It is crucial for the governing body and its committees to have sound working relationships with the institution's executive and senior managers, particularly the vice-chancellor or principal. Successful relationships usually centre on trust, openness and mutual respect: and governance is much more difficult without these. The most crucial relationship is between the chair of the board and the vice-chancellor or principal as this sets the tone for the overall relationship between the board and other officers, but governors should also expect to develop an effective working relationship with other senior managers, particularly the clerk or secretary and the director of finance.
A number of issues relating to the relationship between the executive and the board, and in particular the nature and effectiveness of the board's challenge to a dominant vice-chancellor, are raised by Sir David Melville in his independent review at London Metropolitan University in December 2009.
A further factor influencing relationships between the governors and the executive is institutional size. Small colleges tend to develop distinctive cultures, and often do not have the financial resources to employ the full range of specialist support staff. In these circumstances some governors may find themselves drawn into providing such services, which can then make the role of independent and critical scrutiny difficult to carry out.
In thinking about the effectiveness of existing relationships between the board and the executive a number of important distinctions need to be made:
The formal position of senior officers - This varies between institutions. Typically, in pre-1992 universities the vice-chancellor and a small number of senior academic officers are members of the council; other than this group, senior officers or managers, such as pro vice-chancellors and directors of professional services will usually be 'in attendance' at meetings. They are not members, but attend to present papers and give advice.Governors may find this confusing as in many institutions these senior officers will sit among the governing body members. In post-1992 institutions the instrument of government gives the vice-chancellor or principal the choice of opting out of governing body membership, but almost all choose to be full members. Again, in many institutions members of the senior executive team will be 'in attendance' at governing body meetings. To add to the confusion, in at least one post-1992 institution all members of the senior management team are full members of the board.
Good interpersonal relationships - An open and mutually supportive relationship usually improves the effectiveness of the governing body. However, achieving this can be difficult, and both the executive and the board (particularly the vice-chancellor or principal and the chair) need to value each other's opinions and how they are given. This relationship will vary depending on a number of factors – the personalities of those involved and the culture of the institution are particularly important. It is, however, important that the relationship is not too close, if the governors are to have the right amount of independence.
Being the 'critical friend' - This well used phrase hides numerous issues and potential tensions. Mutual credibility is crucial in this relationship, and if either party lacks confidence in the other it is likely to fail. A helpful and supportive critique is essential, whereas destructive personal criticism is not and may simply lead to defensiveness and secrecy. In addition, all parties need to observe the distinction between management and governance which may be difficult when discussing key issues. In particular, the chair has a key role in the system of checks on executive power, and should use judgement to intervene where necessary. Some of the most serious higher education governance failures in recent years have occurred when executive heads went unchecked by their governing bodies.
The attitude of the executive to involving governors - Although rarely discussed in public, one of the key factors determining an effective relationship between the board and the executive is simply the attitude of the key personalities involved. So far as the executive is concerned, does it really want an active and fully involved board, and so far as the governing body is concerned do they really want to maximise board effectiveness and expend the effort required on what is - after all - a voluntary activity?
Further Information: