HIED842:
Lesson 2 Nature and Structure of Administration and Governance in Higher Education
Overview
Higher education administration and governance has evolved dramatically over the past hundred years. How decisions are made within an academic organization, who maintains ultimate responsibility for the direction of colleges and universities, how the various constituent groups (trustees, university administration, faculty) share responsibility for governing the institution have changed given the increasingly complex demands faced by higher education as an industry.
It is important to understand how higher education organizations are structured so that you are able to better navigate the dynamic, ever-evolving university landscape. As a launching point for this lesson, we will review the various structures in place at a variety of institutions that demonstrate the ways in which colleges and universities are organized. The simplest way to do this is by examining organizational charts of different institution types.
For those of you that have taken HIED 545: Higher Education and Student Affairs in the United States some of this section will be a refresher on how organizations are structured, while for others we will provide a foundational understanding of how universities are organized so that you might have a better understanding of how and why they operate in the ways that they do.
This lesson will also provide an overview of different models of university leadership. Specifically, we will review the works of Bolman and Deal as well as Birnbaum which have provided various frameworks in which university leaders operate.
Essential Questions
As you explore the lesson commentary and assigned reading materials, consider the essential question(s) below. They will help guide your learning and ensure that you have mastered the key concepts of this lesson.
- How are higher education institutions organized?
- Who makes the major decisions at a higher education institution?
- How are university governing boards structured?
- What type of leadership models exist in higher education?
Lesson Readings & Activities
By the end of this lesson, make sure you have completed the readings and activities found in the Lesson 2 Course Schedule.
Organizational Charts in Institutions of Higher Education
This animation walks you through how an organizational chart can be useful to new employees. The video includes the basics of how an organizational chart for a college or university is built and how the chart's structure defines overall management functions. It uses Penn State University as an example.
NARRATOR: Imagine that you're considering a position at a new organization. In addition to the actual position, you should be interested in the organization itself, right? So how do you learn about an organization?
One of the best ways to learn about how an organization is structured is by looking at its organizational chart. An organizational chart is a graphic representation of the formal structure of an organization. It includes the employees and leaders broken down by departments, units, or functional areas.
For instance in institutions of higher education, the highest level of authority is the Board of Trustees and the President. Immediately following the Board of Trustees and the President are the units that comprise the President's cabinet. The rest of the organizational chart reflects the units and departments that make up the rest of the institution. Notice that each box on the chart is connected in some way all the way back to the President and Board of Trustees. These connections represent the authority reporting lines.
Depending on the size and complexity of the institution, the number and types of units representing the remainder of the organizational chart will vary. For smaller institutions, the organizational chart may show all, or most, of the units at a single glance. Larger institutions may need multiple pages of charts to represent all of the units and employees of the college or university. This means the units can also have their own organizational charts, requiring further exploration to reveal the actual details of the unit.
So when you're considering a new position at an institution of higher education, there are a lot of details available to help you get a better understanding of the institution and where you might fit within it. When you accept a position in the institution, the organizational chart will serve as a resource for you to better understand your position and role within the broader organization.
Let's use the Penn State organizational chart to help us with an example. At first glance, the Penn State organizational chart can be overwhelming to comprehend. The reason for this? It's a large, diverse organization with many units representing many employees. But what if we were to focus on one person? We could then begin to digest and understand the complex system that is Penn State.
Take for instance, Dr. Kelly Austin. Right now in 2015, Dr. Austin is not only one of the co-authors of this course, he's the Chancellor of the Penn State's Schuylkill Commonwealth Campus. Where are Commonwealth campuses located on the Penn State organizational chart, you ask? Commonwealth campuses fall under the auspices of the Executive Vice President and Provost. In 2015, this position is held by Dr. Nicholas Jones.
The Provost's office has its own organizational chart, as direct reports to the Provost include the deans from the academic colleges, the leaders of offices ranging from Educational Equity to Undergraduate Education, as well as the Vice President of Commonwealth Campuses. Dr. Madlyn Hanes, the Vice President for Commonwealth Campuses, is responsible for the oversight of all of the campuses.
