Professor Benon C Basheka, PhD 
Dean, School of Business and 
Management 
Uganda Technology and Management 
University (UTAMU)
 A university (or any HEI) is complex in terms 
of people, processes, structures and 
systems. 
 Universities are no longer regarded as “ivory 
towers”- they are now increasingly 
challenged to show why they exist 
 Universities are now regarded as enterprises 
that produce and distribute a public good-which 
is knowledge
 Universities now operate in a globalised 
environment and this has expectations on the 
way managers and leaders run these enterprises 
 Serious problems (internally and externally 
generated) confront managers and leaders of 
Universities 
 Solutions that worked yesterday may now not 
work today and tomorrow due to the complexity 
of changes
 Universities are now walking on a tight rope:- 
•Increasing demands from both internal and external 
stakeholders 
•Limited funding but they are expected to do 
more with less 
•Serious diversity challenges are seriously 
undermining the true essence of a 
university 
•Students increasingly want their participation in 
university management –a fact that challenges the role 
of university leaders and managers
 Academic leaders and managers are on the 
‘spot’ and challenged to be more inspirational 
and provide direction in advancing the 
‘corporate strategy’ of Universities 
 Issues of relevance and employability of 
university graduates continue to be thorny 
issues 
 Unresponsiveness of university systems and 
processes to the changing realities
 Dichotomy between public and private 
universities seem to be increasing and even 
within each there are groupings 
 The exact role of governing councils are being 
questioned within the university set up 
 Debates also exist on the relationship between 
universities and NCHE given the long held 
traditions of university autonomy
 Role of students in governance of universities 
 Staff associations and their increased 
‘activism’ are key fundamental governance 
issues 
 Non-payment and financing issues have 
become perennial issues for discussion 
whenever higher education experts meet
S. Asiimwe and G.M. Steyn (2013) found the 
following Obstacles faced by universities in Uganda:- 
•Internal politics 
•Lack of commitment 
•Bureaucracy in management 
•Conflicting values in the institution 
•Centralisation of authority and decision-making 
•Insufficient financing to implement decisions 
•Financing higher education 
•Insufficient remuneration and low morale 
•Globalisation and increased competition
 All these issues point to a poor corporate 
governance culture and some ‘crisis’ . 
 Over time, application of private sector styles to 
promoting efficiency and effectiveness in 
university governance have been recommended 
 Does it mean private universities are better 
governed in Uganda than public universities? 
 Let us put our debate in context
 The state had a central role in the delivery of 
public services (higher education inclusive) 
 The concept of administration occupied a 
central position as opposed to management 
 The distinction between public and private 
sector organizations was not emphasized 
 Institutions were based on structures and 
extensively in rules and regulations
 The state was diagnosed to be part of the 
‘problem’ in delivery of public services 
 The state was argued to be too big, inefficient, 
bureaucratic, ineffective, and corrupt 
 Public administration was blamed for the crisis 
 A solution had to be quickly identified
 Many economic and political reforms 
were instituted and the higher education sector 
was a beneficiary of such reforms 
 The distinction between public and private 
sector now became clear 
 Public sector was the problem and private 
sector was the solution
 The introduction of private-sector styles of 
management in running of government 
activities became the key strategy 
 The word management became widely used 
and administration almost disappeared 
 There was preference for business 
administration graduates instead of public 
administration graduates
 Traditional administrative practices were 
replaced with business-like styles of 
management practices 
 Emergence of new modes of service delivery 
like:- 
•Decentralization of service deliver y (NCHE 
being created) 
•Public-private partnerships 
•Outsourcing 
•Contracting out 
•User charges and cost sharing arrangements 
•Performance- based Contracts
 Reinventing 
 Re-engineering 
 Retooling 
 Reform 
 Total quality management 
 Result oriented management 
 Performance based systems 
 Contract-based employment
•The question on who should be involved in 
service delivery 
 The Government 
 The Private sector 
 The third sector 
 The citizens 
 The media 
 The development par tners 
 The church 
 Cultural institutions
 Good and Bad governance 
 Local governance 
 Corporate governance 
 Global governance 
 Procurement governance 
 Judicial governance 
 University Governance 
 Environmental governance 
 Health governance
 Expected to apply the corporate governance 
principles and practices 
 Expected to exercise the highest degree of 
efficiency and effectiveness given the 
prescription that had been given just like 
elsewhere: Liberalize, Private and Stabilize 
 Managers were supposed to be allowed to 
manage but under stringent performance 
frameworks
 As Hoare (1995:41) noted, universities must 
recognize they have important differences from 
other public and private sector enterprises-they 
need to maintain autonomy and protect and 
enhance academic freedom of staff. 
