The role of Secretary, Registrar and COO in responding to scrutiny of university Governance

Meditations on the Gillies Report

---

It is common for an industry to need more substantive change every 30 years or so and that comes with expectations and questions of governance and leadership. Sometimes the expectation to reform results from general questions about how an industry adapts to evolving context.  At other times, it can be precipitated by more specific and targeted concerns – for example, a specific organisation or institution experiencing significant and dramatic instability with an apparent lack of clarity on a path to safety. These questions are not new nor exclusive to higher education.

Avoiding defensiveness

It would be easy to be defensive in such circumstances as we might be asked difficult questions but it’s critical we find ways to be pragmatic and calm when concerns are raised. As institutions of learning it seems right that we try to learn from the discomfort when reading the Gillies report or when asked thorny questions by a Minister, union rep or governing member. In this piece I look specifically at the role of Secretary, Registrar or Chief Operating Officer. They aren’t sole custodians of governance effectiveness but, as Executive Director of an Association that is proud to represent and support them, I’m in a privileged position of hearing a variety of our members experiences, the tensions and power dynamics they feel, the cultures they operate in and the risks they see.

Improving process discipline and culture

The Gillies report was a stark assertion that the sector needs to adapt its leadership and governance to be better equipped to respond to the challenges it faces. The report includes 18 sector recommendations. Some of the most specific recommendations are structural, process or systems changes. For example, to improve cash flow reporting or more strictly ensure distribution of papers a week in advance of board meetings. Additionally, there are less specific recommendations about the more cultural issues to consider. The transparency of decision making, interplay between board and executive, power dynamics of relationships etc.

Like many governance reviews, the report gathers a range of specific and tangible system changes and then adds more general cultural observations. The cultural observations are equally, possibly more, important yet rarely have the specificity and measurability required. While it’s easy for an institution to ensure board papers are always distributed a week in advance it’s harder for them to show that a board is more transparent or that quality of challenge within and outside of a board meeting is more robust than before. While there’s undoubtedly a need for greater discipline on governance process the more transformational evolution required is cultural. Tangible and transformative progress on unlocking the tensions, shifting power dynamics, subduing the egos and exploiting the strategic creativity and problem solving that exists within our institutions.

The breadth of responsibility of the Secretary

Some have suggested the role of Secretary (or equivalent), with a breadth of responsibility for institutional operations alongside its governance, might be narrowed to enable a more exclusive focus on governance without the myriad of other portfolios that sometimes appear alongside. While I understand the rationale for that suggestion, I believe the breadth of responsibility can give a quality of information, network and knowledge that informs governance. It also gives the Secretary some power within a tripartite of Secretary, Principal and Chair with the Secretaries authority coming, at least in part, from the detail of day-to-day operations which would be uncommon in the other two roles. Removing that may deplete their power and influence and effectively isolate even greater autonomy to an even smaller number of people.

Articulating and addressing risk

I met a COO in a medium sized institution recently and asked about their portfolios which included a range of professional, educational, student, governance and research services. Global engagement, legal, strategic communications and marketing, people, IT and estates were included accompanied by significant headcount and budget. They talked through key projects they were working on and pressures they were navigating. Struck by the breadth of responsibility I asked how they carried so much risk on their shoulders. They replied that it was not their job to carry risk but identify and articulate it so that their direct reports, executive and board could understand and navigate it with them. They felt that to see the risks and articulate them in ways the institution could engage with and share the burden, they needed the breadth of operational and administration specifically to inform governance and action.

The Gillies report argues that where the University Secretary incorporates broader COO responsibility it commonly requires a direct report to the Principal, perhaps at the expense of the quality of relationship with the Chair. I have certainly heard from some of our members who find it difficult to hold both reporting lines simultaneously and perhaps commonly feel their agenda and judgements are dictated more by reporting to VC than by the Chair and the wider board. I also hear from some members where the Secretary and COO responsibilities are split who talk about challenges of governance not being integrated into operations or of a gulf existing between COO and Chair, meaning governance can become isolated from operational detail and practicalities.

A whole institution approach to governance

I’m keen to protect the breadth of role of a unitary head of administration for those institutions where this arrangement seems to work well but accept it must be balanced against the tension of line reporting to deliver the right parity of relationships. A focus on how relationships work between and capture views of Chair, Principal and both the governance specialist and operational leadership in whatever structure that is composed seems key. This is what establishes both a discipline and consistency in the quality of administration along with a whole institutional culture of good governance that is transparent, agile, student focused and open to challenge. The final point of learning Gilles mentions is specifically on culture. ’A values-led University culture, which privileges transparency and accountability, is likely to actively support evidence-based collaborative decision making, integrity and openness to challenge and debate.’ I think this culture sounds like one which understands, articulates and shares responsibility to navigate risk, exactly the approach the COO shared with me previously.

Skip past comments, to footer Skip past comments, to main