Keep in mind that Penn State's Schuylkill, in addition to other Commonwealth campuses, University Park, and World Campus are combined together to create one university, geographically dispersed.
The Penn State Schuylkill campus also has its own organizational chart. This example not only shows the complexity and size of an organization, it also reinforces the need for facets of the organization to be able to be self-contained. Commonwealth campuses are a good illustration of how units can be largely self-contained and still be part of a bigger organization.
Let's examine Penn State a little more from Dr. Austin's perspective. Within an organization, savvy administrators, such as Dr. Austin, manage up, down, and laterally.
DR. AUSTIN: When managing up, the Chancellor must develop good working relationships with those above him in the organizational chart, seeking to communicate needs of his or her campus. It is imperative that a Chancellor have a clear understanding of the strategic priorities of those above them in the organizational chart and work in unison with the greater university agenda, which is established by the senior leaders higher up in the organizational chart.
Developing these relationships also ensures that they are invited to be an active participant in establishing the course, not only for their unit, but the entire university. While it is clearly important that the Chancellor of each campus has a positive relationship with those directly up the line-- Vice President of Commonwealth Campuses, Provost, President, Board of Trustees-- it also greatly benefits the chancellor and their respective campus if they are able to build a good rapport with those in senior leadership positions, for example Senior VP for Finance and Business, Senior VP of Development and Alumni Relations, et cetera, and those within their respective units.
NARRATOR: For Dr. Austin, managing down involves the many individuals working at the Schuylkill campus. The people that Dr. Austin manages are represented on the Schuylkill Commonwealth Campus organizational chart. The Chancellor, however, does not simply want to engage direct reports as he also builds relationships with, and regularly engages, individuals deeper on the organizational chart.
DR. AUSTIN: The Chancellor works closely with those direct reports to carry out the strategy development as well as the implementation. This is carried out through regular communication, updating of desired outcomes, routine assessment of the work being done, feedback on progress, and a continual effort to advance forward the goals of the campus. These meetings take place one on one with a few campus leaders and as an entire cabinet to inventory progress and strategize future plans.
Oftentimes, it is necessary and important for the Chancellor or other leaders to directly engage in conversations with those throughout the organization to transact business.
NARRATOR: Managing laterally involves Dr. Austin engaging those portions of the institution that are not involved in his formal reporting chain. For instance, he is not relating to someone directly above or below him in the organizational chart, but rather up here-- someone lateral to him-- such as Dr. Lori Bechtel-Wherry, Chancellor of the Altoona Commonwealth Campus.
In addition to managing up, down, and laterally, one needs to be able to interface with individuals in other units. To explore this concept, let's imagine that Dr. Austin, as Chancellor of a Commonwealth campus, needs to start a new development activity. Here are some of the various development offices located throughout Penn State University.
Which development office Dr. Austin needs to work with depends on the nature and scope of his new development activity. If it's a development activity that focuses on local alumni within a 20 mile radius of Penn State's Schuylkill, then it might make sense to work with the Campus Development office. However, if it's approaching a prominent Penn State graduate who happened to enroll their first two years at the Schuylkill Campus, then University Level Development Office will likely want to be involved.
So we now know that formal organizational charts can be used to see positionality within a unit or organization, the relationships of units to one another within an organization, and how those units might communicate and collaborate with one another.
The next few pages provide more in-depth information on Boards of Trustees and Presidents.
Board and Organization Leadership
The ultimate decision-making responsibility falls to the governing board of the institution, as they have the final say on all matters (fiduciary, legal, compliance, organization structure, strategic planning, etc.). The board carries a significant duty to ensure the successful and ongoing momentum of the organization. That being said, board members are volunteers either selected or elected to serve the institution for a period of time, and most are not paid for their service. Boards rely on the strength of an effective senior leadership team to embody and enact the mission, vision and strategy for the university; and for the leadership team to advise them on pertinent issues that have an impact on overall institutional operation.
