The editors of the book introduce Sharon Lalla who has worked in industry and higher education for over 30 years. After being awarded a doctorate in education technologies at Pepperdine University, Sharon became a college professor and took a leadership role in the administration of education technologies at New Mexico State University. Currently, Sharon is a New Leadership Academy Fellow and was Vice President of Instruction at Luna Community College at Las Vegas, New Mexico, from July 2016 to June 2019.
Executive Summary
Upon my arrival at the College 3 years ago, it was obvious that the college environment exhibited significant weaknesses which resulted in isolation, loss of trust, lack of transparency, and lack of empowerment among its constituents. To ensure that every higher educational system is prepared to deliver quality education, accreditors are periodically assigned by region to evaluate the fiscal and educational quality of an institution. In October of 2017, our accreditor found significant reason to place our College on a Show-Cause notice—a sanction that is closest to shutting down the institution. Among severe findings was a lack of shared governance. It is well known and commonly practiced in higher educational systems in the USA that shared governance is not only a best practice but also a requirement. According to Bahls (2018), alignment created by shared governance is ineffective if important constituencies are left out of the process (p. 14). As a result, accreditation reviewers explicitly look for shared governance in a number of key criteria which are used to evaluate the quality of a higher educational institution. Without a formal shared governance model in place that is fully transparent and explicit, it is commonly believed that the institution will have a severe breakdown in (1) trust among its leaders and with one another, (2) essential communication, and (3) buy-in to new ideas and changes.
When shared governance is not present or ineffective, the practice of shared governance can require a radical transformation of the College’s culture. This article supports the importance of a formal shared governance model, describes the model, and presents experiences toward this transformation. The revised shared governance model is embryonic in its implementation; however, the campus groups are working together to re-create the axle necessary to sustain a traveling organization.
Introduction
The ultimate mission of higher education systems is to disseminate knowledge and prepare students to become productive citizens (Gerber 2001); however, a shared governance structure plays a significant role in determining the effectiveness of a College in supporting its ultimate mission. The concept of shared governance is not new. Its intent is to give voice to the major groups in a higher education system. These major groups not only include the governing Board of Trustees and the President, but also the Students, Faculty, and Staff. If these internal members of the higher educational system participate in the decision-making process, it is believed that trust and a greater degree of buy-in will occur (MacTaggart 2018, p. 9) despite the continual changes and major disruptions afforded by societal challenges.
The Problem
In 2015, the College accreditation report acknowledged a gap in the College’s shared governance structure. It was listed as a concern and would require attention prior to the next accreditation review which was to occur in 2019. While it was identified as a concern, it was not escalated at the time. In 2016, several essential committees were established that included involvement from the student body, faculty, staff, and administration. The committees were approved by the President and then formed. In those committees, issues were discussed and decisions or recommendations were made in areas concerning classroom technology, tutoring services, distance education, and institutional analysis. Minutes were recorded and placed on the College website. In 2017, when our Accrediting agency received a number of complaints regarding the Board of Trustees’ actions, they made a second visit followed by a serious sanction against the College. It had been common knowledge that actions by Board of Trustees and leadership had been questionable for several years, yet, the campus and its community remained silent. It was not until the accreditation team placed a Show-Cause order on the college that a sense of urgency was imminent. The College had 90 days to respond to the findings and present evidence of substantial change or close campus.
A Sense of Urgency
There is nothing like an ultimatum that could potentially result in devastating results to create a sense of urgency and lead a diverse group toward action. This is what the sanction did. At the time of the show-cause, an Interim President was in place. To make a transformation quickly, it was imperative that a large number of people work together and quickly. As a result, an initial committee consisting of 13 faculty, staff, and administrators was created to begin the work of finding evidence for 5 criteria consisting of 21 core components.
We began by appealing to the committee members recollection of “better days” to produce a collective vision for the hard work that was yet to come and that was essential to a sustainable practice. Although accreditation was the impetus for a much needed and speedy transformation of the College, it was essential to hone in on the vision that first bound the initial accreditation committee of 13 to a shared vision.
Scenario: Describe a Shared Vision
As part of an initial exercise, the 13-member accreditation team, which consisted of faculty, staff, and administration, were asked to shift their perspective from anger to possibility. We only had 90 days, and it was essential that all 13 members were committed to the work on which we were about to embark. Through a process of self-discovery, each member used narrative to describe what they considered to be exceptionally positive moments as a College employee. Some committee members discussed the “good old days” when the College had high enrollment, felt very inclusive, and maintained an overall feeling of being connected with the students; some members spoke about the loss of educational opportunities for students who would normally not be afforded an education; some members described their profound gratitude each day in service to students. The discussion was thoughtful and heartfelt and it continued for a couple of hours. What stood out was that the committee members basically reaffirmed the mission statement “opportunities for you.” Opportunities was a key word, which described what was often the first and perhaps the only chance for rural students with little access to financial, social, and cultural resources, to succeed in the workforce and in society. This shared vision is what propelled each member into action. Once the committee of 13 was separated into five teams, each team proceeded to collect the evidence to support their criteria.
