<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Describe how faculty are held accountable if they fail to participate in a shared governance matter consistently, effectively, and in a timely manner? by Management Analysis and Development (MAD)</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/managementanalysis/5zz6oaxoipjv</link>
      <description>How is that similar and different than how the president and other administrators are held accountable?</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2020-03-31 12:09:34 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2022-04-11 20:13:54 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Question 2</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/managementanalysis/5zz6oaxoipjv/wish/487534472</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>This is a tough question, as we really don't have a clear shared governance model here.  My experience in shared governance would say that if faculty fail to participate the decision may get made without them.  Given that the  union process is highly democratic it takes some time to engage the full faculty in the recommendation and/or decision process.  One way to improve this would be to have some parameters in our process about the urgency of the decision and a process to address that in our IFO structure.  The consequence to the president and senior leaders is that the decision may get made, but there may be serious backlash, which prevents a delay in implementing </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-04-01 19:27:03 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/managementanalysis/5zz6oaxoipjv/wish/487534472</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/managementanalysis/5zz6oaxoipjv/wish/489932624</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The administration is not held accountable for failure to participate in shared governance.  Arguably, the Board of Trustees and the system office discourages local administrations from participating in shared governance.  So, the question should be directed to both -- how do we hold each other mutually accountable to participate in shared governance?  Part of that is building trust--and both sides being committed to the process. Part of that is knowing that shared governance means give and take, compromise and balancing of interests.  If individual faculty/administrators don't participate, then they will be replaced by other faculty/administrators who will participate.  If the faculty or administration as a whole doesn't participate, then shared governance has broken down.  </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-04-02 21:04:00 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/managementanalysis/5zz6oaxoipjv/wish/489932624</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/managementanalysis/5zz6oaxoipjv/wish/492566555</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The other two posts are interesting to me and I see it a different way from having been a faculty member, an administrator and a Board member of a private university.  The president is responsible to the Board, and the Chancellor in the Minn State system, and to the Board in private or public institutions which have their own boards.  Presidents hold their direct reports accountable as well for engaging in consultation.  It often seems that there is little accountability for faculty members or union leaders who don't show up to meetings, who don't engage in discussions, who don't contribute any new ideas but only oppose the ideas presented by administrative leaders and don't communicate broadly to their constituencies.  In theory, if a faculty member does not engage, does not communicate back to their constituencies, doesn't find out the views of the broader faculty, they won't be appointed or elected to serve on committees or as faculty senate/union officers again.  I have worked in two institutions where faculty were accountable for showing up, participating, communicating and representing the views of their colleagues, as were administrators, and shared governance was successful and a deeply satisfying experience.  </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-04-04 16:23:11 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/managementanalysis/5zz6oaxoipjv/wish/492566555</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>What&#39;s effective?</title>
         <author>charlestedder</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/managementanalysis/5zz6oaxoipjv/wish/495226521</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>It's easier to understand how participation could be inconsistent or untimely (i.e., rushing or delaying) ,  and harder to know what all sides mean by effectiveness. What is each side being asked to do in a given back-and-forth? Many different kinds of communication happen - informational, seeking input, seeking recommendations, asking/granting approval - on both sides. If either side finds the other one's participation ineffective, maybe it's because the two sides have different expectations about what each should be doing on that topic or at that point in a process</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-04-06 16:23:29 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/managementanalysis/5zz6oaxoipjv/wish/495226521</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
