I would like to add that I agree very strongly with this assertion. I think there must be some measure of accountability in Shared Governance if individuals are to be expected to invest themselves emotionally in the process. It’s unreasonable to ask members of the community to dedicate themselves to a year’s worth of service on a committee, only to discover (directly or indirectly) that the recommendations they’ve developed have been ignored. I realize that there may be times when a recommendation cannot be followed. However, if recommendations and input are only followed when it’s convenient, Shared “Governance” is a misnomer.

In the interests of getting a conversation started, I would like to offer five key qualities of shared governance, in the form of a list.

1. Shared Governance = Shared Decision Making: We need to develop and respect processes that allow us to set priorities and goals based upon the collective and historical wisdom of the community, rather than on the current agenda of individuals and “experts”. Democracy should be the default and votes are better than input. In those instances when democracy becomes too slow or unwieldy, the community needs to know that its leaders share its values.

2. Transparency: Information needs to be shared. We need to know who is making decisions, what process is being followed, what facts are being considered and not considered, and what the rationale was for making decisions.

3. Trust: The outcomes of shared governance processes, such as recommendations, must be respected. Leaders who go against the recommendations of committees are exercising the nuclear option and do so at their peril. The community must believe that committee members have not been “cherry-picked” to produce a desired outcome. We cannot believe that committees are only listened to when they say things decision makers want to hear. Shared governance is not a public relations stunt.

4. Humility: While we all have principles and priorities, shared governance will not work unless the participants are open to persuasion. Listening is as important as speaking.

5. Integrity: I’m not sure this is the right word, but it’s the best one I can come up with for a nexus of things. Change in a university happens slowly. This is one of our greatest weaknesses because it can prevent us from responding to changes flexibly and quickly. This is one of our greatest strengths because it prevents us from blowing in the wind in response to the latest fads. Our hesitancy can also prevent “mission drift” and inconsistency from one administration to he next. We have to remain aware at all times that this is both a weakness and strength. The need for flexibility must be balanced with deliberation. The question “Who do we want to be?” is not more important than the questions “Who have we been?” and “Who are we?” We need explore how other schools handle particular issues without being driven by a need to “keep up with the Joneses.”

I’m curious to hear what I’ve left out or what I need to reconsider.

The University of Wisconsin has a unique approach to that question see Associated Students of Madison Shared Governance Committee Blog.

In June 2009, the Chronicle of Higher Education “asked seven scholars from several fields and generations how they think the academic workplace —and, in particular, the job satisfaction and expectations of a faculty career —will change over the next 20 years.”  Here’s an excerpt from one response.

“Research director at the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education

I envision two possible but very different academic worlds 20 years from now. One is the path of least resistance —maintaining the status quo. If we do not reimagine the academic workplace and change the supporting culture, practices, and policies accordingly, one possibility is that it will look much like it does today, but with still fewer tenured and tenure-track faculty. If current trends continue (from a third of the professoriate tenured in 1997 to one-fourth in 2007), or slow slightly, it is likely that only around 20 percent% of all instructional staff will be tenured or on the tenure-track. Faculty members then will be less satisfied than today because they will have had to assimilate and compromise their generation’s values (collaboration, transparency, community, flexibility, diversity, interdisciplinarity, work-life integration) to fit into the mold created and institutionalized many years ago by ‘traditionalists’ (competition, secrecy, autonomy, uniformity, homogeneity, disciplinary silos, 24/7 careers).

We are, in 2009, seeing signs of decline as doctoral students vote with their feet —heading to the private sector, the government, or other non-profits. A recent study of over 8,000 doctoral students in the University of California system showed that upon beginning their studies, 45 percent% of men and 39% percent of women wanted to pursue careers as professors with an emphasis on research, but those percentages dropped to 36 percent% and 27% percent respectively as time progressed. In the sciences, the shift was more dramatic. Why? For both men and women, a major factor was the perceived inflexibility of an academic career at a research university; and for women, being unable to reconcile family life with career pressures in this environment.

The other path will require rule re-making that reflects the 21st- century global, social, demographic, economic, and technological realities, as well as the values of new faculty members and doctoral students. We should ask them what they would like if given the opportunity to rethink, and possibly rewrite, the current system.”

1.  Gather definitions of shared governance.  Find the commonalities.  Go from there.  See comment.

2.  Everyone “should get to ride, but not to determine the final destination.”  See comment.

All of this raises the question–is shared governance truly about sharing?  How do students and staff fit in?  Should alumni be part of shared governance?  In other words, who gets to ride the shared governance train and where do they get to sit?

Andrew Jackson famously stated that it was a “poor mind indeed which can’t think of at least two ways to spell any word.”  Perhaps then we should rejoice that as a community we “spell” shared governance in multiple ways.  But if there is no common place for our academic community to anchor its definition of shared governance there is bound to be confusion and frustration.

Apparently, Ohio University isn’t the only institution that finds itself in need of a way to capture and concentrate  the complexities of what shared governance is and how it should operate.  There’s an abundant literature on the subject.  Some common readings on shared governance could serve as a common place to begin our discussion.