Regrettably, misunderstanding and mistrust can sometimes characterize the relationship between faculty and boards. I know that firsthand, as I am not only a faculty member at Michigan State University, but also a board member at Hiram College in Ohio.
To cite a case in point, several trustees at a recent board meeting that I attended were dismayed by faculty complaints about communication with the administration, support for professional development, and institutional priorities. It was hard for board members to accept such criticism at a college that has recently experienced enrollment growth, improved its faculty compensation, enhanced its physical plant, and made serious efforts to increase transparency in decision making.
Why do trustees and faculty have a somewhat skeptical, occasionally adversarial relationship? In large part, because they come from different worlds and have distinctly different perspectives on higher education.
Many faculty members have spent most of their lives, as students and educators, in institutions shaped by academic values, traditions, and performance standards. In contrast, nearly 85 percent of trustees at public institutions and 87 percent of those at independent institutions work outside education, according to a 2010 AGB report.
Further, many trustees come from environments where swift actions and problem solving are essential for success. Business people must capitalize quickly on marketing opportunities before competitors get the upper hand; lawyers must deliver services to clients in a reasonable amount of time or lose them to more-productive peers. As a result, board members are often used to sizing up problems quickly, taking decisive action, and moving forward.
In their work with colleges, board members must often focus on immediate concerns that should be addressed promptly in order to maintain an institution’s overall health. Approving budgets, setting tuition charges, or authorizing construction are all tasks that will influence the future but require immediate, or at least timely, action. Trustees, and the administrators they support, frequently must make short-term adjustments or compromises to balance the budget in the current fiscal year.
Professors, in contrast, live in a world of ideas where careful analysis and contemplation are the hallmarks of success. A primary task is to help students develop the knowledge and analytical skills that will enable them to succeed in the uncertain years ahead. Professors also strive to make permanent contributions to their disciplinary fields through high-quality scholarship that must comply with exacting standards. Thorough research, rigorous analysis, and systematic consideration of all sides of an argument are highly valued. Many academic debates continue for years as scholars change their views based on new research findings or new conceptual paradigms.
Trustees must consider the well-being of the institution as a whole. They have a responsibility to maintain a fiscally sound enterprise with effective and forwardlooking leadership; otherwise, the institution cannot offer rigorous, cutting-edge academic programs or improve the work environment of professors. For their part, faculty members have a much more circumscribed focus: their disciplines’ place in the curriculum, the human resources necessary to offer a quality major in their fields, and the condition of classrooms, library resources, and technology needed to maintain an environment conducive to learning and scholarship.
Yet board members and faculty members are players with different positions on the same team, not adversaries or enemies. How can we manage trustee-faculty relations constructively? Efforts to maintain good relations should be consistent with the mission and culture of each distinctive institution, but some key principles and practices can help to sustain positive trustee-faculty relations in any institutional context.
Get acquainted. To many faculty members, trustees are faceless, abstract power players about whom they know little. Similarly, trustees may have minimal direct knowledge of faculty members. As a result, unfounded biases can shape opinions and influence actions. Regular and frequent opportunities to bring faculty members and trustees together are one step toward better relations.
At small colleges this can occur at receptions, college-wide ceremonies, or cultural events. For example, the board at Hiram College recently hosted a reception for new faculty members to welcome them to our academic community and promote trustee-faculty interaction. At larger institutions, trustees and faculty representatives can meet at specially arranged dinners, receptions, academic celebrations, or even athletic events. The opportunity to interact informally can reduce misunderstanding and diminish stereotypes.
In addition, faculty presentations to the full board or committees can inform trustees about the nature and challenges of faculty work. Similarly, public forums or invited meetings where trustees explain their duties, concerns, and goals for the future can also help to demystify the board. At small institutions, such interactions can be open and informal. At larger institutions, scheduled meetings with designated board and faculty representatives can ensure key players on both sides get to know each other.
Communicate. Colleges and universities are complex, dynamic institutions with multiple stakeholders. For that reason, boards and faculty should have numerous communication channels to keep each other well informed and to minimize misunderstandings, rumors, and urban legends that can undermine the good work of both groups.
One option is a formal trustee-faculty committee that meets regularly to share information and to air concerns of both groups. Hiram College has such a committee that meets for dinner before every board meeting. This committee is only part of a continuing effort to maintain dialogue, but it ensures that both groups are able to express their views directly and on a regular basis.
Dedicated Web sites intended to share news, views, and upcoming events of the board—or, conversely, of the faculty—can also minimize the chance for misunderstanding and inappropriate actions, such as implementing policy changes without adequate data or timely consultation. A regular e-mail message from the board chair to the faculty that reports on recent board actions, upcoming meeting agendas, and long-term plans can keep faculty members informed about board actions and intentions. Similarly, verbal reports from faculty members at board meetings and Web-based reports to trustees about faculty activities, major achievements, and priority concerns can give the board a richer context for understanding challenging issues when it is making important decisions.
Collaborate. Of course, the best way to reduce adversarial relations is to bring stakeholders together around a common concern. At Hiram College, for example, the board’s technology committee meets regularly with faculty representatives. This committee has been instrumental in defining the college’s technology needs, setting priorities, and communicating the urgency of this topic to the administration and board as a whole. As a result, the college’s technology infrastructure has improved significantly in line with the needs of students, faculty members, and the college’s instructional program. The committee has also been a good way to foster trustee-faculty communication, respect, and trust.
Opportunities for beneficial trustee-faculty collaboration can emerge directly from the needs of an institution. What college or university cannot think of concrete ways that board members and professors could work together on alumni events, fundraising, and a variety of resource needs (technology upgrades, facility enhancements, etc.) and policy concerns?
While some disagreements between the board and the faculty are probably inevitable, we have a common bond in our shared commitment to our college or university. That bond is a starting point for building respect and trust, setting priorities, solving problems, developing strategic initiatives, and continuing to work together to advance the students and institutions we both serve.
Share on LinkedIn
