Organization and Governance of Higher Education - Essay Example

 Introduction : Governance in higher education, involves the mechanism by means of which the higher educational institutions are formally organized and managed. It has a certain pattern and organization which is based on its nature of institution. It refers to the internal structure, organization and management of the independent institutions. Higher education institutions play an important role in the society. Along with the internal structure the external context is also important in determining the political, social and economic affect and constraints of how universities are governed and what impacts the decision making process. The governance and the organization of the internal structure of the university require in-depth analysis of power and its exercise in organization. It requires incorporation of the leadership studies, political theories, and analysis of how formal or informal the interaction between the organizations are in terms of management of conflict, and analysis of tension between bureaucratic and professional authority. These perspectives confirm that structures, while necessary are not sufficient to manage the kind of conflict that emerges as tension between bureaucratic and professional authority. It requires special skill set and combination to manage the conflict that emerges in colleges and universities. Understanding less formal and more contingent ways to deal with these conflicts seem to be the most promising avenues for governing higher education (Leslie, 2003). Governing requires understanding of works and forces that shape the behavior of those who govern to give the soundest analytical platform from which to begin. The system which provides information about how power and authority are exercised is what governing is about, and requires and analysis of the structures, procedures and outcomes. Governing implies how people work within the structures of the formal authority to reach a decision. Governing which is the exercising power and authority is more important than the governance. Patterns of governance in contemporary U.S. higher education are being shaped by patterns of capitalism, academic style, as colleges and universities engage in market activities to generate revenues. Higher education’s structure and focus has increasingly been defined economically by “academic capitalism” (Slaughter and Leslie 1997) and politically and culturally by “academic capitalism in the new economy” (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004).(Rhoades, 2003) The recent trends indicate that the capitalism, academic style is reshaping its focus and forms of academic production and governance. This emerging trend of entrepreneurial orientation affects the function which has become a priority in the governance. This has also been impacted by the change in the structure of the professional employment in the academy from full time dominant faculty to part time faculty and full time support professional. Such transformation has far-reaching implications on the governance. “Finally, connected to the above patterns, the past thirty years in U.S. higher education have seen a shift from an academy shaped by an “academic revolution” of increasingly powerful faculty (Jencks and Riesman 1968) to one shaped by a “managerial revolution” of increasingly powerful academic managers (Keller 1983) who are making faculty increasingly “managed professionals” (Rhoades 1998b).(Rhoades, 2003) Case Study Methodology : The selected case study for my evaluation is an American University, which is a private institution. It is an autonomous institution which has its own independent internal structure, organization and management team. The organization of the internal structure is made up of governing board which includes the board of regents and the board of directors, the university president Amy Gutman, is the CEO or the executive head with the team of the administrative chancellors and staff and faculty senates, academic deans, department chairs and some form of student representation. The governance is based on the concept of the citizen governance where the board members serve the civic role for the institution. The management of the internal structures is increasingly complex and requires organizational setup which resembles that of intraorganizational, interorganizational and governmental relationships. The management of the educational institution is complex task and is true for University of Pennsylvania which is private institution. Penn is run by the trustees and the Executive administration which includes President-Amy Gutman; The Provost –Ronald J. Daniels, A set of Senior Administrators-who run the non academic divisions, Trustees and the University Governance with the Penn’s official governing body and the Deans which include 12 people who set the course of the University’s academic units. The formal institutional governance and fiduciary responsibility of the University rests solely with its Board of Trustees. The trustees delegate the responsibility for the day to day management of the University to the administration and in particular to the president. Taking into consideration that important task, one of the most important task of the trustees is the selection, retention and replacement of the president. The trustees seek the support of the of administration and under special circumstances reinforce the activities of the administration in several ways. They serve as the bridge between the university and the world, on one hand and on the other hand they interpret the institution to the public bringing