Abstract
This article starts from the recognition that senior staff contribute to the operation of further education college governance through working time, professional insight and public performance. The theoretical underpinning for the article draws upon social identity theory, governance accountability and the psychological contract for senior staff as employees of the governing body. The article reports the findings from a research study seeking to gain a greater understanding of the ways in which senior staff contribute to further education college governance and their perceptions of their role and performance in relation to college governance. 102 senior staff responded to a questionnaire, and three case examples of further education colleges in England were involved in this study. The article concludes with three recommendations to college governing bodies as to how they might improve senior staff contributions to effective governing of colleges.
Keywords
Introduction
Further education college governance in England, much like the governance of any educational institution, relies on the interaction between governors and executive senior staff, supported and advised by a clerk. The role of senior staff (including the principal) is to devise and propose strategy to the governing body for consideration and approval and then to implement decisions taken with monitoring by the governing body. Senior staff would, typically, have job titles such as Deputy Principal, Vice Principal, Director of Finance, and Director of Learning and Achievement. In practical terms in relation to the governing of colleges, senior staff draft reports for governors, and attend and often contribute to governor meetings. Commenting on the corporate sector, Roberts et al. (2005) and van der Walt and Ingley (2000) draw attention to the importance of executive and non-executive interaction in achieving board effectiveness. In a similar vein, this study seeks to appreciate the interaction between senior staff and governors in achieving college governing body effectiveness. 1
From a literature search, there is no published research on this topic in relation to colleges or schools. This article uses questionnaire responses from college senior staff and interview responses from senior staff, principals, clerks and governors, seeks to illuminate the ways in which college senior staff contribute to governance, and records what senior staff think about this aspect of their professional responsibilities.
The article will briefly explain the governance framework for further education colleges in England, and summarize the responses from 102 senior staff to an on-line questionnaire and the interviews with senior staff at three colleges. Three theoretical underpinnings with relevance to governance − leadership, accountability and employment relations − have been selected to assist the interpretation of the responses from senior staff. The article concludes with recommendations to college governing bodies for developing relations with and performance of college senior staff.
Governance framework of further education in England
A governing body of a further education college in England is underpinned by charitable status. Thus governors are, in effect, trustees of a charity. At the time of writing there are 341 further education corporations that are led by governing bodies in England (AoC, 2013). Governing bodies have responsibility for strategic direction and planning, quality of education and training provision, financial performance, and staff employment and development. These are significant responsibilities which, typically, between 12 and 20 volunteer governors per governing body accept and seek to address.
Theoretical underpinnings
There are three aspects to the theoretical framework being applied to this study. Firstly, there is the part that governing plays within the leadership of the college. Haslam et al. (2011) make a strong case for the social identity theory of leadership, and they offer the insight that:
effective leadership is always about how leaders and followers come to see each other as part of a common team or group – as members of the same in-group. (Haslam et al., 2011: xxi)
Senior college staff are both part of the group which is the further education college governance leadership team, i.e. governors and senior staff and clerk, and as the senior staff they also become followers of their leaders – the principal and the governing body. This study is able to contribute some insight into the extent to which senior staff ‘self-categorize’ as individual members of the wider governance leadership group. Recognizing the governance/management boundary and accepting the possible problems of blurring the distinction between governance and management, the study demonstrates both positions for senior staff, i.e. being within the wider governance ‘in-group’ and also being within a senior college management group, as operationally valid. Western (2008: 35) supplies a useful definition of respective roles where managers are ‘scientific, rational, and controlling’ whereas leaders are ‘more about passion, vision, inspiration, creativity and co-operation rather than control’. Evidence from this study shows that a senior college manager expects to and is expected to perform both manager and leader roles.
Secondly, this study considers the role of senior staff in the achievement of governance responsibility and accountability. Roberts et al. (2005: 8) conclude from studies (their references Lorsch and MacIver, 1989; Mace, 1971) in the corporate sector that the expectation of scrutiny from non-executives can have an important disciplinary effect on executives, thereby raising the standard of proposals that are presented to the board.
