Since at least 1989, over seventy faculties or faculty senates have voted no-confidence in their academic presidents. Although these votes are symbolic, as only an institution’s governing board can remove a president, they nonetheless bring paralysis to the campus community. What, then, are the sources of these votes of no-confidence?
Data suggest that most of these votes are held because faculty members believe that shared governance principles have been violated. This study examines this phenomenon at three institutions – Baylor University, Texas A and M University at Kingsville, and Goddard College – through case studies. This examination uses literature on university governance and organizational culture to explore shared governance, its sanctity in higher education, and how the notion of shared governance is rooted in academic culture. Because shared governance problems are indicative of organizational conflict, conflict management literature is used to help identify ways that these problems can be addressed.
By understanding the sources of no-confidence votes against presidents, colleges and universities can attempt to stop them from occurring. The practical benefits are profound; the campus community can heal and participants can truly fix institutional issues in a productive manner.