Professor Benon C Basheka, PhD

Dean, School of Business and Management

Uganda Technology and Management University (UTAMU)

A university (or any HEI) is complex in terms of people, processes, structures and systems.

Universities are no longer regarded as “ivory towers”- they are now increasingly challenged to show why they exist

Universities are now regarded as enterprises that produce and distribute a public good-which is knowledge

Universities now operate in a globalised environment and this has expectations on the way managers and leaders run these enterprises

Serious problems (internally and externally generated) confront managers and leaders of Universities

Solutions that worked yesterday may now not work today and tomorrow due to the complexity of changes

Universities are now walking on a tight rope:-• Increasing demands from both internal and

external stakeholders•Limited funding but they are expected to do more with less

•Serious diversity challenges are seriously undermining the true essence of a university

• Students increasingly want their participation in university management –a fact that challenges the role of university leaders and managers

Academic leaders and managers are on the ‘spot’ and challenged to be more inspirational and provide direction in advancing the ‘corporate strategy’ of Universities

Issues of relevance and employability of university graduates continue to be thorny issues

Unresponsiveness of university systems and processes to the changing realities

Dichotomy between public and private universities seem to be increasing and even within each there are groupings

The exact role of governing councils are being questioned within the university set up

Debates also exist on the relationship between universities and NCHE given the long held traditions of university autonomy

Role of students in governance of universities

Staff associations and their increased ‘activism’ are key fundamental governance issues

Non-payment and financing issues have become perennial issues for discussion whenever higher education experts meet

S. Asiimwe and G.M. Steyn (2013) found the following Obstacles faced by universities in Uganda:-• Internal politics• Lack of commitment• Bureaucracy in management• Conflicting values in the institution• Centralisation of authority and decision-making• Insufficient financing to implement decisions• Financing higher education • Insufficient remuneration and low morale• Globalisation and increased competition

All these issues point to a poor corporate governance culture and some ‘crisis’.

Over time, application of private sector styles to promoting efficiency and effectiveness in university governance have been recommended

Does it mean private universities are better governed in Uganda than public universities?

Let us put our debate in context

The state had a central role in the delivery of public services (higher education inclusive)

The concept of administration occupied a central position as opposed to management

The distinction between public and private sector organizations was not emphasized

Institutions were based on structures and extensively in rules and regulations

The state was diagnosed to be part of the ‘problem’ in delivery of public services

The state was argued to be too big, inefficient, bureaucratic, ineffective, and corrupt

Public administration was blamed for the crisis

A solution had to be quickly identified

Many economic and political reforms were instituted and the higher education sector was a beneficiary of such reforms

The distinction between public and private sector now became clear

Public sector was the problem and private sector was the solution

The introduction of private-sector styles of management in running of government activities became the key strategy

The word management became widely used and administration almost disappeared

There was preference for business administration graduates instead of public administration graduates

Traditional administrative practices were replaced with business-like styles of management practices

Emergence of new modes of service delivery like:-• Decentralization of service delivery (NCHE being created)

• Public-private partnerships• Outsourcing• Contracting out• User charges and cost sharing arrangements• Performance- based Contracts

Reinventing Re-engineering Retooling Reform Total quality management Result oriented management Performance based systems Contract-based employment

•The question on who should be involved in service deliveryThe GovernmentThe Private sectorThe third sectorThe citizensThe mediaThe development partnersThe churchCultural institutions

Good and Bad governance Local governance Corporate governance Global governance Procurement governance Judicial governance University Governance Environmental governance Health governance

Expected to apply the corporate governance principles and practices

Expected to exercise the highest degree of efficiency and effectiveness given the prescription that had been given just like elsewhere: Liberalize, Private and Stabilize

Managers were supposed to be allowed to manage but under stringent performance frameworks

As Hoare (1995:41) noted, universities must recognize they have important differences from other public and private sector enterprises-they need to maintain autonomy and protect and enhance academic freedom of staff.

Universities, represent several professions which make it even harder to get cohesion in a set of goals.

