 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Building Bridges Between Boards and Faculties
Thursday, February 23, at 11 a.m., U.S. Eastern time
Faculty members often worry that their institutions' governing boards are packed with people who don't understand academe and want it to follow the corporate model. Trustees, for their part, often think professors have cushy jobs and need to be kept in line by the administration. At some institutions, the two groups have let their differences dominate the relationship. Other colleges and universities, however, have found ways to overcome the lack of understanding and sympathy.
At Colby College, for example, professors and trustees meet at cocktail hours and meals, and two professor serve as nonvoting members of the board. At Duke University, all but one of the board's working committees (the audit committee) include faculty representation.
How much interaction should there be between the faculty and the board? What is the best way for faculty members to communicate their concerns? Should professors be allowed to serve on presidential-search committees? Vote on issues related to dismissals or tenure? Are there risks for either side to getting too cozy?
» A Working Relationship (2/24/2006)
Phyllis Palmiero is director of the Institute for Effective Governance at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
Piper Fogg (Moderator):
I'm Piper Fogg, a reporter here, and I cover faculty issues. Today we welcome Phyllis Palmiero from the Institute for Effective Governance, who will answer some questions about relationships between boards and faculty members.
Question from Betty Overton-Adkin, Spring Arbor University:
While it is obvious that the president has the major role (first tier involvement) in ensuring that the relationship between the faculty and board is a healthy one, what role should other university officers (VPs) have in managing this relationship. As a VPAA, I find that I am often representing the faculty to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board and representing this committee (and some times the Board as a whole) back to the faculty. Is there any best practice information in this second-tier involvement?
Phyllis Palmiero:
Betty: The president is responsible for ensuring a relationship facilitating communication between top administrators, such as yourself, and the board. Your role is to provide the board with information, strategies, etc. in implementing the board's academic affairs agenda (such as assessment of student learning, faculty and program productivity, program and campus initiatives, other issues related to student success). As for faculty feedback and input, the president should ensure a healthy relationship with all the university constituencies, not just faculty. This means establishing a venue to ensure faculty input - potentially the Faculty Senate, possibly other venues.
Best practice does not define an exact venue for faculty input as it varies by institution. What best practice would dictate is that the president ensures good communication to/from faculty, that faculty representation be true representation of the faculty (and not just a distinct few - i.e. the most vocal). The president and board should seek input from the faculty and to the extent that such input is constructive and truly representative, it is expected that it would be considered, among the other input received, in board deliberations. Further, it would be expected that communication back to the faculty and other constituencies is also critical.
Question from Scott Smallwood, Chronicle:
Faculty members often complain about the "corporatization" of universities and argue that boards should not be treating this organization the same way they would a company. Professors, they say, are not just employees who need to be managed. What's your perspective on the argument that boards should not use a corporate model in governing colleges?
Phyllis Palmiero:
Scott: While there is no doubt that colleges and universities operate in a unique management context than business, namely the shared governance model, many practices of business apply to universities as well. They include: 1) the board ultimately is responsible for holding the president, faculty, and staff to account for delivering on expected outcomes; these outcomes should be clearly articulated and measured; 2) the board and university have a responsibility to its stakeholders (investors) and "shareholders" - the return on investment should be measured and communicated. Albeit in business, this is sometimes easier to quantify, still, measuring and communicating what the public, students, donors, etc. are getting out of their investments is important to demonstrate and articulate.
The university is indeed similar to business in that it should be driven by a strategic plan and its success measured, at least, in part, by meeting the strategic objectives it has laid out. These are aspects common to both business and higher education governance despite the uniqueness of faculty's role in higher education.
Question from David Simpson, Carroll College (WI):
How does one rebuild a foundation of trust between faculty and trustees when prior foundations have been undermined?
Phyllis Palmiero:
David: This is a very good question and difficult to answer without more details as to what caused the relationship to be undermined. To respond generally then, relationships are typically fractured when a mutual respect between faculty and board dissipates. However, it is not impossible to rebuild the foundation between faculty and trustees and I would argue that it is in the best interest of the faculty and board to do so. Many times these tensions do more to harm the public perception of the university than they do to move the university forward. Faculty must realize that trustees manage many competing agendas and interests of constituencies. What most trustees seek are faculty who understand the board's priorities and are able to work with the president and the board to constructively meet those goals and objectives. Rebuilding a relationship takes a great deal of time. Sometimes, this can happen more quickly and rather productively when new people are selected to represent the faculty, almost starting from a fresh slate.
Question from Andrew Mytelka, Chronicle of Higher Ed:
One of the interesting aspects of the controversy at Harvard that led President Summers to resign is that while the Faculty of Arts and Sciences pushed for his departure, he enjoyed substantial support from faculty members in Harvard's professional schools. Can you speak about the differing types of "bridges" that differing faculty groups may form with a university's trustees? Why the differing approaches, and is that a means of forging greater consensus?
Phyllis Palmiero:
Sometimes faculty use their communications networks and politcial influence to pressure the Board of Trustees without a formal relationship with the board. Trustees should establish appropriate venues for faculty input that are productive and ensure representation from faculty across campus. Too often represenation is from a small group of faculty that may or may not represent the faculty at large.
