William Allan Kritsonis, PhD, The Texas Council of Faculty Senates, October 24-25 2014 - Invited Guest Speaker, Austin, Texas. Keynote Speaker.

1. 1
The Texas Council of Faculty Senates
Meeting held with American Association of University Professors
(AAUP)
Embassy Suites, Austin, Texas
October 24 – 25, 2014
Keynote Speaker
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Professor
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
THE IMPORTANCE OF SHARED GOVERNANCE
The focus of my remarks will be on ways faculty and
administrators can work together to implement and carry-out
shared governance. With 39 colleges and university representatives
here today, I hope my remarks will serve to help improve higher
education. I gathered input from selected faculty members,
department heads, chairs, deans, and provosts from the across the
United States, especially Texas. My talk will reflect their input
along with giving my comments throughout. I will provide
suggestions for implementing shared governance for faculty,
administrators, and faculty senate members. My discussion will be
guided by two questions.
Question One: How can administrators demonstrate to faculty
they have value, worth, and importance in higher education?
a. Administrators should be human. They should give personal
thanks, personal recognition, and personal compliments!
They should let people know when they have done well. This
should not occur in an email, especially not a general email
to the faculty thanking one and all. Administrators should

2. 2
provide accolades through one-on-one conversations. Group
thanks don’t work either. I know this takes time, but if an
administrator cannot take the time to make that personable
contact, then the message is sent that they don’t value their
faculty. In addition, administrators could write personal notes
of appreciation and encouragement. They could give
recognition in print documents and social media and in public
meetings or nice receptions, pointing out specific faculty’s
accomplishments after having thanked the respective faculty
member in person. Other ideas include having an annual
event that highlights faculty members’ accomplishments,
giving faculty awards, and writing positive letters for tenure
and promotion portfolios.
b. Administrators should use these activities in promotion and
tenure decisions, merit pay, and workload decisions.
c. Administrators should utilize data when making decisions.
They should focus on facts, and understand policy.
Administrators should not focus on power struggles, but
operate with a premise of valuing faculty and their input.
They should do what is best for the institution overall and put
their egos aside.
d. Communication is essential in any relationship. It is good for
administrators to listen to faculty in open forums and not just
placate or present their own agenda-- really listening is the
key. Faculty should be involved in budgeting, curriculum,
operations, safety, and so on. Administrators should provide
a platform for faculty to have a voice in all of those things;
not only the faculty senate. Faculty should also have a voice
on the various governing committees around the university.
e. Administrators should listen to everyone and find ways of
incorporating what they say into discussions. They should

3. 3
make certain to set up conversation spaces that are "safe" and
respectful of the individual voice.
f. Administrators need to inform faculty of new mandated
initiatives once they have been approved. This involves
consulting with faculty about competing responsibilities with
consideration for how to structure the new initiatives to fit
with the faculty members’ established responsibilities.
Administrators need to schedule informational meetings with
faculty and invite other appropriate university administrators
to college activities.
g. Administrators should support and reward that which is
valued. This is far beyond the tenure/promotion process. This
involves professional development, faculty mentoring, and
rewarding excellence in teaching, research, and service. Too
often, the status quo is the safest route to follow. The pursuit
of excellence draws fire while anonymity provides safety.
Administrators also need to allow failure to occur. Those
who chart new waters are those who face failure the most
often. If administrators focus on failure, innovation is stifled.
h. Administrators could provide stipends for big things, if
money is available, rather than just designating faculty
productivity as simply “service.”
i. Administrators should actively seek out small pockets of
money to fund research and teaching initiatives.
j. Administrators could provide funds to make presentations.
k. Administrators could fund graduate assistants.
l. Administrators could award sabbaticals to write and conduct
research to highly productive professors.

4. 4
m.Administrators could award course release time to complete
special projects like grants, being a Director of a Masters or
Doctoral program, or chairing a large number of theses or
dissertations.
n. Administrators should respect faculty’s time and not hold
excessive meetings.
o. Administrators should trust the expertise and talents of
faculty members. They are in the position for a reason.
p. Administrators could structure mentoring and collaboration
on writing articles for publication.
Question Two: What are some ways faculty members and
administrators can work together to develop and carry out
shared governance at every level (dept., college, university)?
Faculty can work with administrators to develop and carry-out
shared governance by focusing on the following:
a. Faculty should let administrators know when they are doing a
good job. Just as we want our administrators to value our
worth; we should value their worth.
b. Faculty should volunteer for activities that support the
institution, not just their own agenda.
c. Faculty must have an understanding of how the governance
structures work at the university and state levels. Then, when
there is concern, Faculty Senates can provide several
alternative solutions (not just complaints). Lines of open
communication between faculty and administrators are
critical to maintain.
d. Faculty need to understand the complexity of the positions
held by administrators, department chairs, and supervisors.

5. 5
Though many administrators are faster than a speeding bullet,
faster than a speeding locomotive, and able to leap a tall
building in a single bound, others do not have these amazing
powers. In short, administrators are people too! Faculty need
to temper their expectations in light of the reality of today's
environment.
e. Faculty members say too many decisions are formulated
using the top-down method of leadership. They say there
needs to be more faculty involvement in Taskforce meetings,
board meetings, institutional university committees, and so
forth. They tell me that in the last year, some institutions
decided not to send faculty to the Board of Regents meetings
in Austin due to cost factors and other issues. Decisions like
these are detrimental to collaborative leadership. Faculty
members were disappointed to find out that they were no
longer encouraged to attend due to cost constraints. How can
we eliminate faculty from the most important decisions
taking place in higher education in Texas? They say these
meetings were some of the most interactive sessions that
allowed faculty members to collaborate with university
administrators, chairs, deans, provosts, and board regents.
f. Faculty members need to recognize that administrators often
have more on their plate than an individual faculty realizes.
Trust their intentions until there's evidence of ill intentions.
Administrators can work with faculty to develop and carry-out
shared governance by focusing on the following:
a. Administrators should not focus on power struggles, but
operate with a premise of valuing faculty and their input. Do
what is best for the institution overall. Put egos aside and be
informed. If leaders oversee different colleges and
departments, they have to have sound information about the
standards and measures those units need to adhere to. If

6. 6
leaders are uninformed, impulsive, and emotional in
communicating with, addressing and interacting with faculty,
they will facilitate an atmosphere of distrust, confusion, low
morale, and dissension.
b. Administrators need to be transparent (have conversations)
with faculty about the governance of the university. It is
better for administrators to share openly with the faculty as
opposed for them to read it (whatever "it" is) in the
newspaper or see it on the news.
First, administrators should look at senate policies and
college policies to determine what is working, what needs to
altered or changed. Then begin the discussions--maybe a
college meeting where all are included and then a
college/department committee group.
Second, administrators need to remember the conversations
must be on going and must be ones where everyone feels
they have a voice.
Third, administrators should talk about faculty governance
issues at the time of hiring deans, chairs, faculty, and so on.
Create a community of shared governance.
c. Administrators should clarify their duties in an effort to
provide faculty with an enhanced commitment and
understanding of the university’s mission. The higher
education structure may not often be known by faculty
coming up the ranks. Faculty work with the students and their
scholarship, but it may take years before they understand the
institutional structure. Reports and accountability are
developed through bottom up reports. Any restructure and its'
implications are also sometimes decided without the
participation of faculty or the senate.

7. 7
d. Administrators need to demonstrate they value feedback from
faculty. Faculty should be able to witness change based upon
their recommendations.
e. Administrators should be genuine when faculty input is
sought. There is nothing worse than convening faculty for
show only.
Faculty and Administrators can work together to develop and
carry-out shared governance by focusing on the following:
a. Both Faculty and Administrators should maintain open
channels of communication. Allow for questions and
answers. There should be transparency with reasonable
expectations which may be developed and articulated as a
process between faculty and administration.
b. Faculty and Administrators should follow through on
commitments made.
c. Faculty and Administrators should adhere to job
expectations.
d. Both Faculty and Administrators should take ownership of
their mistakes with a commitment to correct errors when
discovered.
e. Above all, both Faculty and Administrators should possess
integrity at all times.
The Faculty Senate can work together to develop and carry-
out shared governance by focusing on the following:
a. Faculty Senate should seek out open forum opportunities for
administrators to answer faculty questions. Faculty should
provide questions in advance or at least give a heads up
regarding themes to be addressed. The purpose is not to

8. 8
surprise or corner the administrator which would have the
opposite effect.
b. Faculty Senate members could have regular breakfast or
coffee with the provost or president to have informal
opportunities to interact and exchange information about
what is going on at the University.
c. Faculty Senate could find ways to acknowledge various
administrators throughout the University who have made
good decisions or initiated good projects that improve service
to students or faculty. This is not limited to senior level
academic faculty--could include admissions, financial aid,
and so forth.
d. Faculty Senate should conduct periodic administrator
performance evaluations with the results shared with both the
faculty and administrators. Evaluations should be pertinent to
each administrator’s role. Evaluations affect change. The
goal should be to see what objectives were met and what
worked well. The evaluation should also focus on what
objectives were not met and why. Finally, changes should be
suggested that lead to improved understanding and
productive change.
Closing Remarks
In closing, the best way that faculty and administrators can work
together to develop and carry out shared governance is to invite the
provost to talk for 10 minutes or less at each Faculty Senate
meeting and describe potential initiatives; all initiatives, not just
curricular. This way the sharing begins with the distribution and
dissemination of information from the administration. It’s a two
way street. The Faculty Senate shares information as well.
Administrators should "listen" to the faculty, but not be
patronizing. They can emphasize that it takes multiple voices to

9. 9
solve problems and look to the future. The faculty's real power is
residual and usually in hiring and evaluating peer performance.
Faculty members have the power to say no and in some instances
block unwanted mandates. The faculty’s power to initiate is limited
because the financial power is with the administration.
The relationship ought to be based on a mutual understanding of
the role of each, their spheres of influence, and interests. On key
issues, the faculty should be consulted or even polled. Neither the
administration nor faculty is going to indicate that their power is
contingent on the other because that would admit to limitations.
There will always be tension, but it can be managed in a
respectful and reciprocal way. The idea is to manage it because it
can never be eliminated. The faculty's power is legislative. The
administration's power is executive. There is a fundamental
difference in how things get done. The solution is to keep an open
dialogue between faculty and administration so that shared
governance can take place at all levels of the university.
Finally, I recommend we begin conversations relative to
implementing a model that will improve faculty and administrator
accountability, interactions, and effectiveness. Effective
organizational leadership is by design. An organization, such as the
university, if governed with clear roles, responsibilities, and goals
are destined to succeed because of a coherent message, purpose,
and process. Faculty and administrators can more effectively
facilitate success for the university, colleges, and departments by
articulating a supervision leadership model for how all of us
interact with one another pertaining to our specific responsibilities.
The Badgett-Kritsonis Supervision Leadership Model (BK-SLM;
©2014) focuses on six fundamental principles of effective
supervision. This model emphasizes reasonable expectations that
are clearly communicated and consistently enforced. Results are

10. 10
monitored and evaluated for effectiveness. The expectations are
systematically reinforced or revised.
At the university level, for faculty, reinforcement means words of
praise, stipends, merit pay, promotion, tenure, course reduction, or
any of the other suggestions previously given. Sometimes,
expectations have to be revised. This could be in the form of
revising your annual goals in the areas of teaching, research, and
service. The Badgett-Kritsonis Supervision Leadership Model can
be used by both faculty and administrators to ensure
accountability, ongoing communication, and effectiveness. The
model helps all of us to cultivate trust that leads to a high degree of
professionalism and a feeling of worth, belonging, and security in
job performance because expectations have been clearly
communicated and mutually agreed upon. The overall goal of the
model is to ensure that expectations are achieved that are vital to
the university, college, or department’s mission and vision. It is a
win-win for both faculty and administrators, but most importantly,
it leads to student success.
Badgett-Kritsonis Supervision Leadership Model (BK-SLM)
Step One: Expectations must be reasonable. Step Two:
Expectations clearly communicated. Step Three: Expectations
consistently enforced. Once these foundational steps are
established, the supervisor advances to the fourth, fifth, and sixth
steps. Step Four: Results monitored. Step Five: Results evaluated
for effectiveness. Step Six: Expectations reinforced or revised in a
systematic, measured, and safe manner. This model is grounded on
effective decision making.

11. 11
Badgett-Kritsonis Supervision Leadership Model (BK-SLM)
The Badgett-Kritsonis Supervision Leadership Model (BK-SLM; ©2014) focuses on six
fundamental principles of effective supervision. Step One: Expectations must be reasonable. Step
Two: Expectations clearly communicated. Step Three: Expectations consistently enforced. Once
these foundational steps are established, the supervisor advances to the fourth, fifth, and sixth
steps. Step Four: Results monitored. Step Five: Results evaluated for effectiveness. Step Six:
Expectations reinforced or revised in a systematic, measured, and safe manner. This model is
grounded on effective decision making.
FOUNDATION LEVELS ADVANCED LEVELS
Step One: Expectations must be reasonable Step Four: Results monitored
Step Two: Expectations clearly communicated Step Five: Results evaluated for effectiveness
Step Three: Expectations consistently enforced Step Six: Expectations reinforced or revised
1. Reasonable
Expectations
2. Clearly
Communicated
3. Consistently
Enforced
4. Monitored
5. Evaluated
6. Reinforced
or Revised

12. 12
Contact Information
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Professor
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
College of Education-MB 3108
4901 E. University
Odessa, Texas 79762
University: kritsonis_w@utpb.edu
Cell: 832-483-7889 Other: 281-550-5700
Personal: williamkritsonis@yahoo.com
COPYRIGHT © 2014 by William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
All Rights Reserved