A Dozen Big Governance Challenges 

There really is a lot happening in the world of university governance at the moment. It feels that it is all much more difficult, the expectations are greater, burdens and risks are bigger, it’s all pretty challenging. The work of any governing body is inevitably harder when taking difficult decisions about savings and possible job cuts than choosing investment priorities between exciting projects.

The hearings in the Scottish Parliament around the governance and other issues at the University of Dundee have shown what can happen when this plays out badly. There have also been some interesting comments from Sir Philip Augar whose 212 page 2019 report on Post-18 Education and Funding had very little to say about governance in higher education and nothing among its 50+ recommendations relating to the issue. 

Augar was speaking recently to Research Professional News and said:

 “there needs to be a much more challenging mindset” among university governing bodies, and sketched out reforms to vice-chancellors’ pay he said could “encourage realistic risk analysis” within leadership. Augar said that, although the composition of governing bodies looked good “on paper”, with staff members, local representatives and management all taking part, chairs of governing bodies need “a change in mindset”.

“At the moment, the sector is going through emergency redundancy programme[s] that proper planning could have avoided,” Augar said. “That’s why the governance errors in the [2010s] have led to the problems in the 20s.”

It’s not absolutely clear what those errors in the previous decade were nor the steps that would have prevented them or indeed why Augar’s review report made no recommendations in this area.

Beyond this fresh interest in university governance from Sir Philip there have been some interesting pieces on Wonkhe recently, the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) is reviewing its Code of Higher Education Governance and the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU) published a draft of what it describes as a Code of Ethical University Governance. 

Meanwhile, Advance HE, together with CUC, Universities UK (UUK) and the Association of Heads of University Administration (AHUA) has been running what is labelled a Big Conversation for university leaders with a particular focus recently on university governance. 

In short, everyone’s talking about governance in universities. But governance is difficult and in engaging with these tricky issues I thought I would highlight some of the bigger challenges as I currently see them. In summary this awkward list is as follows:

1. It’s hard to look inside the black box
2. We have governance models designed in a different age
3. Regulator expectations
4. Governing body membership 
5. Working out how to operate at the necessary pace
6. Getting the right information and paperwork in front of governors
7. Governance discussions which focus on the wrong things 
8. Conduct, role and ethics
9. Ensuring the right level of challenge
10. Dealing with data
11. Strategy not operations, Governance not management
12. Managing other inputs

Some of these are much bigger than others and there are many more too which could have been included but this should be enough for now. Apologies in advance for the length of this piece.

1 It’s hard to look inside the black box

Governance remains a critical factor in institutional success. While good governance can’t compensate for poor management, poor governance can seriously hinder a university’s progress, lead to a major diversion of effort and resources and hold an institution back for months or years. At the very least a governance-generated crisis can represent a major diversion for university leaders and governors and result in significant lost opportunities or missed targets. There have been some pretty public governance issues at a number of UK universities in recent memory including at De Montfort, Swansea, Plymouth, LSE, Buckingham and, most recently, Dundee. There are plenty more in the US too.

Governing bodies play a critical role in higher education and yet they and their activities are little understood, they generally have a very low profile and are usually quite remote from the daily experience of university staff. While there are significant differences between the governing bodies of pre-1992 universities and those established since then – particularly in terms of size, composition and powers – in general the issues and challenges are very similar.

Despite the key role of the Council (or equivalent) of the university, it does seem still to be the case that the vast majority of staff – both academic and professional services – are simply unaware of the role, nature, function, composition, power and meeting arrangements of their institution’s governing body. It’s all just a black box to them. 

Many commentators on governance in the sector are also sometimes rather under-informed about governance matters. This is partly because unless you have direct exposure to the operation of a governing body, either as a member or by attending meetings, it is quite difficult to get a real sense of what is going on. But it’s also down to the relatively limited range of research covering this critical topic.

Whilst I sometimes think that there should be a bit more in the way of live-streaming of governing body meetings (does any university in the UK do this?) somehow a way has to be found to enable future university leaders to see inside the black box. They have to be enabled to observe, learn about and understand how governance works in practice. This might happen through shadowing a governing body member, perhaps co-presenting on a topic or even through simply attending meetings as an observer. Tomorrow’s university leaders have to know how to operate at this level, which means they need to have opportunities and structures which enable them to engage with governing bodies and understand how they work. 

2 We have governance models designed in a different age

Alex Usher, writing very much in a North American context, nevertheless makes a number of really important observations about the nature of HE governing bodies right now. 

