academic governance

Academic GovernanceIn the 21st Century

Les Wallace, Ph.D.

March 21, 2012© Signature Resources 2013 1

Leadership Advice from a Wise Man

“These things happen naturally…

friction, confusion, underperformance.

Everything else requires leadership.”

Peter Drucker 1909 - 2005© Signature Resources 2013 2

Friction, Confusion as seen from the Faculty Senate Point of View

© Signature Resources 2013 3

Department Chair’s Perspective on the Youth Movement in Governance


The Incompetency Theory of Shared Governance as Seen by Some Deans


Tenured Faculty View of the Governance Youth Movement


My View ofthe Joys of Shared Governance

Which one of these is grammatically correct?

1.My heart beats true for the red, white and blue.

1.My heart beats true for the red, white, and blue.

Dilemma of the Oxford Comma


My View ofthe Oxford Comma

Without:

“For my success I would like to thank my parents, Bill Clinton and Oprah Winfrey.”

With:

“For my success I would like to thank my parents, Bill Clinton, and Oprah Winfrey.”


VUCA* in the Educational Strategic Environment

Volatility

Uncertainty

Complexity

Ambiguity

© Signature Resources 2013*U.S. Army War College Risk Assessment Template

9

Shared Governance Headlines“Shared Governance Is a Myth”

A cynical person may suppose that the charade is sustained in order to exhaust the faculty with meaningless tasks so they don't actually give trouble to management. (Vanderbilt University).

“The Death of Shared Governance at the U. of Southern California”

Procedural irregularities in Dean’s handling of tenure denial for African American professor.

Exactly What Is 'Shared Governance'?

Shared governance…is a delicate balance between faculty and staff participation in planning and decision-making processes, on the one hand, and administrative accountability on the other.


Headlines“AAUP Weighs in Calling for Adjunct Faculty to Have Major Role in Shared Governance”

Growing ranks of adjunct and part-time faculty also need a voice.

“Governance of Alabama Universities Under Attack”

An advisory committee of the Alabama Legislature has called for the creation of a single state board because, it says, the state is ill-served by a decentralized approach to governing its 16 public universities.

“Flip-Flop Over Faculty Fingerprint”

Fingerprinted background search of new faculty at Rowan U. under attack by faculty senate.


Headlines“AAUP Urges Resistance to Confidentiality Demands in Shared Governance”

Where does the need for secrecy outweigh the need for transparency?

'Shared Governance' Under Siege: Is It Time to Revive It or Get Rid of It?

Professors feel shut out of decision making and unsure how to regain it or get rid of it.

“Downturn Threatens the Faculty's Role in Running Colleges”

“The Corporate Model for Reforming Academe”

Greater power moving to Boards of Regents and U. Presidents


21st Century Academic Leadership

All centuries are different as the velocity and complexity of change accelerates.

Every generation finds

their traditional models

of doing business tested

by new ideas & demands

on leadership.

“Nothing ages faster than the future.” David Carr© Signature Resources 2013 13

Changing Forces Pressure Academic Governance

Student populations changing.

Globalization of science and technology.

Influence of educational technology

Increased emphasis on educational accountability.

Increasing volatility of state and system-level actions.

Increasing influence of alternative & for-profit institutions.

Integration of the university into the larger society.© Signature Resources 2013 14

Changing Forces Pressure Academic Governance

“Market and related external forces are holding higher education accountable for results rather than process.”

Therefore the rise of the corporate model! The Art and Politics of Academic Governance, Motimer and Sathre (2007)


The Academic GovernanceCurse:“Old Wiring in a New Era”

Tradition—old models remain unexamined.

Time—dangerously slow to upgrade.