in experience and the perceptions of the world outside the University. The trustees also provide dynamic leadership in the identification and the development of the financial resources. They oversee the University’s relation with other institutions, the private sector, governmental bodies, and the media. In consultation with the president, the trustees determine long range allocation of resources, making decisions in the context of the needs and the expectations of the University’s constituencies and of the society. (http://www.upenn.edu/secretary/FAQ.html) The style of the President is direct and open, she has tried to carry on the legacy of the 200 years of University history. She believes in carrying the torch of excellence which has been maintained for the past two centuries forward with commitment to excellence in scholarship, research and service. She gives special importance to the programs which are the backbone of University, highly regarded undergraduate, graduate and professional schools which provide competitive and wide ranging interdisciplinary research and scholarship. She has emphasized the fact that Penn takes pride in being the place where students and faculty can pursue knowledge, without boundaries, a place where theory and practice can combine to produce better understanding of our world and ourselves. She urges students to take this step towards exploration and innovation, within the richness of diversity and history. (http://www.upenn.edu/president/history.html) The board of trustees steer the institutional planning process through the selection of the team which is headed by the president, the provost, dean and the advisors who are entitled to take action and get involved in the everyday administration of the University. The trustees are chosen one of the three ways depending on what kind of trustees they are. Term trustees are selected by the Nominating Committee of the Trustees and selected at a Stated Meeting. Alumni Trustees are selected by the alumni in accordance with the rules established by Penn Alumni. Commonwealth Trustees are four non-elected officials appointed by the following representatives of the Pennsylvania General Assembly: President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. The intense competition for resources and demand for high performance are the driving forces which encourages the institution to become more flexible, more result focused and fast acting. This is backed by the companies which determine that such initiatives require able and dynamic leadership, and the challenges which the institution has to face help build effective leadership both for the next generation managers and throughout the organization today. The University acknowledges backing from variety of outside sources, and has supported research projects on variety of topics ranging from leadership alliance formation and national variations in governing structures to the performance consequences of executive successions and leadership required in outsourcing relationships.   At the University selected for case study the University Office of Budget and Management Analysis manages the University’s budget planning process. Major budget Office responsibilities include establishing budget planning parameters and administrating the allocated cost algorithms coordinating and compiling the University’s annual operating budget in accordance with established guidelines reviewing School and Center budget submissions by analyzing financial reports and comparing actual operating results to the projected budget for revenues and expenditures advising University leadership on central resource allocation issues, and compiling and maintaining data and reports required by administrators, officers, the Board of Trustees, and external agencies(http://www.budget.upenn.edu/) The mission of the University is consequently to 1) stimulate basic research and practical application in the area of leadership and change, 2) foster an understanding of how to develop organizational leadership, and 3) support the leadership development agendas. The mission and the strategic plan is in harmony with the philanthropic mission of Carnegie type of description, as the institution has evolved from the philanthropic vision of Benjamin Franklin. Externally the University is managed by the Board of trustees, president and the Provost and the Dean of the faculty. Like most private University, there is designation of campus officers above the level of the dean. President, chancellors, provost, executive vice president, deputy chancellors and other titles serve the purpose of significance to local participants in the institutional culture. The president presides over the system and the chancellor’s preside over the individual institutions. President is the chief executive officer, the second order of administration takes order from their superiors so vice president serves the president, and the vice chancellors serve the chancellors. Since this is a huge and complex institution, they also identify intermediaries in their hierarchy and titles such as provost or deputy chancellor or executive vice president with responsibilities greater than vice president but less than president. The Board of Trustees provides dynamic leadership in the identification and the development of the financial resources. They oversee the University’s relation with other institutions, the private sector, governmental bodies, and the media. In consultation with the president, the trustees determine long range allocation of resources, making decisions in the context of the needs and the expectations of the University’s constituencies