by Robert A. Scott
Africa Studio/Shutterstock
A distinctive feature of higher education governance is that responsibilities are distributed or delegated by the board of trustees to the president and faculty as “shared governance.” It is notable that middle managers, the link between offices on campus and the community at large, are usually ignored when the topic is governance. Perhaps as a result, they are leaving campus posts in large numbers.
The system of shared governance does not work well for a variety of reasons. Trustees are not appointed, selected, or elected for their governance acumen or knowledge of higher education. Less than 15% of college and university board members have professional experience in higher education.
In addition, campus presidents are often selected and treated as Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) instead of as Chief Purpose Officers (CPOs). CEOs focus on size and scale; organization and delegation; short-term goals; the efficiency of means, money and markets, students as customers; and faculty as personnel.
By contrast, Chief Purpose Officers (CPOs) focus on mission and meaning, the integrity of ends and means, student success, and faculty and staff as partners in a moral and noble enterprise. This change in the president’s perspective is due in large part to the composition of boards and the focus on money.
A third reason is the failure of boards and presidents to prepare faculty members for their roles in governance and leadership. Higher education leaders cannot fulfill their commitment to shared governance if the parties to it are unprepared for their roles.
Yet another reason is the decline in the number and percentage of tenured and tenure-track faculty. This has led to a shrinkage in the proportion of faculty members who have a long-term commitment to the institution.
However, collegiate middle managers are close to the students whom institutions are chartered to serve. They directly fulfill many of the responsibilities in support of the institution’s mission. In fact, some of these duties were historically those of the faculty but have been delegated away.
As the model of teacher-scholar took root in American higher education, the faculty reward system changed. With scholarship and creative works as major criteria for hiring and promotion, faculty attention turned toward teaching fewer courses per semester, more released time from teaching for scholarship and creative activity, and more frequent sabbaticals and leaves of absence.
While these are important endeavors and can lead to improved teaching and curricula, they also left key functions, such as student advising and counseling, to others. The competition for students and donors, the complexities of state and federal compliance requirements, the legal and financial issues related to operating and capital budgeting, and advances in the technology used on campus, resulted in the need for new expertise.
In addition to student personnel administrators for advising, counseling, and residence life, new positions were created for admissions and financial aid, finance and administration, law, career and internship coordination, alumni relations and development, and IT, among others.
These are institutional representatives with active relationships with school systems, employers, chambers of commerce, banks, law firms, foundations, government officials, and alumni. They are the source of local knowledge that is important for institutional planning and progress. They should have a greater voice on campus.
In recent years, these positions have become subject to staff burnout, increased turnover, and low morale due to workload considerations, stagnant compensation, inflexible working conditions, and a feeling of being under- and un-appreciated, especially in comparison with faculty. This is instability that cannot be sustained if goals for student learning, satisfaction, and success are to be met.
Some of these feelings became exacerbated during the pandemic and resulted from the protocols developed to keep campuses in operation. One point of contention was who could work from home. For most middle managers, this was not an option due to their work with students and student groups.
Collegiate middle managers are experts dedicated to a profession as well as to their institution. They typically have a master’s degree; belong to a professional association, many of which have codes of ethics; and are integral to institutional progress. As there is generally little opportunity for promotion on campus, they find upward mobility by lateral or downward movement among institutions.
For many prospective students and their parents, these middle managers are the first institutional representatives they meet. These employees are key to institutional revenue and survival.
For these reasons, collegiate middle managers should have a seat at the governance table not just as extensions of the president but as professionals fulfilling essential functions. They are linking pins in both vertical and horizontal relations among offices on campus.
They are key sources of internal and external information and should be respected voices in institutional planning and governance. After all, shared governance provides for a collective sense of purpose and mission and requires collaboration, cooperation, and communication across campus.
Shared governance does not mean co-equal authority or shared decision-making. Responsibility is delegated by the board of trustees to those who are closest to certain issues and responsibilities. In many cases, those closest to current and prospective students are campus middle managers, a neglected voice in campus governance and mission fulfillment.