Therefore, one of the most important responsibilities of the board is to appoint and evaluate the president, and to make a change at this position if and when necessary. This important task can set the standard for the entire operation of the institution. On organizational charts of postsecondary institutions after the board (located at the top) and the president, you will find the senior leadership team (typically comprised of vice presidents), and then as you look further down the chart moving further into the institution within each unit of the university.
Whenever you work with an organizational chart for a postsecondary institution, consider the various decisions that went into its structure. Does it make sense to you? There is no exact formula for how a university should be structured, and the framework is oftentimes tied to the mission and vision, which serves as a foundation for how things should be organized. Questions that universities must consider include: how many leadership positions should the university have? Who should report to whom within the organization, and why should it be structured in a particular way? What are the benefits of organizing in a certain manner, and what are the drawbacks? These are all important questions for individuals working within higher education to consider as well regardless of which level they work within the organizational landscape. It has implications on organizational power and resources, as well as actual power.
Consider the following: In some organizations, you will find that student affairs reports to a Vice President of Academic & Student Affairs. Think about the implications of such an arrangement. How much authority might student affairs have in this case contrasted to an organization in which student affairs reports to the President? Consider further the implications for those further down the reporting structure. What does it mean for those within this structure that are based in either academic affairs or student affairs, but at the same level/rank for all intents and purposes? Is it possible that those on the academic affairs side have more authority/resources than those in student affairs? The reality is that you might not know if this is the case just by looking at an organizational chart; it may only become apparent once you have experience inside the institution. The structure in this example has historically been the case at many institutions, but things are changing. We will discuss how student affairs as a department has been elevated due to matters related to crisis management, compliance, and student outcomes, and how this shift impacts university governance.
An interesting recent phenomenon, more pronounced since the financial collapse of 2008, is the multitude of universities that sought to reorganize their structures in response the economic challenges faced by their organizations. These reorganizations shuffled the leadership deck, administrative departments, and academic units in an effort to streamline, to become more efficient, and to maximize quality. Whether this happened can be debated, but the process for how the restructuring was done speaks to the institution's commitment to shared governance, a topic we will explore later in this lesson. One thing that we do know is that organization charts of today have evolved quite a bit over the past 10-15 years.
Governing Boards
This section explores the various types of governing boards present in higher education. There are many different governance structures in place (e.g. boards of trustees, boards of regents, etc.), with wide ranging implications depending on the model selected. These structures can change over time. This is more likely in public institutions where external pressures including legislators seek to change the school based on the challenges/issues of the day. Private institutions tend to maintain their structures for longer periods of time.
Think about these contrasting approaches to structuring governing boards. How might they have an impact on how university leaders, administrators, faculty and staff carry out their duties in each case?
Types of Governing Boards
Universities generally fall into three main groups containing a number of sub-categories. Explore each category by clicking on the tabs below. Note: The images in each tab are links to the websites of each university. Simply click on the image to navigate to the website. Click on the back button to return to the course page.
The first group includes those universities that have a single governing board for a campus- based research institution with direct authority and responsibility for the operation and management of the institution. Some institutions in this group, primarily private, have self-perpetuating governing boards with complete authority and responsibility for all aspects of the university’s operation. Others, primarily public, have mostly politically appointed governing boards with an obligation to report to legislatures, governors, or statewide boards or commissions that may limit the institutional board’s authority and responsibility in various ways.
Public example:
University of Wyoming.
Private example:
Villanova University.
The second group includes multiple campus-based public institutions governed by a common statewide board. In this group, the campus-based institutions may report to the statewide board directly or through a system executive.
Public examples:
The Pennsylvania State University
The University of Wisconsin System.
Private example:
Carnegie Mellon University.
The third group of public institutions has a local governing board for the campus institution, and this local board has a subset of powers derived from or delegated by a statewide board. The distribution of authority and responsibility between the statewide board and the local board, and between state-level executives and campus-level executives, varies widely. These relationships tend to change with some frequency in response to challenges, opportunities, personal ambitions of individual actors, and legislative and executive branch preferences.
Public examples:
The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE)
PASSHE: Bloomsburg University
The University of North Carolina system
The University of North Carolina system: UNC Chapel Hill
The three structures identified above are not an exhaustive list and do not represent the entirety of how institutional boards can be structured. They are meant to provide a basic overview of what you will encounter in your professional life and a launching off point for you to understand the most common governing board types. If you are early in your career you might not be as concerned with the type of institution at which you are working, but as you progress through your career the form of governing board may become increasingly important to you. As you reflect on the types of governing boards outlined above, think about what type of organization in which you would like to work. It is also important to think about your career path and the types of institutions you would choose to work.
For many higher education professionals, the type of institution at which they commenced their professional lives, becacme the type of institution where they spent their career. This happens for a number of reasons, the one you will hear most is "institutional fit." Whether someone works best within a community college system, a small private liberal arts institution, or a research university is a matter of fit in terms of professional context and understanding. While you can move between institution types, your professional lens and how you view things is shaped by where you have worked. Different institutional types and the varying organizational governing boards shape the culture, governance style, and priorities of their respective universities and the people that work within them.
Reference: Lombardi, J. V., Craig, D. D., Capaldi, E. D. & Gater, D. S. (2002) University Organization, Governance and Competitiveness. The Center: Arizona State University.
How Boards of Trustees are Selected
To gain a deeper appreciation of what is important to a university, one place to examine is the composition of the governing board -- the board of trustees -- and how trustees are selected to fill these important positions. Some are appointed by state governors or legislatures, while others are elected by a constituent group like the alumni, students, or agricultural societies. Some are self appointing, selecting new members through the existing membership, often via a nominating committee's recommendation. In addition to looking at how boards of trustees are selected, it is valuable to examine important issues such as term limits, the executive committee selection process, rules of authority, etc. Why are these guiding principles and selection criteria important? Think about the impact that having the right trustees can have on the positioning of the university for success.
Why are these guiding principles and selection criteria important? Think about the impact that having the right trustees can have on the positioning of the university for success.
Take time to review a few of the examples below to see how various universities select their board members and how they govern the university.
- Penn State
- Florida State
- Duke University
- Slippery Rock University
- Lehigh Carbon Community College
- University of Pennsylvania
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.
Faculty, Governing Boards, and Institutional Governance
The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) completed a study in 2009 entitled Faculty, Governing Boards, and Institutional Governance that examined the important interaction that takes place between the faculty, university leadership, and governing boards. This section highlights some of the findings of this study which if enacted are intended to lead to better collaboration between these important groups and in turn to better institutional governance, thereby leading to more successful colleges and universities.
The recommendations offered in the report fall into three categories.
Improve Mutual Understanding and Respect
The first was that efforts should be made to improve mutual understanding and respect of the roles and responsibilities of each group. Clearly articulating the expectations of board members, faculty, and administrators through continuous education of new and existing members, with an appreciation of the academic culture as well as the financial environment in which the university operates can help here. The collective understanding can also be strengthened by adding weight to faculty participation, be it through reward, or the promotion and tenure process. It is important that opportunities for interaction between the groups become a routine part of business operations and the works of each group are regularly communicated to the others through official and unofficial means.
Clear Governance Policies and Procedures
The next category of recommendation had to do with clear governance policies and procedures. It is important that the structure of governance is constructed, made available, and routinely reviewed for currency. These policies should clearly denote how decisions are to be made and the associated role, if any, of the board and its members, the president, university leaders, and the faculty. At the core of the shared governance relationship is an appreciation for the expertise that faculty bring, the financial accountability the board maintains, and the interplay of the two groups with university leadership in advancing the university’s mission and objectives.