and of the society. The Board of Trustees head the line of order, and the rest of the team is composed of selected individuals who are directly appointed and selected by the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is the key member of the governing board and of the advisory bodies. The president or the chief operating officer is directly selected by the board of the trustees, and hence is responsible to report his/her actions to the board. The meetings take place every month or within the gap of two months depending on the nature of urgency. Some of the meetings are full board meeting and some are just executive committee meetings. Some of the agendas which are addressed in the meetings are Budget and finance, Long Range Planning sessions, internal and external management. Most meetings are open meetings in which anyone interested can participate, but selectively certain meetings are closed meetings. The Board of Trustees is the chief stakeholders in this University, and have the power to control quality assurance within the institution. The stakeholders are the members of the advisory board to the dean or the director of the major university unit. There are over 500 overseers and majority of them are the alumni of the University who have ardent interest in sound ranking maintained by the University. This is recognized as one of the oldest intuitions in America which maintains creditable ranking in the yearly assessment made by World News and Report authorities. The Overseers are appointed by the Trustees of the University and serve a three year renewable term. They provide long and short term advice to the deans and the directors regarding the achievements of the strategic objectives and priorities. Overseers also serve as bridges between University’s schools, centers and the campus beyond the campus boundaries. Although overseers do not have fiduciary responsibility, the president, the provost and board of Trustees rely heavily on these boards to help inform work of the schools and centers. The overseer is a major stakeholder who relates to the institution and is acknowledged for their long standing commitment and philanthropic involvement with the school. They nurture interest in the developing and promoting the academic quality and integrity of the institution. The collective bargaining does not work in Universities as it does in corporations; it is not a part of the institutional fabric. This is due to the fact that top managers in higher education do not exercise primary control over the curriculum, faculty recruitment or promotion or the methods of teaching. Since there is no center authority the governance and power of bargaining is cloudy. Colleges and Universities have multiple stakeholders instead of selected few. (Birbaum,1988).The institution has exclusive office of Budget and Management, which manages the University’s budget managing process planning the parameters, administration, coordination and compilation of the budgeting process while refining the goals and mission of the institution. Analyzing Case Study Evidence: The chosen University for case study is a privately run University located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It is America’s first university and is the fourth oldest institutions for higher education in United States. It is a member of Ivy League. It was founded by Benjamin Franklin, who advocated an educational program that focused as much on practical education for commerce and public service as on the classics and theology. It was one of the first academic institutions to follow a multidisciplinary model pioneered by several European universities, concentrating several “faculties” (e.g., theology, classics, medicine) into one institution. About 4,500 professors serve nearly 10,000 full-time undergraduate and 10,000 graduate and professional students. The University is incorporated as The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. The university is one of 14 founding members of the Association of American Universities. The University or the higher education is to serve to attain three principal source of important ingredients of progress in a modern, industrial society: expert knowledge, highly educated people and scientific discoveries. At the same time in present declining economy with federal budget heavily in deficit and state government cutting investments in higher education, campus officials are confronting a chronic shortage of money to satisfy the demands of the students, faculty members and other constituencies. University officials are under great pressure to become entrepreneurial. (Pourciau, ) Conclusions, Recommendations, and Implications Based on the Evidence In conclusion based on the comprehensive analysis of the University under consideration in the case study it can be said that “Colleges and Universities, are by design and inclination, organizations with diffuse power (Weick, 1976). No individual or single constituency has power to unilaterally advance broad –based decisions or initiatives. There is also a great tendency which involves multiplicity of interests competing for the time and energy of the faculty and staff, producing a diffusion of attention. (Heartley, ) It is recommended that consideration be made for the University’s governance to change and be flexible. Colleges and Universities can change and the mechanism that allows for the purposeful redirection of an institution is its system of governance. As Henry Rosovsky(1991) put it, “ Governance concerns power: who is in charge; who makes decisions; who has voice, and how loud is that voice?”