Timidity—we might hurt someone’s feelings.© Signature Resources 2013 16

Shaping the Governance Future

This anthropology is why high performance governing bodies target up to 75% of their meetings for dialogue: exploring new academic models, examining strategic

choices, digesting constituent input.© Signature Resources 2013

“The problem is never how to get new innovative thoughts into your mind, but how to get the old ones out.” Dee Hoc

“Professionals generally know so much about what they know that they are frequently the last to see the future differently.” Edie Weiner & Arnold Brown, Future Think

17

Who is this guy? University professor / administrator

Hospital administrator—traditional Board

International consulting company…

Touch 20,000 people yr. / Coach 31 Execs / 15+ Boards a year: Worked with 300 Boards

50% for-profit / 50% government & not-for-profits

Served on 4 Boards of Directors

A Legacy of 21st Century Leadership

Ideal 21C job: Grandparent! © Signature Resources 2013 18

Academic GovernanceChallenges from Where You Sit

Be an active learner…

Look for the relevant topics where your questions about the challenges of Academic Governance should be addressed.

If you don’t hear them addressed—raise your hand and ask a question.


21st Century Governance

Governance Basics

Morning

Fiduciary Governance

Academic Governance

Afternoon

Opportunities for Maximizing Shared Governance



The role of governance is to create, authorize and monitor the strategic direction of the enterprise and create values, policy and financial plans that support vibrant delivery of their mission.

Fiduciary, policy and strategy governance.Boards that Make a Difference, John Carver



Fiduciary Governance based in the law:

The sovereign legal responsibility placed with the board of directors of a legal entity (for profit corporation, non-profit, constitutional entity) to establish mission and vision, set strategy and policy, and approve financial plans.


21st Century GovernanceFiduciary Governance based in the law:

“Excepting only the construction of buildings and other permanent physical improvements, which are under the authority of the State Building Commission, the Board of Trustees holds complete and exclusive authority over all functions of Mississippi’s public universities”

USM Faculty Handbook (p. 2)


Board of TrusteesMississippi Public Universities

The Board of Trustees is the constitutional governing body of the State Institutions of Higher Learning. Because of changes to the legislation regarding the appointment of Board members, "after January 1, 2004, as vacancies occur, the twelve-member Board shall be appointed from each of the three Mississippi Supreme Court districts until there are four members from each Supreme Court district.


Board of TrusteesMississippi Public Universities

The Board oversees degree-credit courses, research and public service activities and programs at the eight public universities, including The University of Mississippi Medical Center, The Mississippi State University Division of Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Medicine, ten off-campus centers, and various other locations throughout the state.


Shared Governance:A Not So Delicate Mesh

of Influence and Authority


21st Century GovernanceAcademic Governance:

The delegated responsibility placed with the Administration and faculty of an institution to determine policy and make academic decisions (curriculum, admission, academic progress, research, tenure, accreditation).

““Authority” for final decisions varies widely but Authority” for final decisions varies widely but customarily involves administrative oversight and customarily involves administrative oversight and final approval as delegated by the University legal final approval as delegated by the University legal governing body.governing body.


Shared Academic Governance

Shared governance for many academic institutions means faculty members (through their senate, academic council, and numerous committees and commissions) are important participants in formulating educational policy, setting admissions standards, establishing the curriculum, and hiring.



“USM believes in the widely accepted principles of shared governance. Therefore, the University recognizes that the faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which related to the educational process.” (p.15)



The Board of Trustees / Regents, of course, have always had the last word on all questions, and the administration and faculty are responsible for implementing their policy.


Shared Academic GovernanceRecognizing the de jure authority of the governing board and University President… The AAUP Red Book (1966) asserts that faculty judgments should ordinarily prevail in 3 areas:

(1)Curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, and research;

(2)Matters of faculty status—hiring, dismissal, retention, tenure and promotion;

(3)Those aspects of student life that relate to the educational process.



What is shared?

Opportunity to participate & influence

Access to information

Access to decision makers

Responsibility to lead from a broad perspective (vs one’s own narrowly defined interests)



Commitment to shared governance means regular exchanges of information and opinion:

Consultation—administration to faculty and back.

Reflection—studied and thoughtful input.

Mediation—dialogue is not easy.

Compromise—the history of progress of anything!