One of these includes the perhaps unsurprising comment that “Universities and colleges have become a lot harder to run in the past couple of decades” but, as he notes, despite all this change the arrangements around governing body operations and support have not changed that much.

A few years ago Mike Shattock and Aniko Horvath published a really interesting book The Governance of British Higher Education: The Impact of Governmental, Financial and Market Pressures which covered, among other things, the shift over the past century from a wholly self-governing to a more highly regulated system.

The book set out the clear structural divide between pre- and post-1992 institutions and argued that, until relatively recently, in the pre-92s Senates “remained the beating heart of university governance” with Councils still playing more of a critical friend role. The major changes over the past four decades or so have meant that “Senates do not feel the sense of ownership of the university that they certainly felt in the 1980s and 1990s.” There is a description of the “laicisation” of governance, which started with the Lambert report of 2003, and has been reinforced via new accountability requirements, the diminishing the role of the Senate and what is presented as the gradual disempowerment of the academic community. 

When a university is doing well, it is suggested, the governing body functions as a sounding board but when less successful “the governing body can become utterly dominant”. However, the institution has to retain academic commitment or it simply won’t solve the problems it faces – the authors argue that even talented governing bodies do not have the experience or expertise to address academic matters and their capacity to do so is overestimated. All of this though points to a model which it is hard to adapt to the current extremely challenging environment.

Debbie McVitty, writing recently on Wonkhe, noted that  the sector’s financial challenges have shone a spotlight on governance effectiveness in higher education in England and attracted regulator interest:

The strong signal is that it is up to higher education institutions to work out how to survive in this environment – and if boards are not up to the task of finding the answers then it’s the boards that need reforming.

Debbie explores some of the issues around the balance between the academic and business sides of university operations where we find the contrast between those bemoaning the absence of academic dominion over university leadership and governance and those who think governing bodies are simply insufficiently business-like in their approach. As she puts it:

So you could argue that it’s odd and/or problematic that the sector has witnessed the erosion of the power of senates and academic boards as part of a wider set of trends towards a more executive style of higher education leadership, the rise of metrics, league tables and more managerial approaches to institutional performance, the intensification of regulatory expectations, and the steady withdrawal of direct public funding from the sector.  It’s telling that under the current regulatory regime in England institutional boards have had to master new expectations of oversight of academic quality, on the presumption that all institutional accountability should sit in one place, rather than being distributed – suggesting that quality is now seen as part of the wider business imperative rather than a counterweight to it.

It is though I eould suggest about striking the right balance here and we do need to consider the structures which are in place to deal with this very different world. Senates and academic boards are not necessarily structured or organised to operate under the new realities which are being faced right now. Academic quality is fundamental to institutional success therefore the governing body has to have eyes on it – it’s really about how the academic governance architecture is able to provide effective reassurance to the governing body. It is this body that is required to sign off to the regulator, a process which began under HEFCE and has been extended under the OfS with additional requirements introduced.

40 years ago Senates approved pretty much every staff appointment and took all institutional decisions of any note. Things can’t work like that any more (although there are certainly some golden age nostalgists who think this should be how universities should operate) and some fresh thinking is required to ensure we enable proper input and oversight on the academic side from all those involved, academic and professional rather than pining for a return to donnish dominion. A new model Senate and other governance structures, however they are constructed, are not going to persuade the public that universities are doing the right thing.

As the brutal Scottish Parliament hearings regarding the travails of Dundee show though the structures are less important than the consequences when you are all over the media.

3 Regulator expectations

Governance interventions by regulators are generally not welcome and tend to occur more in times of challenge or crisis. As Ben Vulliamy, writing recently for Wonkhe, put it in relation to this issue:

Governments and regulators have not been helpful in enabling the evolution needed in university governance.

The overriding temptation is to introduce more regulation in a period where the sector is struggling. The logic is that universities are exposed to greater risk and the way to protect students from risk is to build boundaries around what universities can and cannot do.

The problem is that universities do not have the resources to cope with any more regulatory burden. In fact, owing to the financial pressures they are under, universities have less resources than ever to deal with new regulatory burdens. 

The English sector regulator, the Office for Students (OfS) published a blog on a recent round table engagement with governing body chairs, making a number of general observations about the importance of good governance at a time of challenge. The blog also makes reference to pockets of less effective practice:

We have identified issues which pose significant risks to taxpayers, and students through our regulatory casework and the National Audit Office (NAO) investigation into student finance for study at franchised higher education providers emphasised the increased risks to students and public funds that have arisen where management and governance are weak.

Beyond the specific issue of franchising the OfS was also keen to hear what everyone thought about them:

We also invited reflections from chairs about whether the OfS’s regulation was a barrier to governing bodies’ flexibility to innovate, adapt or change their structures or approach.

The blog says that colleagues shared views openly, but it is not reported what these views were. Everyone agreed though on the importance of effective governance and that there are opportunities for the sector to continue to improve. The really good news is that there will be a wider conversation about governance (it is not clear if it is going to be quite as Big as the AdvanceHE one) and:

We are now starting to think about how we should set clear regulatory expectations for effective governance and intend to follow this year’s engagement programme with a call for evidence before consulting on any changes to our ongoing conditions of registration in this area.

The growth in OfS reporting requirements on governing bodies has been significant enough already thank you – we really do not want more. Let us hope therefore that this does not ultimately lead to yet more regulation on top of the most recent addition to OfS requirements on governing bodies in the form of additional regulation and reporting requirements on free speech. Here’s hoping that further dialogue will head this one off.

4 Governing body membership

The issue here is getting the balance right in terms of diversity, academic and student input and the right skill sets. Diversity of governing body membership is vital and brings major benefits for the board and decision-making. It requires clarity and determination in order to ensure that the recruitment and selection processes in place for new members address the current and future needs of the governing body in terms of skills mix as well as in diversity. Student involvement is also key. Not only do students need to be full and equal members of the governing body; they need to be trained, encouraged, and supported to play the fullest possible role.

Alex Usher notes that governor roles are extremely part-time, volunteer jobs and suggests they perhaps need something a bit different. His solutions to these challenges are not ones which necessarily translate to a UK context but the idea of having more individuals with international HE leadership experience and some with knowledge of engaging with government is certainly a good one. He also suggests paying governors – a long-running debate in the UK, where a few institutions do now reimburse some governing body members, and one which will no doubt continue for the foreseeable future.

As with many other aspects of governance though at the heart of this is a need for focus, intent and consistency over time to ensure that the best possible governing body membership is sustained.

5 Working out how to operate at the necessary pace

Ben Vulliamy, in his governance commentary, notes some of the structural problems in universities, particularly the plethora of committees, which can significantly slow down and hamper effective decision-making:

The challenge is that the moment we are working in is highly unpredictable. This means that the slowness inherent in the governance of universities is a barrier to making timely decisions. In turn, the lack of speed kills. If universities cannot make decisions quickly then they will be forever fighting yesterday’s battles as even bigger challenges come over the horizon.

It’s not just about pace though, it’s about making the right decisions, at the right time, with the right information and being clear that a decision does needs to be made, not deferred.

Ben also comments on the critical nature of the relationship between the vice- chancellor and the chair of the governing body and how the strain on universities is placing significant pressure on this relationship. Perhaps unsurprisingly given his position in AHUA he reinforces the role of the Registrar:

The role of the registrar has never been more crucial in this dynamic. They are the third leg of the stool that can facilitate private conversation but crucially, particularly now, can turn debates into issues that can be fed into the university governance system with a structure and purpose that reaches beyond the vice chancellor and chair in isolation. The registrar, or equivalent, is too often perceived as clerking or secretariat – rather than a function and role that can influence culture. The future is one which – as you might expect us to say – ever more deeply engages the registrar as the translator of discussion into decision.

The review of governance challenges at Plymouth a decade ago also referred to the importance of this ‘golden triangle which it said:

sits at the heart of effective institutional governance: if one side is fractured, good governance is endangered; if two sides are fractured, governance is in peril;

This three way relationship is also key to ensuring key issues are discussed in the right way at the right time and decisions reached at the necessary pace.

6 Getting the right information and paperwork in front of governors

Governors are always concerned about the paperwork they receive for governing body meetings. It is usually that there is too much of it, it arrives too late, it’s not clear how it relates to the topic to be discussed or to wider strategic issues or, conversely, that it is too brief, too vague or written for an internal university audience. There are always plenty of issues raised and there may be very different views of the same papers from different governing body members. It can mean an ongoing challenge for the Secretary to the board and those responsible under them for providing papers for meetings.

It is a challenge for sure and one that CDBU identifies in its draft Code on which it is currently consulting. However CDBU’s view of all of this seems to be very much rooted in a previous era of committee governance and presents a very traditional perspective on the nature of the minutes (and the Secretary) with the focus on procedural detail, standing orders and the like being indicative of those who learned their committee trade through political party or trade union meetings many years ago.