 Universities, represent several professions which 
make it even harder to get cohesion in a set of 
goals.
 The commonly agreed elements of good 
governance in any organization apply to 
universities: 
•Accountability 
•Transparency 
•Efficiency 
•Equity 
•Participation, and 
•Effectiveness
 How should universities relate to NCHE and what 
exactly is the mandate of NCHE visa vis that of 
universities in Uganda? 
 What level of autonomy should universities have 
visa vis the legal requirements of NCHE and 
their mandate? 
 What should be the exact size and composition 
of [university] councils?
 How should different constituencies be 
represented on key governance structures at 
university level but also at NCHE? 
 How should universities be financed amidst 
declining government funding? 
 What should be the key roles of university 
councils and board of trustees? 
 Should the ministry of education officials be 
represented in universities councils and 
governing bodies?
 Corporate Governance, it means the system of 
rules, practices and processes by which a 
university [company] is directed and controlled. 
 It involves balancing the interests of the many 
internal stakeholders in a university [company] 
– like its shareholders, management, staffs, 
students and a variety of external stakeholders 
like customers, regulators, suppliers, financiers, 
government and the community.
 Governance is “the process for distributing 
authority, power and influence for academic 
decisions among campus constituencies 
•The board of trustees 
•Faculty 
•Students 
•Staff 
•Administrators 
•The academic or education council/senate, and unions 
•Committees and sub-committees that include these 
representatives may also play a role.
 Council/Board of trustees: Supreme organ 
(final authority); 
 Vice-chancellor/Rector: holds delegated 
authority with his team of administrators; 
 Faculty: Creators of new knowledge. In 
practice, faculty is supreme in academic 
matters such as curriculum, appointment of 
academic staff, admission requirements, etc.;
 Students: Key partners in the university, 
variously described as consumers or 
customers in the academic enterprise; 
 Unions: Sometimes referred to as network 
leaders; and 
 Non-academic staff, particularly senior 
administrative and professional staff.
 Work with NCHE on a variety of functions 
 NCHE mandate is 
•To regulate higher education, and to guide the 
establishment of institutions of higher learning as well 
as ensure that quality and relevant education is 
delivered 
 NCHE has its structures through which it 
operates
 The Council consists of eighteen persons, the 
majority of whom are representatives of 
various social constituencies including:- 
•Public and private universities 
•Religious organizations, commerce, industry, 
agriculture 
•The general public 
•The Ministry of Education 
•People with disabilities.
 Chairperson appointed by the president 
 Vice Chairperson elected by the Council 
member 
 Two Representative of Vice-Chancellors of 
Public and private Universities. 
 Two Senates Representative Private and public 
Universities
 Four Representative of religious non-degree 
awarding institutions appointed by the Minister 
of Education 
 Three Representative from Commerce, 
industry and agricultural Sector 
 Four members of other sectors of higher 
education
 One Representative of the public elected by 
the Council 
 One Representative of people with disabilities 
 An officer in charge of Higher Education, 
Ministry of Education and Sports 
 Two Representatives of Students from 
Tertiary and Universities 
 Executive Director, National Council for Higher 
Education
 Two views exist on this subject 
•Those that argue for small governing bodies in 
universities place an emphasis on what appears to 
produce efficient and effective corporate practices. 