The commonly agreed elements of good governance in any organization apply to universities:•Accountability•Transparency•Efficiency•Equity•Participation, and •Effectiveness

How should universities relate to NCHE and what exactly is the mandate of NCHE visa vis that of universities in Uganda?

What level of autonomy should universities have visa vis the legal requirements of NCHE and their mandate?

What should be the exact size and composition of [university] councils?

How should different constituencies be represented on key governance structures at university level but also at NCHE?

How should universities be financed amidst declining government funding?

What should be the key roles of university councils and board of trustees?

Should the ministry of education officials be represented in universities councils and governing bodies?

Corporate Governance, it means the system of rules, practices and processes by which a university [company] is directed and controlled.

It involves balancing the interests of the many internal stakeholders in a university [company] – like its shareholders, management, staffs, students and a variety of external stakeholders like customers, regulators, suppliers, financiers, government and the community.

Governance is “the process for distributing authority, power and influence for academic decisions among campus constituencies• The board of trustees• Faculty• Students• Staff• Administrators• The academic or education council/senate, and

unions• Committees and sub-committees that include

these representatives may also play a role.

Council/Board of trustees: Supreme organ (final authority);

Vice-chancellor/Rector: holds delegated authority with his team of administrators;

Faculty: Creators of new knowledge. In practice, faculty is supreme in academic matters such as curriculum, appointment of academic staff, admission requirements, etc.;

Students: Key partners in the university, variously described as consumers or customers in the academic enterprise;

Unions: Sometimes referred to as network leaders; and

Non-academic staff, particularly senior administrative and professional staff.

Work with NCHE on a variety of functions

NCHE mandate is • To regulate higher education, and to guide the

establishment of institutions of higher learning as well as ensure that quality and relevant education is delivered

NCHE has its structures through which it operates

The Council consists of eighteen persons, the majority of whom are representatives of various social constituencies including:-• Public and private universities• Religious organizations, commerce, industry,

agriculture• The general public• The Ministry of Education• People with disabilities.

Chairperson appointed by the president Vice Chairperson elected by the Council

member Two Representative of Vice-Chancellors

of Public and private Universities. Two Senates Representative Private and

public Universities

Four Representative of religious non-degree awarding institutions appointed by the Minister of Education

Three  Representative  from Commerce, industry and agricultural  Sector

Four members of other sectors of higher education

One Representative  of the public elected by the Council

One  Representative of people with disabilities

An officer in charge of Higher Education, Ministry of  Education and Sports

Two  Representatives  of Students from Tertiary and Universities

Executive Director, National Council for Higher Education

Two views exist on this subject•Those that argue for small governing bodies

in universities place an emphasis on what appears to produce efficient and effective corporate practices.

•But what a small governing body may not do well is to permit more participatory or cooperative forms of decision-making and allow for stakeholder representation where there are multiple accountabilities.

Historical forces lead to relatively large governing bodies of universities

Uniqueness of universities needing mechanisms for protecting academic independence

Finding an appropriate balance between external and internal members

“capture” by members internal to the university when they have a significant proportion of total membership?

Coaldrake (1998:171) claims that some governing bodies are indeed captured by the self-interests of inside members.

Clarifying the university’s mission and purpose

Appointing, supporting, and monitoring the chief executive’s performance

Assessing the university’s development and progress as a HEI

Participating in strategic planning

Reviewing educational and public service programmes

Ensuring adequate resources and ensuring good management

Preserving institutional independence within the confines of the system

Relating campus to community and community to campus; and

Serving as a court of appeal.

 

A: Rubber-stamp Council-•Brings no additionality to the university and is

thus amenable to whatever strategy or programme is submitted for its approval.

•Enormous responsibility and power are placed in the hands of the vice chancellor or on one council member.

• In the worst-case scenario, rubber-stamp councils, which do not act as a check and balance, leave the university vulnerable to mismanagement and fraud.

• Open doors for the university that would otherwise remain closed or hard to open. A representational council member might improve the university’s ability to establish key linkages.

• Increase the university’s access to information outside its direct area of operations and enhance its national and international exposure.

