You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Chagin/iStock/Getty Images Plus
In the post-pandemic era, shared governance is being tested at colleges and universities in myriad ways. Colleges and universities are facing an onslaught of exceedingly difficult problems—unanticipated revenue shortfalls; the needed sunrise or sunset of academic programs; complicated partnerships, acquisitions or mergers; polarizing campus conflicts; declining enrollments; stagnant student graduation rates; or conflicts about the appropriate use of AI, among other issues. Can a tradition of shared governance between administrators and faculty members survive in such a constant river of near-existential crises? Not only do we believe it can, but we also see it as essential.
Decisions made on such thorny issues without adequate faculty member buy-in can unnecessarily fuel distrust between administrators and the faculty—and that distrust, building at many institutions and erupting at others, can ultimately do substantial harm. Participatory shared governance, no matter how challenging the issue, is an essential ingredient for both making thoughtful decisions and creating a thriving academic community of faculty, staff and students.
Tensions arise when senior administrators perceive shared governance as slow-walking or derailing what they believe to be urgent items. In these fast-moving times, they question the ability of a deliberative body of the faculty to make timely decisions about complex matters. Faculty members, for their part, are frustrated when administrators present them with directives that sidestep shared governance.
From the faculty point of view, administrators are making most of the decisions and present, at best, only a small share of them to the faculty senate—and often as faits accomplis for just performative approval. That can be particularly irksome to faculty members, as most devote the bulk of their careers to a single college or university. While administrators come and go, faculty remain along with the residuals, good or bad, of previous administrations’ policies. Faculty, therefore, feel strongly that they deserve a central role in decision-making from start to finish.
All too often, faculty members and administrators fail to respect their different perspectives regarding campus policymaking, which, over time, strains relationships and undermines the interplay of ideas that makes colleges and universities such remarkable institutions. It takes two to tango, and each party needs to do their share to sustain a working relationship.
Our university was able to implement a series of major reforms to the Board of Trustees, curriculum and faculty manual that were widely recognized as transformational. The prerequisite for that success was a healthy relationship between the administration, led by the president and provost and the Faculty Senate. We’re writing to share what we’ve learned. We will describe some key components to achieving a successful level of respect and cooperation from the perspective of both a long-serving provost, Scott, and a seasoned faculty representative, Stephen, with more than eight years of service on the Faculty Senate, including as chair from 2008 to 2009 and chair-elect starting in 2025. Scott’s comments are labeled “administrator,” and Stephen’s are labeled “faculty member.”
Key 1: Accepting Authority While Embracing a Participatory Process
Administrator and faculty member together: Most faculty members recognize that their contributions to shared governance are usually recommendations and that the administration ultimately makes many key institutional decisions. At the same time, successful administrators understand that their plans—however good they look on paper—can fail unless they can secure faculty buy-in. Effective shared governance in practice involves genuine consultation, dialogue and a give-and-take between the faculty and administration. That helps foster a mutual sense of ownership. There is no way around this fundamental principle, and if it is usurped by the administration or ignored by the faculty, bitterness and distrust are a likely result.
Key 2: Clarity of Messaging and Listening
Administrator: As an administrator, you should point out the direction that you seek as concretely and clearly as possible—and repeat it often. If available, identify examples at respected peer and aspirant institutions. Be sure that you have widespread support for the direction you plan to take by reaching beyond the people who will probably be deferential. Make adjustments based on what you hear. If the support is there, engage the campus to help shape the specifics of the policy. Make additional changes based on feedback, reinforcing the value of constructive faculty engagement.
Faculty member: We faculty see ourselves and our students as the heart and soul of the university, but we should recognize that administrators also care deeply about the same university. We need to understand that the institution will only run well and reach its full potential if we work together.
So if you find an administrator’s proposal problematic, don’t just criticize or reject it. Pay close attention to what that person is trying to accomplish. If it’s a reasonable goal, propose constructive amendments or alternatives. If relations are strained, start with small things that you agree need attention as a first step. If successful, it can set the stage for tackling bigger issues later.
Key 3: Including Constituents
Faculty member: When the Senate is debating a significant policy change, senators should use every means possible to engage other faculty outside of the Senate in the discussion. Attend meetings at colleges, schools and departments; do town halls; talk to affinity groups; and meet with people individually. Engage the staff and students. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Remember, elected members of the Senate are in the middle of shared governance, but most faculty are not, and they are not paying close attention. They are busy with teaching, research, service and their lives. Outreach is time-consuming, to be sure, but it’s the only way to get a solid sense of faculty sentiment and to ensure that you aren’t just passing off your personal preferences as those of all faculty members. You often hear good ideas that hadn’t occurred to you. Make adjustments.
Administrator: Faculty leaders have their constituencies, but so do we administrators. Senior administrators are accountable to the board, elected bodies and community groups. We have responsibilities to the president’s cabinet, faculty, deans, staff and students. As issues arise and we must make decisions, we need to communicate with the relevant constituencies so no one is blindsided.
Also, before the Faculty Senate engages in dialogue on an issue confronting the campus, you need to be certain that all the constituents are informed of the process and have an accurate sense of how much they support the effort. Some academic decisions are ultimately the province of the board and the president; others belong to the faculty. Most go through multiple levels. Whenever possible, in meetings with groups of faculty and other campus constituencies, administrators should be forthright about our plans and, where appropriate, the involvement of the faculty.
Key 4: Compromising and Taking the Long View
Administrator: Listen carefully to what the faculty leadership is seeking. Sometimes you cannot accommodate faculty requests or demands. Be direct and forthcoming as to why you are unable to meet what they seek. However, explore compromises, consider phase-in periods or propose a recasting of the request.