As with many aspects of governance the requirement to ensure members have the right paperwork and information to enable effective decision-making requires ongoing and open dialogue and continued evolution in response to the changing needs of the governing body.

7 Governance discussions which focus on the wrong things 

It is very easy for governing bodies to be distracted from what should be their fundamental concerns to spend time discussing things of less importance such as internal process issues or their own size and structure. They really need to ensure they do not waste time worrying about the size of the governing body. 

Having said that, it seems that the OfS  does think this should be a topic for discussion though:

Many of the issues we see appear to be connected with governance issues and there are some aspects of governance in higher education in particular – like the size and structure of boards – that might create risks that many if not all institutions should consider. 

I really don’t think so. All such bodies go through periods of speculating about the positive impact on effectiveness, if only they were smaller or larger than they currently are. Large boards always fret that they should be smaller and smaller governing bodies always think they are missing out by not having more members. Such a focus on board size is a diversion. It’s what the governing body does, not how many people sit on it, that counts.

8 Conduct, role and ethics

CDBU, which is currently consulting on its draft governance Code is very much majoring on the ethical behaviour of governors:

The need for governors to be scrupulous – and to operate according to the highest standards of public, organisational and academic life – is particularly pronounced during periods of financial pressure and political mistrust. Where university governance has positive long-term impact, it goes beyond policy and process, creating a collegial space that enables decisions to be reached in principled, collaborative, and exemplary ways.

Whilst governing body business should certainly be conducted in a collegial environment it’s not clear to me that there needs to be more regulatory requirements on governors in this area. Governors have to follow the Nolan Principles and address the charitable objectives of the university too. Whilst there seems to be a desire to introduce additional external factors into governing body operations this does not seem to be warranted as all governors and the governing body as a whole have to act in the best interests of the institution. Moreover, in terms of ethics, the CUC code, currently under revision, does address need for the governing body to promote “a positive culture which supports ethical behaviour, equality, inclusivity and diversity across the institution, including in the governing body’s own operation and composition.”

Many institutions will also have additional statements about their values, expected behaviour and conduct as well as more formal business rules for governing body meetings.

Further, in looking at the role of the governing body, the CDBU proposal is that they should also look outside the institution and see themselves in the context of the wider sector:

The CDBU Code of Ethical University Governance is underpinned by the principle that governing bodies have a substantive part to play in affirming higher education as a prized public asset. The Code encourages governors to see themselves as ambassadors for their sector, promoting the university to everyone in society and providing reassurance that income is being spent fairly, transparently and in ways that maximise the educational value of the institution. 

It really is not clear to me that governing bodies can actually do this. The aims and charitable objects of the institution together with the governing documents will dictate the brief for the governing body. Their first responsibility has to be to the long-term sustainability of the institution, its students and staff. Ambassadorial activity is OK as a value-added activity but it is difficult to justify if it appears to be at the expense of the home institution. Whilst I would certainly endorse the sentiment I do think this would be very difficult to codify, although it may be possible as a general aspiration.

9 Ensuring the right level of challenge 

Sir Philip Augar’s recent comments on governance included the proposition that there needs to be ‘grit in the oyster’:

He said “boards and trustees tend to get swept along by executive management’s enthusiasm [and that] there needs to be a much more challenging mindset”.

Augar added: “You’ve got to introduce some grit into the oyster somehow.”

He suggested that union representatives could help to improve governance by challenging management. “There are union members on governing bodies, but they tend to be academics. I think there should be dedicated union representation on governing bodies,” he said.

This is really about ensuring the right level of challenge and I have to say that I think that insufficient challenge is rarely an issue at properly functioning governing bodies. Structures of governing bodies are different around the country and many do have trade union members on them, both academic and professional services staff. But all members, whether drawn from the unions or not, have a first responsibility as a governing body member to do act in the best interests of the institution, not as a constituency representative. This also means that they have to ask the questions which need to be asked before a decision is taken. I really don’t think there is a grit deficit at governing body level unless other structural problems have precluded those voices being heard.

10 Dealing with data

Governing bodies need good data to inform the big decisions they make. They also need to understand the nature of that data with all of its limitations and that most of it is lagging and doesn’t change very often. Critically, they need to be reminded that, whilst some of the indicators which contribute to them are important, national and international rankings are no way to judge performance of the university or the vice-chancellor.

AdvanceHE’s Big Conversation conclusions included the need for governing bodies to leverage data for better decision-making and argued for “more dynamic data visualisation tools to enhance decision-making” as well as calling for a move to more leading rather than lagging indicators. These points are hard to disagree with but they do need to be treated with caution as lovely data visualisations can easily hide errors and difficult conclusions while the range of available leading indicators may be too narrow for some purposes.