Roberts et al. (2005) advise that strong and rigorous accountability in corporate governance is achieved through a variety of behaviours by the board, such as ‘challenging, questioning, probing, discussing, testing, informing, debating, and exploring’, which ‘draws upon non-executive experience in support of executive performance’. Whilst not the same as the executive/non-executive director make-up of corporate boards, it is through such conduct that further education college governors seek to establish and maintain their own confidence in the conduct of the college management. Usefully, Roberts et al. (2005: 14) explain that non-executives need appropriate information to develop confidence that management are addressing the key business priorities. Lorsch (1995: 111) extends this point by advising that information must be converted into ‘useful knowledge’ by management for board meetings. Thus Roberts et al. (2005), recognizing the support provided by executives to governance, state:
Both the quality and timing of board papers and the organization of the agenda create the space for effective challenge. (Roberts et al., 2005: 15)
Cowton (2008) also looks at corporate governance responsibilities and accountabilities, adding recognition of the contribution of (external) professionals such as auditors and specialist advisers to boards as ‘gatekeepers’ (after Coffee, 2006). This analysis reminds us that senior staff are also tested by external professionals, and upon such examination the nature of the relations between governors and senior staff can be developed, maintained or fractured. Coffee (2006: 8) advises that effective corporate governance requires ‘a chain of actors’, i.e. directors, senior managers and gatekeepers.
The third element of theoretical underpinning is the notion of the psychological contract between the employer (governing body) and the individual employee (senior staff members). Rousseau (1995) defines the psychological contract as:
… individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and the organization. (Rousseau, 1995: 9)
The psychological contract for each senior staff member will be characterized by ‘the deal’, i.e. what is on offer from the governing body (vision, values, reputation, personal terms and conditions of employment) compared to the expectations of the individual member of senior staff. This is a very personal matter for each member of senior staff, but reminds that one of the responsibilities of the governing body is to act as employer of senior postholders (whether specifically in relation to each ‘designated’ senior postholder or, more generally, the senior staff team).
It should be noted that there is no reference to the value of senior staff contribution in any relevant documentation relating to further education college governance. It is of particular note that in the recently published Foundation Code of Further Education Governance (Association of Colleges, 2011) there is no specific reference to the contribution of senior staff to governing − a position mirrored in other governance codes, e.g. Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector (Code Steering Group, 2010). Furthermore, amongst the imaginative critical success factors for effective governance proposed by Matthews et al. (2011), unfortunately the invisibility of the contribution of senior staff to governance is perpetuated.
Primary research questions and research methodology
This study attempted to address two primary research questions:
What are the ways in which senior college staff interact with college governing processes? How are these various ways of interaction with college governing perceived by senior staff?
Phase 1 involved the use of a questionnaire which was circulated electronically to all ‘senior staff’ on the Learning and Skills Improvement Service mailing list, and it was also promoted to all AMiE (Association of Managers in Education and part of the trade union ATL) members. The questionnaire was available for completion from 5 to 30 June 2011; 102 responses were received from relevant senior staff (defined as senior staff who attended governing body meetings and participated in governance processes). Without national personnel data for the 341 (AoC, 2013) further education, sixth form and specialist colleges in England, it is not possible to specify the response rate.
Phase 2 involved three case example colleges in northern England – a large general further education college, a medium size further education college and a sixth form college – in the period February/March 2012. Governance was graded as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ in Ofsted terms at these case example colleges. At each college there were individual interviews with senior staff, the principal, the clerk and experienced governors.
The research methodology was divided into two phases:
The researchers are two highly experienced and qualified clerks to college governing bodies. We are very familiar with the responsibilities of college governing bodies and assumed that well-defined systems, controls and processes are necessary to support and achieve effective governance.
Messages emerging from the questionnaire responses from senior staff
Overall there was a generally supportive and positive response towards college governance from senior staff respondents: 80 per cent of respondents described their governing body as either ‘good’ or ‘excellent’; 79 per cent of respondents were positive about college governing as they experienced it.
