Main Content
Lesson 2 Nature and Structure of Administration and Governance in Higher Education
Shared Governance
Boards of trustees are a critical part of governance for colleges and universities. But, equally important is the concept of shared governance, which is unique to postsecondary education. Therefore, we will shift our attention to focus more on shared governance.
Unlike so many other industries, the greatest strength and sometimes the greatest challenge in higher education is the commitment to shared governance. In this section, shared governance will be defined, with a broader description of how this important concept is enacted within colleges and universities. In future lessons, we will explore how the shifting landscape is changing how governance is applied, and how the various constituents' power bases are evolving.
NARRATOR: Formal organizational charts illustrate the lines of responsibility and communication in a college. What they are far less likely to clearly show is shared governance. In institutions of higher education, the Board of Trustees is ultimately responsible for all outcomes and fiduciary oversight. However, when it comes to decisions about academic issues, the responsibility for decision-making is shared with faculty. But where is this on the organizational chart?
Shared governance doesn't actually show up on an organizational chart. We can see a hint of it if we look at Penn State. Look at the University Faculty Senate. Notice it reports to the Executive Vice President and Provost. Shared governance happens in committees, where groups of faculty and administrators work together to make decisions about academic aspects at Penn State a significant piece of the overall operation.
Committees exist across the institution. But anything that has to be formally approved, has to go through the Faculty Senate. The Senate even has its own standing committees. Decisions from these committees flow through the University Faculty Senate into the formal structure of the university. Keep in mind, shared governance is the crucial difference between the structure and functioning of corporate or business organizations and academic institutions.
Let's look at a specific example. This is the curriculum process as provided by the Penn State Faculty Senate. Along the left side of the chart, we see units as they appear on the formal Penn State organizational chart. Notice how the committees play a role in decision-making. Subcommittees focus on targeted areas before forwarding them to the Curricular Affairs Committee, or forwarded back to where they came from for clarification.
Right now you're a student in the higher education program. For this class to exist, it would have gone through four committees before being presented by the Provost to the Board of Trustees for approval. This example illustrates the types of discussions and collaboration that occurs across institutions of higher education. Even though one might not see it on the formal organizational chart, shared governance is the vehicle that drives all of the work within an institution of higher education.
Shared Governance vs. Corporate Governance
Robert Birnbaum offered the following definition as it applies to governance in higher education.
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, is the basis for the role of trustees and administration; the other system, based on professional authority, justifies the role of the faculty.
Keeping Birnbaum's definition in mind read the definition of Corporate Governance as defined by Investopedia. How do they compare? In higher education, university decision making has historically put a significant premium on the voice of the faculty, particularly the judgment of the faculty governing organization.
To better understand what shared governance means, let’s review the text below taken from a 1966 statement jointly formulated by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB). If interested, read the full AAUP statement.
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 relate to the educational process. On these matters the power of review or final decision lodged in the governing board or delegated by it to the president should be exercised adversely only in exceptional circumstances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty. It is desirable that the faculty should, following such communication, have opportunity for further consideration and further transmittal of its views to the president or board. Budgets, personnel limitations, the time element, and the policies of other groups, bodies, and agencies having jurisdiction over the institution may set limits to realization of faculty advice.
This statement outlines a very important role for the faculty in the decision making process of colleges and universities. This statement was written approximately 50 years ago, and much has changed since its formulation. Think about how universities operate differently today and how that might impact the application of this broadly constructed philosophy. What challenges exist today that might make it difficult to stay true to a structure established at a much different time?
With significant growth in the for profit higher education sector, we are seeing a lot more institutions operating like the corporate sector with a top down leadership style. Birnbaum (2004) differentiated market institutions versus academic institutions by their primary objective:
| Market institutions | Academic institutions |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Think about how the two styles contrast within one another, and where they might be similar. Many of the outcomes desired by either model are common to one another (lifelong learning skills, job placement outcomes, interpersonal skill development, etc.). Many reasons exist as to why universities might move toward a market driven model. Severe pressure from numerous forces, oftentimes from external forces such as federal and state government, donors, alumni, business and industry, and local communities have influenced universities to shift how they do business. In particular, the response to an evolving workforce and a substantial reduction in outside financial support with concurrent increased expectations for the support still remaining, has led to a new mode of operating.
Many times traditional shared governance approaches are viewed as slow to adapt or non-responsive, and unable to meet ever changing workforce needs. While there is a pace to shared governance, one that has increased over time; a move away from this could be highly detrimental to many universities. Think about the following: within a top down corporate governance model, is it possible to effectively develop new degree programs? To appropriately develop a curriculum that will meet existing needs of the disciplines? To design a course with relevant learning outcomes that will serve the best interests of students? It would be difficult, at best, to accomplish these important objectives that are central to the quality of any university. That is why most universities rely on a governance model in which decision making is shared between institutional leaders and the faculty. The next section looks at the long standing relationship between these two groups.
Voices from the Field: Shared Governance
The following video explores the definition of shared governance from the perspective of Rick Legon who currently serves as the president of the Association of Governing Boards (AGB). Take some time to listen to his perspective. Do you agree with him? How does it compare to the definition offered by Birnbaum?
Reference: Birnbaum, R. (2004, Fall). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. (pp. 5-22) New Directions for Higher Education (volume 127). Wiley and Sons.