• Maintain necessary oversight in part to ensure that their names and reputations are not damaged by their association with a poorly performing university.

B: Representational Council

Raise issues that are at the core of the proper functioning of the university and will not be distracted by peripheral or semi-peripheral concerns.

Engage in more constructive and challenging discourse with management and provide the type of useful analysis that enables management to pursue increasingly higher levels of performance.

Accompany good management and, if necessary, take the lead in defining the overall strategy of the university and work closely with management in overseeing its implementation.

Understand the difference between its strategy-based role and the operational responsibilities of management.

Be more likely to identify quickly and effectively shortcomings in the council’s functioning and seek to address them.

A multi-type council includes members who play a representational role and those who are well-informed about the operations of the university and have solid expertise, here termed hands-on.

University experience. Including individuals in the council with experience in the area of management of universities, or who have held senior academic positions, can be very valuable to the university.

Business sense. A council must have solid business sense, with some financial expertise.

Legal expertise. All universities will benefit from individual members who bring legal expertise to their councils.

Project planning. With increasing numbers of students and growing campuses, universities need individuals who can assist in drawing up development plans for them that maximise the use of existing resources.

Public relations. Universities must be concerned with the image they project to the clients and to the public at large and must be able to conduct outreach campaigns.

Fundraising. Council members are expected to play an active role in fundraising and proposal writing. Individuals with prior experience and contacts represent a significant asset.

Demographics. Universities that operate nationally may select members  to represent different regions. • Moreover, those that operate across national

borders should endeavour to have a council member from the places  as well.

• These members might contribute to broadening the perspective of the council.

Executive and staff members. The vice chancellor is often a member of the council and other senior management teams (SMTs). • Consensus exists among governance experts,

however, that for adequate oversight, the number of SMT members serving on a council should be limited.

Staff/student participation. The risk that arises when staff and/or student representatives sit on the councils of universities is that their presence may become one of form rather than substance.

Unicameral Governance –governed by a single governing body responsible for both administrative and academic matters (Mount Royal College, 2005).

 Bicameral Governance - governed by two legislative bodies: i) a governing board and (ii) a senate or a university/educational council

Tri-cameral Governance– governed by three legislative bodiesa governing board a senate iii) a(n) university/educational council

Hybrid Governance Shale (2002) defines hybrid governance as a

blend of governance, usually unicameral (board or a faculty/academic council or a faculty council established by academic council).

Political influence Strict government regulations, policies,

and laws Pressure from

shareholders/stockholders/stakeholders Financial constraints Conflict of interest Little knowledge about the law among

many board members

Limited access to vital information Lack of appropriate skills Little commitment by some boards

and/or board members Disagreements between the board

team and the chief executive officer Little ability to cope with change Lack of consensus Reputation risk Duo position

Responsibility for the failures of the corporation

Lack of alignment of board and management

Over- emphasis on financial matters Pre-determined board

decisions/judgment Insubordination Subject to public scrutiny / loss of

privacy/ declaration of wealth

Boards are expensive to maintain

Detached from the people they represent

CEO doubling as the board chair

Worsening levels of corruption

What organizational architecture is needed to address the challenges?-the architecture question

What values are needed to transform universities?-the values question

What qualities will be needed of leaders and managers to be able to foster meaningful dialogue between the various segments of the community and university?-the quality question

How should university leaders and managers be accountable? The accountability question

The Image of a university or any institution is determined by the caliber of leaders and managers

The linkage between universities and NCHE is clear and each needs to do their roles

The environment of managing of yesterday is not the environment of today and tomorrow

Need to continuously empower councils and boards on best practices will save the crises that often come associated with most institutions

Members of councils need to be given clear terms of reference and their performance should annually or quarterly be assessed on agreed benchmarks

I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure: which is: Try to please everybody (Herbert B. Swope)

The task of leadership is not to put greatness into people, but to elicit it, for the greatness is there already (John Buchan)

The best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint to keep from meddling with them while they do it (Theodore Roosevelt)