Almost all higher education governance is at least satisfactory, and some is very good. However, there will inevitably be some cases when things go wrong. In Managing Good Governance in Higher Education (Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 2006), Mike Shattock sets out a number of case studies of governance breakdowns and the lessons that can be learned. Some of the critical features he identifies that can lead to dysfunctional governance include:
There have been media reports in 2009 (including an article in the Independent) speculating about a number of instances (such as at City University, the University of East London, Leeds Metropolitan University and Royal Holloway, University of London) where vice-chancellors have left their posts early, possibly as a result of disputes with their governing bodies, or a loss of confidence by governors. These cases emphasise the importance of the key relationship between the head of institution and the governing body.
A number of important issues for governors are raised by Sir David Melville in his independent report into matters arising from the clawback of funding from London Metropolitan University in 2009. The Board of Governors of the University and the HEFCE have published a joint statement of the actions being taken to restore governance and management arrangements.
Governance crises are one thing, but there are more common problems which may need to be addressed. For example, inadequate participation or a lack of preparation by members, difficulties in fully engaging the governing body in key areas - most commonly in the development and measurement of institutional strategy, and in ensuring that board members act corporately with a shared and collective view rather than seeing themselves as individuals.