Recommended reading for Canadian post-secondary sector. It's about the moose. What moose?
If you work in post-secondary administration; sit on a Board, Senate, Education Council; or a student interested in the structures and challenges of post-secondary - I recommend reading the independent reports about Laurentian University, released by Nous Group last month, a management consulting firm brought in to conduct reviews of the organization after it filed for bankruptcy last year.
Maybe not the latest best seller on media outlets; however, could be become required reading for any administrator or individual involved in governance of post-secondary institutions?
Or, maybe required reading for all those training programs out there for post-secondary administrators and executive members… wait a second… are there any?
_ _ _ _ _
… Hold on, what about that moose? you might ask.
“What moose?”
_ _ _ _ _
Laurentian U, located mainly in Sudbury in northern Ontario, filed for insolvency in February 2021. And, no, it was not because of COVID-19; it was because of years of unaddressed issues. I’ll highlight a few of those in this post, from the independent reports. However, let’s be clear, there are probably many post secondary institutions where the name Laurentian could be taken out, and ##### institution entered. Not necessarily because of potential insolvency, but management processes built upon imagining and not managing realities.
I visited Laurentian U in 2015. I was presenting at a conference. I heard rumblings of some of the issues then. However, anyone that works, navigates, studies, or otherwise within post-secondary institutions knows there’s no shortage of rumblings, groans, and challenges. One of the largest over these last few years was the rapid move to fully online classes.
A testament to the power of immediate necessity - e.g. a pandemic. No strategic plan for that rollout. No presidential edict, or project management office - just sheer necessity.
Yet, in the background is potentially one of the slowest moving, impending train wrecks you have ever seen - that may or may not involve a moose.
What moose? you say.
_ _ _ _ _
A CBC article last month - Laurentian University review calls for major investments to reach 'baseline standard' - provides some info on the two reports released by Nous Group.
There is a Governance Review and an Operational Review (a Real Estate review is yet to come). The Operational review states: “Findings indicate deficiencies across all functions, many of which appear to be operating below a baseline standard.”
The Operational review identified seven areas the university would need to immediately address. More on those below.
The Governance Review has 37 recommendations.
The first two are focussed on the overall governance model at the institution: the bicameral governance structure. There is an article from 2018 in University Affairs that explores what this means. As it states:
In a nutshell, the Board is the highest governing body at a university, overseeing the university’s activities, finances and property. But, it doesn’t do this alone. Most Canadian universities have bicameral governance, meaning that the board, though still the ultimate authority, shares responsibilities with a senate or similar body, which looks after academic matters.
In BC colleges, this similar body is called Education Council (EdCo).
I don’t purport to have an in-depth understanding of governance structures of post-secondary; however, have worked in the sector long-enough to bumble along.
Boards of governors, or equivalent, are generally comprised of volunteers. In BC the majority of post-secondary boards are comprised of individuals appointed by government - probably the case across the country. The Board generally hires and appoints a President, and is supposed to review their performance.
The President oversees the institution, and its employees. The Senate and/or EdCo are supposed to oversee and recommend on educational matters and in turn make recommendations to the Board. The Board has ultimate oversight. (Remember: Board members at post-secondary are volunteers. Compare this against corporations and/or publicly-traded companies).
The roles of post-secondary Boards, Senates, Presidents and the such are becoming more prevalent in news media as Boards, or Presidents, or otherwise are subject to non-confidence votes from unions, associations, student bodies, or otherwise. In February this year, for example, at Thompson Rivers University in BC.
Getting behind these news stories starts to reveal the moose… er… mooses… meese?
“What moose?” you say.
_ _ _ _ _ _
The Nous Group reviews, and specifically the Governance Review included two broad recommendations for Laurentian U:
Moose? what moose?
R1: Adopt an improved bicameralism that enables information flows between bodies, reasserts the Board as the prime governance body accountable for financial and business outcomes and clarifies the Senate’s responsibility for academic policies and regulations…
R2: Both governing bodies should balance their focus of attention on performance and risk, and internal and external environments. A comprehensive focus on these dimensions should be covered in the standing agenda.
The remaining 35 recommendations included 18 recommendations focussed on Board performance and decision-making plus 17 recommendations for the University Senate (responsible for academic performance, teaching quality, and education policies).
Included within was a recommendation for an independent governance secretariat that would serve as a bridge between these two governance bodies (the Board and Senate). Why?
