Higher education is in the midst of a major transformation evidenced by several factors: greater demands from stakeholders; pressure to increase student enrollment, financial uncertainty, limited resources, and a responsibility to contribute to the community’s civic and economic development. Faculty and staff in higher education are challenged to deliver education in innovative ways. This innovation requires an expedient method of governance and necessitates careful examination of the organization’s structural, cultural, and decision-making processes. To meet these demands, leaders in higher education must examine decision-making processes and design governance models that respond quickly and efficiently to their myriad of constituents

Maresco, Peter A.

English

Sacred Heart University: DigitalCommons@SHU

Sacred Heart UniversityDigitalCommons@SHUWCOB Faculty Publications Jack Welch College of Business4-2007“Go Live in ’05”—From Hierarchy to SharedGovernance in Higher EducationPeter A. MarescoSacred Heart University, marescop@sacredheart.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/wcob_facPart of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Higher EducationCommons, and the Technology and Innovation CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Jack Welch College of Business at DigitalCommons@SHU. It has been accepted forinclusion in WCOB Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@SHU. For more information, please contactferribyp@sacredheart.edu.Recommended CitationMaresco, P. A. (2007). “Go live in ’05”—From hierarchy to shared governance in higher education, Academic Leadership Journal,5(1), Article 8. Available at: http://scholars.fhsu.edu/alj/vol5/iss1/8academicleadership.org http://www.academicleadership.org/153/go_live_in_05_from_hierarchy_to_shared_governance_in_higher_education/Academic Leadership JournalHigher education is in the midst of a major transformation evidenced by several factors: greaterdemands from stakeholders; pressure to increase student enrollment, financial uncertainty, limitedresources, and a responsibility to contribute to the community’s civic and economic development.Faculty and staff in higher education are challenged to deliver education in innovative ways. Thisinnovation requires an expedient method of governance and necessitates careful examination of theorganization’s structural, cultural, and decision-making processes. To meet these demands, leaders inhigher education must examine decision-making processes and design governance models thatrespond quickly and efficiently to their myriad of constituents.Coakley and Randall (2006) believe that leadership models in higher education must be challenged tobe more responsive to the stakeholders. And Currie (2005) believes that faculty and staff must beactive participants in the systems that govern academe. Porter-O’Grady, Hawkins, and Parker state,“There is not an enterprise in the United States that is not going through some form of renewal” (1997,xv) suggesting that organizational renewal demands greater efficiency, effective communication, and acomprehensive reassessment of all organizational functions.The term ‘shared governance’ provides an organizing framework for creating an empowered workforceand point-of-service decision-making. Shared governance is not a rigid design, but instead is adynamic process focused on empowerment and accountability. Shared governance provides alanguage and a structure to formalize empowerment and collective decision-making in organizations(Porter-O’Grady 2001).In the spring of 1999, the administration and faculty in the Department of Nursing at Boise StateUniversity voted to revise the curriculum and by the close of spring semester in 1999 redesigned theirgovernance model. The curriculum changes were expected to be radical as well as labor-intensive. Forthe curricular changes to be successful the departmental culture needed to be reengineered and itsorganizational structure redesigned. With this type of change, each person’s role would be affectedthroughout the organization (Porter-O’Grady, Hawkins, and Parker 1997). In this article, the authorsdescribe and illustrate the six-year process of cultural, structural, and curricular changes that occurredduring the evolution from a hierarchical style of management to a shared governance model. TheAmerican Federation of Teachers in Higher Education (2002) defines shared governance as a set ofpractices under which faculty and staff in colleges and universities participate in the decision-makingprocesses concerning the operation of their institutions.In the BeginningOne of the most important curriculum changes impacting all stakeholders was the department’sdecision to combine three separate and distinct nursing programs into one integrated program by fallof 2002. When the transformation began, the department consisted of three separate programs;practical nursing (PN), associate of science (AS) degree, and baccalaureate of science (BS) degree.Decisions were made within each program exclusive of the other two programs. The structural designfor the department was formalistic and hierarchical [Figure 1: Hierarchical Model]. The programdirectors and the department chair approved all decisions made by faculty. This process sloweddecision-making, impeded communication, and stifled change. As the department moved through thechange to become one program and from a hierarchical structure to a shared governance model, JohnKotter’s eight-step model for organizational change was used to guide the process (Kotter 1996).Applying Kotter’s Eight-Step Model for Organizational Change             Organizational change is time consuming and complex. Using a theoretical model to guide thechange process is essential. John Kotter (1996) outlines an eight-step process to transformorganizations. The first two steps in Kotter’s model (1996) involve creating a sense of urgency and aguiding coalition to direct the change.  The three existing nursing programs would no longer beseparate and instead they would be fused into one comprehensive program with one entry point andthree exit options. All of the courses would be new, and teaching assignments would be reallocated.The changes were time limited with a ‘Go-Live’ date of Fall 2005. This created an intense sense ofurgency and a need for skilled leadership. Several teams comprised of faculty, staff, and students wereestablished to implement the radical changes occurring within the department. Along with teams likeadmissions and curriculum, an Organizational, Culture, and Design (OCD) team was developed andcharged with redesigning the social architecture of the organization and crafting a structural model foreffective governance and efficient decision-making.   Implementing a shared governance modelrequires effective communication and skilled leadership. Many believed that making the decision toadopt this model would be the most difficult decision we would face. However, this was just thebeginning. Porter-O’Grady, Hawkins, and Parker (1997) note that the political, personal, and structuralchallenges are impossible to conceive at the outset of such an immense endeavor. Knowing where wewere going and how we intended to get there required a shared vision.Creating a vision for the future is the third step in Kotter’s model. The OCD Team worked with facultyand staff to create a shared vision and recommended developing the shared governance model inaccordance with the National League for Nursing Standards for Accreditation [Figure 2: Projected “GoLive” Model for AY 05-06]. The evolution of the model would be gradual and incremental, based onpredictions of where the department hoped to be in fall 2002 when the new curriculum would begin, andfall 2005, the target date for completing the transition from a formalistic hierarchal model to a fullyfunctional shared governance system. The faculty and staff developed the motto “Go Live in ‘05” whichinspired us as we progressed through this cultural and curricular transformation.The fourth step in Kotter’s model is to communicate the change. The department motto “Go Live in ‘05”became a rallying point for faculty and staff and helped communicate the change. The OCD Teamconducted a series of open forums for faculty, staff, and students declaring the “Go Live in ‘05” mottoand explained that the model would be a dynamic work-in-progress and would evolve as thedepartment progressed toward the target date of 2005. The evolving model of shared governance wasdiscussed at virtually every monthly department meeting from 2001 to 2005, and the OCD Teamprovided in-depth descriptions and explanations of the new model using various mediums includingwritten materials, pictures, electronic mail, and forums for open discussion. In this way, the OCD Teamwas influential in motivating faculty and staff to adopt the change and to meet its goals forimplementation.The next two steps in Kotter’s model are to empower others to achieve the vision and to establishshort-term goals. These steps were implemented by empowering the OCD Team to assume aleadership role to accomplish the change and by developing the department’s organizational modelsfor shared governance. Each spring, the OCD Team presented a revised model to faculty and staffwhere it was discussed, further revised, and approved by way of majority vote.  In Phase I of the Department of Nursing’s shared governance model, the Department Chair wasretained as the main decision maker and new teams were established to implement the projectedcurricular and cultural changes [Figure 3: Phase 1 AY 00-01]. Phase I of the emerging model included amatrix suggesting ways to merge the three separate nursing programs into the integrated program. Themodel also included a Steering Committee (SC) comprised of faculty and staff representatives electedby their respective teams. The purpose of the SC was to bring faculty and staff from the three distinctnursing programs together to improve communication and build relationships. They began phasing outthe ‘old’ curricula and implementing in the ‘new’ integrated nursing program.Phase I of the shared governance model was the first time faculty from the three different programsworked collaboratively and the first time staff was included in department governance. Changes duringthe first year were astonishing. We discussed the purpose and function of shared governance and howit affected each individual in the department.   