left to my own devices – occasional thoughts on higher education

In a world where so many things have taken a wrong turn that it feels that the planet as a whole is being guided by a tired and confused sat nav, the course of world cricket is no doubt fairly low down many people’s list of priority concerns.  Fair enough.

At the same time, I couldn’t help but feel a pang of sadness a few weeks ago reading a post on Cricinfo retailing the decline of Pakistani cricket.  An early adulthood of Imran Khan and Waqar Younis, and perhaps most of all Wasim Akram (after all, he was an adopted Lancastrian) no doubt informed that sadness, and reading the piece it was difficult to argue with the statement that ‘Pakistan cricket has never been at a lower ebb’.

déjà vu all over again

There are many reasons for this, prime among them a fundamentally changed economic environment (due to the combination of T20 franchise cricket and over-powering financial gravitational pull of India) and failed governance (huge turnover combined with political interference).

And to think I read the Cricinfo post to help take my attention away from UK higher education for a while.  I tried not to be drawn too far into any of the parallels.  How hard I tried, I’m not sure.  How effective I was, I do know.  Not very.

novelty always a good thing?

One of the many things that stood out from the piece related to the Chair of the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), who as well as holding that post is also the country’s Home Secretary.  Pretty remarkable (though anyone tempted to comment critically about political interference in inappropriate spheres would do well to both read and think through the judicial review judgment in the OfS/Sussex case).

Not perhaps as remarkable, but of particular interest, was the account of how in this context the PCB is currently choosing to address the eternal governance question of the boundaries between governance, and leadership and management: ‘the chair [of the board] is effectively the executive, and there is no CEO’.

Not something typically regarded as good governance; quite the opposite (though apparently it’s not the first time the PCB has gone down this road).

the trifecta

Within higher education we make a great deal of the differences, and the need for boundaries, between leadership, governance and management.

One of the ways in which we seek to maintain a line between governance and management is through the concept of ‘oversight’: the idea and practice that the executive manages the university towards the achievement of its charitable ends, purpose and strategic objectives, responsible to and overseen by the board.

And the importance of ‘oversight’ can perhaps be seen in the changes taking place at the moment in the Committee of University Chairs’ (CUC) revision of the Higher Education Code of Governance.  The current version mentions ‘oversight’ just once:

The governing body’s role is to have oversight of performance and constructively challenge it, encourage quality enhancement, maintain and raise standards, celebrate achievements and learn from difficulties.

CUC, Higher Education Code of Governance (2020), p.11

The new version published last week has upped this to five explicit references (in relation to strategy delivery; risk management and internal control; delegated authority; board succession; academic governance).  A notable increase, though less than it might have been given that the draft of the new Code used oversee/oversight 12 times.

so what?

As ever, a very fair question.  All of this has been a long way round to getting to my point, a consciously contrarian one.

I’ve been involved in a lot of governance over the years.  As a member of university staff responsible for areas subject to scrutiny by boards and committees.  As a member of university staff responsible for supporting and advising such boards and committees.  And as a governor, and chair of a board sub-committee, of a further education college.

And for a while now, I’ve held the view that if I’m honest I’m not really that keen on oversight.

Well, who is?  Much more fun, much easier to just crack on with things without having to be accountable.  And as a governor, this means less time being spent on the boring stuff.

Except, of course, that’s not quite what I mean.

what’s in a word?

My problem with oversight isn’t with being held to account, or holding others to account.  Both are essential (as what’s happening to Pakistani cricket makes abundantly clear).

It’s the word itself: ‘oversight’ all too easily comes across as, and becomes in practice, too passive.  Of course it’s not meant to be, but it too often slips into tick box, performative governance.  The passive nature of the term combines with the desire not to cross over the line between governance (be that corporate or academic) and management and operations.

It’s not a universal problem.  Not all organisations fall into that trap of treating oversight as too passive an activity, rather than the scrutiny and holding to account that it’s meant to be.  But I’ve seen it happen too often for my liking.

The idea, which I’ve heard stated, that governing bodies often aren’t taking decisions as they’re exercising oversight, and decision-making is a management function.  The reality of academic boards/senates responsible for oversight of a university’s academic activity passively accepting piles of (digital) paper from sub-committees, abdicating their responsibility for scrutiny and challenge of what they receive.

Because even when a board is exercising oversight, it is fundamentally making a decision (which is the purpose of any board/committee): are we content with the account of performance, compliance etc. that has been presented to us; and if we have concerns what action will we require to address these?

the passive and the active

So yes, my comment about not liking oversight is in some ways click bait (though, perhaps, of an arcane nature).  But maybe to maintain the rigour and value of oversight as a process, we need to find a different word that better reflects its active and essential nature.