Shared governance

1. Shared governance Jack Zibluk, Ph.D. Professor of journalism, faculty senate president Arkansas State University jzibluk@astate.edu (870) 972-3255

2. Defined • a professional practice model, founded on the cornerstone principles of partnership, equity, accountability, & ownership that form a culturally sensitive & empowering framework, enabling sustainable & accountability-based decisions to support an interdisciplinary design for excellent patient care.

A simpler definition that all staff and leadership may relate more easily to is one that the Shared Governance Task Force developed in 2004:   a dynamic staff-leader partnership that promotes collaboration, shared decision making and accountability for improving quality of care, safety, and enhancing work life. • ~ Tim Porter O’Grady, management consultant, Vanderbilt University School of Nursing. http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/root/vumc.php?site=Shared%20Governance&doc=23733

3. At Arkansas State University Definition:  Shared Governance is the process by which the University Community respectfully shares responsibility for reaching collective decisions on matters of policy and procedure. ASUnews, Dec. 3, 2003. ~ http://asunews.astate.edu/SharedGovernancedraft120803.htm

4. Shared governance is NOT • Shared decision-making. Ultimately, administrators and managers make administrative and managerial decisions. • Shared policy making. Boards, directors, executives, legislatures make policy. • Shared policy implementation. Managers, directors, administrators implement policy.

5. Shared governance IS • Advisory Shared governance allows constituents to have input in policy-making and policy implementation. • Optional There are no laws requiring shared governance. • Theoretical A theory is a concept that can be supported through research, and researchers have looked into the effectiveness of shared governance. • Questionable Theories on the implementation of shared governance vary widely. In many political and economic models, managers and leaders oppose shared governance because it may be unwieldy, inefficient, and it requires transparency.

6. Shared governance advantages • It fosters inclusiveness and diversity Constituents may provide a wide and diverse variety of information and ideas. Policy alternatives and new ideas and approaches may be identified. • It fosters “buy in” If constituents are included in the policy and implementation process, they are more likely to support decisions. • It identifies potential problems If constituents are allowed to oppose potential policies and decisions, managers and administrators can identify problems and prepare strategies and responses in advance of policy decisions.

7. Shared governance disadvantages • Inefficient Consultation with constituents and consideration of alternative ideas is time-consuming and lengthens policy implementation considerably. • Divisive Discussions may reveal widely divergent ideas, and that may cause conflict. • Undercuts privacy and secrecy Personnel issues and policies under negotiation may be prematurely revealed, undermining policy options • Chaotic Shared governance may reveal unexpected issues that may alter plans and procedures. • Arbitrary You can’t include all of the people all of the time. Debates need to end sometime, and decisions must be made. Inevitably, some constituents will feel left out and ignored.

8. Shared governance challenges • Finding a balance between the advantages and the disadvantages. No balance is perfect. • Sharing the model Different constituents and groups may favor different balances and models of shared governance. • Articulating a vision of shared governance Managers, administrators and constituents have different balances and models of shared governance. All constituents need to understand the balance and the model for it to work. THIS IS OFTEN THE GREATEST FAILING OF SHARED GOVERNANCE.

9. Shared governance models • Minimalist/republican model • May be more appropriate in a private setting than in a public setting. • Advisory only • Little information shared at limited points in the process, usually at the end. • Minimal actions beyond established requirements • Constituents’ representatives chosen by administrators, managers etc. • One-way communication; little interaction • Surveys, etc. • Statements, newsletter

10. Shared governance models II • Maximal/democratic model - May be more appropriate in a public setting. - More common in “unionized” settings. - Constituents have defined role in the decision-making process. - Managers, administrators go beyond minimum requirements, both formally and informally. - Multiple sources of information available at several points in the process. - Two way communication, both formal and informal, available.

11. Mixed shared governance models • Most shared governance models, in practice, fall between the minimal and maximal models. • Most constituents and groups have different models of shared governance. • Constituents and administrators/managers need to agree on the model and the ground rules of shared governance to be effective.

12. Discussion • Provide examples of shared governance in your own work experience and discuss how procedures may be improved.