Question from Erin, The Chronicle:
There seems to be a common belief among faculty members that their governing boards are too concerned about the bottom line. The opposite can sometimes be said of faculty--that they don't have enough concern about the financial future or competitiveness of the institution. Is there a way (or is it even advisable) to include faculty members in on such discussions and decisions, so that they feel like they have more of a say (and conversely may understand the "big picture" a little more)?
Phyllis Palmiero:
We often hear that higher education is not like business and the bottom line analogy does not apply. However, this is not the case - it can and should apply. Clearly higher education operates in a unique management environment, but concern for the bottom line is important in higher education. For faculty the bottom line is students learning. This is clearly an area where boards of trustees and faculty can have a very constructive dialog about how to measure and demonstrate student learning.
Question from Piper Fogg:
Your organization's stance is that faculty members should not have a direct vote in a presidential search. But it seemed to work very well at Randolph-Macon College, whose board included three professors (one of their own choosing and two elected by the faculty) in their recent search. Why isn't this a good model?
Phyllis Palmiero:
Our position is that we believe input from various constituencies is very important and can best be served by engaging a group of stakeholders to participate in the presidential search via an advisory committee to the search committee. However, this position may or may not be appropriate in all cases. At times, depending upon the current situation and relationships on campus, it may be the more appropriate course of action. The important thing that we advocate is that as many stakeholders as possible provide input on presidential search and that the board maintain full control over the search process as they are the ones with authority for hiring and firing and who hold the president accountable for outcomes.
Question from Jennifer Ruark, The Chronicle:
Piper's article talks about colleges that have set up informal meetings to encourage communication between faculty members and trustees. What's your sense of how much difference those make in relations between the two groups? Without a vote, aren't faculty members likely to feel that cocktail parties with trustees are just "feel-good" opportunities?
Phyllis Palmiero:
Jennifer: I cannot imagine that having a single vote on the board is more desirable than having real communication channels with the board. I agree that social meetings do not provide the proper venue for faculty input on substantive issues and are more "feel-good" opportunities to engage with the board. Constructive gatherings with faculty, the board and senior staff would be far more productive and useful. If properly organized, meetings with a committee of faculty would allow faculty, staff and the board to discuss issues and could provide the board with additional insights on the issues it is contemplating. Such exchanges are best facilitated through the Board's committee structure. The trick to the success of such meetings is to ensure representation across the university and that personal agendas are left at home.
Question from Gil Gigliotti, Central Connecticut State University:
Not a question, but an idea:
A few short years ago, we ran a program, "Take Your Trustee to Work Day," that is still reaping benefits because one would be amazed at the new understanding and appreciation that can come from a trustee spending a day (or even a part of a day) with a faculty member in class, during office hours, -- and if the timing is right -- during pre-registration advising! The trustee comes to see first hand the hard work of the students and faculty as well as the conditions within which that work must happen. It also allows faculty to see trustees as people who, in fact, care about the real work of the university.
Phyllis Palmiero:
Question from Elena Rosenberg, graduate student in Higher Ed Administration, Drexel U.:
In your assessment of national trends in composition of university governance structures, do you detect a noticeable movement in the direction of increased faculty participation in governance, or is there movement in the direction of muffling faculty voices?
Phyllis Palmiero:
There is definitely a trend toward faculty pursuing places on boards of trustees. The quest, I believe comes from the feeling that faculty believe they want a greater voice than what they have. There are more effective ways of having a voice than one vote on the board. I strongly advocate boards establish a venue for faculty input that is representative and productive. A venue that ensures input to the board via its committee structures is a good model.
Question from Andrew Mytelka, Chronicle of Higher Ed:
Can you talk about what happened at Harvard this week, in the context of faculty-trustee relations? Some defenders of President Summers are portraying his resignation as the result of a faculty "coup," an accusation that makes the trustees seem disordered and ineffective. Does the fact that Harvard's top governing board is so small (just seven people, including the president) hurt its ability to deal with such problems? What else can we learn from this episode?
Phyllis Palmiero:
The Harvard situation does shed light on a few issues related to boards of trustees and the role of faculty. First, the issue of representation is very appropriate here. One question that must be asked relative to this is how a board ensures true representation of the faculty at large when receiving feedback or input (whether formal or otherwise)? Second, the board hires their president with certain goals in mind. Certainly personal style in delivering those goals is to be considered. A board's challenge is to determine when the balance between getting the job done and the impact of leadership style become counterproductive. This is a difficult issue and task. As for size of the board, there is no magic formula and size can, in fact, impact a board's effectiveness. In our experience, we have found that larger boards tend to hinder effectiveness more than smaller ones.
Question from Jim, mid-size public:
You cite "conflict of interest" as one reason you are opposed to faculty members serving even as non-voting BOV members. Universities that have proven the success of having faculty members serve typically do so as non-voting members, and exclude them from all personnel decisions, executive sessions, etc. Does that not provide ample safeguards? The American Association of University Trustees has endorsed non-voting faculty members on boards with that caveat, so why would you remain opposed?