•But what a small governing body may not do well is to 
permit more participatory or cooperative forms of 
decision-making and allow for stakeholder 
representation where there are multiple 
accountabilities.
 Historical forces lead to relatively large 
governing bodies of universities 
 Uniqueness of universities needing mechanisms 
for protecting academic independence 
 Finding an appropriate balance between 
external and internal members
 “capture” by members internal to the university 
when they have a significant proportion of total 
membership? 
 Coaldrake (1998:171) claims that some 
governing bodies are indeed captured by the 
self-interests of inside members.
 Clarifying the university’s mission and purpose 
 Appointing, supporting, and monitoring the chief 
executive’s performance 
 Assessing the university’s development and 
progress as a HEI 
 Participating in strategic planning 
 Reviewing educational and public service 
programmes
 Ensuring adequate resources and ensuring 
good management 
 Preserving institutional independence within 
the confines of the system 
 Relating campus to community and community 
to campus; and 
 Serving as a court of appeal.
 A: Rubber-stamp Council- 
•Brings no additionality to the university and is thus 
amenable to whatever strategy or programme is 
submitted for its approval. 
•Enormous responsibility and power are placed in the 
hands of the vice chancellor or on one council 
member. 
•In the worst-case scenario, rubber-stamp councils, 
which do not act as a check and balance, leave the 
university vulnerable to mismanagement and fraud.
B: Representational Council 
•Open doors for the university that would otherwise 
remain closed or hard to open. A representational council 
member might improve the university’s ability to establish 
key linkages. 
•Increase the university’s access to information outside its 
direct area of operations and enhance its national and 
international exposure. 
•Maintain necessary oversight in part to ensure that their 
names and reputations are not damaged by their 
association with a poorly performing university.
 Raise issues that are at the core of the proper 
functioning of the university and will not be 
distracted by peripheral or semi-peripheral 
concerns. 
 Engage in more constructive and challenging 
discourse with management and provide the 
type of useful analysis that enables 
management to pursue increasingly higher 
levels of performance.
 Accompany good management and, if 
necessary, take the lead in defining the overall 
strategy of the university and work closely with 
management in overseeing its implementation. 
 Understand the difference between its strategy-based 
role and the operational responsibilities 
of management. 
 Be more likely to identify quickly and effectively 
shortcomings in the council’s functioning and 
seek to address them.
 A multi-type council includes members who 
play a representational role and those who 
are well-informed about the operations of the 
university and have solid expertise, here 
termed hands-on.
 University experience. Including 
individuals in the council with experience in 
the area of management of universities, or 
who have held senior academic positions, can 
be very valuable to the university. 
 Business sense. A council must have solid 
business sense, with some financial expertise.
 Legal exper tise. All universities will benefit 
from individual members who bring legal 
expertise to their councils. 
 Project planning. With increasing numbers 
of students and growing campuses, universities 
need individuals who can assist in drawing up 
development plans for them that maximise the 
use of existing resources.
 Public relations. Universities must be 
concerned with the image they project to the 
clients and to the public at large and must be 
able to conduct outreach campaigns. 
 Fundraising. Council members are expected 
to play an active role in fundraising and 
proposal writing. Individuals with prior 
experience and contacts represent a significant 
asset.
 Demographics. Universities that operate 
nationally may select members to represent 
different regions. 
•Moreover, those that operate across national borders 
should endeavour to have a council member from the 
places as well. 
•These members might contribute to broadening the 
perspective of the council.
 Executive and staf f members. The vice 
chancellor is often a member of the council 
and other senior management teams (SMTs). 
•Consensus exists among governance experts, however, 
that for adequate oversight, the number of SMT 
members serving on a council should be limited. 
 Staf f/student par ticipation. The risk that 
arises when staff and/or student 
representatives sit on the councils of 
universities is that their presence may become 
one of form rather than substance.
 Unicameral Governance –governed by a single 
governing body responsible for both administrative and 
academic matters (Mount Royal College, 2005). 
 Bicameral Governance - governed by two 
legislative bodies: i) a governing board and (ii) a senate 
or a university/educational council 
 Tri-cameral Governance– governed by three 
legislative bodies 
a governing board a senate iii) a(n) 
university/educational council 
 Hybrid Governance 
 Shale (2002) defines hybrid governance as a blend of 
governance, usually unicameral (board or a 
faculty/academic council or a faculty council established 
by academic council).
 Political influence 
 Strict government regulations, policies, and 
laws 
 Pressure from 
shareholders/stockholders/stakeholders 
 Financial constraints 
 Conflict of interest 
 Little knowledge about the law among many 
board members
 Limited access to vital information 
 Lack of appropriate skills 
 Little commitment by some boards and/or 
board members 
 Disagreements between the board team and 
the chief executive officer 
 Little ability to cope with change 
 Lack of consensus 
 Reputation risk 
 Duo position
 Responsibility for the failures of the corporation 
 Lack of alignment of board and management 
 Over- emphasis on financial matters 
 Pre-determined board decisions/judgment 
 Insubordination 
 Subject to public scrutiny / loss of privacy/ 
declaration of wealth
 Boards are expensive to maintain 
 Detached from the people they represent 
 CEO doubling as the board chair 
 Worsening levels of corruption
 What organizational architecture is needed to 
address the challenges?-the architecture 
question 
 What values are needed to transform 
universities?-the values question
 What qualities will be needed of leaders and 
managers to be able to foster meaningful 
dialogue between the various segments of 
the community and university?-the quality 
question 
 How should university leaders and managers 
be accountable? The accountability 
question
 The Image of a university or any institution is 
determined by the caliber of leaders and 
managers 
 The linkage between universities and NCHE is 
clear and each needs to do their roles 
 The environment of managing of yesterday is 
not the environment of today and tomorrow
 Need to continuously empower councils and 
boards on best practices will save the crises 
that often come associated with most 
institutions 
 Members of councils need to be given clear 
terms of reference and their performance 
should annually or quarterly be assessed on 
agreed benchmarks
 I cannot give you the formula for success, but I 
can give you the formula for failure: which is: 
Try to please everybody (Herber t B. Swope) 
 The task of leadership is not to put greatness 
into people, but to elicit it, for the greatness is 
there already (John Buchan)
 The best executive is the one who has sense 
enough to pick good men to do what he wants 
done, and self-restraint to keep from meddling 
with them while they do it (Theodore 
Roosevelt)

Best Practices on Corporate Governance of Higher Education InstitutionsPp2

  • 1.
    Professor Benon CBasheka, PhD Dean, School of Business and Management Uganda Technology and Management University (UTAMU)
  • 2.
     A university(or any HEI) is complex in terms of people, processes, structures and systems.  Universities are no longer regarded as “ivory towers”- they are now increasingly challenged to show why they exist  Universities are now regarded as enterprises that produce and distribute a public good-which is knowledge
  • 3.
     Universities nowoperate in a globalised environment and this has expectations on the way managers and leaders run these enterprises  Serious problems (internally and externally generated) confront managers and leaders of Universities  Solutions that worked yesterday may now not work today and tomorrow due to the complexity of changes
  • 4.
     Universities arenow walking on a tight rope:- •Increasing demands from both internal and external stakeholders •Limited funding but they are expected to do more with less •Serious diversity challenges are seriously undermining the true essence of a university •Students increasingly want their participation in university management –a fact that challenges the role of university leaders and managers
  • 5.
     Academic leadersand managers are on the ‘spot’ and challenged to be more inspirational and provide direction in advancing the ‘corporate strategy’ of Universities  Issues of relevance and employability of university graduates continue to be thorny issues  Unresponsiveness of university systems and processes to the changing realities
  • 6.
     Dichotomy betweenpublic and private universities seem to be increasing and even within each there are groupings  The exact role of governing councils are being questioned within the university set up  Debates also exist on the relationship between universities and NCHE given the long held traditions of university autonomy
  • 7.
     Role ofstudents in governance of universities  Staff associations and their increased ‘activism’ are key fundamental governance issues  Non-payment and financing issues have become perennial issues for discussion whenever higher education experts meet
  • 8.
    S. Asiimwe andG.M. Steyn (2013) found the following Obstacles faced by universities in Uganda:- •Internal politics •Lack of commitment •Bureaucracy in management •Conflicting values in the institution •Centralisation of authority and decision-making •Insufficient financing to implement decisions •Financing higher education •Insufficient remuneration and low morale •Globalisation and increased competition
  • 9.
     All theseissues point to a poor corporate governance culture and some ‘crisis’ .  Over time, application of private sector styles to promoting efficiency and effectiveness in university governance have been recommended  Does it mean private universities are better governed in Uganda than public universities?  Let us put our debate in context
  • 10.
     The statehad a central role in the delivery of public services (higher education inclusive)  The concept of administration occupied a central position as opposed to management  The distinction between public and private sector organizations was not emphasized  Institutions were based on structures and extensively in rules and regulations
  • 11.
     The statewas diagnosed to be part of the ‘problem’ in delivery of public services  The state was argued to be too big, inefficient, bureaucratic, ineffective, and corrupt  Public administration was blamed for the crisis  A solution had to be quickly identified
  • 12.
     Many economicand political reforms were instituted and the higher education sector was a beneficiary of such reforms  The distinction between public and private sector now became clear  Public sector was the problem and private sector was the solution
  • 13.
     The introductionof private-sector styles of management in running of government activities became the key strategy  The word management became widely used and administration almost disappeared  There was preference for business administration graduates instead of public administration graduates
  • 14.
     Traditional administrativepractices were replaced with business-like styles of management practices  Emergence of new modes of service delivery like:- •Decentralization of service deliver y (NCHE being created) •Public-private partnerships •Outsourcing •Contracting out •User charges and cost sharing arrangements •Performance- based Contracts
  • 15.
     Reinventing Re-engineering  Retooling  Reform  Total quality management  Result oriented management  Performance based systems  Contract-based employment
  • 16.
    •The question onwho should be involved in service delivery  The Government  The Private sector  The third sector  The citizens  The media  The development par tners  The church  Cultural institutions
  • 17.
     Good andBad governance  Local governance  Corporate governance  Global governance  Procurement governance  Judicial governance  University Governance  Environmental governance  Health governance
  • 18.
     Expected toapply the corporate governance principles and practices  Expected to exercise the highest degree of efficiency and effectiveness given the prescription that had been given just like elsewhere: Liberalize, Private and Stabilize  Managers were supposed to be allowed to manage but under stringent performance frameworks
  • 19.
     As Hoare(1995:41) noted, universities must recognize they have important differences from other public and private sector enterprises-they need to maintain autonomy and protect and enhance academic freedom of staff.  Universities, represent several professions which make it even harder to get cohesion in a set of goals.
  • 20.
     The commonlyagreed elements of good governance in any organization apply to universities: •Accountability •Transparency •Efficiency •Equity •Participation, and •Effectiveness
  • 21.
     How shoulduniversities relate to NCHE and what exactly is the mandate of NCHE visa vis that of universities in Uganda?  What level of autonomy should universities have visa vis the legal requirements of NCHE and their mandate?  What should be the exact size and composition of [university] councils?
  • 22.
     How shoulddifferent constituencies be represented on key governance structures at university level but also at NCHE?  How should universities be financed amidst declining government funding?  What should be the key roles of university councils and board of trustees?  Should the ministry of education officials be represented in universities councils and governing bodies?
  • 24.
     Corporate Governance,it means the system of rules, practices and processes by which a university [company] is directed and controlled.  It involves balancing the interests of the many internal stakeholders in a university [company] – like its shareholders, management, staffs, students and a variety of external stakeholders like customers, regulators, suppliers, financiers, government and the community.
