Achieving Legitimacy
To change any organization, you need to be perceived as legitimate. If you are seen as having legitimacy, you’ll inspire trust, freeing your colleagues to engage in constructive criticism, while mitigating their need to sabotage. In “The Promise and Peril of Parallel Governance Structures,” published in the March 2003 issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, Matthew Hartley of the University of Pennsylvania outlines positive and negative factors influencing perceptions of legitimacy that we observed in our own governance review.
Procedural Impartiality. Throughout our process, we made decisions democratically on such matters as committee composition, specific changes to bylaws, and procedures. Although our discussions were sometimes polemical, principles of academic discourse governed our work, and faculty did not engage in ad hominem attacks.
Although our selection, rather than election, of governance committee members could be construed as biased, this method conformed to our existing procedures for organizing ad hoc committees. The legitimacy of the governance review committee was strengthened because its members were appointed based on their governance expertise.
Participation and Influence. Although only a few faculty members could serve on the governance committees, all were invited to participate in multiple forums. We included many as consultants, reviewers, proofreaders, or discussants.
Transparency. Merely sharing documents does not fulfill the need for transparency if the content of the documents has been predetermined. Meaningful transparency requires a group to face challenges to its work and has the potential to sink a project into endless debate. We consciously structured our process to avoid becoming mired in such negativism. When you trust the process, you can see criticism as constructive.
Embracing Dissent and Drawing in Critics. Instead of avoiding conflict, the governance review committee created multiple opportunities for free expression and graciously endured negative comments in open meetings. Rather than conduct business behind closed doors to avoid dissent and then force a predetermined outcome, the review committee allowed critics to influence the outcome. Critics became active participants, ultimately supporting the process.
Thorough Preparation. As a bridge between the committee that had created the new governance structure and the executive committee that would implement it, the action plan committee assembled a thorough packet of documents. Although faculty were expected to do their homework, they could see that the governance committees had done theirs first by creating an easy-tofollow set of documents. Faculty who did not avail themselves of this documentation and came to meetings unprepared quickly realized that they were unable to participate in deliberations.
Considered Deliberation. The traditional method of faculty deliberation is often labeled “paralysis by analysis.” Yet decisions imposed without careful analysis or meaningful consultation often result in low morale, decreased productivity, and loss of support for the decisions made. The efficiency of making a quick decision is often undermined by the effort needed to handle resistance to its implementation. In the end, deliberation produced a final plan that was readily accepted by the faculty, and a complex task was completed in a relatively short amount of time.
Timeline and Goals. Creating a timeline with intermediate goals was critical to moving the project forward. But we revised the timeline as needed to avoid an arbitrary deadline that would prevent us from achieving a goal. For example, the governance review committee initially planned to present its final restructuring report to the faculty in fall 2003. However, the steps needed to achieve broad-based buy-in of the proposed plan pushed that deadline to the following spring, and we created a better plan.
Those of us who led the restructuring effort started with the belief that the faculty’s role in restructuring should be as meaningful as its decision-making role in the new governance structure of the college. In analyzing how to make restructuring work, we determined that the factors described above were necessary for effective shared decision making and successful institutional change. They inspired trust and collegial cooperation, and they led us to true shared governance.
|