This year I have served as the first chair of the faculty’s newest council, the Faculty Council on Tricampus Policy, which includes balanced representation from Bothell, Seattle and Tacoma. We are mainly working on the question of how a campus is different from a school or a college, in order to write a more specific definition into the Faculty Code.
As a management professor, it is obvious to me that this group is grappling with absolutely fundamental tradeoffs in organization design. Behind nearly every conversation we hold lies some dialectic tension central to organizational effectiveness. As a result, this year’s deliberations have, for me, amounted to a lab course in applied design. I’d like to share some of our most important questions and lessons with you.
Differentiation versus Integration. Organizations create specialized units in order to ensure specialized effort. However, each time we create a specialized unit we make it more difficult for the parts of the organization to work effectively together because each unit, inevitably, develops somewhat different knowledge, values, styles and goals. This is actually the intent. We want our production facilities to be efficient, our R&D units to be creative and our marketing divisions to be customer friendly.
Once such differences are established, though, it can be difficult for the different units to understand, appreciate and work with each other. (Consider the comic strip, Dilbert. The engineers in that strip are typically bewildered, amused or appalled by the behavior of their marketing colleagues.) For any organization as a whole to thrive, its structure and culture must simultaneously encourage this diversity, yet keep the diverse units constructively working together. The council, therefore, is seeking ways to support distinct identities for the three campuses while creating a coherent identity for the University as a whole.
Centralization versus Decentralization. Probably the most sensitive issues in our deliberations are those associated with the degree to which the three campuses make their own decisions independently versus having all faculty decisions subject to some central, three-campus faculty authority. For example, at this time, each campus faculty approves its undergraduate curricula and new programs through its own faculty governance body. We may want to initiate closer consultation with our colleagues at other campuses on these matters. The administration consults on such matters, but historically our faculties have not done so formally.
When an organization wants to encourage entrepreneurship and variation, it chooses relatively decentralized authority and adds various coordination devices to ensure cross-unit consultation. Decentralization has been attractive to the new campuses because it encourages innovation and places the responsibility for our success or failure squarely on our shoulders. We have attracted exceptional faculty with this opportunity.
On the other hand, decentralization is dangerous when it interferes with opportunities for value to be added from the top. If the new campuses were cut off entirely from the resources and reputation of the UW, we would not attract such strong faculty, our students would be less well off and our future would not be nearly so bright. Our group recognizes the need to balance these goals carefully.
Collaboration versus Control. When work is complex and specialized and performed by expert, highly trained professionals, the center of the organization cannot manage by trying to control or dictate to the parts. Instead, the center will be effective if it empowers the parts to make good decisions; if it helps manage the conflicts that inevitably will emerge among units; and when it elicits and safeguards the goodwill that ensures everyone’s cooperation. This understanding lies at the heart of all shared governance: Effective authority is delegated upward; leaders have no power that is not granted by their subordinates. Without the commitment and cooperation of independent-minded faculty, a university cannot be great.
We’ve all, over the years, come to appreciate how this upward flow of authority applies to the relationship between faculty and administration in great universities. Our council is working to understand how it applies among faculty members within their governance hierarchy. We appreciate that we will need to find solutions that enable all faculty to remain committed and cooperative.
Entrepreneurship versus Formalization. Our three campuses are at different stages in their life cycles. Most Seattle faculty work in a mature, established, relatively formalized environment. They bring to our council’s discussions a rich appreciation for the value of institutionalized, predictable controls that legitimize faculty decisions and ensure fairness. They keep us alert to the dangers of ambiguous systems and “cowboy” decision-makers.
Bothell and Tacoma faculty work in more entrepreneurial environments and bring to the table a more vivid appreciation of the value of flexibility, responsiveness and empowerment. They often remind the council of the dangers of inflexible controls, red tape and centralization. As a result of our different life stages, our council members draw useful lessons and cautions from each other; we are lucky to be sharing the wisdom of both age and youth.
Shared Values, Appreciation and Trust. Students are sometimes surprised to learn that the most powerful coordination and control device available to organizations is essentially social, not economic. It is shared values. So long as the overarching principles and ideals of a group are shared, individuals can act independently while the entirety remains on track toward its desired future.
On our council, we find that certain values infallibly pull our deliberations back toward a center: The good of our students, our responsibility for shared governance, and our mutual respect as colleagues. As individuals, we have built appreciation for and trust in each other as a result of much work in a short period of time. This sort of direct opportunity will not be available to all our colleagues.
However, through the council, all the faculty have the opportunity to identify the essential values that define the University of Washington, no matter which campus. So long as we all recognize those values in each other, we have the chance to build mutual appreciation and trust even at a distance.