Next Steps
5B: The institution’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the institution to fulfill its mission. (Higher Learning Commission Policy) https://www.hlcommission.org/Policies/policy-index.html
This core component looked for the institution’s governance and administrative structures that promoted effective leadership and supported collaborative processes that enabled the institution to fulfill its mission (HLC Assurance Argument). This team was responsible for providing evidence that there were campus-wide collaborative processes in place that were aligned with the College mission. The team expanded its size by adding approximately 15 more members consisting of additional faculty, staff, and students. This larger team reviewed other college shared governance models with a goal to create a model that would support the unique characteristics of our rural college.
Within 2 weeks, the team put a model together which included a number of formal groups and committees that it felt best met the needs of the College. This model reflected a horizontal approach to ensure participation and transparency. A significant inclusion in the model was a Shared Governance Council. The purpose of the council was to act as a check and balance between the Board of Trustees and the College constituency. If the Board of Trustees agreed, the Board would have to present their new or revised policies to the Council prior to taking any action.
The model was presented to the campus community and discussed, and modifications were made based on the collective feedback. Within 35 days, the shared governance model was created, vetted by the College, and officially approved by the Board of Trustees. Existing committees were rolled into these larger committees, and the work began to implement shared governance in the decision-making process.
Our Shared Governance Model
The College’s shared governance model comprises five constituent groups—Board of Trustees and President, Academic Leadership, Faculty, Students, and Staff. Additionally, three committees were formalized—Shared Governance Council, Strategic Planning and Institutional Analysis, and Retention and Completion. A brief review of each of the constituent groups and committees follows.
The purpose of the Faculty Senate is to facilitate effective communication among the faculty and between the faculty as a whole and the administration of the College. The Senate, which consists of elected faculty, presents the views and recommendations of the college faculty to the administration and to the College Board of Trustees as they relate to academic policies.
The Student Government represents the students at the College. To enhance the quality of student life and encourage student retention at the College, its purpose includes encouraging cooperation and communication between the students, faculty, administration, Board of Trustees, and all campus organizations.
The Staff Advisory Senate consists of elected employees at the College. The group serves as a source of input regarding issues and decisions of the college as they relate to all regular full-time/part-time, and nonfaculty people.
The Academic Leadership consists of the Vice President of Instruction and all Academic Directors. This group provides leadership and vision in the planning, development, and implementation of all academic areas led by the College’s strategic plan—including faculty and support human resource development, curriculum, instruction, budget, completion and retention, and institutional analysis.
Shared Governance Council
The purpose of the Shared Governance Council is to serve as a collective unit with equal representation from all college governance groups including the Faculty Senate, Staff Advisory Senate, Student Government, and Academic Leadership. The Council reviews policy proposals, issues, concerns, and other institutional matters that are presented by these governance groups.
Each governance group is represented in the Shared Governance Council: The Student Government and Faculty Senate already existed, while the Academic Leadership and Staff Advisor Senate were newly formalized groups. To create the Shared Governance Council, two elected members of each of these constituent groups were its first members. The general idea is that each of the constituent groups would contribute to issues and discussions in their own groups; they could then bring ideas to the Council, other constituent groups, the President, or the Board where institutional discussions could continue. Decisions can be shared at the group level, or the council can be used to further discussion with administration such as the President or Board of Trustees when a new or revised policy might be required. It should be noted that any group can bring forth concerns or discussions to anyone at any time.
Strategic Planning and Institutional Analysis Committee
This committee measures the appropriateness, strength, and relevance of the College’s strategic plan, ensuring it proactively seizes opportunities and addresses challenges of uncertainty due to changes in the organizational environment. This committee also develops and implements metrics and strategies for measuring the institution’s progress toward its strategic goals and provides recommendations on how the College broadly embraces the strategic plan as the basis for driving operations. Members were selected from all constituent groups of the College.
Retention and Completion Committee
Shared governance model (authors’ own figure)
The Importance of Interconnectivity
Effective shared governance is hard work; however, when active, it energizes a number of individuals within the system to participate, facilitate, become informed, and have the necessary conversations. Also, the construction of a shared governance structure has allowed the senate groups and committees to begin the long process of trusting leadership again. Although there were elements of shared governance within the College before the construction of a model, formal approval by the Board of Trustees meant that the Trustees were willing to be more inclusive with all stakeholders in College decisions. In addition, the new shared governance structure has also increased motivation and buy-in across campus.
Connectivity between individuals and resources can be very complex and time-consuming. There are numerous social structures that either allow or prevent those interconnections to be made. Once a model like shared governance is created or revived, new work begins.
