BY THOMAS J. PFAFF

There is no shortage of articles addressing challenges and issues with shared governance on campuses. COVID-19 has accelerated the situation, as noted in an AAUP report that states, “The COVID-19 pandemic has presented the most serious challenges to academic governance in the last fifty years.” The Chronicle also reports on this in a recent article. A common theme is that faculty want more shared governance; what do we really mean when we say that?

In “Exactly what is ‘Shared Governance’” Gary Olson offers, “The key to genuine shared governance is broad and unending communication. When various groups of people are kept in the loop and understand what developments are occurring within the university, and when they are invited to participate as true partners, the institution prospers.” I argue further that this is more than shared governance and that there are four key hierarchical leadership aspects that are needed to ensure this collaborative partnership: shared governance, transparency, openness, and collaboration.

In practice, guidelines for shared governance are often found in the bylaws of faculty governance as well as human resource policy manuals.  A close read of such documents usually shows that faculty have some authority over matters such as curriculum and promotion, but not over matters of finance or the size of the student body. These documents likely set forth rules for faculty on standing committees and how they are chosen. These shared governance documents provide some modest rights to faculty but since we have little say in key financial matters these rights are constrained. Moreover, the reality is that faculty have limited say in major issues surrounding university budgets, and there often isn’t much structural accountability for administrators or the board of trustees. As Olson notes, “The truth is that all legal authority in any university originates from one place and one place only: its governing board.”

Having a culture of “shared governance” thus involves much more than following the bylaws. Indeed, an administration can follow all the shared governance rules yet still not commit to basic transparency; transparency is central to building trust and goodwill. At a minimum, in a transparent administration faculty will know how a decision was made, why it was made, and who made it. This is part of Olson’s nod to “unending communication.” Faculty are too often in the dark regarding decisions that impact our ability to teach, do scholarship, and provide service. Further, an administration can have a level of transparency without faculty being “kept in the loop.”

Even better than knowing how, why, and who decided is knowing what problem is being addressed, what outcomes are expected, and what other options were considered. An openness to the decision-making is more than transparency. Rather it is an approach marked by honesty and a lack of secrecy. This is more than just transparency and includes regular communication about problems or concerns on the minds of the administration. Honest and open conversation between the campus community and the administration, including the board of trustees who often set the key agenda items for the president, is especially important. Open dialogue with time for questions and answers is a key part of ensuring that the whole campus is included and informed. Recently, in the move to Zoom some administrations now hold more of a webinar than a meeting with real conversation. If there is not regular honest dialogue between the administration and the campus, then the administration isn’t open.

When faculty speak of shared governance, we often mean that we want to be collaborative partners with the administration. For this to happen, the administration must not only be open about problems and concerns but work with the campus community to articulate problems that need to be addressed. In this setting, we can all work towards a solution with all stakeholders at the table. There are two key benefits to this approach. First, the administration is making decisions with greater information and an understanding of possible ramifications, which is likely to lead to better results. Second, as stakeholders are actively engaged in dealing with issues, energy is not spent fighting decisions made without openness or transparency, and campus morale tends to be much higher. Finally, with greater involvement there is more accountability and ownership for actions taken.

In episode 97 of the Knowledge Project podcast with Roger Martin (2017’s top management thinker), Shane Parrish asked Roger about traits of great leaders. Roger’s first response was that when someone disagrees with their thinking “a great leader’s first reaction is to say: tell me more.” The value of this response is that it sends a message that ideas are not going to be shot down by those in charge even when they are in opposition to current thinking, thereby encouraging all ideas and more collaboration in decision-making processes. Such exchanges show a climate of honesty, transparency, and openness.

Collaboration takes time, although possibly less time than all the conflict that arises from unilateral decision-making. Ultimately, the goal is better decisions and not pleasing faculty.

The conclusion of the 2020 AAUP Shared Governance Survey states:

However, in several decision-making areas, including budgets, buildings, and allocations of faculty positions, the faculty has little or no meaningful opportunity to participate.

Further:

Particularly striking are several areas in which the faculty had made progress in its decision-making authority between 1971 and 2001 but has since returned to the status of 1971 or worse—most notably in the allocation of faculty positions and in budgetary matters. By contrast, several areas of decision-making that are local in scope, such as programmatic curricular decision-making or the selection of department chairs, have seen an increase in faculty authority.

Local control is nice but programmatic curricular decision-making is impacted by budget and space, about which faculty have little say. In fiscally flush times, financial decisions (budget, buildings, and faculty positions) are less contentious. Today, higher education faces a challenging future with tight budgets and competition for students. Decisions are difficult and have greater impact. The campus with a collaborative approach to strategic problem solving will make better decisions and is more likely to come out on top or as Olson says, “the institution prospers.”

Thomas J. Pfaff is professor and chair of mathematics at Ithaca College.