. The three most influential voices are generally acknowledged to be are those of the Board of Trustees or the governing body, the administration, and the faculty (especially full time, tenure track faculty. The balance of powers among these groups is the central tenet of “good” college or University governance. (Heartley, ) The implications are the rationale which has been deduced as threefold for such shared governance. Firstly, it implies that colleges and universities have an established bureaucratic division of labor. Each group has distinct responsibilities, areas of expertise and different perspectives. In case of the chosen Unvsrsity, which is a large institution larger issues are addressed by shared governance which requires that all constituencies participate in the decision making. Secondly, this is institution is the center for higher learning in the academic community. They are bound by certain shared professional norms and values (Sanders,1973; Shils, 1992). Thirdly, broad consultation and participation is the means for securing support for the desired change.( Heartley, ). This corresponds to the tripartite model of academic governance (bureautcratic, collegial and political). Summary Colleges and universities differ in many ways from other organizations, thus it becomes imperative that one understands the comprehensive nature of college and university functioning. The nature of functioning of colleges and universities is very elusive and thus governance and management is quite a challenge. Traditional management culture and theories cannot work effectively well in higher education. Management of higher education requires consideration of unique academic environment, its culture and it organizational structure. (McGriff, 2001) Four different models of organization and governance- the bureaucracy, the collegium, the political system and organized anarchy have been used to describe different ways of thinking about how institutions of higher education are organized and administered. All four models are invented social constructs that “make sense” of the organizational process.(Birnbaum, 1988) Work Cited Bastedo, Michael N. 2005. “The Making of an Activist Governing Board.” Review of Higher Education 28: 551-570. Leslie, David W.(2003) Governing or Governance?http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/gov/roundtable2003/leslie.pdf.2003 Briggs, Charlotte(2002) Models of Curriculum Governance: A Research Agenda– http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/gov/rf2002/briggs.pdf Marginson, Simon(2006). The Enterprise University Goes Global: Cross-border Traffic in Higher Education and Some of the Implications for Governance http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff_pages/Marginson/Marginson&van_der_Wende2006OECD.pdf Collis, David .The Paradox of Scope: A Challenge to the Governance of Higher Education – http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0415s.pdf Favero, Marietta Del. Faculty - Administrator Relationships: Implications for Redesign of Higher Education Governance Systems - http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11152006-103338/unrestricted/pourciau_diss.pdf Morphew, Christopher .Steering Colleges and Universities Toward Distinctive Missions - http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/gov/rf2002/morphew.pdf Hartley, Matthew - Shadow Governance Structures: The Promise and Peril of Task Forces During Times of Change http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=gse_pubs Hearn, James C. ( 2004).Governing in the Sunshine: The Impact of State Open - Meetings and Record Laws on Decision-Making in Higher Education http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/pdf/Sunshine%20Final%20Report%20040415.pdf Olivas, Michael Governing Badly: Theory and Practice of Bad Decision-making in Higher Education - http://www.houstonlawreview.org/archive/downloads/43-1_pdf/Olivas.pdf George Keller (2008)Growing Quaintness: Traditional Governance in the markedly New Realm of U.S. Higher Education http://www.csus.edu/ccp/publications/Shared_Governance_in_Higher_Education_-_April_2008.pdf Rhoades, Gary (2003)Democracy and Capitalism, Academic Style: Governance inContemporary Higher Educationhttp://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/gov/roundtable2003/rhoades.pdf Birnbaum, Robert (1988) How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publications Michael T. Miller, Julie Caplow Policy and University Faculty Governance. Information Age Publishing Inc. Paper ISBN 1-59311-072-3. You can buy this book directly from the publisher at http://www.infoagepub.com/products/product1/caplow-miller.pdf Book : Brown, M. W. (ed.) Organization & governance in higher education. Needham Heights, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing. Pourciau, Todd Anthony (1988). LEADERSHIP FOR SCHOLARLY EXCELLENCE: A QUALITATIVE EXAMINATION OF DEPARTMENT CHAIR FACILITATION METHODS TO PROMOTE RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY IN PRE-TENURE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES FACULTY. Retrieved November 12, 2008, Web site: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-11152006-103338/unrestricted/pourciau_diss.pdf Pusser, Brian (2003). Beyond Baldridge: Extending the Political Model of Higher Education Organization and Governance, from Educational Policy, Vol. 17, No. 1, 121-140 Ehrenberg, Ronald G. (2004). Governing academia: Who Is in Charge at the Modern University?. Cornell University Press. McGriff, Steven J.(2001). Applications of Macro-Organizational Psychology in the Study of Higher Education Institutions. Pennsylvania State University. Read More