A defined deliberative, consultative practice helps mitigate inevitable political differences within and among various university constituencies and as a result contributes to an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust.© Signature Resources 2013 33

Collegiality

Collegiality is the relationship between colleagues where a mutual respect and collaborative approach are applied in working together toward a common purpose.

In Academic circles “collegiality” typically means shared governance or shared authority.


Collegiality“On Collegiality, College Style”

U. of Central Arkansas fired the tenured “growling professor” because of unprofessional behavior. He regularly “raised petty dislikes more than important issues and proved to be overbearing, rude, offensive, intimidating, and even threatening.”

(May 26, 2000)


Collegiality


And then there’sthe faculty memberwho sets their hairon fire over every littleOxford Comma andstorms and stompsin and out of participation.

Faculty knows who theyare and are frequentlyintimated to stay silent.

Les’ Rule:“No collegiality,No committee service!”

Dilemmas in Academic Leadership

Characteristic Challenge

It’s Personal Emotion runs high on even the smallest of issues. Emotion vs situational savvy can drive decisions.

It’s Voluntary The best frequently don’t step up.+/- 90% disinterested or spectators.

It’s Popularity Driven Popularity or activism does not equal competency. 5-10% faculty activists.

It’s Changing Drastically Old models are being challenged by younger faculty, the marketplace and State Boards playing a greater role in academic decision making.

It’s Frequently Boring Traditional senate, committee meetings, based on a tired model of decision making and participation.© Signature Resources 2013 37

Economic Value of Governance CompetencyEngagement Level Economic Value

Professional Volunteer @ hourly level (events, meetings, focus groups, surveys)

$50/hr.

Committee / Task Force Service

$250/hr.

Special University-wide Committees

$300-500/hr.

Are your shared governance peers worth $300-$500/hr.?Would members look at your backgrounds

and say you bring that level of competent value?


Economic Value of Competent

EngagementEngagement Level Economic Value

A 5 person committee meeting of 1.5 hours + 3 hrs. prep

$3,375 of intellectual value

Plus staff support

Seven members have 4 Committee meetings a year at 2 hrs. + 2 hrs. prep.

$28,000 (@ $250/hr.) of intellectual value

Plus staff support and admin. time

Five faculty committees over a year of effort.

$140,000 of intellectual value

Plus staff support and admin. time


Governance as Transformational Leadership

Challenge assumptions & models Benchmark Best Practices

Actively Engage ALL constituentsCommit to ChangeMove with Speed

Influence© Signature Resources 2013 41

Shared Governance in Transition

© Signature Resources 2013

Get on Board:Your Students, Your peers and your

University Needs you!42

Core Legal Obligations of Governing Body Participants

Duty of Care

Use your best judgment.

Stay informed, engaged and attentive to governance work. [Evidence based—benchmark best practices]

Ask pertinent and challenging questions, raise ethical questions, behave collegially.

Duty of Loyalty

Disclose conflicts of interest.

Put aside narrow personal / professional interests.

Duty of Obedience

Support the University / College mission.

Obey the law and organizational by-laws, policies, values, and ethical standards.


From Governance to Governance Leadership

High Performance Governance Discipline


High Performance Governance

Basics

First things first…the House is in order! Mission clear and organizational activities aligned to produce achievement. Strategic plan provides compass points for future transformation & impact. By-laws, policies, procedures up to date (review calendar on a 2 yr. cycle). Inclusive input from constituency is assured through transparency

and defined channels for individual faculty input (electronic bulletin boards, crowdsourcing, focus groups).

Governing body understands it represents the rights and supports the academic achievement of “all faculty” not only tenured faculty.

Highly competent constituents available for governance leadership service.



Competent Job descriptions for academic governance officers identify leadership

competencies expected.

Nominations / applications / candidate forums confirm competencies. Term limits assure officer turnover and infusion of fresh perspectives. Committee appointments based on competency rather than internal politics. Committee charters reviewed every couple of years. All committee proceedings (minutes, activity) available on the College

web site within 72 hours of meetings. All committees required to submit annual report of accomplishment

and identification of future facing topics they believe need to be addressed.



