University Times

Shared governance: Working toward a common goal

The University of Pittsburgh exists to create new and disseminate old knowledge. To accomplish this mission, a system of shared governance has evolved  to insure the best use of the resources of the University and  to give every member of the University community a voice in how to best define the mission and which techniques, tactics and strategies to apply. The fundamental issue in shared governance is the relative role of the governed as compared to those who govern. A key factor in determining these relative roles is the asymmetry of expertise. Passengers on a commercial airline flight typically have no say in what the pilot does.  It is the passengers’ choice to get on the plane or not. Once on the plane, they do not get to fly the plane. On the other hand, in the context of a university, groups of experts, in principle, behave collegially and respect on another’s expertise. A workable shared governance system, gives faculty,  staff and other members of the university community the opportunity to contribute their extraordinarily valuable expertise and perspective toward making the university a better place. By definition, a workable system insures that all issues will be given a fair hearing.

One informal definition of an expert is a person who comes from afar and brings slides. The economic classification of expertise specifies that professionals get paid to do the job; amateurs engage in the activity for free; and spectators just watch avidly, but are more than willing at all times to tell the professionals what went wrong. We all have both the duty and the right to participate in shared governance, rather than be mere spectators. A more formal definition of an expert requires that the individual possess  (1) appropriate degrees, (2) specialized training, (3) licensure/certification, (4) substantial experience,  (5) teaching in the field, (6) publications in the field, (7) memberships and offices in professional organizations, and (8) prior expert testimony. Faculty and staff bring many if not most of these credentials with them to the university. Surveys and focus groups are typically opinion stacked upon opinion like a house of cards. If the project is to build a bridge, one would generally not proceed by taking surveys of all bridge users to determine how to design and build it. One would find experts at bridge building and have them build the bridge. We have the expertise but we need to apply it to our best advantage. In the Kelvinist tradition, “. . .when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be.” Members of the university community know how to collect and analyze evidence, as well as present conclusions cogently. This expertise as applied to shared governance  requires real work and  real expertise to get the job done, and deserves real credit (e.g., faculty evaluation).

The spectrum of governance with respect to the relative roles of the governed ranges from total democracy to total dictatorship. The range of fairness ranges from a level playing field (perfectly fair) to a vertical playing field (totally unfair) to one that is inverted and shaken (openly hostile to the extent that any reasonable person would leave, a constructive discharge). Fortuitously, this University is a good place to be on both counts: governance is shared and fairness is a fundamental value. While the procedural and evidentiary rules are more flexible in the context of shared governance than in a legal proceeding, the rules create and maintain the fairness of the process. Careful scholarly scrutiny is applied to insure an optimal answer to each problem, and wording carefully crafted recognizing that imprecision of language generally reflects imprecision of thought.

In the Calvinist tradition, if wrong things are being done, the individual has not only the right to be angry, but the duty to be angry. Further, the individual has a duty to stop the present wrong action as well as to insure that the wrong action is not taken again. While it is extraordinarily uncommon in this institution to encounter problems bad enough to merit wrath of Calvinist proportion, we the members of the University community have a real duty to provide the best advice and analysis possible. In conclusion, this University offers ample opportunities for participation in shared governance. It requires work, but is well worth the effort. I strongly encourage each and every member of the University community to become involved in the governance of the University and to work toward the common goal of making the University of Pittsburgh a better place.