Higher education system governance: an exploratory study of presidential decision making in the kentucky community and technical college system

Anarchical Elements

An open systems approach to governance expands beyond earlier structural approaches to governance (Kezar and Eckel, 2004). This open systems approach accounts for human conditions, such as participation, leadership, and communication in governance, as well as local differences across colleges and campuses based on history, values, and environmental contexts. Moreover, according to Kezar and Eckel (2004), the open systems approach also brings attention to how broader economic, political, and social forces affect decision making. Presidential decision making in KCTCS expressed itself in relation to human condition elements espoused by the anarchical model.

In addition to the bureaucratic and political element explored in the previous sections, presidential decision making in KCTCS also reflects anarchical elements. Participation, involvement, and feedback emerged in analysis and is characteristic of anarchical organizations. Specifically, participation, involvement, and feedback emerged in combined effort decisions, which include establishing or closing a campus, setting tuition, and strategic planning. Moreover, presidents used feedback from their boards to inform decision making. Of importance is the fact that participation, involvement, and feedback also emerged in decision making processes for which there was no policy or procedure, or in processes for which the final decision would have a great impact on the colleges or their relationships and partnerships with other organizations and institutions. For instance, the researcher could not locate a policy or procedure for establishing or
closing a campus, which is a decision making process that involved internal and external stakeholders.
Whereas participation and feedback are characteristic of anarchical organizations, Birnbaum (1988) describes this participation as fluid, meaning that participants can participate in as many or as few decisions as they choose. Although data indicated the use of participation, involvement, and feedback at multiple levels, it does not appear fluid and instead, is prescribed by policy and procedure. That is, the system and colleges know who is responsible or expected to participate in decision making because it is outlined in policy and procedure. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities were outlined in policy and procedure, and these roles reinforced involvement and participation of various positions in decision making. So, while decision making for some decisions reflects participation, involvement, and feedback, this participation and the gathering of feedback is prescribed by policy and procedure. As such, bureaucracy impedes who is involved in what decision making processes. Moreover, although some decisions are made with participation, involvement, and feedback, there is still a finite location of authority or multiple locations of authority ascribed by policy and procedure.
Within the anarchical model, Birnbaum (1988) describes permanent structural garbage cans that draw attention away from the actual decision arena. These organizing bodies are more symbolic than real in terms of their authority. Participation, involvement, and feedback emerged in the form of committees for various areas of decision making.
These committees were present in decision making concerning faculty promotion and tenure, and hiring personnel, for instance; however, these committees had no authority. As outlined in policy, the committee on promotion and tenure is a “recommending body
and the committee on hiring is a “recommending” body to the College President. So, while participation, involvement, and feedback emerged in relation to presidential decision making, the extent to which this participation influences decision making and the extent to which presidents use and apply this feedback remains uncertain.