Presidential Leadership
The last category of recommendations is connected to presidential leadership, and how it is enhanced when shared governance is highlighted and reviewed by the faculty and by board members in constructive ways. It is extremely beneficial that faculty are actively engaged in key university decisions such as mission affirmation, budget development, and strategic planning. Lastly, the same message should be shared with all groups so that a consistent understanding is developed.
Institutional Governance Principles
Given the shifting political and economic climate in which postsecondar institutions function, AGB issued a statement on Board Responsibility for Institutional Governance on January 22, 2010. The purpose of this statement was to guide boards as they govern colleges and universities, to clarify their roles and responsibilities, and to articulate a framework on how boards should work effectively with presidents, administrators, faculty, and others, particularly as it relates to the governance of higher education institutions. This statement articulated a number of principles that guide board members with regard to their responsibility for institutional governance.
- The board of directors maintains ultimate responsibility for institutional governance. They are responsible for adherence to the university’s mission, and should seek ways to carry their duties in consultation with university leadership, the faculty, and the other institutional members.
- Given the importance of shared governance in higher education, it is important that board members govern in a ways that respects the opinions and voice of the faculty.
- The board has fiduciary responsibilities that include budget approval. This should give consideration to agreed upon strategic priorities.
- Creating an environment of transparency and open communication with university groups that have a vested interested in the institution’s success is important to successful achievement of key priorities.
- In an effort to hold themselves accountable, boards should periodically evaluate their efficacy. Self examination is an important part of board continuation and success.
- The most important function of the board is to appoint, assess, and provide guidance to the institution’s president.
- It is important for boards to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of university leaders, as well as affiliated advisory councils and boards. Given the complexity that exists within multi-campus operations, having a well defined structure is necessary.
- Public and private institutions boards need to create connections between the university and the communities they serve.
The following two YouTube videos are of Michael Crow, President of Arizona State University, giving the opening plenary at the ACE 2012 Annual Meeting. The discussion focuses on the future of higher education, the need for reform, the implications for governance, what has been done at ASU, and the potential for US higher education.
Administrative Tip
For many reasons, shared governance is a core principle on which universities base their operation. Central to this priority which drives how things are done is the need for faculty to have academic freedom; trustees have an obligation to protect this important ideal in the face of external pressures and a changing society. In many ways this ideal rests on a foundation that is eroding at best, or crumbling at worst. In practice, institutions have moved further away from engaging faculty in the decision making process, in an effort to either expedite key initiatives, or because the pressures faced by boards and university leaders are so difficult, they feel compelled to respond quickly - which oftentimes leaves out important constituents, in particular, the faculty. As an administrator, you are strongly encouraged to maintain shared governance by consulting with faculty regularly.
Models of University Leadership
This section explores how operating within higher education organizations can be viewed from a variety of different vantage points. This is important to understand, because while you may examine, process, and act upon any given situation or scenario in a certain way, those that you work for and with may, and likely will, see things in a different manner. Regardless of whether you are at the beginning of your career in higher education or you are a seasoned professional, understanding the varied ways in which others approach a problem will benefit you tremendously. Through understanding, you can appreciate the myriad of approaches exhibited by those working around you, and by doing so, you will find success in any environment regardless of the organizational framework employed. In this course we present two models of leadership. The first comes Bolman and Deal (5th edition, 2013) and the second from Birnbaum (1988).
Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames
Bolman and Deal wrote an influential book, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, that presents four frames that individuals use to process organizational governance and change. The framework highlights how each situation can be viewed differently depending upon which frame is used. There is no perfect frame or model for all situations, because each frame highlights certain considerations while paying less attention to other considerations. The effective leader will operate from multiple frames, using each frame to carefully consider the issues raised by that frame and using a variety of frames to ensure that all of the key issues are being examined. Myopically examining an issue from only one frame will likely cause key issues to be ignored, which can lead to disagreement, conflict, and problems.
