Coming on board

What are the right ingredients for a vibrant university council, asks Stephen Parker. Are university governance mechanisms well equipped to handle political and heated personal differences amongst members of governing bodies and committees? It is a question which helps us delve into the unique nature of the university as an organisation. Numerous jokes exist on the topic. One is of the Oxbridge college where the principal of the college was taken ill during a meeting of the governing body and rushed off to hospital. The next day a card comes from the secretary of the governing body saying: “Governing body discussed your illness after you left last night. You will be pleased to know that it resolved to wish you a speedy recovery. You will also be pleased to know that this motion was carried by 13 votes to 12. With best wishes.” It is my view that there is an inbuilt structural tension over governance decision making in universities. That tension may be heightened or lessened through good processes and good handling of human relations, but the underlying tension is there because of the hybrid nature of universities as organisations. Universities are both constitutional entities, similar to the way that we think of polities, and they are corporate entities in the way that we think of commercial organisations. This hybridity means that there is no single cardinal principle by which we can resolve differences of view that might be described as political. There is a practical way through in many cases if enough time is spent debating the core strategies and directions of the organisation, and if matters are left “incompletely theorised” unless they really need to be resolved before strategy can be implemented. Universities are complex entities with multiple goals and multiple interpretations of what those goals should be. In some respects they resemble polities because they exhibit elements of separation of powers, representative democracy and the rule of law internally. Usually, although not always, the composition of the governing body is organised around different kinds of stakeholders: staff, students, management, alumni, the incorporating jurisdiction and the community at large. These quasi-constitutional features distinguish universities from the classical conception of a commercial corporation which is designed to maximise profit or value for its shareholders, and where the directors are appointed by the owners for that purpose. In a political structure, decisions are acceptably made along political lines and ultimately tested (nowadays) in the ballot box or a court applying a constitution. In short, it is expected in the political domain that one acts in the interests of one’s constituency, and the clash of constituencies is handled through constitutional means. And yet governing bodies of universities and their committees are seemingly under a single duty to act in the best interests of the university rather than represent the stakeholder group of which they are a member. This is reasonably well established legally, I believe, and we certainly say it often enough to entrench it. The result is a political or quasi-constitutional structure supposed to operate under a singular corporate duty. This could be a strength, in the sense of hybrid vigour (heterosis) whereby the combination of two breeds leads to a stronger breed, or it could be a weakness if it lessens the species’ resilience. It is a strength if it facilitates clear exchanges of perspective and healthy debate in a way that enables timely and good decisions to be made and minority view-holders to feel respected. It is a weakness if it leads to decisions that are continually doubted afterwards and a pervasive culture that debate is a charade and certain views are systematically suppressed. Having been a practising academic for over 20 years, I can recognise the feeling that one owes a higher duty to one’s discipline or the cause of higher learning than to the particular institution that happens to employ one at the moment. How then can decision-making processes in university governance maximise the strengths and minimise the weaknesses of the paradoxical situation that universities are constitutional entities under a singular corporate duty?” The answer has to lie in deep agreement on strategy and goals; even if that takes some time to achieve. Agreement on strategy provides the magnetic north for differing views. It is the functional substitute for profit or shareholder value in the commercial corporation. It enables people to shelve their doubts over detail and to make compromises because they have bought into the higher order value of the strategy. My advice then is to spend more time discussing the external environment, the institution’s strategy, the current targets and whether they are being met, because this will save time when one comes to lower order issues over which there can be endless dissensus, inversely related to the amount at stake. This isn’t a complete resolution of the inbuilt tension in the university organisation, but it is possible that the right amount of that tension coupled with deep agreement on general direction is what has made many universities outlast most corporations; and long may that remain the case, in my view. Professor Stephen Parker is vice-chancellor of the University Of Canberra. He presented this paper to the University Governance And Regulations Forum, Canberra on 3 September.