How Presidents Can Best Work With Faculty During Crises

The campus turmoil this past spring over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reminded presidents that they exist between their boards and the faculty, each with often different expectations and aims. Such competing priorities often put presidents in difficult positions.

But let’s adjust this narrative. With many new presidential terms having started in July, now is the perfect time for college and university leaders to think carefully about how they are appreciating and engaging faculty governance. In fact, presidents have many opportunities to benefit from effectively working with the faculty, particularly as campuses navigate the ongoing contentiousness related to the war in the Middle East that will most likely heat up again as students return to campuses this month.

Such opportunities are not guaranteed, but they can occur through intentional and constructive engagement. We’ve written elsewhere about the conversations presidents should have with their boards. This essay will focus on how presidents can best work during crises with faculty members in governance positions to positively impact their institution’s future.

First, however, we should review a few contextual issues. It’s important to keep in mind that the size, scope, structure and functions of formal faculty governance bodies vary significantly. And even when faculty governance structures look rather the same, they can behave very differently due to institutional cultures. Not all faculty governance bodies work the same way or are equally effective.

Moreover, faculty governance is not only limited to formal governance bodies such as the faculty senate. In many instances, they are only one of many ways through which faculty members are involved in institutional decisions.

Thus, the way a president engages faculty governance during crises will very likely depend on the specific strengths and capacities of the institution’s faculty governance—both formal and informal. Twenty years ago James Minor gave us a senate classification system identifying faculty governance bodies that were: 1) functional (protecting and preserving faculty rights), 2) influential (initiating change on campus); ceremonial (not impactful) or 3) subverted (overshadowed by the administration or other venues of faculty involvement).

The form of Minor’s senates that exists on each particular campus will doubtlessly influence how successfully the administration and faculty work together during times of crisis. But if a president engages constructively and intentionally with the faculty, they can significantly improve their institution’s future.

Situations such as the major upheavals on campuses related to Palestine and Israel, and previously the pandemic, do two things. First, they push institutions to retreat to foundational beliefs and strongly held expectations for what should happen and how. And those expectations vary campus by campus. Second, crises demand institutional decision-makers to do something for which they have no script: to do what they always do (or expect always to do) and, at the same time, do something completely novel. Decision makers must do both.

Start With the Expected

Crises moments have no playbooks but the institution is looking for administrators to engage with faculty governance in ways that are consistent with campus culture. Presidents must be cognizant of their institution’s rules of engagement with faculty governance and the faculty at large.

That can be particularly challenging for new presidents still learning names and faces, let alone unwritten expectations. Behind traditional governance structures is the often-tacit social contract that exists between the administration and the faculty. Presidents need to understand both the structures through which faculty members exert influence and also the culture of faculty governance and expectations for that influence.

Especially during crises, institutional leaders may be tempted to lean too far into centralized decision making, distancing themselves from the faculty. That can erode trust, as faculty members and other key stakeholders will view executive decisions as being autocratic and opaque. By instead consulting with faculty leaders through recognized governance structures, a campus leader can build a shared understanding of the problems, determine parameters for possible and permissible actions, and lay the foundation for implementing leadership decisions. Sensemaking, deciding and implementing are three different acts.

It’s important not to trade speed for engagement. Presidents who disrupt their campus’s culture risk a limited understanding and interpretation of the problem, creating an incomplete or ineffective set of options and losing the support they need to carry out their jobs. That may mean that administrators have to plan very far in advance, which is challenging given the often urgency of crises.

In fact, when leaders think they need to act quickly and decisively, they may be tempted to substitute administrators, who are often former faculty members, as a proxy for current faculty input. We’ve learned, however, that consulting academic administrators isn’t a convenient shortcut. Once a professor becomes a dean or is appointed to an administrative position, the faculty see them first as an administrator and only second as a former faculty member—and one who doesn’t represent the faculty at large.

Such former faculty don’t have the granted imprimatur to speak for the faculty. They may have assumptions and ideas that no longer represent current faculty sentiment and understanding. Further, faculty members often interpret such actions as presidents simply “checking a box” or not being willing to truly engage them.

Craft Novel Approaches

Second, and possibly more essential, times of crisis demand new responses. They surface the need for atypical and often unrehearsed decisions involving different time frames and actors. When trust is high and collaboration established, presidents can take larger risks on novelty but, in opposite situations, top administrators will need to be more conservative in their approach. They may have to create new task forces and advisory bodies, as was the case during COVID. Who leads them, who serves and how they are identified is crucial. To fully incorporate faculty views and input on committees formed for institutional priorities, university leaders should follow processes that are culturally appropriate.

At some institutions, that means charging faculty governance leaders to manage the selection of faculty for participation or having a faculty senate leader co-lead the taskforce. But at other institutions, top administrators may follow processes that yield the best and most insightful faculty thinkers and stewards even if they fall outside of structured faculty governance. They must be ready for pushback on the latter, but weigh the pros and cons. And, again, they should think culture and expectations—not just structure.

Administrative leaders also need to frame the work meaningfully—well beyond the all-too-often “we want your input” request. What are the ways that a faculty perspective can help add clarity and perspective, identify blind spots, create creative solutions and lay the foundation for implementation?

Finally, senior administrators shouldn’t overlook the often overlooked. They would be well-served to intentionally tap other groups on the campus, even if distinct from formal faculty governance, for leadership in crises. At large universities, working with deans or deans’ councils may be an effective strategy, for example. Same with councils of department chairs. If these groups exist, they too often are tapped for information dissemination rather than leadership. During crises, however, their roles can change and evolve. Such bodies can interact with university leadership to weigh in on key issues and to help keep the campus informed.

Monitor Crisis Fatigue

On top of crises such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or the pandemic, institutional leaders are under constant pressure to perform while facing many continuing challenges, including financial shortfalls, staffing transitions, equity and social justice issues, mental health challenges, technological advancements, political pressures, extreme climate or weather occurrences, and convulsive national and world events. One seasoned and long-serving president, when speaking recently with other senior campus leaders, compared the multitude of issues facing her university over the last seven years with the “Ten Plagues of Egypt.”

This level of constant turbulence can amplify areas where authority is ambiguous and force institutions to make choices about how decisions are made. Leaders may be tempted to take what they see as the easiest and quickest path forward without engaging the faculty appropriately. But too many presidents have learned the hard way that the institution needs to invest now or pay later. They will be far more successful if they use crises to develop faculty governance into a more effective contributor to institutional decisions.

What seems to matter is not only what presidents do, but also how they do it—the means through which they decide and act. Presidents who effectively engage shared governance, both with their boards and their faculty, and who honor a norm of consultation, are more likely to improve their institution’s ability to survive and thrive during times of tumult.