  • 25.
     Governance is“the process for distributing authority, power and influence for academic decisions among campus constituencies •The board of trustees •Faculty •Students •Staff •Administrators •The academic or education council/senate, and unions •Committees and sub-committees that include these representatives may also play a role.
  • 26.
     Council/Board oftrustees: Supreme organ (final authority);  Vice-chancellor/Rector: holds delegated authority with his team of administrators;  Faculty: Creators of new knowledge. In practice, faculty is supreme in academic matters such as curriculum, appointment of academic staff, admission requirements, etc.;
  • 27.
     Students: Keypartners in the university, variously described as consumers or customers in the academic enterprise;  Unions: Sometimes referred to as network leaders; and  Non-academic staff, particularly senior administrative and professional staff.
  • 28.
     Work withNCHE on a variety of functions  NCHE mandate is •To regulate higher education, and to guide the establishment of institutions of higher learning as well as ensure that quality and relevant education is delivered  NCHE has its structures through which it operates
  • 29.
     The Councilconsists of eighteen persons, the majority of whom are representatives of various social constituencies including:- •Public and private universities •Religious organizations, commerce, industry, agriculture •The general public •The Ministry of Education •People with disabilities.
  • 30.
     Chairperson appointedby the president  Vice Chairperson elected by the Council member  Two Representative of Vice-Chancellors of Public and private Universities.  Two Senates Representative Private and public Universities
  • 31.
     Four Representativeof religious non-degree awarding institutions appointed by the Minister of Education  Three Representative from Commerce, industry and agricultural Sector  Four members of other sectors of higher education
  • 32.
     One Representativeof the public elected by the Council  One Representative of people with disabilities  An officer in charge of Higher Education, Ministry of Education and Sports  Two Representatives of Students from Tertiary and Universities  Executive Director, National Council for Higher Education
  • 33.
     Two viewsexist on this subject •Those that argue for small governing bodies in universities place an emphasis on what appears to produce efficient and effective corporate practices. •But what a small governing body may not do well is to permit more participatory or cooperative forms of decision-making and allow for stakeholder representation where there are multiple accountabilities.
  • 34.
     Historical forceslead to relatively large governing bodies of universities  Uniqueness of universities needing mechanisms for protecting academic independence  Finding an appropriate balance between external and internal members
  • 35.
     “capture” bymembers internal to the university when they have a significant proportion of total membership?  Coaldrake (1998:171) claims that some governing bodies are indeed captured by the self-interests of inside members.
  • 36.
     Clarifying theuniversity’s mission and purpose  Appointing, supporting, and monitoring the chief executive’s performance  Assessing the university’s development and progress as a HEI  Participating in strategic planning  Reviewing educational and public service programmes
  • 37.
     Ensuring adequateresources and ensuring good management  Preserving institutional independence within the confines of the system  Relating campus to community and community to campus; and  Serving as a court of appeal.
  • 38.
     A: Rubber-stampCouncil- •Brings no additionality to the university and is thus amenable to whatever strategy or programme is submitted for its approval. •Enormous responsibility and power are placed in the hands of the vice chancellor or on one council member. •In the worst-case scenario, rubber-stamp councils, which do not act as a check and balance, leave the university vulnerable to mismanagement and fraud.
  • 39.
    B: Representational Council •Open doors for the university that would otherwise remain closed or hard to open. A representational council member might improve the university’s ability to establish key linkages. •Increase the university’s access to information outside its direct area of operations and enhance its national and international exposure. •Maintain necessary oversight in part to ensure that their names and reputations are not damaged by their association with a poorly performing university.
  • 40.
     Raise issuesthat are at the core of the proper functioning of the university and will not be distracted by peripheral or semi-peripheral concerns.  Engage in more constructive and challenging discourse with management and provide the type of useful analysis that enables management to pursue increasingly higher levels of performance.
  • 41.