This phase of the process helped us appreciate thevalue of each individual’s contributions and allowed us to work and learn together.  The model continued to evolve [Figure 4: Phase II AY 01-02] and in Phase II of our shared governancedesign, the Department Chair was integrated into the model and served as a working member of thenewly designed Shared Leadership Council (SLC), an equivalent level to that of members from othergovernance teams. The new SLC replaced the Steering Committee and consisted of one member ofeach governance team.   In this phase, additional teams and individuals were added to the modelincluding the program directors of the three existing nursing programs and the management assistant.The matrix for curriculum discussion remained a part of the model and represented the relativeseparateness of each existing nursing program. The SLC met on a semi-weekly basis focusing onprogram integration, system improvement, policy development, and team performance. Teamrepresentatives reported their progress to the SLC. This process provided a feedback loop to enhancecommunication and to improve decision-making throughout the department. The SLC discussed howto empower teams in the model. Shared decision-making is a vital strategy to improve organizationalproductivity in higher education (American Federation of Teachers 2002) and promotes individual andcollective responsibility and accountability. These issues reinforced the need to continue the SLC inPhase III of the department’s shared governance model.When Phase III of the department’s shared governance model [Figure 5: Phase III AY 02-03] was putinto action in fall 2002, the new curriculum was also implemented. Students began to play an integralrole in the new governance structure. Phase III of the shared governance model evolved to include twoexisting student-focused department committees: the Student Affairs Committee and the ScholarshipCommittee. These two committees would eventually be combined to create the Student Team whosefunctions included scholarship decisions, policy development, and student affairs. As the CHARMTeam evolved to include functions of the Faculty Search Committee and grant acquisitions, it renameditself the Vision Team. The NLNAC (Accreditation Team) also expanded its functions and evolved intothe Outcomes and Assessment Team. The program directors in the ‘old’ programs were being phasedout and were no longer represented on the SLC.One of the most substantial changes to the shared governance model occurred in Phase IV of theOne of the most substantial changes to the shared governance model occurred in Phase IV of themodel’s development [Figure 6: Phase IV AY 03-04]. The Operations Team was added to coordinateseveral of the daily departmental functions including developing course schedules, coordinating facultyteaching assignments, and providing oversight of the department budget. These functions wereconsidered some of the most important to faculty and staff because they directly impacted their dailylives and livelihood. They required faculty and staff to negotiate with their peers for limited resources,choice teaching assignments, and desirable course schedules. In 2003-2004 an option to form an AdHoc Task Force was added to the model, which provided a temporary mechanism to deal with unusualand time-limited issues. The PN program ended in 2003, and faculty from that program were fullyintegrated into the department’s shared governance model. The SLC continued to develop and evolvedinto a Coordinating Council (CC) which reflected its primary function of coordinating processes thatwere aligned with the vision and mission of the organization, rather than making decisions (Scott andCaress 2005).In Phase V of the shared governance model [Figure 7: Phase V AY 04-05], the AS program wasphased out and those faculty were further integrated into the model. No new governance teams wereadded and the evolving shared governance model took root as an integral part of the organizationalculture.The CC and the OCD Team debated the value of adding a Management Team to the sharedgovernance model. Eventually, the teams decided to include a Management Team for two importantreasons. First, the faculty and staff believed that a team with legitimate leadership authority wasneeded provide a ‘unified voice’ for the department. Second, a team was needed to deal with facultyand student issues that were confidential. Open forums were held to determine how managers wouldcommunicate with stakeholders, interact with the teams without dominating them, and participatecollaboratively in the decision-making process. Subsequent to