Let us quickly introduce you to each of the four frames presented by Bolman and Deal. One can adjust these frames to reflect your own view of the key items that one might consider in any situation, as the essential point raised by Bolman and Deal is the importance of using multiple frames, not the idea that there is a specific set of frames that are ideal for each individual. Further, leaders of organizations operate from the four frames and exhibit characteristics that link back to each respective frame.
Click on each tab to view the frame and its respective characteristics.
The Structural Frame
This frame for institutional leadership is grounded in the notion that by providing a formally arranged organizational structure, with clearly defined rules of engagement among both internal and external actors, quality will be improved and problems will be minimized. This frame sets out to maximize the capacity of the organization through clearly defined roles and rules. The structural frame’s foundation is built around the theoretical constructs offered by Frederick Taylor’s “scientific management” and by Max Weber’s “monocratic bureaucracy.”
Characteristics
- Structural leaders do their homework.
- Structural leaders rethink the relationship of structure, strategy, and environment.
- Structural leaders focus on implementation.
- Effective structural leaders experiment, evaluate, and adapt.
The Human Resource Frame
This frame emphasizes the relationship that exists between organizations and the people that work there. This relationship is symbiotic, in that both need each other to be successful. Employees need an organization for the professional and personal rewards they offer (both extrinsic and intrinsic), and organizations need people to function and thrive. People are the core of any high functioning operation, and without talented, creative, hard-working individuals organizations likely become stagnant or fail. Finding and keeping the right people is a central imperative to any high functioning organization. Problems arise when a disconnect occurs between organizational priorities and individuals’ personal needs and interests.
Characteristics
- Human resource leaders believe in people and communicate their belief.
- Human resources leaders are visible and accessible.
- Effective human resource leaders empower others.
The Political Frame
This frame examines institutional governance from a view that stands in stark contrast to the more traditional view than say, the Structural Frame, that suggests a more top down view of leadership and operation. In the political frame, organization leaders have power that derives from their position; however, many other forms of authority exist and those individuals are also all vying for control. These other actors seek to gain a greater share of resources -- often limited resources -- particularly under challenging economic conditions. Goals, strategies, and policies take shape after a period of intense negotiation between those with position and power, and others within the organization that have secured control within and amongst various interest groups. This dispersion of power can lead to better governance, or in some cases individuals can exert their influence in destructive ways.
Characteristics
- Political leaders clarify what they want and what they can get.
- Political leaders assess the distribution of power and interests.
- Political leaders build linkages to key stakeholders.
- Political leaders persuade first, negotiate second, and use coercion only if necessary.
The Symbolic Frame
This frame emphasizes that through the use of myths, fairy tales and stories, rituals and ceremonies -- as well as metaphor, humor, and play -- organizations are able to simplify the complicated and rationalize the unexplainable. The frame also helps to prompt leaders to contemplate how words, actions, or physical artifacts may be interpreted by others in unanticipated ways. This frame highlights that situations are constantly evolving and changing, complicated, and can aptly be characterized as fluid in nature rather than linear. Given the complex nature of organizational governance, providing structure through symbols serves to bring meaning and predictability.
Characteristics
- Leaders use symbols to capture attention.
- Symbolic leaders frame experience, for instance by intepreting history.
- Symbolic leaders discover and communicate a vision.
- Symbolic leaders tell stories.
The Four Frames in Practice
As you can see, the four frames discussed on the previous page provide very different ways in which to tackle a problem. You will likely be called upon to participate in the variety of events and activities listed below, or you may be engaged in one of them right now. It is also quite possible that you may have already done so as part of your job. Either way, the table that follows will provide perspective on the different ways frames can shape how you come at any given issue. It is important to remember that there is no one-size-fits-all frame to be used, and that different constituents (faculty, staff, students, trustees, alumni) may come to the table with a very different agenda, and an oftentimes contrary perspective.