     Accompany goodmanagement and, if necessary, take the lead in defining the overall strategy of the university and work closely with management in overseeing its implementation.  Understand the difference between its strategy-based role and the operational responsibilities of management.  Be more likely to identify quickly and effectively shortcomings in the council’s functioning and seek to address them.
  • 42.
     A multi-typecouncil includes members who play a representational role and those who are well-informed about the operations of the university and have solid expertise, here termed hands-on.
  • 43.
     University experience.Including individuals in the council with experience in the area of management of universities, or who have held senior academic positions, can be very valuable to the university.  Business sense. A council must have solid business sense, with some financial expertise.
  • 44.
     Legal expertise. All universities will benefit from individual members who bring legal expertise to their councils.  Project planning. With increasing numbers of students and growing campuses, universities need individuals who can assist in drawing up development plans for them that maximise the use of existing resources.
  • 45.
     Public relations.Universities must be concerned with the image they project to the clients and to the public at large and must be able to conduct outreach campaigns.  Fundraising. Council members are expected to play an active role in fundraising and proposal writing. Individuals with prior experience and contacts represent a significant asset.
  • 46.
     Demographics. Universitiesthat operate nationally may select members to represent different regions. •Moreover, those that operate across national borders should endeavour to have a council member from the places as well. •These members might contribute to broadening the perspective of the council.
  • 47.
     Executive andstaf f members. The vice chancellor is often a member of the council and other senior management teams (SMTs). •Consensus exists among governance experts, however, that for adequate oversight, the number of SMT members serving on a council should be limited.  Staf f/student par ticipation. The risk that arises when staff and/or student representatives sit on the councils of universities is that their presence may become one of form rather than substance.
  • 48.
     Unicameral Governance–governed by a single governing body responsible for both administrative and academic matters (Mount Royal College, 2005).  Bicameral Governance - governed by two legislative bodies: i) a governing board and (ii) a senate or a university/educational council  Tri-cameral Governance– governed by three legislative bodies a governing board a senate iii) a(n) university/educational council  Hybrid Governance  Shale (2002) defines hybrid governance as a blend of governance, usually unicameral (board or a faculty/academic council or a faculty council established by academic council).
  • 49.
     Political influence  Strict government regulations, policies, and laws  Pressure from shareholders/stockholders/stakeholders  Financial constraints  Conflict of interest  Little knowledge about the law among many board members
  • 50.
     Limited accessto vital information  Lack of appropriate skills  Little commitment by some boards and/or board members  Disagreements between the board team and the chief executive officer  Little ability to cope with change  Lack of consensus  Reputation risk  Duo position
  • 51.
     Responsibility forthe failures of the corporation  Lack of alignment of board and management  Over- emphasis on financial matters  Pre-determined board decisions/judgment  Insubordination  Subject to public scrutiny / loss of privacy/ declaration of wealth
  • 52.
     Boards areexpensive to maintain  Detached from the people they represent  CEO doubling as the board chair  Worsening levels of corruption
  • 53.
     What organizationalarchitecture is needed to address the challenges?-the architecture question  What values are needed to transform universities?-the values question
  • 54.
     What qualitieswill be needed of leaders and managers to be able to foster meaningful dialogue between the various segments of the community and university?-the quality question  How should university leaders and managers be accountable? The accountability question
  • 55.
     The Imageof a university or any institution is determined by the caliber of leaders and managers  The linkage between universities and NCHE is clear and each needs to do their roles  The environment of managing of yesterday is not the environment of today and tomorrow
  • 56.
     Need tocontinuously empower councils and boards on best practices will save the crises that often come associated with most institutions  Members of councils need to be given clear terms of reference and their performance should annually or quarterly be assessed on agreed benchmarks
  • 57.
     I cannotgive you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure: which is: Try to please everybody (Herber t B. Swope)  The task of leadership is not to put greatness into people, but to elicit it, for the greatness is there already (John Buchan)
  • 58.
     The bestexecutive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint to keep from meddling with them while they do it (Theodore Roosevelt)