processes in effective decision making. A governance system can operate with imperfect structures and processes, but if leadership is missing and relationships and trust damaged, the governance system will likely fail for lack of direction, motivation, meaning, integrity, an d sense of common purpose, ways to integrate multiple perspectives, open communication, people willing to listen, and legitimacy.
Investment in training for leaders is perhaps the best way to create better relationships and trust since leaders are pivotal in the development of both of these areas.
________________________________________________________________________
Kezar, Adrianna. 2005. Consequences of radical change in governance: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 76, No. 6 (November/December).
In the face of the numerous challenges facing institutions of higher education, there are more and more calls for these institutions to alter their structures and processes.
Even though there has been widespread concern about governance, there has been minimal scholarship on the topic. This study examines the consequence of engaging in radical alteration of a campus’s governance system.
Conclusions
A radical change process is likely to have more negative consequences than the positive consequence of the new system put into place.
Second, no governance system or model is ideal; each has problems that need to be examined and altered on an ongoing basis. Because institutional climates change, as new people are hired, as new programs are added, and as conditions in the context or environment change, it appears that governance systems need to change on an ongoing basis. However, the continuous improvement process can also be a destabilizing concept.