This article, dealing with the topic of academic governance, is based on the experiences and reflections of a previous chair of a university senate. Grounded in recognition of the ever-increasing turbulence and complexity of the context of universities, it reveals some of the gaps and what gets silenced in the process and explores the paradoxical and inherently political nature of governance. Building on the current literature, the article attempts to extend and differentiate our conceptualization of governance and leadership as critical functions for university performance. In particular, governance is conceived of as the reframing, challenging, and questioning of the leadership vision and interpretation of reality and focuses on both external as well as internal trends over the long term and in ways that maximize responsiveness and strategic opportunities.
Ackroyd, P., & Ackroyd, S. (1999). Problems of university governance in Britain: Is more accountability the solution? The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(2), 171.
2.
Baker, E.H., & Jennings, K.M. (1999). Dysfunctional organizational control mechanisms: An example. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8(2), 231-240.
3.
Birnbaum, R. (1989). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate: Why senates do not work but will not go away. Journal of Higher Education, 60, 423-443.
4.
Bissell, C. (1972, April 7). Correspondence: The dilution of academic power in Canada. Minerva, pp. 130-133.
5.
Boyte, H. (2005). Reframing democracy: Governance, civic agency, and politics. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 536-547.
6.
Bradshaw, P. (1998). Power as dynamic tension and its implication for radical organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 121-143.
7.
Bradshaw, P. (2002). Reframing board staff relations: Exploring the governance function using a storytelling metaphor. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 471-484.
8.
Campbell, D. (2003). Leadership and academic culture in the Senate presidency: An interactive view, The American Behavioral Scientist , 46(7), 946-959.
9.
Carver, J. (1990). Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership in nonprofit and public organizations. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
10.
Castor, T.R. (2005). Constructing social reality in organizational decision making: Account vocabularies in diversity discussion. Management Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 479-508.
11.
Child, J., & Rodrigues, S.B. (2003). Corporate governance and new organizational forms: Issues of double and multiple agency. Journal of Management and Governance, 7(4), 337-360.
12.
Clegg, S.R., Vieira de Cunha, J., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483.
13.
Cohen, M.D., & March, J.G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
14.
Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
15.
Collier, P. (2005). Governance and the quasi-public organization: A case study of social housing. Critical Perspectives on Accounting , 16, 929-949.
16.
Cornforth, C. (2001, November). Understanding the governance of nonprofit organizations: Multiple perspectives and paradoxes. Paper presented to the 30th Annual ARNOVA Conference, Miami, Florida.
17.
Coy, D., & Pratt, M. (1998). An insight into accountability and politics in universities: A case study. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 11(5), 540.
18.
Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R., & Cannella, A.A. , Jr. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review , 28(3), 371.
19.
Del Favero, M. (2003). Faculty-administer relationship as integral to high-performing governance system: New frameworks for study. The American Behavioral Scientist, 46(7), 902-923.
20.
Demirag, I. (2004). Towards better governance and accountability. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 15, 19-27.
21.
Dubnick, M. (2004, April). Uses and abuses of accountability in the public sector: Exploring its historical roots. Paper presented at the British Accounting Associations' Annual Conference for the Special Interest Group on Corporate Governance, University of York, York, UK.
22.
Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A.C. (2003). Not the usual suspects: How to use board process to make boards better. The Academy of Management Executive , 17(2), 101.
23.
Garratt, B. (2005). Can boards of directors think strategically? Some issues in developing direction-givers' thinking to a mega level. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(3), 26-36.
24.
Gill, M.D. (2005). Governing for results: A director's guide to good governance. Victoria, British Columbia , Canada: Trafford Publishing.
25.
Greer, A., & Hoggett, P. (1997). Patterns of governance in local public spending bodies. The International Journal of Public Sector Management , 10(3), 214-225.
26.
Halachmi, A. (2005). Governance and risk management: Challenges and public productivity. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(4/5), 300-317.
27.
Hartley, M. (2003). The promise of peril of parallel governance structures . The American Behavioral Scientist, 46(7), 923-946.
28.
Hillman, A.J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Board of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383.
29.
Jermier, J., Knights, D., & Nord, W. (1994). Strategies of resistance: Power, knowledge and subjectivity in the workplace. In J. Jermier , D. Knights, & W. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations (pp. 1-24). London: Routledge .
30.
Kreysing, M. (2002). Autonomy, accountability, and organizational complexity in higher education: The Goettingen model of university reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 552-558.
31.
Lamm, R.B. (2004). The psychology and culture of the boardroom. Insights: The Corporate & Securities Law Advisor, 18(12), 15-19.
32.
Larner, W., & Le Heron, R. (2005). Neo-liberalizing spaces and subjectivities: Reinventing New Zealand universities. Organization, 12(6), 843-862.
33.
Lawrence, T.B., Mauws, M.K., Dyck, B., & Kleysen, R.F. (2005). The politics of organizational learning: Integrating power into the framework. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 180-191.
34.
Maitlis, S. (2004). Taking it from the top: How CEOs influence (and fail to influence) their boards. Organization Studies, 25(8), 1275-1311.
Marshall, J. (2000). Expanding the realm of organizational reasoning . The Learning Organization, 7(5), 244-250.
37.
Matross Helms, R., & Price, T. (2005). Who needs a faculty senate?Academe , 91(6), 34-36.
38.
Meyer, H.D. (2002). The new managerialism in education management: Corporation or organizational learning? Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 534-551.
39.
Minor, J.T. (2003). Assessing the senate: Critical issues considered . The American Behavioral Scientist, 46(7), 960-978.
40.
Mintzberg, H., & Rose, J. (2003). Strategic management upside down: Tracking strategies at McGill University from 1829 to 1980. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(4), 270-291.
41.
Nadler, D.A. (2004). Building better boards. Harvard Business Review, 82(5), 102.
42.
Nicholson, G.J., & Kiel, G.C. (2004). A framework for diagnosing board effectiveness . Corporate Governance, 12(4), 442.
43.
Reed, M.I. (2002). New managerialism and new forms of organizational control in UK higher education. Management Research News, 25(8-10), 158-162.
44.
Richardson, A.J., & Trivedi, V.U. (2004, December). Restoring trust in auditing: The production of trust under risk, uncertainty and ambivalence. Paper presented at the British Accounting Association Special Interest Group for Corporate Governance Conference, University of Nottingham , Nottingham, UK.
45.
Sasso, P. (2003). Searching for trust in the not-for-profit boardroom: Looking beyond the duty of obedience to ensure accountability. UCLA Law Review, 50(6), 1485-1546.
46.
Sora, J.W. (2001). Let's pretend we're a corporation: An introduction to the academic/corporate convergence. Corporate Governance , 1(1), 39.
47.
Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance . Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 397.
48.
Tainio, R., Lilja, K., & Santalainen, T. (2001). The role of boards in facilitating or limiting learning in organizations. In M. Dierkes (Ed.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 428-445). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49.
Waitzer, E.J., & Enrione, A. (2005). Paradigm flaw in the boardroom: Governance versus management. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance , 2(4), 348-357.
50.
Washburn, J. (2005). University Inc.: The corporate corruption of higher education. New York: Basic Books .
51.
Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems . Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