Competent

Governance Leadership development program in place develops current academic governance leadership as well as future leaders (3-5 years out).

Meeting agendas are strategic and high priority focused vs operational & activity based.

Real time discussion assess effectiveness following each governance meeting.

Annual self-assessments and development plans drive improvement. All committees / task forces have written charters and clearly identified

outcomes or deliverable expectations and authority.



Strategic 75% of governance agenda devoted to strategic topics—future facing. Strategic plan in place looking 3-5 years out. Annual refresh of strategic plan. Inclusive input from constituent leaders on strategic plan: “All” faculty

committee members

professional thought leaders as relevant

focus groups

Students / graduates

other groups of professionals and external partners who know your business

external subject matter experts (accreditation, research, teaching technology, faculty evaluation


21st Century Governance:Strategy

Positioning the organization to remain relevant, valuable, and vibrant.Positioning the organization to remain relevant, valuable, and vibrant.

Strategic thinking should Strategic thinking should proceed strategic planning.proceed strategic planning.

““Evolution keeps you alive…Revolution keeps you relevant.Evolution keeps you alive…Revolution keeps you relevant.””

Gary Hamel, Leading the Revolution


Strategic ThinkingStrategic Planning: “What is our desired College position and credibility and how must we change to get there?”

Strategic Thinking: “How might we re-design our College to leverage leading edge marketplace and best practice academic models?”

Identifying an alternative future position

Anticipating opportunity and threats

Setting change priorities

Designing change pathways

Evolving / adapting systems

Outlining formal plans

Three-five year cycle

Course corrections regularly

Challenging core academic assumptions

Re-inventing College governance

Exploration of new learning paradigms

Sponsoring paradigm shifts/pilot tests

Bold innovative movement

Confirming stakeholder value shifts

Projecting / anticipating lifecycles of

academic and organizational model


Strategic Thinkingis Not Fortune Telling

It’s Informed anticipation

Strategy is about movement: positioning the College to be more viable, valuable and vibrant.

Vision: a clearly defined different future for the organization at least five years out. Helps rally faculty and administration to a common energizing future.

Environmental awareness: a look at how academics, business, legislative, regulatory, political, student and employer expectations are changing.

Opportunities and Threats prioritized for strategic effort.

A three year tactical plan with identified resources and accountabilities for execution.



Constituent Focus Twice a year checks on “faculty perception” of value and satisfaction (two

different issues).

Satisfaction = Value = meets my needs.

NFO voice represents the broad spectrum of member interests vs narrow agendas.

Strategic agenda directly related to the professions / faculty and student student interests / overall University initiatives (virtual learning).

Robust & open communication strategy links constituent groups to Board: newsletter, Tweets, dynamic website, communities blogs.

Constituent engagement pathways represent a “buffet” of options allowing individualized choice. (Unbundled vs bundled)



Transparent / Dialogic Tone Unrushed faculty agendas assure generative dialogue occurs with

50%-75% of board agenda—Roberts Rules can be suspended for a period to allow broad based discussion without having to call for the question!

Characterized by candid discussions with appreciative respect for diverse points of view—don’t be the “growling professor.”

Problem minded then solution minded. Transparent--robust information available to constituents through

dynamic web site / publications (performance indicators / dashboards available on web site).


Questions?


Opportunities for Maximizing Shared Governance

NFO officers

Committee charters, Leadership, and Agenda management

Transparency and Inclusion

Executive Briefings

Use of Task Forces

Rules of Engagement and Special Behavioral Abnormalities of Groups

Self-Assessments


Officers of the College Faculty

An Executive Committee Consisting of:

Chair/ Faculty Governance President

Vice Chair / President

Secretary

At large Executive Committee Members (2-4)

Parliamentarian (also customary to have a volunteer from elsewhere in the University)


College Faculty Officers Duties

As an Executive Committee:

Set agendas for faculty organization meetings.