Faculty member: Always make your case in terms of what’s good for the university as a whole—not just the faculty or certain groups within it. If you can’t do that, then you need to rethink what you want and are requesting.
Key 5: Making Inclusion Meaningful
Administrator: Inform and involve the Faculty Senate in the salient academic issues no matter how difficult—whether grade inflation, state of research infrastructure support, undergraduate retention, assessment of campus climate, major changes proposed in the curriculum, under- or overenrollment, financial difficulties, or some other challenge. There are multiple ways to engage. One is to keep the Senate informed of standing administrative committees or special task forces that are working on pressing issues. Brief the Senate representatives on the progress of such activities and invite discussion and comment—do not wait until the policy recommendation, decision or report has been completed.
Further, consider including members of the Senate on those committees or asking the Senate to elect faculty members who can serve and be helpful. Part of their responsibility would be to provide information back to the full Senate so that senators can then keep their academic units informed.
Faculty member: If the board, president, provost or other administrators offer the Faculty Senate opportunities to participate on committees formulating policy or administrator hiring, do not hesitate to accept. To ensure legitimacy and support from the faculty community, the Senate leadership should use a transparent and democratic process in the notification of the opportunity and the selection of participants. Depending on the issue, that might involve a Senate vote, a campuswide election or a unit-level democratic process of selection. When multiple faculty positions are available, create a selection process that will result in representation that is proportionate and inclusive across schools and colleges.
Be sure to involve faculty experts in those areas where it matters, such as finance or legal issues. Incorporating diversity, representation and expertise simultaneously when selecting a limited group of faculty representatives is often a challenge. Discuss the significance of inclusive representation with the administration and, when necessary, request additional spots on the committee or propose alternative forms of representation. That might include faculty observers or the creation of a satellite committee of participating faculty.
Key 6: Clarify Your Constraints and Voice Your Red Lines
Faculty member: State your red lines up front and be sensitive to the administration’s red lines. Consult widely with colleagues to make sure the red lines you assert—regarding, for example, benefits or the process of reappointment, promotion and tenure—are generally shared by other faculty members. Discuss your concerns with the administration informally to see if they can be resolved. Solutions are always better than drawing fixed lines in the sand.
Administrator: Be absolutely clear as to what is nonnegotiable or has been directed by the board or a state or local government. Consult first with relevant constituencies to see if there might be room for further discussion, but if not, you must be forthright as to what is viable and what is not. However, resist the temptation to assert that something is not viable when it is simply not your preference. Faculty members will see through this. It takes time and effort to build trust, but it can be eroded swiftly.
Key 7: Planned Change and Anticipated Resistance
Faculty member: As academics, we all know how difficult it is to hear criticism of something we’ve worked on for months. We also know that it can make our ideas better. Faculty leaders should treat criticism from either administrators or colleagues like a reader’s report on a journal submission. Find what’s good in it and then adopt it and explain why you think the other suggestions wouldn’t work.
Administrator: Some faculty reflexively resist top-down change, so be careful about how you introduce ideas. In discussing policy directions, recognize that as a result of their academic training, faculty members are skilled skeptics and critics. Do not fear or react harshly to the inevitable criticism; it is a natural part of the process. If you appear fearful or dismissive, it can sink the initiative, as the faculty will conclude something must be wrong with the proposal.
Moreover, direct feedback from the faculty can be useful in making constructive changes and gaining support for an initiative. In one case at American University, despite our reluctance, the Senate demanded a campuswide faculty vote on a major policy change. After considerable discussion, more than 80 percent of the faculty voted in favor of the change. The vote gave the faculty ownership over the policy, which served both the administration and faculty well over the years and helped build a sense of trust. In retrospect, it was a wise decision by the faculty, and our reluctance was unnecessary.
Key 8: Patience and No Surprises
Faculty member: A cornerstone of successful shared governance is “no surprises” at every level and in every direction. Surprise only generates distrust and ill will. Add an appropriate administrative representative in an ex officio role to Senate meetings, including Senate executive committee meetings. The Senate executive committee provides an opportunity for a less formal exchange with senior administrators in advance of the full Senate meeting. That way, you learn of objections early on and can make adjustments.
So can the administration. Wise administrators will recognize that these are the faculty’s meetings. They will listen and respond constructively in discussions when appropriate but not try to dominate them.
Administrators may also have issues that they would like to discuss with the Senate executive committee. If so, they should ask the Senate leadership before the meeting to place them on the agenda. The committee should have the option to hold executive sessions that include faculty members only.
Administrator: Give the faculty ample time to review and consider proposals. Do not rush the process. When engaging in conversations with the faculty, respectfully make your points. If you confront considerable opposition, let the subject mellow over time. When faculty members criticize “the process,” it is code that not enough faculty engagement and time was exercised.
On one campus, it took several years of sustained conversation to move the sciences to be a separate college independent of the other liberal arts departments. The move was eventually supported by the different faculty constituencies and successfully implemented.
Key 9: Appreciate the Higher Ed Experiment; Accept Gains Even When Modest
Administrator and faculty member together: We are collectively involved in an educational experiment that has unfolded over generations: building an institution devoted to the life of the mind. Undoubtedly, we’ll have conflicts and at times strong disagreements—we know this. Some circumstances have no room for compromise. Yet what makes higher education distinctive is that it demands a dialogue between the parties such that, despite any disputes, a genuine relationship and commitment to the welfare of the institution and its community endures.
In such a collegial environment, even when strained, if you get most of what you want, take it! You can always come back later to make more progress.
Shared governance is an indispensable component of a vibrant institution. Goodwill, patience, openness, reciprocity and an understanding of the different constituent perspectives are necessary ingredients for building and maintaining effective shared governance.
