Decision-making in universities cannot happen in a vacuum

Universities are large, diverse and complex organisations. That complexity and diversity is seen in what makes up their different organisational structures and how they function. They are typically made up of multiple faculties, departments, research centres and administrative areas. All of these give an institution its individuality and cultural identity.

Other features that influence an institution’s identity include: i) its size – in terms of the number of students and staff it has; ii) its age – whether it is an older, established institution or a relatively newly formed one; iii) whether it is located in a regional or metropolitan area; iv) whether it has multiple campuses, including some that may be located outside its home country; v) its operating budget; vi) the types of academic programmes it offers; and vii) its research strengths.

While universities are founded under comparable legislation, each is different in their planning and decision-making processes. But whatever the structure, universities must support efficient and effective decision-making.

What influences decision-making?

Decision-making is an extremely significant process in all organisations, including multifaceted institutions like universities. It is a crucial element in organisational success. In universities the decisions required cover a range of areas, including strategic planning, resource allocation, staff appointments, academic programme development and student admissions, to name just a few.

The first key factor decision-makers in universities need to acknowledge is that decision-making does not nor should not occur in a vacuum. It must harmonise with the mission, strategy, goals, policy, procedures and delegations set down by the institution.

Second, universities have governance and leadership bodies that provide guidance in decision-making. There is also an overall governance framework that includes a university council, an academic board, an executive leadership team and operational management units. Each of these entities have various committees, subcommittees and teams that operate on their behalf and report to them.

Third, universities are governed by government legislation, including a quality and standards agency that sets the standards higher education institutions must meet to operate. Expectations set by these bodies impact on decision-making processes in universities.

Fourth, staff within the institution are expected to act within their delegation when making decisions and ensure the decisions made are sound. They are ideally based on a process of data collection, risk identification and assessment and align with the university strategy and policy.

There may therefore be times when the decisions made are strictly constrained or at least guided by the institution’s structure and operations, recognising that some elements are fixed. This might also include any parameters set by regulatory and-or external reporting requirements.

Different decision-making models

In some universities decision-making is based on a participatory model of consultation and collective responsibility for shared goals.

Staff, students and external community members are included in the decision-making process through their membership in committees, working parties, roundtables or forums.

In some cases, they may be directly involved in the decision-making process while, in others, they provide valuable perspectives and advice that inform decisions made.

In some institutions, however, the decision-making process is firmly governed by policy, regulations and a defined chain of command. In this case top-down decision-making is most often the norm.

A consistent and proactive approach

Whatever practice exists, what is not acceptable is a model of decision-making that produces confusion and constant disruption. Nor do stakeholders want a process that is solely reactive in its response to disruptions when they arise rather than one which is proactive in approach and where, as much as possible, planning for the unanticipated has been undertaken.

Reactionary decision-making behaviour serves to create chaos and an unhealthy acceptance of an inability to deal with the issues that cause disruptions. The results of this type of decision-making are seen in committees that deal with the same agenda items over and over again and departmental meetings that raise the same problems multiple times without any satisfactory resolution being arrived at.

What is needed is decision-making that commits to investigating new alternative solutions to the issues at hand that are grounded in reliable data and-or for which the consequences have been carefully considered.

Given that universities tend to grapple with similar problems, it can be a worthwhile practice to exchange ideas with other institutions and explore ways in which other institutions have responded to similar problems, benefitting from their experience, and potentially saving time and resources.

Of course, it is impossible to determine all possible solutions or alternatives to all issues as well as to fully determine their efficacy. That’s where analysis of outcomes of actions taken is a necessary part of decision-making along with readiness to be agile and adapt as required.

Dealing with uncertainty

There is a certain level of uncertainty and risk and potential long-term consequences associated with making decisions that don’t have the desired positive effect, but just as injurious is doing nothing.

In all higher education institutions decision-making should be thoughtful, timely and appropriate. It should ensure teaching and research are able to flourish, that innovation is encouraged and that open, understandable communication is promoted. But what is arrived at and how that process functions will and should vary. It must fit the mission of the university and its distinctive characteristics, practices, histories and so on.

An ongoing challenge for universities is ensuring that all participants, from the chancellor (and council), the vice-chancellor and senior managers to faculty staff and students, share an understanding and work together to realise this. That also extends further to include building and maintaining positive working relationships between the institution and business, industry, governments and community organisations.

Dr Nita Temmerman has held senior university positions including pro vice-chancellor (academic quality and partnerships) and executive dean in Australia. She is an invited accreditation specialist with the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications and international associate with the Center for Learning Innovations and Customised Knowledge Solutions in Dubai. She is chair of two higher education academic boards, and invited professor and consultant to universities in Australia, the Pacific region, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.