sou · H3B392 · 2016-01-01 00:00:00 — Compared to an individual leader, collegial bodies can capture a greater number of opinions and arguments. The critical conversations in which different options are weighed up against one another are assets when faced with various decisions. Leaders chosen by their colleagues likely have good knowledge of the organisation they are to head. They are also usually well-known and regarded as the colleagues' representatives. Consequently, they often have greater legitimacy among employees than a manager entirely appointed from a superior organisational level. However, the collegial management model also has its shortcomings. Collegial bodies and leaders chosen by their colleagues may have difficulty making decisions that involve major Representatives/managers are chosen by colleagues who expect that the decisions made will not involve problems and unwanted changes. Collegial decision-making bodies can find it particularly difficult to make correct decisions if the critical and evidence-based conversation ahead of the decision has to yield to an argument based on the interest of their constituents. These shortcomings become greater if it is also the case that important decisions are to be made consensually. Consensus and conservatism, and thus a lack of action, may come to characterise collegial management. Collegiality and line management are sometimes regarded as opposites, but the majority regard them as complementary management models. The 'line' here is the universities' management hierarchy from the vice-chancellor, down through the deans, heads of department and other equivalent positions with other titles. Alongside these, there are also collegially composed committees and boards of various kinds. The question is how responsibility and powers are to be divided between the line organisation and the collegial bodies. It is the Commission's understanding that collegiality and line management complement one another and together constitute the backbone of the management functions at all universities. The principles for the division of responsibility and authority between the line organisation and the collegial bodies should be set out clearly in universities' governance documents. Collegiality's key contribution is the knowledge and expertise of the colleagues. The line organisation contributes a strategic and academic leadership as well as a framework for decision-making in questions that cannot be dealt with in collegial bodies or that are less appropriate for such a context. The aim of the Commission's proposals concerning collegiality and line management is not to strengthen one form of management model at the expense of the other. The aim is to clarify and strengthen both these components in the management of universities. The universities must themselves consider the principles of the division of responsibility and authority and set out in their procedural and delegation rules how the decision-making process in different cases is to be distributed between the collegial bodies and the line organisation. The Commission proposes that the universities clearly set out the principles for the division of responsibility and authority between collegial bodies and the line organisation and that the collegial bodies' roles are designed in a way that allows employees' expertise and knowledge to be utilised in the management of the university. Organisational and management structures The Commission has conducted a review of the organisational and management structures at the 31 public universities and a further three higher education institutions. In conjunction with the autonomy reform of 2011, a provision was introduced into the Higher Education Ordinance that the university's board is to decide on a set of procedural rules with more important regulations concerning its overarching organisation, delegation of decision- making powers, administration of cases and other organisational structures. The Commission's review indicates that there exists some form of central committee or faculty committee responsible for education and or research at all universities. Accordingly, the deregulation of the internal organisational structure implemented in the autonomy reform of 2011 has not led to the universities having disbanded faculty committees or equivalent bodies, but in some cases changes have been made to the committees' decision- making powers. The faculty committee more often makes decisions in those cases it is part of the line and is responsible for the implementation of education and research. When the committee is outside the line, it mainly has an overarching responsibility for quality and usually makes no decisions concerning the allocation of resources. The amount of real power the deans perceive they have varies between universities. One general observation is that the formal authorization is rarely linked to that which is perceived in reality. Despite the dean not having their own formal decision-making authorization, the fact that the dean is the chair of the faculty committee/equivalent and the faculty's foremost representative (where the faculty exists as an organisational unit) means that they enjoy a considerable authority. How this is exercised and what authority the dean adopts in practice is largely linked to the university's traditions and the dean's personal qualities. It would be preferable if the academic role and the authority were clearly set out and communicated, which would make the division of responsibility clear and increase the level of consistency between the formal and informal management systems. Many universities have various forms of advisory bodies containing teachers and researchers to consult on issues concerning the whole university. One reason given for the of this type of group is that the senior management does not believe the collegial bodies such as faculty committees/equivalent are sufficiently functional for this type