Administrative decision-making refers to the procedure utilized to make main strategic decisions by an individual or a group of people. In most democratic systems, individuals who make decisions are expected to consult the affected parties and then make decisions that promote the interests of a given organization. the decisions are also expected to resolve interests of stakeholders. The effectiveness of the process, however, depends on the member’s altruism and wisdom. Collegial or shared governance infers to two concepts; one is a group of individuals share in decision making and second is where a certain group exercises control for the decision making process for certain areas. I chose a higher education institution and examined how it has utilized community decision making based on shared governance, the impact on the organization, and its contributions to the community.
Governance oh higher education institutions differs globally ranging from direct control from governments and private moneymaking institutions. Shared governance is often shared; however, boards, governors, and trustees have significant responsibilities (Canhilal et al 2016). Student involvement in shared governance often differs from institution to institution; some committees have student representatives in committees since involving all stakeholders is a main characteristic of administrative decision-making. Most students in higher education institution are allowed to form student assemblies, although they rarely have any formal authority, they are a crucial part of shared governance (Austin & Jones 2015). Campus senate’s most often establish a mechanism for faculty staff to be involved in shared governance. The members of the senate are often elected from each school hence making the senate more inclusive. Campus senate through committees is mandated to make recommendations to the administrative board about institution matters. Most of the decisions made through shared governance include budgeting, strategic directions, academic procedures, promotions, tenures, school programs, admissions, public relations and student matters.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The higher institution had to make a decision on the rising insecurity at the institution; most students have complained to the security department that strangers had been spotted in their hostels. The student welfare committee had to make a decision on the way forward and measures to take to beef up security at the institution. The committee comprises of four faculty staff, security department representatives, and student body representatives. The main mandate of the committee is to attend to student welfare and ensure that their well-being is safeguarded to enhance their experience at the school. The committee members use a collaborative decision making approach that needs the members to embrace a collaborative approach when making decisions. The committee used the consensus method of decision making where all members were heard and participated in the decision making process. Some students were concerned that the institution was not interested in safeguarding their interests anymore since the issue of insecurity had been discussed in a past meeting. The students’ representatives were concerned that some of the strangers roaming around the institution might harbor ill intentions towards the students. One of the representatives even suspected that the strangers were peddling drugs to the students at the institution. However, the security department representatives countered the accusations that they were not doing their jobs by saying that most students were always arrogant when asked to display their student identification cards at all entry points hence their laxity.
Two faculty members proposed two solutions for the problems; first, all students would be required to show their identification cards at all entry points of the institution, failure to show the identification would mean that they would not be admitted at the institution. Secondly, another suggested that the university should create a biometric system where students would use fingerprints to use any facility at the university. The committee decided to deliberate on the two issues suggested. A member of the committee argued that the student identification cards could be replicated by anyone, hence they were no longer reliable. Another member agreed that although the second solution was viable and reliable it was more of a long-term solution and would take the university a lot of time and resources to implement. The committee deliberated on the issue and settled that for the time being the university will install a computer system at all entry points where security would require all students to show identification and the security would verify from the student database. One member was however not convinced that it was the most viable solution but through the process of consensus, the other members explained the positive side of chosen solution. The member eventually accepted and agreed that he could live with that decision and others agreed that they would deliberate on the other solution in consequent meetings. Consensus does not require unanimity rather; members have to agree that they can live with their decisions. Finally, straw polling was used to know how many members agreed; by the show of hands, all members seemed to agree eventually.
Shared governance through administrative decision-making had appositive impact on the institution since it allows the people stakeholders to get involved in finding solutions to their problems. In the case of the higher institution discussed above, the student representatives were involved in the decision making process at the institution. The individuals affected offer more insight of the issue at hand hence the can present diverse views, interpretations and perspectives (Agritsas et al. 2015). Additionally, the process ensures that solutions are tapped from new unexpected sources. The way to develop the best solution is to ask a diverse group of people about their ideas. The policy decisions made in collaboration between the university, students, staff, and faculty would not have been possible through the bureaucratic process alone but also through Collaborative Governance Decision Making (Gumport 2017). By collaborating, the stakeholders share diverse knowledge and perspectives to the issue at hand. Most solutions would not have been selected without the collaborative effort. Through collaborative decision making the institution has succeeded in including people with the most expertise on certain committees. Collaborative decision-making platforms ease the process of stakeholders to get involved while administrators use technology to moderate on gathered input.
Collaborative governance decision making engages the citizens in the community by providing them with opportunities to make a difference including opportunities that influence decisions and actions that affect the community (Canhilal et al. 2016). The process positions community members as issue framers who assist in getting the issue on the community’s agenda and describe the problem and solutions from community members’ perspectives. The process also positions an evaluator of alternative solutions out of an organization’s response to problem. Finally, the process positions the community member as a collaborator in making and implementing solutions. The main challenge of collaborative decision-making governance might result from lack of communication. Failure to communicate ideas among members might result to animosity among members and consequently loss of trust; lack of trust in the process may cause failure. Poor leadership may also result to failure of the process; if a chairperson lacks stable leadership skills, the process might fail due to wrangles in the committee. Lack of teamwork among members of the committee may challenge the process since it is highly reliable on consensus and teamwork (Kaner 2014). Lack of commitment among the decision makers might result to failure of the process. Collaborative decision-making governance requires committed members collect meaningful data on the issue at hand, evaluate alternatives and implement plans.
References
Agoritsas, T., Heen, A. F., Brandt, L., Alonso-Coello, P., Kristiansen, A., Akl, E. A., & Montori, V. M. (2015). Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. Bmj , 350 , g7624.
Austin, I., & Jones, G. A. (2015). Governance of higher education: Global perspectives, theories, and practices : Routledge.
Canhilal, S. K., Lepori, B., & Seeber, M. (2016). Decision-making power and institutional logic in higher education institutions: A comparative analysis of European universities. In Towards a comparative institutionalism: Forms, dynamics, and logics across the organizational fields of health care and higher education (pp. 169-194). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Gumport, P. J. (2017). Public universities as academic workplaces: In the American Academic Profession (pp. 113-136): Routledge.
Kaner, S. (2014). Facilitator's guide to participatory decision-making : John Wiley & Sons.
