Boardroom Lessons in Academia

Discussion with Charlotte Livingston

Effective governance in Higher Education is becoming increasingly crucial as institutions face complex challenges. Charlotte Livingston, a university lecturer, with over 20 years of experience and a key role as former Executive Board Member for the Association of University Directors of Estates (AUDE) and Co-Chair of AUSM, the Space Management Special Interest Group, offers profound insights into the nuances of board dynamics in this sector. Her experience spans both corporate and academic environments, providing an informed perspective on governance in Higher Education.

Key Differences Between Governance in Higher Education and the Corporate World

Governance in Higher Education is fundamentally different from that in the corporate world, particularly in decision-making processes and their implications. Corporate boards prioritize speed and efficiency, driven by financial outcomes and shareholder value. Decisions are typically executed swiftly, often by a small group of executives, to maintain competitive advantage.

In contrast, Higher Education boards operate within a more consultative and deliberative framework. Decisions often involve multiple layers of review and input from a diverse set of stakeholders, including academics, professional services and expert external advisors. This process, though slower, ensures that decisions are aligned with the institution’s mission and long-term values, which often extend beyond immediate financial considerations.

Livingston emphasizes that this consultative nature is not merely a bureaucratic hurdle but an essential feature of academic governance. “Understanding the consultative nature of academic governance is key to effectively navigating board dynamics in this sector”, she advises. For executives and board members accustomed to the rapid pace of corporate decision-making, this slower, more inclusive process can be challenging but is crucial for ensuring that decisions are well-considered and aligned with the institution’s broader mission.

Moreover, decisions in Higher Education have broader implications, affecting not just the financial health of the institution but also its role in society, academic integrity, and regional, national and international economic impact. Understanding this broader benefit is essential for anyone involved in or aspiring to board leadership in Higher Education.

Strategic Planning and Governance

Strategic planning in Higher Education requires a different approach than in the corporate world, where strategies are often developed with a focus on market trends, competitive positioning, and financial performance. In academia, strategic initiatives must be closely aligned with the institution’s educational mission, core values, and societal responsibilities. “If a business makes more effective use of resources the shareholders get richer; if a university does so funds are released to fund world-changing research and support students to live lives of consequence”.

Livingston stresses the importance of creating clear, actionable strategies that are deeply connected to the institution’s long-term goals. “Setting the strategy and ensuring that the university can see a clear path forward is essential”, she notes. To quote Richard P. Rumelt, “a good strategy recognizes the nature of the challenge and offers a way of surmounting it. Simply being ambitious (e.g. setting giant student number growth targets) is not a strategy”.

In Higher Education, this alignment involves balancing academic freedom with operational efficiency, managing resources to support both teaching and research, and addressing the diverse needs of the student body, and wider communities.

For C-level executives, current board members, and aspiring directors, this means that strategic planning in Higher Education demands a holistic approach. Engaging with a wide range of stakeholders is crucial to ensuring that strategies are not only feasible but also broadly supported. Successful strategic planning requires effective communication and the ability to build consensus among groups with often differing priorities.

Intellectual Property and Collaboration Challenges

Intellectual property (IP) management presents unique challenges in Higher Education, where the open exchange of knowledge is fundamental to the institution’s mission, yet the protection of proprietary research and innovation is equally critical. Unlike in the corporate sector, where IP is often tightly controlled and monetized, Higher Education institutions must navigate a balance between fostering collaboration and safeguarding intellectual assets.

Livingston’s experience underscores the importance of establishing clear policies and governance structures to manage these challenges effectively. “First agree the principles that need to guide decision-making, then evaluate the options objectively against those principles”. In academic settings, where collaboration across institutions and disciplines is common, establishing clear ownership and use rights for IP is essential to protecting both the institutions and individual researchers’ interests.

For those involved in or aspiring to board leadership in Higher Education, this represents a significant shift from the corporate handling of IP. It requires a robust legal framework as well as an understanding of the cultural norms within academia that prioritizes knowledge sharing and collaboration. Executives and board members must work closely with legal and academic leaders to develop policies that protect the institution’s intellectual assets while respecting the collaborative ethos of Higher Education. “Accelerated advancement will surely come through greater interdisciplinarity, not through our work”.

Governance of IP in Higher Education often involves complex negotiations with the academy, who may hold individual rights to their research. Board members must be adept at navigating these relationships, ensuring that IP policies are fair, transparent, and aligned with the institution’s goals. This might involve innovative IP-sharing agreements, creating incentives for faculty to commercialize their research, and establishing partnerships with industry.

Livingston also highlights the critical role that formal governance structures play in managing IP. “As the collaborative group grew, it became clear that we needed formal decision-making and governance to manage our work effectively”, she reflects. This lesson is particularly relevant for those looking to lead in Higher Education, where integrating IP governance into the broader strategic framework is essential for long-term success. “Without clarity the door is wide open to conflicts of interest and malpractice”.

Livingston’s experience illustrates the challenges and benefits of navigating these dual structures. Early in her career, she worked to transition an informal networking group into a formally governed entity under AUDE.

Navigating Informal and Formal Structures

Higher Education governance is characterized by the interplay between formal structures, such as boards and committees, and informal networks that often wield significant influence. In corporate governance, formal hierarchies and well-defined roles typically dominate decision-making processes. In contrast, Higher Education relies on both formal governance and influential informal networks.

For current and aspiring board members, understanding and navigating these informal structures is critical. Success in Higher Education governance often depends on the ability to engage with these networks, build relationships, and influence decisions through both formal and informal channels. This requires political acumen and the ability to listen and respond to the concerns of a diverse range of stakeholders.

Both executives and board members must also be prepared to work within a governance framework that is hierarchical, and consensus driven. Decision-making in Higher Education can be time-consuming, as it often involves extensive consultation and negotiation. However, done well, this approach can lead to more sustainable and widely accepted outcomes, as decisions are made with broad support from across the institution.

This might involve informal meetings with key stakeholders before formal board discussions, attending departmental gatherings, or participating in student events to gather insights and build consensus. These interactions provide valuable context and help board members understand the underlying dynamics that influence formal decision-making processes.

Diversity and Inclusion in Governance

Diversity and inclusion are critical in all sectors, but they hold particular significance in Higher Education, where institutions are expected to reflect and serve diverse communities. Governance boards in Higher Education must not only include diverse voices but also actively work to ensure that these voices influence decision-making.

AUDE initiatives aimed at broadening the diversity of governance boards recognized that diverse boards are more effective, bringing a wider range of perspectives and experiences to the table. “Establishing special interest groups was one way that more diverse voices were included in governance discussions”, she recalls.

For C-level executives, current board members, and aspiring directors, fostering diversity and inclusion within Higher Education governance is essential for effective decision-making. This requires a proactive approach to recruiting and retaining diverse board members and ensuring that all voices are heard and their perspectives valued.

Achieving true diversity and inclusion involves more than representation; it requires meaningful participation. Executives and board members must create an environment where all members feel empowered to contribute and where their input is acted upon. Continuous education and training on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion are also crucial for addressing the complex challenges facing Higher Education today.

Livingston’s experience demonstrates that achieving diversity and inclusion requires sustained effort and commitment. It is not enough to simply add diverse members to the board; there must be a concerted effort to integrate their perspectives into the governance process and to address any systemic barriers that might hinder their full participation.

Lessons for C-Level Executives and Board Members

Livingston’s experiences offer several key lessons for C-level executives, current board members, and those aspiring to join boards in Higher Education: