which things
One of the great things about being a faculty member is the autonomy to work on topics that we consider important. This autonomy also creates a responsibility that we periodically evaluate our choices. Two questions for us to consider:
1) Are we doing the right things?
2) Are we doing them well?
In the previous post we surveyed what Standing Committees exist at other SUNY Comprehensives. This can provide some evidence about what other schools find important. This approach seems ad-hoc though, so in this post we'll try to take a systematic look at what work we could be doing.
In the first post I described why I think shared governance is important, and the previous post covered some aspects of what it is. Next I'll briefly cover the other three Ws ( who, when, and where plus the bonus how), then we'll tackle the first question ( are we doing what we should? ). I’ll share some thoughts on the second question in the next post.
The Other Ws
Who
Faculty play different roles on campus, so what distinguishes whether someone's participation is part of shared governance? A simple litmus test is to ask “why is the person performing that work?” Is it specifically part of their job, and its results will be reviewed by their supervisor, or is it a "service" activity that they chose to participate in. The latter case is a much better example of shared governance than the former. Hence individuals serving in a shared governance role will only be broadly representative of the area where their primary responsibility lies.
When
Simple answer: every time. Shared governance activities should be part and parcel of how work gets done. The campus has many processes and shared governance is most effective in the places that it is an integral part of the process. This implies that shared governance work must be efficient and not overly burdensome to the process.
Where
Where in this context is not a physical location like the sixth floor conference room in Kehoe or the Mowry room. It can be thought of as which places in the organization chart. In thinking about the type of work that occurs on campus there is a continuum from very specialized / detailed tasks, to general / broad-based work; the lower you go in the organization chart the more specialized the work is. Since shared governance faculty (sg-faculty) are not individually chosen for their participation, less shared governance work occurs at the specialized locations of the organization chart.
How
In addition to the subject matter that is addressed, we can think about how sg-faculty are participating in governance. Roughly speaking we can think of shared governance work as taking on one of three styles: 1) consulting, 2) collaborating, and 3) culpable.
In a "culpable" style, shared governance is responsible for the work being done. As an example consider the process to create a new course. The participants in this process are the department, the Dean of the school, and the school's Courses and Programs committee. This committee is an integral part of the process, and has significant, independent authority over the outcome. Looking at course proposals before and after the review, it is clear that the committee has a significant impact on the courses they are reviewing.
We can think about two forms of "collaborating" styles. The more common form is an administrative led process that involves Faculty. Although Faculty are often chosen to represent a range of opinions and experience, the direct drafting of participants weakens the shared governance aspect of it. Often times these are limited time projects and are referred to as either task forces or ad-hoc committees. The other form is a shared-governance led process that has ex-officio members with significant contributions.
The third style is "consulting" in which shared governance groups are provided an overview of decisions that have been made and have an opportunity to provide some feedback. Ideally this feedback is incorporated and is useful.
Why ( redux )
Previously we identified some of the main contributions of shared governance as:
1) Providing valuable information
2) Facilitating communication across campus
3) Energizing and empowering employees
For the "culpable" and "collaborating" styles the contribution from Faculty expertise is reflected in the artifacts produced from the processes. Less obvious, but still important, is what shared governance is adding in the "consulting" types of work. The contribution here is in mission alignment. By sharing / presenting information to a broad spectrum of the campus community feedback can be given to ensure that the work being done is aligned with our mission and campus values.
Cracks
Do we have gaps in our shared governance work where actions and processes are slipping through the cracks? I'm going to leave this question for you to answer. I'll share some thoughts though about how we could look for cracks.
One approach is to look at our org chart and ask what interaction each part has with shared governance. Are there divisions / units that have no or minimal interactions with shared governance? Another approach is to look at our strategic plan and ask the same question relative to the pillars and initiatives that it contains. In either approach it would be nice to see at least a "consulting" level of shared governance participation everywhere. Most of our processes follow a type of plan-do-evaluate cycle and it is relatively cheap to incorporate shared governance participation in at least the evaluate phase of the cycle.
As you work on this exercise think about what work we need to prioritize. Realistically there is a limited about of shared governance work that we can accomplish, so where are the best places to put that effort.
Any other thoughts / ideas about how we can identify which areas would benefit most from shared governance?