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

Theoretical Framework

As illustrated in the review of literature, governance in higher education encompasses the structure, rules, and policies of the institution, as well its social relationships and culture, which underscores the multitude of theories used to study governance. Because the system is highly complex and interrelated, presidential decision making is best characterized and explained through the application of both structural and human condition elements of governance theory advanced by Birnbaum (1988) in his How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership.

Structural Elements

Presidential decision making in KCTCS expressed itself in relation to bureaucratic elements outlined by Birnbaum (1988). Although presidents surveyed in phase one perceived differently the location of decision making, alignment in decision making was reinforced by policy. Policy dominated analysis of presidential decision making in KCTCS, which is characteristic of bureaucratic institutions. Birnbaum (1988) contends that clear rules and regulations guiding behavior increases organizational certainty and efficiency. Specifically, according to Weber (1946), rules and policies help maintain uniformity in activities and also continuity when personnel change. Policy, as well as alignment in decision making across the system, emerged in analysis and point to bureaucratic characteristics. Given the large size and geographic span of the system, clear rules and regulations help coordinate work and ensure alignment across the system.

Moreover, dual governance structures emerged in analysis, which are characteristic of bureaucratic organizations. These dual control systems, as Birnbaum (1988) describes them, consisted of academic and administrative structures as well as dual system and college administrative structures. For example, the decision making process for granting promotion or tenure included a college level structure and process and a system level structure and process. Whereas Birnbaum suggests dual control systems are evident in bureaucratic organizations, analysis of presidential decision making in KCTCS points to triad control systems, namely the college administrative structure, system administrative structure, and then the academic structure, which further increases bureaucracy and presents challenges to presidential decision making.
As Birnbaum (1988) describes, conflict between dualism of controls is muted because one control system so clearly dominates the other, which is evident in KCTCS. Specifically, analysis of documents revealed that the administrative structure of the system clearly dominates that of the colleges, and moreover, the administrative structure of the system dominates the academic structure. For example, policy explains that the process for granting tenure or promotion involves recommendations from a committee of faculty to the college president, followed by a recommendation from the college president to the KCTCS chancellor. The system committee of faculty review and make recommendations for tenure or promotion to the KCTCS president, who then recommends personnel to the Board of Regents, who has final authority. In this example, the system administrative structure dominates the college administrative structure, and both administrative structures dominate the academic structure for granting tenure or promotion because of the location of authority outlined in policy. The process for
granting tenure or promotion is outlined in policy, and while it involves feedback and recommendations from faculty, these recommendations flow through the administrative structure of the college and then the system. Moreover, the system has more authority than the colleges in recommending candidates to the KCTCS Board of Regents.