On collegiality and shared governance

 On collegiality: 

      Collegiality, a word that shares a root with "college," may mean different things to people.  Some interpretations suggest gentle discourse, so that collegiality is thought to represent acting civilly and with consideration for others.   Another perspective suggests that collegiality is related to cooperativeness, or to use some overworked cliché's:  "fitting in," "being a team player," and not "rocking the boat."

      But at its core collegiality is not identical with being nice or cordial in all of one's dealings (a better term for that might be polite), and it is even less equivalent to being a team player.  Websters defines collegial as "marked by power or authority vested equally in each of a number of colleagues b : characterized by equal sharing of authority especially by Roman Catholic bishops" and Wikipedia suggests that the orgins of the term extend to the Roman Republic and the governance structure of the Catholic Church.  To be collegial is to be a full participant in a fellowship or a college, which is to say "a group of colleagues united in a common purpose . . ."
 

       Colleagues, then, are functional equals or peers who engage problems as a group and who use dialog and votes as a way of formulating policies and governing.  Seen this way, collegiality and shared governance, by necessity, must coexist.

       Historically, universities have emphasized collegial decision making.  A good example of this can be found in Cal State Sacramento's University Policy Manual which states:

Collegial governance assigns primary responsibility to the faculty for the educational functions of the institution in accordance with basic policy as determined by the Board of Trustees. . . .   Collegiality rests on a network of interlinked procedures jointly devised, whose aim is to assure the opportunity for timely advice pertinent to decisions about curricular and academic personnel matters.

     Although the governing board retains ultimate authority in the Cal State system (and many others), faculty recommendations are typically followed:

The governing board. . . makes sure that there is continual consultation with appropriate faculty representatives on these matters. Faculty recommendations are normally accepted, except in rare instances and for compelling reasons. The collegial process also recognizes the value of participation by the faculty in budgetary matters, particularly those directly affecting the areas for which the faculty has primary responsibility.

     It is not presumed that collegiality is synonymous with harmony or consensus:

Central to collegiality and shared decision-making is respect for differing opinions and points of view, which welcomes diversity and actively sponsors its opinions. The collegiums must be the last public bastion of respect for individuals, whether they are members of the faculty, students, staff, alumni, administration or Board of Trustees.

     Massay (1994, cited in Webb, 2000) notes other crucial aspects of collegiality: "collegial organizations emphasize consensus, shared power, consultation, and collective responsibilities … status differences are de-emphasized and individuals interact as equals."

     Clearly, while cordial interactions may foster collegiality, being cordial is not the same as being collegial.  Concepts that are more central to collegiality are shared power, tolerance of diverse views, and frequent and frank dialog among an organization's stakeholders. 

      On occasion I've noticed that some I work with and for do seem to mean polite or even respectful when they invoke the term "collegial."  But emphasizing "niceness" as the primary meaning of collegiality has a dark side too.  As noted by the AAUP, implying that to be collegial is the same as being agreeable can sometimes chill the kind of informed dissent that universities should protect and even encourage.  And while politeness sometimes involves avoiding controversies, collegiality requires they be met head on.

      How does the concept of collegiality relate to faculty life at UF?  Many colleges emphasize collegiality among non-administrative faculty, even across different ranks.  This is evident in interactions among junior and senior faculty who typically interact as peers.  Perhaps the clearest example of this is the UF Faculty Senate; senators are considered equals regardless of rank. 

     However it is less clear that collegiality characterizes administrator-faculty relationships.  To put the question in sharp relief: are faculty who serve as administrators colleagues of faculty who do not?  Faculty and administrators are colleagues in the most basic sense that they work together in close proximity and may do so harmoniously.  But working in the same building or campus does not make administration and faculty colleagues any more than it makes faculty and staff or faculty and students colleagues. 

     To examine the question regarding the collegiality of faculty and administration at UF it is helpful to reflect on differing perspectives that can be found in higher education regarding governance practices.   Burgan (2004) describes three broad perspectives, only one of which can truly be described as collegial.  The first of these can be described as the management perspective, in which administrators are analogous to corporate management.   In this perspective faculty have latitude to make decisions in the realms of teaching and scholarship, but broader strategic, policy, and budgetary initiatives are left to administration.  Salaries and other economic perks tend to be skewed in favor of administrators at the expense of ordinary faculty (for the same reasons that corporate boards give large salaries and perks to CEOs) and it is broadly assumed that administrative appointments are promotions (i.e., that an administrative assignment is a reward for being effective, talented, or productive).

Those who defend this perspective point to at least two benefits it is assumed to provide: 1) it allows for a trained group of managers to deal with the complexities of running a large university and to deal with problems that go beyond faculty expertise, and 2) it permits quick, effective actions and a more nimble governance structure than a traditional one emphasizing consultation. 

Tenure and academic freedom are sometimes seen as undesirable in the management perspective because they restrict administrative powers to prune "deadwood," (faculty underperformers) and to reorganize or eliminate academic units that do not contribute to the economic bottom line.  Institutions that favor this approach are experimenting with non-tenurable instructor hires as a way of retaining maximum flexibility (faculty can be retained or dismissed in accordance with undergraduate demand, economic performance, or faculty evaluations).   Both supporters and opponents of the management approach agree on one thing: it places large areas of university governance off-limits to non-administrative faculty.  For this reason, the management perspective is not collegial.   Administrators are the caretakers of the university and the ones responsible for creating excellence.  Faculty demands for input and voice represent a challenge, rather than a contribution, to efforts designed to create excellence in the academy.

A second approach to governance is the unionized perspective.  In this approach faculty organize as a collective bargaining unit and administration and union representatives negotiate details of policy and governance.  The approach has benefits for both faculty and administration.  For academics the union approach provides a check on administrative power (which is often missing in the management perspective) since administrative decisions must be cleared with the bargaining unit and follow agreements negotiated in collective bargaining.  Faculty also benefit from the expertise of their representatives who, supported by union dues, can take time from academic duties to develop the knowledge and authority about policy to negotiate effectively.  Although administrators generally chafe at dealing with unions, this approach does provide an important benefit for administration in that governance issues can be dealt with through negotiation with a small group of faculty representatives. 

The unionized perspective makes no pretense that faculty and administration are colleagues.  Instead, they are viewed as competing interest groups with interests that may only tangentially coincide. Consultation between management (administrators) and faculty (labor) does occur, at least on issues relevant to faculty concerns, because it is mandated by collective bargaining. 

Finally, the traditional shared governance perspective emphasizes a collegial approach to governance.  As noted above, collegial does not necessarily imply harmonious, but it does assume shared values, goals, and perspectives.  In other words, when differences emerge they are not believed to significantly compromise the broader shared mission of the two groups.  Because the parties are seen as working toward common goals, it is assumed that differences can be resolved through thorough, frank, and respectful discussions.  Faculty administrators are not thought of (and do not see themselves) as "management" since management functions are broadly distributed.  Leadership in academic life may originate in many sources, including administrative position, but also from bases that include academic rank, prestige within one's discipline, individual creativity and talent, and personal commitment to governance service.  

      Of the three governance approaches described above, only the last, shared governance, can be characterized as collegial.  Of course, to say that something is uncollegial is not to the same as saying it is bad.  Parents do not view a young child as a colleague and decisions about the child's welfare and protection need not involve consultation.  Parents make such decisions out of both love for their child and a recognition that young children often lack the capacity and experience to make good decisions. Officers in the military do not presume that enlisted soldiers are colleagues and do not make a pretense that their views require consultation. 

Which approach best describes the governance structure at the University of Florida? I believe that to a degree one can find evidence of all three.  Faculty can join a a union if they choose, although the collective bargaining unit is engaged in a somewhat contentious debate with university administration over its place in the university.  Some believe that the tenure of John Lombardi as president represented an attempt to foster a management approach at UF.  Others believe that Charles Young and Bernie Machen have tried to nudge UF closer to a model of shared governance.  Within the various colleges and departments there are clearly approaches that to some degree represent elements from each of the three perspectives.

     President Machen and the University Senate are encouraging faculty and administrators to adopt a governance style different from those of the past and to consider anew the role of faculty in the life of the university.  Most successes so far have been at the university level under the strong leadership of Machen and faculty leaders such as Tony Brennan, Pierre Ramond, and Kim Tanzer.  The next logical focus is likely to be the college, the fundamental organizing unit of the university and the place of day-to-day interactions for most faculty.

Any efforts to change college governance structures must start with a set of fundamental questions, including:  What is the proper relationship between administrators and faculty?  Are they colleagues?  Are they management and workforce, or management and labor?   What style of governance defines a great university?  What changes will need to happen for UF to change its style of governance?  How will we define leadership in this new governance structure?

     If shared governance is the approach that is ultimately embraced at UF, then collegiality will, of necessity, be an important, perhaps primary, institutional value.  Any serious effort to emphasize collegiality will likely produce changes, some quite significant, in the interactions of faculty and administration.  There will likely be greater transparency between administration and faculty than currently exists.  Administrative tenures may be shorter and administrative appointments may be viewed more as service commitments than as promotions.  Authority, control, and budgets may be decentralized to colleges and departments.  Institutional processes and structures may be reconfigured to accommodate regular, meaningful, and responsive interactions.   Leadership may be viewed more in terms of the quality of ideas than the chain of command.   Salary differentials between administration and faculty may lessen or disappear entirely.  These changes would represent a drastically different way of doing business for many at UF.  A commitment to collegiality would thus represent a new and vitally important chapter in the University of Florida's efforts toward academic excellence.

      I am grateful to Debbie Treise her comments on this paper.  If you have thoughts you wish to share, or if you would like me to post your remarks below this essay,  please email me at mweigold@jou.ufl.edu

References:

Burgan, M. (2005).  Why governance? Why now?  In W. G. Tierney (Ed.).  Competing conceptions of academic governance.  Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Webb, Lynne (2000).  The professor as colleague.  American Communication Journal, 3, accessed on 4/11/05 at  http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss2/curtain.html#3