of issues. The use of these centrally located advisory groups may contribute to improve contacts between the line organisation and employees, despite the teachers and researchers in the group not having been appointed via elections. All universities are organised into departments or equivalent units with some other name. Five universities have decision making departmental boards. These boards' decision-making powers vary. Other universities' departments are governed in some form by the heads of department, with or without an advisory or preparatory departmental council. At the universities in this group the perception that the boards have real influence on decision-making is high where employees are included in the preparatory processes ahead of decision-making. There is a variation in how decision-making departmental boards function. Teachers and researchers the Commission have talked to feel that the decision-making departmental board does not provide the opportunity for any real influence on the content of the issues involved. The decisions put to meetings have in principle been prepared in advance and there is scope for making adjustments. Nevertheless, there are also decision-making boards with perceived real influence that are based on their members being involved in preparatory processes that involve working groups drawing up proposals. Preparatory and decision-making powers in the line organisation and collegial bodies A majority of the persons the Commission has interviewed have experienced collegially composed decision-making bodies as having difficulty choosing priorities with respect to, for example, allocation of resources, organisational changes or closing down parts of the organisation. The Commission has been given a number of statements indicating how strong collegial structures instead act to preserve what exists. Several have stated that members of collegial bodies have difficulty shifting their attention away from representing their areas of interest. The Commission has also spoken to people who testify to the contrary and paint a positive picture of how the collegial management model works in reality. However, only a small minority of those interviewed have provided such a positive description. As established above, all universities have some form of collegial consultation and collegial body. However, there is a great deal of variation in terms of differences between formal and informal decision-making and preparatory processes and powers. This is problematic as it means that the organisation lacks transparency and clarity. At the universities where the formal authorization is consistent with how the allocation of authority is perceived in practice there is a greater between the management functions at different levels. The Commission believes that this improves management and governance at different levels within the university. The review of the collegial bodies' authority at the country's universities shows that inspection and assessment of the quality of education and research is a central task. The Commission believes, in accordance with what has already taken place at many universities, that this should be a primary task for the collegial bodies. As mentioned above, it has been shown to be particularly difficult for collegial bodies to make proactive and strategic decisions about the allocation of resources, new investments and necessary savings and discontinuation of certain operations. For this reason, the Commission believes that decisions concerning resource allocation need to be made from within the line organisation. There is a range of important issues about which the universities should consider whether decisions are to be made within the line organisation or by collegial bodies. Examples of such issues, aside from that mentioned previously concerning resource allocation, are operational plans, budgets, organisational changes and the of academic posts. The Commission’s general conclusion follows from the collegial bodies' evident difficulties making decisions concerning many issues. The Commission proposes that decisions be made, as a rule, within the line organisation, with more important decisions first having undergone a preparatory process in collegial bodies. It also proposes that collegial bodies be given responsibility for inspection and assessment of the quality of education and research and that decisions concerning resource allocation be made within the line organisation following a preparatory process in the collegial bodies. The Commission also argues that preparatory processes ahead of decisions that are to be made within the line must be formalised in a way that guarantees collegial and student influence. The universities should therefore ensure that this influence is possible by specifying in their procedural and delegation rules which decisions are to be subject to preparatory processes and how these are to take place prior to the formal decision-making. How power and decisive influence is distributed in practice between the line and collegial bodies is determined not just by where the formal decision is taken, but also largely by the preparatory process and how the proposal for the decision is drawn up. The Commission also wants to emphasise the importance of transparency and clarity in the formal organisation as expressed in the procedural rules and other governance documents. The Commission proposes that the universities ensure collegial influence and student influence using clear and formalised preparatory processes and that the universities design a decision-making structure in which there is clear consistency between formal authorization and actual authority. One consequence of the proposal that more important decisions as a rule be made within the line organisation is that management by the heads of department is preferable to decision-making departmental boards. The Commission proposes that those universities that have decision-making departmental boards consider the introduction of management by heads of department. Preparatory and decision-making processes concerning strategic issues The Commission has conducted a review of preparatory and decision- making processes concerning three important areas: the organisation of operations, resource allocation and strategic recruitment. Decisions concerning organisation are made by the university's board or at a high level within senior management. Organisational changes are regarded as strategic issues and are dealt with in painstaking preparatory processes. Despite extensive investigations and endorsement processes, it is common for proposals involving organisational changes to be controversial and difficult to implement, particularly in the four largest universities. Strong faculties and departments do not want to lose their status within an organisation. Independent units also safeguard their own administrative procedures, even when these differ from others and thus make collaboration across faculty and departmental boundaries more difficult. The Commission proposes that the boards take on a more distinct responsibility for creating a purposeful and appropriate organisational structure, even in those cases where particular changes are not supported by all affected parties and that the universities monitor the consistency of administrative procedures between faculties and departments so that variations do not make collaboration across boundaries more difficult. The Commission’s review of decision making processes regarding the allocation of resources indicates a relatively large variation. The board decides on the overarching allocation, including funds for the vice-chancellor's strategic investments. The board or the vice-chancellor then allocates funds to operations. There is significant variation in the allocation of strategic funds to the vice-chancellor and a general resistance to allocating strategic funds to deans and heads of department. The allocation of resources is largely based on the previous year's allocation and less consideration is given to how it will contribute effectively to achieving the organisation's goals. The Commission proposes that universities come up with clear principles for and follow up the internal allocation of resources and that resources are put at the disposal of the academic leaders; not just the vice-chancellor, but also deans and heads of department. The Commission has reviewed how the recruitment of senior positions, such as lecturers and professors is managed. Proposals concerning advertisement and specialisation usually come from the departmental level and decisions are made at the faculty level or by the vice-chancellor. There is great awareness of how strategically important recruitment issues are to the university's development. However, the initial management at the departmental level has a major impact on the recruitment process and there is a risk that the department's and employees' own priorities end up governing the process, resulting in too much of filling already existing positions and of internal recruitment. The Commission proposes that the universities use recruitment as a tool to strategically develop their operations towards the goals set, that strategic recruitment be regarded as an important task of senior management and that the specialisation when conducting strategic recruitment be set up on the basis of the university's strategy and at a sufficiently high level in the organisation that the impact of different personal links to any internal candidates is eliminated and that external recruitments are increased. Two groups of universities Based on the Commission’s review, 's universities can, at an overarching level, be divided up into two main groups, with the "older" universities in , , and in one and the other universities in another. In many respects, management and governance are structured differently in these two groups. What the four older universities share is the large scope of their operations, organised into faculties with a large number of departments. The faculties have a strong position. Operations are very decentralised. There is a strong tradition of collegial decision- making and also of leaders being chosen by their colleagues. With one exception, the departmental boards and faculty committees have decision-making powers and it is a rule to have an election and the counting of votes at a hearing ahead of the nomination of a vice-chancellor. The group containing the other universities is more heterogeneous, but still has some internal similarities with respect to management and This applies to the less extensive decentralisation, the proximity of senior management and the departments and less emphasis on traditions of collegial decision-making and collegial leadership elections. Several universities in this group lack the faculty level as an organisational unit, but when it exists there are still close contacts between senior management and the departments. With a couple of exceptions, all the universities in this group have, at the department level, introduced management by the heads of department. Collegial leadership elections are uncommon, as are elections and vote counting ahead of the nomination of vice- chancellors. The academic leaders' situation An improvement to the academic leaders' situation is among the most important measures for developing the management of operations at universities. Work is underway and the improvement requirements vary between different universities. The Commission is dealing in particular with the heads of department, but much of what is said about this group is also applicable to other leaders, for example deans. Many heads of department lack a clear authorization to develop the department's operations. Their role is administrative rather than academic and strategic. The head of department also has both limited financial room for manoeuvre and weak