As a newly formed Shared Governance Council, the Council was excited to participate in the decision-making process; however, the model is not as easy to implement. Effective communication is crucial to its success. The first test of shared governance occurred when a Board of Trustee member resigned; consequently, one of the first requests by the Council to the Board of Trustees was to participate in the temporary selection of a new Board of Trustee. This temporary Trustee would serve for a year until the next community election. Since responsibility of the temporary selection of the Board of Trustee ultimately rests with the Board of Trustees, the Board accepted the Council’s offer to participate. As a result, the Council members interviewed the lone candidate. As a group, however, they recommended to the Board of Trustees that the candidate not be selected as a Trustee. The Board of Trustees reviewed the recommendation from the Council but nevertheless chose to vote the candidate in as the temporary Trustee.
The result of this opposing decision led the Council to question the validity of their contribution to shared governance. The Board, on the other hand, believed they had given the council voice but believed their decision was theirs and was made appropriately. Defeatist conversation about the decision began to travel across the campus. Smaller and larger meetings were held to share concerns and feelings. As a result of these conversations, the College members had a clearer understanding of the purpose of shared governance and group roles and responsibilities. While some members of the council and constituent groups believed that the shared governance meant that the College would utilize a democratic approach to decision-making, they began to understand the participative nature of shared governance. This is an example when expectations and communication can anchor harmony or distrust. Continued conversation between members of the council and the board resulted in a better understanding of each perspective. As a result, the Trustees, the Shared Governance Council, and other campus members will need to continue to learn the balances of power and the potential value of the collaborative nature of shared governance.
Summary
Effective shared governance has been proven to create a sustaining traveling organization in higher educational systems. This is why accreditors require its presence. When shared governance is nonexistent, there are little to no checks and balances in place. Members at all levels, including the highest decision-making levels, need to be transparent about issues and policies that can potentially impact the organization.
Changes to enrollment numbers, funding formulas, and state and national initiatives in higher education continually challenge the College. For shared governance to work successfully, its constituents must be invested, self-evaluative, and prepared to improve its ability to participate in the decision-making processes of the College. As a result, more work needs to be done both at the group level and across campus groups with the intention to improve communications within and across the groups. By reviving a shared vision, building the connections among the various groups, and validating shared responsibility horizontally, vertically, and ubiquitously, the College is better prepared to address the challenges.
The shift in performance and participation was initially required because of the sense of urgency placed on the campus by the accreditation team. Most likely, the natural response once a sense of urgency abates is to revert back to the “way it used to be.” Nevertheless, competition in higher education cannot be ignored, and the College will need to collectively forge ahead, challenging the status quo and actively contributing to institutional needs. A re-focus on shared governance at our College has potentially opened ubiquitous avenues for participation, communication, and transparency. Leadership decisions at all levels need to reflect the interests of the organizational mission. This is why effective shared governance is essential; it makes everyone accountable for its success. When actions at any level conflict with our mission, it is up to each member from the maintenance team to the Board of Trustees to recalculate.
The importance of leadership cannot be overemphasized. The College is in a position to thrive because governance groups are beginning to trust the opportunities they have to participate and contribute more effectively to the decision-making processes of the college. The College will be hiring a new President to lead the College into future opportunities. Currently, the Shared Governance Council is leading the selection process that will invite five qualified presidential candidates to the campus. This is a crucial time for the College and the shared governance process. Excellent communication skills, self-assessment, and ability to embrace conflicting views and to make readjustments are essential in the presidential leadership as well as other areas of leadership. Governance groups must continue to trust and actively engage in and contribute to the needs of the College.
The College survived the 90-day charge; however, the College is not over the hill. The College is expected to forge ahead and continue to do the hard work. Leadership at all levels with effective shared governance as its axle will become the driving factors that can ensure sustainable results. The College will continue to be monitored until it becomes a traveling organization.
Recommendations
- 1.
Leaders should practice leading from the sidelines. This can be very difficult when one finds comfort in a top-down power structure or is focused on the end result. Leaders must be more cognitively present to identify when to jump in to facilitate and support and when to be patient with the process (when possible).
- 2.
Trust your employees, but provide professional development opportunities to develop their leadership skills. It is not enough to expect employees to raise their contribution level to that of participation. Skills need to be developed so all members can effectively facilitate meetings, create measurable goals, take minutes, analyze data, and write reports.
- 3.
Make sure all governance groups own the responsibility of being transparent. One purpose for shared governance is to extend the conversation and knowledge across the organization. Leaders should provide clear requirements to groups about their responsibility to be transparent with their discussions and recommendations, remaining open to differing opinions.
- 4.
Leaders should encourage ubiquitous ways to support institutional conversations, including offering different ways that groups can facilitate conversations.
- 5.
Leaders should communicate simply and often such as by sending emails regularly, conducting meetings, and/or holding all-hands meetings to discuss new policies and current issues.
- 6.
Make sure everyone knows where to get records of meetings. Minutes should be posted on the website within 48 hours of a meeting.
- 7.
Revisit the shared governance process to ensure they are effective and continue to evolve. Provide an annual feedback mechanism regarding the effectiveness of shared governance structures and practices. Digital surveys can be made available to get a broader response from the campus community. Make adjustments to the shared governance process or structure when results identify common concerns.