discussions, faculty and staff voted tomerge two teams; a newly formed Chairs Team comprised of the Department Chair and threeAssociate Chairs representing the three program exit options ( PN, AS, BS) with the Operations Teamsince the functions of both teams were similar. In Phase VI of the shared governance model [Figure 8:Phase VI AY 05-06] the two teams merged. The primary functions of the Operations Team includedscheduling and budget decisions, and the Chairs Team dealt with personnel and student issues.In spring 2006, the faculty and staff voted to include a Graduate Program in Phase VII of the sharedgovernance model [Figure 9: Phase VII AY 06-07], and the department sought approval to begin thisprogram. Faculty and staff believed a Graduate Team was needed to specifically deal with the issuesassociated with graduate education.The seventh step in Kotter’s change model is to celebrate short term wins. It is vital to rejoice in theimportant work accomplished during the change process. In addition to the pending graduate program,the department has much to celebrate. We celebrated each model revision at the end of everyacademic year, the phasing out of each program closing, and formally recognized faculty and staffachievements and team accomplishments.The last step in Kotter’s model is to make the change permanent.   In the “Go Live in ‘05” model, allfaculty were teaching together in the new curriculum and working within the shared governance model.While the actual “Go Live in ‘05” model looked quite different than the predicted original envisioned sixyears earlier, it provided a necessary vision of the future. The original model prediction shapedrevisions to the department’s shared leadership model and provided direction for improvement. The“Go Live in ’05” model was successfully implemented and marked not only an ‘end’ to one journey, butmarked a new beginning for continued growth and renewal.  Today’s ChallengesWhile faculty and staff in the department of nursing have accomplished a great deal in the past sixyears, the “Go Live in ‘05” year was one of the more tumultuous years in the transition. Although facultyand staff were accustomed to ongoing change, many believed that the motto “Go Live in ‘05” would notonly mark a new beginning, but would represent the end of significant change. Many did not realize thatthe department’s shared governance model would continue to evolve in a dynamic fashion.Implementing a shared governance model is an ongoing process and not an end in itself. Processeswithin a shared governance model require continuous revision and realignment of each person’sauthority, responsibility, and accountability (Caramanica 2004). The current focus is to realize a fullyempowered workforce that recognizes each person’s role and allows that role to be fully andlegitimately expressed. The journey to empowerment in a shared governance model is not linear norcan it be assigned. Instead, empowerment is a personal belief about one’s work and meaningfulcontribution in creating and sustaining a thriving system of governance (Porter-O’Grady 2001). Ourshared governance model is currently in place, but the need for growth and transformation still exists inthis dynamic process. This will be our challenge for years to come.ReferencesAmerican Federation of Teachers in Higher Education. 2002. Shared governancein colleges and universities: A statement by the higher education program and policy council. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/shared_governance.pdf (accessed July 2, 2006).Caramanica, L. 2004. Shared governance: Hartford Hospital’s experience, Journal of Issuesin Nursing   9 (1). www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic23/tpc23_2.htm (accessed July 4, 2006).Coakley, L., and L.M. Randall. 2005. Orchestrating change at the departmentallevel: Applying the process of adaptive leadership. Academic Leadership: The On-line Journal.http://www.academicleadership.org/volume4/issue2/coakley_randall/article.html (accessed June 16,2006).Currie , J. 2005. What makes shared governance work? An Australian perspective,Academe : Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, May-June:20-23.Kotter, J.P. 1996. Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School.Porter-O’Grady, T. 2001. Is shared governance still relevant? Journal of NursingAdministration 31 (10): 468-473.Porter-O’Grady, T., M.A. Hawkins, and M.L. Parker, eds. 1997. Whole-systems sharedgovernance: Architecture for integration. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.Scott, L., and A. Caress. 2005. Shared governance and shared leadership: meeting thechallenges of implementation. Journal of Nursing Management 13 (1): 4-12.VN:R_U [1.9.11_1134]

“Go Live in ’05”—From Hierarchy to Shared Governance in Higher Education

https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1462&context=wcob_fac

“Go Live in ’05”—From Hierarchy to Shared Governance in Higher Education

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Sacred Heart University: DigitalCommons@SHU