Shared governance is the intricate dance between academic ideals and administrative realities. For administrators, engaging in this process can sometimes feel like herding cats (albeit very well-read ones), especially when there’s no consensus about what “shared governance” actually means (see Minor 2004). Moving initiatives forward, particularly those related to the fast-moving world of online education, can seem to be mired in slow and bureaucratic processes, prone to long discussions that delay progress. Yet, from my own experience on both sides of the shared governance “aisle,” it’s clear that the rewards are well worth the effort. A robust shared governance mechanism with strong faculty voices ensures that diverse perspectives and deep institutional knowledge are embedded into decision making. This creates policies, strategies, and initiatives that are thoughtful, balanced, and well-supported. When faculty and administration work together, the result isn’t just policy implementation—it’s a shared commitment to advancing the university’s mission. Though it requires patience and flexibility, the process fosters a stronger, more engaged campus community, making every debate, however lengthy, worthwhile.
The Role of Centralized Efficiency in Resource Allocation and Administrative Functions
Evolving student needs, enrollment fluctuations, and shifting technological demands mean institutions must pivot quickly. This, perhaps, is felt even more acutely by those of us working in online administration as we navigate regulatory uncertainty and increasing competition in every sector. Central authority in higher education can be a powerful engine for rapid, strategic decision-making, especially in a landscape that’s ever-changing and increasingly competitive. Central authority facilitates responsiveness by streamlining decision-making, cutting red tape, and establishing a clear chain of command (see examples in Kezar & Eckel 2004, 372). When a single body or individual can authorize initiatives, institutions can adapt more swiftly—whether responding to new federal regulation standards, launching cutting-edge programs, or handling crises like a global pandemic.
But it’s not just about speed. Centralized leadership also brings coherence to an institution’s strategy. Without central authority, departments can become siloed, each pursuing goals that may conflict with the university’s broader vision. Central authority helps ensure that decisions reinforce one another rather than pulling in disparate directions (Bahls 2023). This alignment not only creates consistency in messaging and resource allocation but also establishes a clear, strategic direction that is easier to communicate to stakeholders, from faculty and staff to students, alumni, and community partners. Effective central authority means not just making quick decisions but making informed, evidence-based ones. A centralized structure enables comprehensive data collection and analysis, providing the insights needed for confident strategic choices. By blending speed, cohesion, and evidence-based action, central authority creates a framework for agile and effective leadership.
The Importance of Unit-Level Agency for Innovation and Program Integrity
While central authority brings alignment, unit-level decision-making fosters innovation and program integrity, allowing for a more tailored approach to education. Academic units, such as departments and programs, are often best positioned to recognize changes in their fields, forecast new labor market trends, and tailor curricula to student needs. Research by Kezar and Eckel (2004) shows that decentralized decision-making allows for faster responses to industry trends and student demands, which is essential for maintaining program relevance and attracting students.
Unit-level agency also supports faculty ownership of academic programs, which is critical for sustaining high-quality education (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). When faculty have a say in curriculum development and program structure, they’re more engaged and committed to the institution’s success. This engagement directly benefits students, as faculty can design courses that meet the specific needs of their disciplines and their students. In short, unit-level autonomy nurtures a sense of responsibility and pride among faculty, leading to better outcomes for everyone involved.
Finding the Balance: Shared Governance as a Bridge
Shared governance serves as a bridge, allowing unit-level autonomy and centralized efficiency to coexist harmoniously. It ensures that faculty and staff have a voice in decision-making processes that affect their work, while also allowing leaders to maintain oversight of financial and operational strategies (American Association of University Professors, 1966; DeCesare 2017). A survey by the American Council on Education (2017) found that institutions with strong shared governance structures were more likely to weather financial crises successfully. Leaders who emphasized open communication between central administration and academic units were able to implement cost-saving measures without undermining the academic mission, maintaining both operational efficiency and program integrity.
How Can Online Administrators Leverage Shared Governance to Serve Their Institutions?
To engage effectively with shared governance, online administrators must approach it as a collaborative partnership rather than a bureaucratic requirement. One strategy is to ensure transparency in decision-making. By sharing data, research, and strategic priorities openly, administrators build trust and encourage informed dialogue. This transparency should be paired with regular, structured communication—think town halls, reports, or forums where faculty can ask questions and offer feedback. When faculty understand the “why” behind decisions, they’re more likely to support the “how,” making implementation smoother and more effective. For online administrators at traditional brick-and-mortar residential institutions like mine, there is also an added dimension of educating the faculty and unit-level administrators about the mission of online education and the post-traditional students that we serve. All of our “whys” must align with the larger values of the institution.
Once the larger why is established, it is imperative to include faculty and unit-level leaders early in decision-making, especially for major policy changes or strategic initiatives. Engaging faculty in meaningful discussions at the planning stages—through formal channels, such as faculty senates, as well as joint committees, working groups, or advisory boards—helps gather insights that are both innovative and practical. When faculty feel valued, they become more invested in the success of initiatives.
For online administrators, shared governance is an under-utilized tool that we need to lean into more heavily to ensure that we are building systems that will be successful through any circumstances.
Hear more from Dr. Caleb Simmons at his session at the 2024 OLC Leadership Network Symposium, “Hunger Games: Shared Governance and the Balance of Unit and Central Authority During Times of Financial Hardship.” The Leadership Network Symposium is grateful for the support of sponsors Cambridge University Press, D2L, Honorlock, and UWill. Register to attend the Symposium.
References
American Association of University Professors. (1966). Statement on government of colleges and universities. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities
American Council on Education. (2017). The American college president study. Washington, DC: ACE.
Bahls, Steven C. (2023). Shared governance for agile institutions: A practical guide for universities and colleges. Washington, DC: AGB.
DeCesare, Michael. (2017). Reaffirming the Principles of Academic Government. Activism! Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/article/reaffirming-principles-academic-government
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2004). Meeting today’s governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 371-399.
Kezar, A., & Holcombe, E. (2017). Shared leadership in higher education: Important lessons from research and practice. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Minor, James T. (2004). Four challenges facing faculty senates. Thought & Action: The NEA Higher Education Journal, Summer, 125-140.
Tierney, W. G. (2004). Competing conceptions of academic governance: Negotiating the perfect storm. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.