The key thing here though is that the governing body is presented with useful data and provided with expert insight which they can understand and which can then inform their decision-making. That’s not too much to ask. And keep well away from those league tables.

11 Strategy not operations, Governance not management

AdvanceHE, as part of its Big Conversation, reached some interesting conclusions on getting the balance right between strategy and operations and clarifying the governance-management boundary. First, in seeking to ensure that strategy itself is actually strategic they observed that a governing body’s ability to have meaningful strategic discussions is fundamentally linked to the quality of the institutional strategy itself. The institution needs to have a strategy with clear measurable objectives, clarity about what success looks like over a defined time period and clear KPIs with good reporting on them. Additionally, there needs to be time explicitly dedicated to considering strategic matters in meetings so that such matters are not relegated to the occasional away day.

The Big Conversation conclusions in relation to strengthening the governance-management boundary focused on the need clearly to define and reinforce the distinction between governance (strategic oversight) and management (day-to-day operations) and ensuring that the scheme of delegation is comprehensive, beyond just financial delegations and uses an approach which distinguishes accountability from responsibility. The scheme of delegation should clarify where the board is accountable, but the Executive is responsible.

Debbie McVitty, in her wide-ranging consideration of governance issues, mused on the differing demands of academic and business requirements in the university governance structure and commented:

What if the job of leadership and boards of governors was not to seek to reconcile academic and business imperatives, but to actively manage the conflicts that arise at times? Where strategic questions arise related to either opportunities or risks, boards need to understand the perspective of both “sides” before being able to judge whether the executive team’s decisions are appropriate. And for institutional staff (and students, to the extent they have a role in institutional governance) there needs to be confidence that the governors have the skills and understanding of the value and importance of both imperatives and the relationship between them – so that there is the trust that decisions have been made in the most effective and transparent way possible.

This is an interesting set of observations and, whilst I would say it is not job of governing bodies to sit as juries and decide on the relative merits of conflicting viewpoints in deciding whether the executive has got it right, I do think there is a critical point here about reconciling the academic and business perspectives in strategic decision-making. There will be conflict, there always has been, but confidence in the ability of governors to make well-founded and properly informed decisions is key as Debbie notes.

As previously noted it is not at all clear to me that regulators have got a lot to offer here and one of Debbie’s conclusions is spot on in noting that this “is one of those areas where the sector can help itself with government by taking a lead on reform.”

12 Managing other inputs

As demonstrated in all of the articles referred to above and as may become clear when you talk to university staff about governance issues, lots of people have opinions on these matters and want their voices to be heard. It is important that governors, both staff and lay members, do get out and about, are seen to do so, and meet with students and staff but they have to judge the feedback they receive carefully as it may not always be fully representative.

The governing body has to aim to ensure it is properly informed about the core issues regarding teaching and research, including through direct interactions with academic staff and students. In addition, governors should be strongly encouraged to connect with the Senate or equivalent, either through cross-attendance or joint events.

Conclusion – no silver bullets

Will addressing all of these challenges guarantee that a university will avoid the need to make savings and, possibly, job cuts too? No. What it will do though is ensure that in broad terms the institution is much better placed to face into whatever difficulties are ahead and be more able to navigate its own course confident in the knowledge that everyone is pulling in the same direction. As noted before, although good governance can’t compensate for poor management, poor governance can seriously mess things up as we are currently seeing. Getting it right really matters therefore.

One big issue sits behind a lot of this discussion – unless you have seen inside the workings of a governing body – either in one institution over a period of time or observing a number it is difficult to comment authoritatively on university governance other than in general terms. These are black boxes for a lot of staff. One way or another we need more people and more researchers to see how university governing bodies work in order to help improve their operations. Periodic effectiveness reviews, whilst helpful, do not necessarily assist with the broader dissemination of knowledge on governance matters. Likewise, additional regulatory intervention from the OfS is not going to help here – the sector really does have to get its own house fully in order.

There really aren’t any short cuts to effective governance and no alternatives to playing it by the book. There are no silver bullets. Good governance should be an enabler of rather than a block to effective strategy delivery. It’s not straightforward, requires serious intent and a sustained commitment over time but ultimately success has the major advantage of avoiding all of the kind of distracting and damaging crises we have seen at some universities over the years. Getting governance right remains a critical issue for universities and is particularly important in a period of significant challenge and regulatory turbulence.