| Process | Structural | Human Resource | Political | Symbolic |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluating | Allocate rewards, control performance | Help people grow and develop | Chance to exercise power | Occasion to play roles in organizational drama |
| Approaching conflict | Authorities resolve conflict | Individuals confront conflict | Bargaining, forcing, manipulating | Develop shared values, meaning |
| Goal setting | Keep organization headed in right direction | Keep people involved and informed | Let people make their interests known | Develop symbols, shared value |
| Strategic planning | Create strategic direction | Meeting to promote participation | Arena to air conflict | Ritual to reassure audiences |
| Decision-making | Rational process to get right answer | Open process to build commitment | Chance to gain or use power | Ritual to build values, bonding |
| Reorganizing | Improve structure/ environment fit | Balance needs and tasks | Reallocate power, form new coalitions | Image of accountability, responsiveness |
| Communication | Transmit facts, information | Exchange information, needs, feelings | Influence or manipulate others | Tell stories |
| Meetings | Formal occasions to make decisions | Informal occasions to involve, share feelings | Competitive occasions to score points | Sacred occasions to celebrate, transform culture |
| Motivation | Economic incentives | Growth, self-actualization | Coercion, manipulation, seduction | Symbols, celebrations |
*Table 15.1 Bolman and Deal (1997)
For those new to higher education, or even for those that have been in the profession for some time now, conceptualizing the four frames can seem like a daunting task. Different situations will benefit from one perspective over others. As you progress throughout your career knowing which frame makes sense for any given situation will most likely become easier. You will be able to draw on your experience, knowledge, and instinct. The following table is an instructive tool for which frame to utilize, particularly for those new to higher education, or any industry for that matter.
| Question | If yes: | If no: |
|---|---|---|
| Are individual commitment and motivation essential? | Human resource, symbolic | Structural, political |
| Is technical quality of decision important? | Structural | Human resource, political, symbolic |
| Is there high level of ambiguity, uncertainty? | Political, symbolic | Structural, human resource |
| Are conflict and scarce resource a significant factor? | Political, symbolic | Structural, human resource |
| Are you working from the bottom up? | Political, symbolic | Structural, human resource |
*Table 15.2 Bolman and Deal (1997)
Birnbaum’s Organizational Models
In Robert Birnbaum’s (1988) book How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership, four models of organizational functioning are outlined. These models are similar to Bolman and Deal’s frames in that each one highlights particular perspectives about colleges as organizations. By focusing on organizations rather than the frameworks that leaders use, Birnbaum allows us to better understand the varying ways in which colleges and universities are organized, why they are organized in that manner, and how things are accomplished within them. Although you will be tempted to characterize an individual institution or certain types of institutions within a specific category, be cautious not to lock into one. The dynamics of each higher education institution share at least some similarities with each of the models that Birnbaum highlights and time, culture, resources, and aspirations can shift the organization away from some categories and toward others.
The Collegial Institution
Interaction amongst members in this type of institution is less formal, while hierarchy and structure are not held to the same level of import as in more highly structured environments. Faculty and administrators are equals serving similarly important roles in the decision making process. This type of institution believes in shared governance, in which the opinions and ideals of faculty carry equal or greater weight than the administration. These institutions are very much value based, in which the entire community shares agreed upon understandings of the mission, vision, and priorities of the organization. The symbolic frame described by Bolman and Deal would be more prevalent in this environment. Birnbaum suggests that certain rules should be followed if organizational leaders are to maintain their effectiveness: live up to the norms of the group, conform to group expectations, use established channels of communication, do not give an order that will not be obeyed, listen, reduce status differences, and encourage self-control. The dynamics related to the collegial institution are typically most present in private liberal arts colleges, but collegiality can vary meaningfully across institutions of the same type.
Consider the fact that, in addition to teaching, faculty carried the responsibility of administering the operation of early universities in our country, then you will better understand the long-standing tradition of faculty sharing governance responsibility, and how that is represented in today’s colleges and universities. This is not perfunctory to the organizational operational pattern of higher education institutions, but in many ways is central to getting things done. Many constituents’ ideals must be taken into account as decisions are made, but along with the board, none may be more important than the faculty. It is important to note a challenging situation that can arise within a collegial system is who or which group ultimately will make the decision on any given issue. While a great benefit is derived from having a strong faculty voice, that voice is not always collectively in agreement, with significant variations based upon the issue du jour.