administrative support. The Commission recommends that the universities pay attention to the heads of department's situation and implement a number of measures. This involves a clear academic role, the authority to drive development forward, adequate administrative support, training and distinct personal contract conditions. The head of department should be given distinct decision-making powers with respect to, for example, staffing, labour management and finance, even at those universities that have decision-making departmental boards. What is meant here by staffing is technical administrative personnel and junior and temporary appointments within education and research, but not senior academic appointments such as lecturers and professors, the preparatory and decision-making processes for which should take place mainly above the departmental The Commission proposes that academic leaders such as heads of department and deans be given a distinct academic responsibility and sufficient decision-making powers with respect to, for example, staffing, labour management and finance and that financial resources be put at their disposal. The administrative support provided to heads of department, and to some extent also to deans, is very often insufficient. Human resource issues in particular can become very onerous and require expertise to support the head of department. The Commission proposes that the universities ensure that academic leaders, particularly heads of department, be provided with adequate administrative support, primarily with respect to the role of employer and personnel administration. The recruitment of academic leaders such as deans, heads of department and the equivalent can take place in very different ways; through their appointment by a superior manager, through collegial elections or through some in-between form or a combination of the two. Regardless of how this is organised, the Commission believes that a superior manager must be able to say no to candidates considered inappropriate. The Commission proposes that leaders be appointed by a superior manager and that the appointment be preceded by some form of consultation with a superior or potentially an advisory consultation with colleagues. Those personal contract conditions in excess of the assignment bonus, i.e. the agreed extent to which the supplement for the post may be retained as a salary, and other support following the end of the assignment, such as research support and other resources, is often laid down towards the end of the assignment period. This should instead be done at the same time as the appointment and the decision should be preceded by a discussion or negotiation with the leader. The needs and can vary greatly. There should be a clear idea about the leader's future following the conclusion of their assignment. The Commission proposes that leaders be given training and clear personal contract conditions and that personal contract conditions regarding the supplement's size and extension and other forms of support be negotiated and decided on in conjunction with their appointment. An expanded responsibility and greater decision-making powers for the academic leaders raises the issue of accountability demands. Even though the basic premise is that leaders will be carrying out their roles in a good way, there must be an opportunity to demand accountability from those who do not. In normal cases, this can involve some form of assessment or evaluation during or at the end of a leader's term of office, especially ahead of any re-appointment, and should be regarded as a natural aspect of the leadership role. What this involves for those leaders who are not considered to function optimally is primarily not to re-appoint them to the post or, in more serious cases, them being removed from the post prematurely. It may be appropriate for universities to set out in some way the procedures for such accountability assessments in relevant governance documents. The Commission proposes that the universities draw up forms for assessing accountability, for example through some form of assessment or evaluation ahead of the re- appointment of leaders such as heads of department or deans. Gender equality among academic leaders The Commission has not had the opportunity to develop the issue of gender equality in more detail, but is able to report some of the figures concerning gender distribution within various categories of leaders. When it comes to the larger universities, the gender distribution among vice-chancellors is even and three of the four older universities are led by women. The majority of smaller universities have female vice-chancellors. The proportion of women and men is within the 40–interval that is often considered acceptable in this context, but is relatively close to the limit; there are women among the vice-chancellors. The gender distribution among deans, including pro-deans is even, but the data is incomplete. The majority of heads of department are men (), but the gap between this and the gender equality interval (40–) is not that large. If all the women and men in all the different categories are added together, it appears that the gender distribution among academic leaders at Swedish universities – according to the Commission's survey – lands exactly on the limits of the gender equality interval; women and men. When it comes to leaders at the head of department level, there is a predominance of men, but amongst the most senior leaders – the vice-chancellors – there is a predominance of women. The gender distribution among professors is still unequal; women. From a leadership perspective, the low proportion of professors may also become a problem for the future as academic leaders are most frequently recruited from among professors. If the proportion of women professors remains at a low level, there is a clear risk of there being a future setback in the gender distribution among academic leaders.