Appoint committee chairs and members.

Evaluate / assess committee performance.

Create and appoint special task forces.

President—duties typical of your NFO bylaws.

Vice-Chair—oversee committee process and progress.

Secretary—manages transparency, calls for input, web records.

At large Executive Committee members—serve executive committee.


Committee charters, Leadership, and Agenda management

Written charters for all committees and task forces that clearly indicate scope of authority and activity and deliverables.

More important for a committee chair to be an ecumenical facilitator than a subject matter expert.

Committees don’t need “outliers” of either behavior or point of view—you can assure full “points of view” inclusion lots of ways and you don’t need to babysit a bully.

Agendas should always move from “most critical” to least critical.

Adequate agenda notice and pre-work assures face to face time can be spent where it’s most productive—dialogue & deliberation.

Minority reports important when committee is split.


21st Century Meeting Agendas

I. Confirm: attendance, quorum, previous minutes, consent agenda (maximum use of consent agenda).

II. Highest priority decisions / updates next.

III. Finance or compliance report / update report, others in dashboard /executive summary format.

IV. Strategic followup: update, tracking progress, dialogue regarding continued relevance, trend shifts, surprises.

V. Next level board issues: old business, low priority new business.

VI. Assess meeting—immediate discussion or participant survey.

Meeting management? Agenda prioritized? Advanced information available? Adequate management of participation?


Transparency & InclusionNFO and all committees utilize the power of full transparency and instant input provided by the many technology tools:

College web site bulletin boards for updates and materials—committee minutes available here within 72 hours of meeting.

Input mail boxes for all committees.

Regular face-to-face report outs and invitations for input in departmental faculty meetings once a quarter.

NFO officers and committee chairs strategically use Twitter for key messaging and invitations for input.


Transparency & InclusionHighly strategic or controversial issues utilize

“crowdsourcing” technology to maximize input and check the pulse of the faculty.

“Crowdsourcing” can be executed several times across the lifetime of a committee deliberation and research on an issue:

o at outset to sense the pulse;

o early on when narrowing scope/options/ideas;

o later in the process where options / ideas / models have been narrowed to the vital few;

o Nearing final recommendation when the committee needs a check on what they might have overlooked.


Transparency & InclusionFull Faculty Organization and Committee

calendars available on-line for anyone to check.

Quarterly progress report on “strategic plan progress.”

Careful of “blogs” for shared governance business—they can easily become swamps for the faculty whose hair is on fire and turn other more reasonable faculty away from wanting to get engaged.

Yes, the Dean should “tweet.”


Using Executive BriefingsALL presentations to NFO or committees should

require a 1-2 page executive briefing of the content.

Begin with the Bottom line:The Recommendation, or current status, orThe seriousness of the dilemma

Then work backward to scope a “brief” context:High Level Data ($, surveys, history, trends)Strategic ImplicationsAnswer some “FAQs”Possibly a link to extensive reports or other data for those who can’t help themselves.

Further elaboration: see “Executive Briefings to Managers and Boards” in articles on www.signatureresources.com


Using Task ForcesTask forces are created “ad hoc” (temporary) to address a specific issue over a short period of time and then disband. For example, a board may wish a task force to explore a particular trend in their business environment and suggest positions, options or actions for board consideration. A board may need to assure inclusive input from key constituencies and use a task force to facilitate such input.

Questions to ask before creating a task force:

Is the organizational staff capable of answering the questions and identifying options?

If Yes! Go here first. It’s cheaper, faster, and values your staff.

If No? Should a subject matter expert / consultant be contracted to give direction to the board instead of a task force? The higher risk the issue the more a SME might be best.

Do you need specialized input from subject matter experts in your constituency or diverse perspective on scoping a difficult and controversial issue? A task force can serve this purpose for a board thereby keeping the Board’s positions open until they’ve received broader perspective.

© Signature Resources 2011

No speeches—get to the point.

Be prepared.

Focus on the problem not the person.

Apply appreciative inquiry to all positions.

Explore the minority opinion.

Pick your fights—keep petty paper cuts out of the session.

Say it in the room not in the hall.

Support the decision—move on when the discussion moves on.

Do you really have something new to add?

Meeting Management:Rules of Engagement


Shared Governance Assessment

Twice a year survey checks of constituent perceptions:

o Value provided faculty by the NFO

o Satisfaction with access to information and participation.

Focus groups around specific high profile issues or future facing issues on the minds of faculty and students.

Frequent NFO Executive Committee discussions with College Administration (Deans and Department Chairs) addressing the question: “Where could the NFO add even greater value to the success of our College?”


Self-Assessment① The agenda was well prioritized based upon

operational or strategic importance to our organization?

② Ample dialogue explored each of our decisions?

③ Pre-meeting materials were adequate and timely.

④ Sufficient time was spent on exploration of strategic issues?

⑤ I would suggest the following adjustments to future meetings….


Questions?


Academic Governance References

American Federation of Teachers, “Shared Governance in Colleges and Universities” (2002).

American Association of Univerisity Professors, “Indicators of Sound Governance” (2001).

American Association of University Professors, Policy Documents and Reports also known as the Redbook] (10th Edition, 2006).

Benjamin, R., and S. Carroll. “The Implications of the Changed Environment for Governance in Higher Education.” In The Responsive University: Restructuring for High Performance, ed. W. G. Tierney (1998).

Gayle, D.J., et al, Governance in the Twenty-First Century University: Approaches to Effective Leadership and Strategic Management (2003).

Hines, E.R. “The Governance of Higher Education.” In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 15 (2000).

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, Taking Charge of Change: Renewing the Promise of State and Land-Grant Universities (1996).


Academic Governance References

Ketzar, A., “What is More Important to Effective Governance: Relationships, Trust, and Leadership, or Structures and Formal Processes?” In Restructuring Shared Governance in Higher Education, eds. W.G. Tierney and V.M. Lechga (2004).

Ketzar, A., “Meeting Today’s Governance Challenges: A Synthesis of the Literature and Examination of a Future Agenda for Scholarship.” Journal of Higher Education 75 (4), (2004).

Mortimer, Kenneth and Colleen O’Brien Sathre, The Art and Politics of Academic Governance (2010).

Longanecker, D.C. “Governing for Real.” In Governance and the Public Good, ed. W.G. Tierney (2006).

Tierney, W.G. and K. Holley, “Shared governance under fire: Reform and renewal.” Academe 91 (3), (2005).


Les Wallace, Ph.D.President, Signature Resources Inc.

[email protected] Signature Resources is a 40 person consulting consortium providing governance and

leadership strategy to public and private sector enterprise globally through two domestic and three international offices.

Dr. Wallace is recognized for tracking business environment and workplace trends and their impact upon business and government. His publications have appeared in Leadership Excellence, Physician’s Assistant, Personnel Journal, Credit Union Management, Public Management, and Nation's Business as well as numerous research and conference proceedings. His latest book, co-authored with Dr. Jim Trinka, A Legacy of 21st Century Leadership, outlines the leadership organizations need in a global, fast moving business environment. His governance workbook, 21st Century Governance is used by 1,500 EDs and Board members.

Les is a frequent consultant and speaker on issues of organizational transformation and leadership, employee engagement, strategic thinking and board of directors governance. His clients include Fortune 100 businesses, Government agencies, and not-for-profit organizations world-wide. Dr. Wallace is also the 9Minute Mentor, a resource of short articles and DVDs on leadership, governance, management and personal success.


ContactLes Wallace, Ph.D.

President

Signature Resources Inc.

PO Box 460100

Aurora, CO 80046

[email protected]

SignatureResources.com


mailto:[email protected]

academic governance

Education

governance signature

deans signature resources

presidents signature

governance future

david carr signature

death of shared governance

adjunct faculty

shared governanceis