Futureproofing Self-Governance at UZH

UZH is overhauling its governance structure, redefining the remits of the Executive Board and the deans and assigning more direct responsibilities to the faculties. We sat down with Josef Falkinger, head of the Governance 2020+ reform program, to find out more about the goals and aims driving the reorganization effort.

By David Werner; translated by Gena Olson

Josef Falkinger, why is UZH changing its governance structure?

Josef Falkinger: The goal is to make self-governance at the University fit for the future. UZH should be in a position not only to manage the status quo but also to actively shape its own development. We’ve been able to do this up till now, but not to the extent that we wanted. If we want to be able to plan and act even more strategically, both the Executive Board and faculty leadership need to have more capacity and more freedom to operate.

How will the reorganization create more capacity?

By distributing tasks among the Executive Board and the faculty leadership in a more clever way, and by enhancing the role of the deans. The faculties will be granted more freedom for carrying out their responsibilities. They will no longer get their representation towards the Executive Board from the vice presidents but rather from the deans. The vice presidents will be relieved of their representative duties on behalf of the faculties, which will allow them to concentrate on developing the University as a whole.

So the faculties are becoming more independent. Why wasn’t that possible with the previous system?

When we implemented the old system with the vice presidents representing the faculties – this was back in 2006 – the needs and requirements were different. The faculties have become much more professionalized in the meantime, so they no longer need such close supervision from the Executive Board.

With faculties gaining more autonomy, could this accelerate existing forces that are pulling the university in different directions?

These centrifugal forces do exist. At the same time, though, there are also centripetal forces that arise out of the necessity to overcome the great challenges that all higher education institutions are facing right now. Issues like internationalization, digitalization, diversity and equal opportunities, open access, sustainability, lifelong learning – all of these topics concern the University as a whole and call for university-wide strategies. It wouldn't be productive if every faculty chose a different path here. So that's why we’re empowering not only the faculties, but also the cross-faculty offices led by the vice presidents.

Which tendency has the lead at the moment, centralization or decentralization?

Our goal is to have diversity in action within a strong unified university framework. This requires balance between centralized and decentralized leadership. The new governance structure provides for various checks and balances. Responsibility for professors’ appointments, for example, will be divided between the relevant dean and the Vice President Faculty Affairs and Scientific Information. Members of the Executive Board of the University will meet regularly with the deans, and each faculty will align their strategy and budget plans with the Executive Board.

Both the University as a whole and the individual faculties are supposed to have more strategic management in the future. Why is that necessary?

For one simple reason: You simply make better and more consistent decisions when you have a mission statement and a strategy to guide you.

In terms of strategy, which decisions are especially important for the faculties?

Professorial appointments are key decisions for the faculties. After all, the character of each faculty is determined by the individual professors who work there. A lot of questions come into play in these appointments. For instance, what subjects should the professorship being filled focus on?  Should the emphasis be on internationally renowned scholars or rather on up-and-coming researchers? Without a strategy, it's not possible to create a far-sighted plan for the professorial composition of a faculty. The same applies to curriculum development or financial planning or spatial planning.

Are you speaking from experience? You used to be a dean yourself. 

When I took over as dean of the Faculty of Business, Economics and Informatics in 2008, the faculty was in the process of building up a stronger international profile. But there were other developments like the financial crisis that created new questions that our field had to grapple with. During this time, we developed a clear mission statement and worked on a strategy for the faculty as a whole. This process involved a great deal of dialogue within the faculty. It was an intense and sometimes controversial process, but one that definitely had a great impact. We professionalized the office of the dean, created a new structure for the departments and developed a shared culture for the faculty that has turned out to be sustainable.

Was it the strategy itself that strengthened your old faculty, or more the joint effort it took to create the strategy?

Holding an open debate to find the right strategy is at least as important as the strategy itself. And even once a strategy has been formulated, the debate should not end there. We should seize every opportunity to address our goals and principles.

Doesn't this preoccupation with strategic matters distract from the actual academic work at hand?

I wouldn't make such a strict distinction between the two. Both are connected. By reflecting together on how we as a faculty or a department want to develop going forward, we are laying an important foundation for successful academic work in the future.

Is it that important for individual researchers whether they belong to a faculty with good strategic leadership or not?

Our success and achievements depend more strongly on our environment than we believe. Scholarship is a process that relies heavily on a well-organized division of labor. Just think about the various factors that need to be met for good teaching to take place at a university. When I meet fellow academics at a conference, I can quickly tell whether or not they work at a well-run department or university.

UZH is enhancing the role of deans (see box). Will this make the faculties more hierarchal?

I think that academic organizations can only be run in a participatory fashion. Deans act as aggregators of bottom-up forces in their faculties. They take professors’ comments and ideas on board and translate them into structured measures. By expressing all of these perceptions, the deans can create a shared direction for the faculty. For the deans, taking on an enhanced role doesn't mean that they have more leeway to boss people around but rather that they will have to engage in more dialogue.

One change is that the Executive Board of the University will be involved in the recruitment process for new deans. What's the reason for this change?

Deans have a duty not only toward their own faculty but also toward the good of the entire University. For the system of checks and balances that I mentioned earlier, a member of the Executive Board will lead the search committee for each new vacancy. However, the actual selection of the dean will still take place via a vote by the Faculty Assembly.

How attractive will the office of dean be in the future?

The scope for shaping things and leaving one's mark will be greater than before, which makes the job more attractive. At the same time, however, the demands of the position will also grow. You have to really be 100% committed to the job and deprioritize the duties of your professorship. The Executive Board will provide deans with support to this end. Deans will also have to be ready to assimilate a lot of new information in a short timespan and to acquire leadership skills.

Does it even make sense for universities and faculties to be run by academics? Why not hire managers from outside the university?

UZH is a public educational and research institution and as such cannot be run like a company. External managers would not receive much support in a university environment. I'm a strong proponent of the concept of the autonomous university. But autonomy isn't a license to just do whatever you want. It comes with obligations. As a public institution of education and research, UZH is accountable to both the scientific community and the general public. The text above the main entrance to UZH says “Durch den Willen des Volkes” (“by the will of the people”). And as scholars, we have a duty to act on behalf of the pursuit of knowledge. We shouldn't take our academic freedom in terms of teaching and research as a given. We have to demonstrate that we act as responsible stewards of the resources granted to us and that we conduct our work to the highest academic standards.

Governance 2020+ brings big changes for deans and members of the Executive Board. But what do the changes mean for the rest of the UZH community?

Strategic issues are going to play a bigger role on all levels. Professors and bodies represented in the Extended Executive Board of UZH will be more involved in discussions about the basic principles and aims of the University and the faculties. And new important topics will breathe new life into the Faculty Assemblies, like developing clear ground rules for appointing professors or creating more scope for using the financial and spatial resources at the faculties’ disposal.

To wrap up, could you tell us what you have learned about UZH in the two years that you've been running the Governance 2020+ project?

I’ve come to know UZH as an institution that is underpinned by the desire to improve itself and as a place where people can engage with one another openly and constructively.