Respondents to the questionnaire presented their views as follows:
Some senior staff were uncertain about the source of their invitation to attend governing meetings or indeed whether there was actually a standing or a specific invitation to attend governing meetings. 28 per cent of respondents attended meetings of the governing body by invitation of the principal, 34 per cent attended through invitation from the governing body, and 31 per cent of respondents attended governing body meetings at their own discretion. There is variation in the role of the principal regarding approval of reports drafted by senior staff prior to circulation to governors. 55 per cent of respondents drafted reports within a report approval framework controlled by the principal; 45 per cent of respondents submitted reports directly to governors. 51 per cent of respondents reported that they had not received any training about college governance at their college. Only 35 per cent of respondents claimed (on a self-reporting basis) to know all the responsibilities of the governing body contained in the Articles of Government. A high degree of value was placed on senior staff contribution to governance, as assessed by 93 per cent of senior staff respondents. 16 per cent of respondents declared that they had received any training in report writing for college governance (with only 74% of these respondents using a standard report template). 40 per cent of respondents believed that governors were provided with the correct amount of paperwork, although 94 per cent of respondents believed that the quality of reporting ‘mainly supports effective governance’. Where there was forward-planning of the governance agenda setting in colleges (83% of responses), 76 per cent of respondents reported some involvement in the process. Respondents indicated that governors were directly involved in the performance management (26%) or the appraisal (18%) of the respondent as a senior staff member.
Three case example colleges
The researchers visited three case example colleges and conducted interviews with the chair of the governing body, principal, a sample of senior staff postholders and the clerk to the governing body. The use of case example colleges was to explore the general issues emerging from the questionnaire responses in specific settings where senior staff were operating and engaging with governing activities.
The interviews produced a richness of personal experience and reminded that the conduct of governance in individual college settings is highly dependent on personal interaction rather than simply the implementation of a governance system.
Senior staff were asked to reflect on how personally worthwhile the time spent on governance-related activities was. On the one hand, one senior postholder said,
it is useful, developmental – it keeps you on your toes, focused, and can add to gravitas when dealing with college managers. It is taking my attention from day to day matters as I spend between 1 and 1.5 days per week on governance matters.
Senior staff, as leading report writers for governance meetings, were asked to comment on the quantity of the paperwork provided for governance. Examples of comments received are:
Governors have too much to read. There is an awful lot of paper given to governors. There are too many governors struggling with their paperwork. There is too much (paperwork) but I can’t see how to reduce it.
With one exception (who described it as training and support on the job), all senior postholders confirmed that they had not received any training in report writing for governance.
Senior staff interviewed reported that they were already involved in governance planning, i.e. the annual schedule of business, and agenda formation for meetings, or they felt there was increasing involvement in these tasks through the actions of the clerk to the governing body and/or principal.
Working relations between senior staff and governors was typically described as:
Professional, business-like, challenging, relaxed Cordial, positive, focused on the issues Interactive, based on trust and confidence.
Senior staff were asked about their perceptions of the style, questioning and challenge displayed by governors in governance meetings. Responses included:
It is sincere but not always informed challenge. It is professional, friendly – I know I have to be on the ball. Meetings can be uncomfortable – I need to prepare well; it keeps you sharp.
On this topic one principal suggested that governors could be better focused in their engagement with topics if their reports from senior staff were sharper.
All senior staff interviewed confirmed that they had no training in the foundations of college governance upon appointment to their role or subsequently. Governors interviewed were unaware of this gap in induction to senior staff roles and responsibilities. One clerk to the governing body was now providing support and development to new senior postholders since her recent appointment.
Finally, senior staff were asked two related questions about their perception of the value of governance activity. Firstly, in responding to the question ‘to what extent do you feel that governance activity adds value to the performance of the college?’, all senior staff were generally positive. Senior staff responses included recognition of ‘rigour and direction’ and ‘stretch and challenge’. However, when asked whether the added value was proportionate to the time and effort spent servicing governance, there was uncertainty. Clerks to governing bodies observed that there was:
too much time in meetings some managers see governance as an irrelevance or a hindrance governance needs to be sharper and slicker.
Discussion
This study has provided confirmation that senior staff are directly involved in the governance of colleges through formally reporting to and engaging with governors in meetings and other governing-related events such as governor development. This position having been established (which seemed necessary given the lack of reference in key documentation acknowledging the role of senior staff in contributing to governance), the questionnaire response data and interviews from case example colleges indicate, broadly, that the governance contribution by senior staff is valued by governors and is approached responsibly by senior staff.
Reflecting on the theoretical underpinnings to this study, it is clear that most senior staff consider themselves to part of the ‘in-group’ of governance leadership of their further education college. 79 per cent of respondents selected ‘included’ when asked whether, on the whole, ‘how do you feel about governance activities at your college?’ However, from the evidence derived from case example colleges, defining this membership for senior staff could be fuzzy where precise arrangements and relations are not specified or are not clearly articulated, e.g. attendance and role expectation at governance meetings. Most senior staff respondents (79%) were supportive of further education college governance as they experienced it. However, counter to this generally positive view, when respondents were specifically asked whether the added value from further education college governance activity was proportionate to the time and effort expended servicing governance, there was uncertainty.
Considering the contribution of senior staff to governance accountability and the achievement of governance responsibilities, there is some evidence from this study that some senior staff practices could be developed such as training in the foundations of college governance, improved quality of report writing, clarifying arrangements for the quality assurance of reports prior to submission to governors, achieving a consistent set of papers for governing body meetings that was accessible to governors, and not over-facing.
Reflecting on the psychological contract between the governing body (employer) and individual senior staff (employee) was only considered indirectly within this study, and requires detailed investigation. For some further exploration of the psychological contract in further education colleges, see Hill (2007). The ‘deal’ for senior staff in our study seemed to be positive and it was simply that senior staff are expected to manage the college as required by the governing body and to report progress to the governing body where governors judge individual and college performance. In a minority of cases (26%), governors were directly involved in individual performance management but it might be reasoned that this is not indicative of the efficacy of performance management of senior staff – a senior staff performance management scheme may be in place, monitored by governors, which expects the principal to undertake the performance management of senior staff.
Conway and Briner (2004) suggest that the psychological contract can ‘go wrong’ or ‘be breached’ in four main ways – by poor human resources practices, by lack of support from the employer, by additional demands on personal performance and by a history of breaches of the ‘deal’. These potential ‘breaches’ did not appear with any clarity or force within the case example colleges but, as Hill (2007) demonstrated in relation to the employment experience of further education college principals, there can be a simplicity, even a naivety, of approach by further education college governing bodies as employers. The identified positive psychological contracts for principals in Hill’s study could have been developed and strengthened by governing bodies, and this conclusion could be applicable to senior staff as well.
Conclusions and recommendations
This study shows that senior staff are positive and supportive towards college governance, with 80 per cent of questionnaire respondents describing their governing body as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. 93 per cent of respondents to the questionnaire placed a high degree of value on senior staff contribution to governing of colleges. However, through interviews with senior staff, some respondents were uncertain whether their time commitment and effort servicing governing was proportionate to its value.
There are a number of issues emerging from this study which suggest that the full potential of the contribution of senior staff to college governance is not being realized. As Lorsch (1995) recognizes in the corporate context,
… a board’s real power depends on its relationship with the Chief Executive Officer and other top executives. (Lorsch, 1995: 111)
There is evidence from this study that the contribution of senior staff to governance could benefit from senior staff role clarification, defining senior staff performance expectation in relation to governing and providing senior staff professional development in relation to governance. Recommendations to further education college governing bodies arising from this study are as follows:
Governing bodies should formally define the ‘governance team’ as governors, senior staff and the clerk to the governing body and define the respective roles and expectations for each group of the players in the governance team for the development and achievement of the mission, values, educational character and strategy for the college. Governing bodies should ensure that every member of senior staff is trained and supported in the foundations of college governance and governing (legal framework, responsibilities of the board, reporting standard and style, and understanding how all the decisions of the governing body impact on learners, staff and external stakeholders). Governing bodies should define and actively practise their role as employer of senior staff, aiming for the highest standards of employee development and performance management.
By addressing these recommendations, college governing bodies could take the opportunity to shape their governing processes for the new operating environment for colleges created by the Government’s policy document, New Challenges, New Chances (BIS, 2011) and address the issues arising from the Ofsted survey, Local Accountability and Autonomy in Colleges (Ofsted, 2013).
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Baker Tilly and the Learning and Skills Improvement Service for general support and the funding for the research study, Professor Jacky Lumby of the School of Education, University of Southampton for acting as critical friend to the research study, and Peter Pendle, Deputy General Secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers for his encouragement and assistance.