As part of the review, a survey was conducted of current Laurentian U. Board and Senate members, and the Nous Group reports:
“Almost 40% of members believe Board processes and decision-making are not transparent enough. This could be partly due to the Board Secretary working closely with the President rather than the Board Chair. This results in the agenda being driven by management, not the Board. Further, the secretariat role is not professionalized and is currently clerical: ensuring materials are sent out to the Board after the package is approved by the President. It has also been raised that information on Board decisions is not publicly accessible and too many meetings are in camera.”
The Nous report makes an important point about Senates in universities - (which the quasi-equivalent in BC Colleges is called the EdCo):
“…public sector governing bodies like the Senate have additional responsibility as publicly funded institutions to demonstrate ethical care and integrity in the stewardship of public resources.”
The relationship between these two post-secondary governing bodies is that Senates (EdCo’s in BC Colleges) make recommendations, generally within their governance purview, to the Board. The Board has the ultimate authority to approve. As a group of volunteers, often without a background in post-secondary, one might speculate the bulk of this work is rubber-stamping.
At Laurentian U. the Nous Group investigation provided this summary of the key issue at hand with their Senate. (Now if you work in post-secondary, could you insert your organization’s name into this, or no?):
Key Issue:
Almost half of Senate survey respondents have said the Senate does not provide effective leadership and oversight of the university’s Academic Plan. This is a key strategic document for the university that the Senate should be assessing its performance on and making decisions to course correct where necessary. Not providing proper oversight on progress potentially creates risk if academic quality is not advancing and programming is not attracting students.
The Senate has made decisions without a firm understanding of the impacts from a financial, risk or strategic perspective. For example, in 2019 the Senate approved the creation of a separate department of geography, noting only that the financial impact would be ‘negligible’. Of further concern, there is no evidence of the Board reviewing this decision after the Senate approved it.
Some Senate members have a perception that at times members are not acting in the interests of students or the university but rather to preserve programs without an objective assessment of the value or risk to the university. This creates further risk if the Senate is not regularly reviewing its program performance with the viability of programs in mind.
The Governance report and recommendations focussed on three pillars that can support governing bodies to perform their roles effectively: (1) roles and responsibilities; (2) composition and capability; and (3) structure and processes. This is a screenshot from the review:
Important to remember… Board positions within post-secondary are volunteer positions.
(Was that a moose that just sat on the table?)
Senate positions are not volunteer; or not generally. Individuals in these positions fulfill these as part of their day-to-day paid work (not to suggest that many are not going above and beyond).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I read the Operational Review of Laurentian with some interest, as it’s an area of post-secondary that I navigate.
The Exec Summary from the report states:
THE CHALLENGE:
The review has found that Laurentian University’s administrative operations are less efficient, effective and resourced than many universities. Findings indicate deficiencies across all functions, many of which appear to be operating below a baseline standard. The changes required to address the deficiencies are significant and include changes to strategic plans, service delivery, financial performance, structure, processes, systems and capability.
The reviewers identified an organizational architectural framework as the basis for their report. Within that are what they called 7 core transformational opportunities. Below is a screenshot that highlights the framework, and I’ve added the numbers for the 7 core opportunities, which are also the 7 central issues.
The reviewers laid out these 7 issues/opportunities as following, and similar to above, if you work in post-secondary might these resonate within your institution?:
Strategy:
“Strategic planning has been unclear, with ineffective execution. The current strategic plan does not reflect the pandemic or Laurentian’s post-CCAA [creditor protection filing] realities. Its goals are not specific or sufficiently measurable. Furthermore, there is minimal accountability for its strategic outcomes, as leadership’s performance is not measured against the strategic plan.”
(underline added, as isn’t this basic planning 101?)
Service Delivery:
“Service delivery is provider-centric rather than user-centric. Students, faculty and staff are bounced from administrator to administrator because there are unclear points of entry. Channels for seeking services are outdated and prone to error. Services where strategy and operations connect are inefficient. User satisfaction is low.”
Financial Performance:
“Budget management, financial processes and reporting lack rigour, and have likely contributed to Laurentian’s insolvency. Financial frameworks, policies and revenue strategies are outdated or missing. Immature budget planning and management tools and capabilities hinder financial performance and effective decision making.”
Structure:
“Laurentian’s structure is not aligned with modern universities. Critical structural issues include inconsistent reporting structures, low spans of control, absent accountability frameworks, unstandardized job titling, and weak inter-administrative interfaces that do not support integration and collaboration.”
Processes:
“Processes are inefficient and prone to error. Many are highly manual and paper-based. A lack of documentation drives inconsistent and duplicated processes. Complexity is high; processes tend to have too many steps and interdependencies. User feedback is not actioned for continuous improvement. The risk management process is underdeveloped and not rigorous enough.”