The Bureaucratic Institution
The starting line to understand this type of institution is the organization. It provides an illustrated representation of how the organization operates. The lines between offices and people describe the flow of work and delineate authority. The larger the organization, and the “taller” its operation based on levels within the operation (and shown in an organizational chart), the more difficult it becomes to control messaging and maintain effective communication. Where an office or individual is located on the organization chart greatly influences who and how they interact with others.
Looking at colleges and universities from this perspective makes a great deal of sense as many have evolved to look more like fully functioning cities with all the complexities that go along with that. When you look around a college like Penn State University, take notice that much more is offered than just an academic experience. Students have the capacity to live on campus, eat their meals in dining halls that include everything from Starbucks to Chick-Fil-A, receive medical care at the related hospitals, fly out of the university operated airport, and work out in state of the art recreation facilities – all without leaving campus. Operationally, the organization is very complex and a bureaucratic structure can provide some semblance of order; however, this would give too much credit to the formal power structure represented by reporting lines, whereas in reality the informal connections between people within the organization play an extremely vital role to getting business done and different coalition and factions will come together depending on the issue.
The Political Institution
Who holds power and control is not merely a function of where one sits on the organization chart. The ability to influence and exchange valuable outcomes can bring significant political influence to those wielding such capability. Conflict is natural in this system, and the ability to negotiate and come to terms on challenging situations requires a great deal of individual or collective group political power. Power exists between parties because they are dependent on each other to achieve desired organizational outcomes. During times of abundant resources coming to terms on allocation of funds is a much easier task; however, when the opposite occurs lines are drawn in which groups as well as individuals push their agendas in an effort to attain that which is needed to pursue their preferred strategies. Not all groups have the same level of power within the organization, and not everyone concerns themselves with all matters. As such, varying participants become involved some of the time during situations that are relevant or of interest to them.
In a political institution, which most universities are, shared governance is oftentimes desired, if not a required way of conducting business. Decisions are rarely made unilaterally by university administration but rather in partnership with faculty councils, committees, and advisory boards. This enables the university to bring together faculty with varied expertise to bear on any given issue, ideally resulting in the best possible outcome. Also, decisions typically result when those with the ability to influence others prevail in garnering buy in to their ideas or ways of thinking. An increasing challenge confronting the political institution is the rising influence of outside actors, such as the federal and state government as well as donors, alumni, and accrediting bodies. The demands that these actors have placed on universities for accountability, transparency, and expectations for rapidity of response to inquiries posed by legislators have eroded the strength of shared governance within a political system.
The Anarchical Institution
To begin, this type of institution represents organized anarchy. The rules of engagement, the roles of leadership, the manner in which goals are established are oftentimes counter to traditionally understood organization governance structures. Three characteristics present in an anarchical institution include problematic goals, unclear technology, and fluid participation. This does not mean that patterns, structures, roles, and rules are not present. In fact, these institutions are typically very well organized with a strong culture that predicts behaviors and outcomes. This culture brings clarity to the organized anarchy, as decisions become quite routine. The concept of organized anarchy was brought to prominence by Cohen and March in their book Leadership and Ambiguity (1986) which detailed their study of college presidents.
Summary
In this lesson you have learned about the structure of universities including how to read an organizational chart for a postsecondary institution. Key leadership roles such as the Board of Trustees and President have been described. The importance of shared governance within higher education has been made as well as explaining why this is a bedrock characteristic of postsecondary institutions. It's important to remember that leaders are people and operate using certain frames of reference. We exposed you to two well-known and used theoretical conceptualizations: Bolman and Deal's four frames and Birnbaum's organizational models.
These administration basics influence how leadership, decision-making, communication, implementation of ideas, and organizational change happen in higher education institutions.