left to my own devices – occasional thoughts on higher education

Photo by Unsplash from Freerange Stock

Amidst all the macro commentary and discussion currently taking place about governance in higher education, a couple of weeks ago I published a post looking at the micro level of governance.  A miniature on developing confidence as a board/committee member.  After all, boards and committees are not monoliths; they’re made up of many (often too many) individuals.

That post was looking at those who make up boards and committees through one end of the telescope: the member.  But of course the other end of that telescope is important as well: the chair.

under-valued?

It may be that the experience of others is different, but I’ve been struck for some time by a particular contrast in higher education. On the one hand there is the (exaggerated, caricatured but still true in important ways) reliance of universities on committees as decision-making bodies; and as a result a lot of boards/committees, and therefore chairs. But at the same time there is what has always seemed to be a slightly underdone approach to developing people, and supporting them, as chairs of boards/committees.

The kindest interpretation of the approach I’ve come across is that it’s in effect an apprenticeship model.

Someone joins a university and becomes familiar with an area of activity; at some point they are asked/required to join boards/committees as part of their role, over time becoming familiar with how these bodies work, including seeing multiple chairs in operation; and through this they develop the knowledge and skills to someday, if they’re lucky/unlucky enough, take on the chair role of a formal board/committee (perhaps having gained some experience leading more informal meetings before this).

neglected?

It’s an approach, but nothing like as rigorous as might be expected.  Again I’m generalising from my own experience, but over the years I’ve participated in multiple management and leadership workshops and programmes and not once has any of these discussed chairing a meeting much less a formal board/committee.

There’s a lot of commentary around at the moment that universities’ committee systems are often not working well, dysfunctional in the face of modern challenges and often amounting to little more than governance theatre.

If this negative take on university governance is, to any extent, accurate might at least a part of the reason for this be the revealed (not stated) preference for the sector to not take the crucial role of chair seriously enough to support and develop people to take on this responsibility?

unfair?

Perhaps this analysis is overstated.  Maybe the approach works, as I’ve come across a significant number of good chairs in my time working in universities. But I’ve also sat across board/committee tables from some awful chairs.

My experience has been that there is a scale for board/committee chairs: Awful-Poor-Competent-Good-Outstanding.

In every university at which I’ve worked I’ve experienced chairs in most of those categories (though thankfully I haven’t experienced chairs in the Awful category at most of these universities).  But there have been significant variations between these universities in the distribution of chairs across this scale. Which in some senses is interesting as all these universities have had the approach (or non-approach) to developing chairs that I set out above, which might suggest that the apprenticeship model is more effective in some institutions than others.

Nevertheless I can’t help but think that when we talk in the sector about how we can reform and make more effective our governance, alongside all of the discussion of structures, processes and cultures we might want to look a little more at how we train, support and develop our chairs in relation to their specific roles and responsibilities.

start at the beginning

What might that involve?

Well, there are some basics.  Chairs need to read the papers before the meeting (yes, this is still an issue).  Don’t sit in an in-person meeting as chair, doing email on your smartphone (yes, I have seen this happen).  Make sure meetings start and, crucially, end on time (even though boards/committees are important, members have other things to do as well; in fact, so does the chair).

know why

Echoing my earlier post on being a board/committee member there is, though, one key thing that as someone who now serves as a chair is always on my mind when thinking about and undertaking that role.

And as is usually the case this is purpose, as the risk of ineffective performative governance is at its greatest when the purpose of a board/committee is not clear and doggedly.

As I’ve written before, the purpose of a board/committee is to be a decision-making body.  This has to be at the forefront of the chair’s mind throughout any meeting: clarity about the decisions needed, and a determination to ensure that even though they might be difficult or contentious, those decisions are made in a clear and unambiguous way.

That’s about the purpose of boards/committees as a whole.  But every board/committee also has a specific purpose for which it has been established: not the full terms of reference, but a broader overarching purpose.  Chair’s need to have complete clarity of this, and a sharp focus on ensuring that their board/committee is always focused on this.

systems thinking

Often in universities we talk about our committee systems.  The crucial thing when thinking about systems is the need for a holistic perspective.

Sometimes when we talk about our committee systems the necessary attention on structures and processes, crowds out the equally essential dimension of how people behave within these structures and processes. Perhaps we need to think about, develop, support and value a little more our board/committee chairs as crucial actors within our committee systems.