Phyllis Palmiero:
Faculty representation on boards varies by institution and in many cases faculty are excluded from certain issues as you say. There are a variety of issues related to membership on the board that should be considered. First, how do you ensure that representation is true representation - this is a critical element. Second, what about other constituencies (staff, student, parent, and alumni representation)- should they not have a say? Our position is that it is far more productive for the board to establish venues for input from the various constitutencies. This would allow the board to obtain input on pertinent issues and consider the input from the various stakeholders. This we believe is a far better and more effective way to ensure representation within and across the various groups than one vote on the board.
Question from John Mazis, Hamline University:
I noticed a tendency on your part to explain to faculties what the role of the Boards is. This is indeed useful but is there also room for boards to understand what the role of the faculty is? Here the issue of tenure comes to mind. Board members, coming mostly from the corporate world, view tenure as a luxury and even license to cover inadequacy while we as faculty view it as an indispensable safeguard of the integrity of our work.
Phyllis Palmiero:
A complex issue. What you describe is not only a common interpretation from those in the corporate world but a view shared by some legislators and the public as well. So this is clearly an issue that requires more of an education but also requires an open mind. Misconceptions may or may not exist and this is an area where many believe reform is necessary.
Question from John, large public university in virginia:
As a former executive of a Fortune 500 global company, who now teaches at a top tier EMBA program, I would disagree with Ms. Palmeiro regarding her views on the relative role of faculty in governance and the application of business models. Some of the concepts and models from business can indeed inform univeristy decisions, but the culture and environment is unique. State agencies, Boards, and administrations that fail to recognize and value those differences are at a distinctive disadvantage compared to those who do. Leading and managing universities is much more akin to managing other professional practices (medical, legal, etc)where a group of highly educated people find common vision and motivation to move forward. How much experience you have as a tenure track faculty member?
Phyllis Palmiero:
Thank you for your comment. My very first response on this issue is that higher education operates in a unique management context, in particular, a shared governance model, among other things. Given that, I believe we both agree, that still, concepts and models from business can indeed inform university decisions.
Question from David Simpson, Carroll College (WI):
How might one measure the effectiveness of efforts to build bridges between Board and Faculties? What kinds of written policies should be in place to regulate or facilitate communication?
Phyllis Palmiero:
Boards of trustees should undergo periodic assessments of their own effectiveness. This typically happens every three or four years (and varies depending upon the board). In this assessment, boards should examine the way in which they receive feedback and input from the various university stakeholders. Once done, they should make provisions for improving those lines of communications should that be determined to be necessary.
Piper Fogg (Moderator):
We only have time for a couple more questions at this point.
Question from Linda Dobb, BGSU:
We try to encourage faculty to ask their questions of the Board through the Provost or to present various policy issues to the Board that have been thoroughly vetted in the Faculty Senate. Do other Universities encourage alternate approaches?
Phyllis Palmiero:
While many use the faculty senate for input, there are other models that can be used such as a model where boards create advisory committees to their respective committees, i.e. academic affairs committee. Through this vehicle, faculty members provide feedback on a variety issues to the board. The important issue here is that whatever the venue - any feedback and input provided should be as representative of the entire faculty as possible and not just a distinct few or the most vocal.
Question from Jim Lollar, Radford University:
By statute, Boards are vested with the legal authority to make university decisions. How would having a non-voting faculty member who is excluded from executive committee discussions, personnel decisions, and any other discussions at the boards discretion mitigate or have any effect on the board? Is is also consistent with the 360 Evaluation Model we teach in business colleges and that is practiced by the vast majority of major corporations.
Phyllis Palmiero:
Agreed and the reason we believe there are more effective ways to engage faculty with the board (see my earlier responses).
Question from David Simpson, Carroll College (WI):
What are some common reading materials which Board and Faculty members might share to build a common frame of reference? I find that Board members are unfamiliar with Chronicle articles and I confess ignorance of what a well-informed board member reads. I'd like to bridge the gap, mend fences, tear down walls and silos---yet not cross boundaries that make sense.
Phyllis Palmiero:
Unfortunately, either by design or the nature of the work, trustees are typically on information overload. One of the things our organization does is provide a monthly "Best Article" that we hope will aid them in their duties. These are typically reprints of important happenings that will help inform their work. Our organization also provides other information for boards to enable trustees to be more effective trustees. Our organization advocates regular board training of trustees.
Piper Fogg (Moderator):
I think we will end on that one. Thank you all for your great questions. And thanks to Phyllis for taking some time with us today.
Phyllis Palmiero:
Thank you for your comments. It has been a pleasure "chatting" with you this morning on a very important issue. Strong university governance will make for a strong university. If we at IEG can be of assistance, feel free to call upon us.
Phyllis Palmiero
Director
Institute for Effective Governance (IEG)
Physical Address: 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 802-A
Washington, DC 20036
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 73431
Richmond, VA 23235
Office Phone: 202.467.0376
Direct Line: 804.794.3775
Fax: 804.378.1173
ppalmiero@iegov.org
Visit our website at www.iegov.org