Technology & Digital Platforms:
“Laurentian’s current digital strategy is poorly resourced and has not been advanced. The University has inadequate and aging digital tools. An organization-wide skills gap in digital dexterity has driven poor adoption of critical enterprise resource planning software and other essential tools that bridge silos.”
Capability & Capacity:
“Critical capability gaps exist throughout the University. Bilingualism requirements and a lack of institutionalized remote working restrict Laurentian’s talent pool to applicants without sufficient capabilities. Resistance to contracting, under-resourced units and the upwards push of transactional decision-making limit capacity. Collectively, low capability and capacity result in a lack of strategic focus.”
The report lays out the following recommendations under change initiative #1 Strategy including development of a new Strategic Plan. Through this, suggested the reviewers:
“The strategic plan could present objectives that include: attracting and retaining local and international students, achieving financial sustainability, modernizing teaching and administrative functions, creating more professionalized and collaborative administrative services, improving the student experience and transforming the way Laurentian is governed and operates.”
Sounds quite pragmatic. Actually, it sorts of sounds like the basic framework for any post-secondary institution. Take out and Laurentian and swap in [post-secondary name] here.
ever hear the expression “let sleeping mooses lie…”? (No, me neither).
For example, in BC, the College and Institute Act, which dictates the operations of these institutions is clear:
“The Objects of a college are to provide comprehensive:
(a) courses of study at the first and second year levels of a baccalaureate degree program,
(a.1) courses of study for an applied baccalaureate degree program,
(b) post secondary education or training,
(b.1) adult basic education, and
(c) continuing education.”
Seems that any ‘plan’ attached to this legislated object would involve: (1) students (enrolling them and providing good experiences and credential); (2) financial plan; and (3) administrative and professional services to achieve items a-c above from the Act.
Not that complex a business plan, no?
However, I suppose, many post-secondary institutions are facing tumultuous times and uncertain budgets. In BC, there is a full review of government base funding afoot, and many institutions find themselves navigating uncertainty with tuition fees from International students. In Newfoundland & Labrador the provincial Auditor General just launched a full audit of Memorial U. In the north, the Task Force on Northern Post-secondary just wrapped up its independent work, with clear recommendations.
_ _ _ _ _ _
At Laurentian U. the following priority steps were outlined to develop a renewed strategic plan for the institution, and these sound like sound practice for any post-secondary institution:
A strategic framework.
What is (and is not) a priority use of limited resources.
An analysis of internal and external environments.
A clear vision and direction for a path forward.
Concrete goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, mission-aligned, and time-bound. [there it is again]
Goal accountability assigned to specific university leaders.
Why these priorities? - well… because in the Operational review, the Nous Group found:
The current strategic plan is insufficient.
Laurentian’s goals are not specific, measurable or realistic.
There is minimal accountability for the plan outcomes.
Does this sound familiar for any of you out there in post-secondary? Read some strategic plans lately, often not much more the old SMART goals. However, maybe that’s because they’re extra-strategic… (was that a moose call?)
Or how about below specifically, on accountability:
“Management is not held to account against Laurentian’s current strategic plan. Further, Nous could not find any formal reporting on the achievement of the goals to Laurentian’s governing bodies. Each of Imagine2023’s outcomes has a sponsor and a lead. However, when Nous asked senior leaders about their respective mandates and strategic priorities, not a single leader referenced Imagine2023. This indicates that the strategic plan has not been cascaded throughout the institution.
Imagine2023 was not published in a format where it can be used by leaders, nor are senior leaders’ performance measured against it, given the lack of key performance indicators.
Finally, an annual operating plan to execute on the five-year strategy does not appear to exist.”
If you’re curious, Imagine 2023, is still the Strategic Plan at Laurentian. It looks very nice, glossy, fancy - and certainly more prevalent than the Nous Group reports.
I don’t imagine that when this plan was formulated in 2017 for the period 2018-2023 that either the institutional insolvency or Covid pandemic entered the imagination of the writers of the plan, or those that approved it.
In my experience, this is one of the fundamental failures of Strategic Plans in the public sector, and specifically post-secondary. As Canadian scholar and professor Dr. Henry Mintzberg has written “Intended strategies have no value in and of themselves…they take on value only as committed people infuse them with energy” (1994, p. 14).
In the 90s, Mintzberg laid out many pitfalls to strategic planning, including The Change Pitfall:
A climate congenial to planning is considered to be one congenial to serious change in an organization. The reality, however, may well be that planning impedes more than promotes such change, thereby destroying the very climate it claims to require.
The purpose of a plan is to render things inflexible, that is, to set the organization on a course of action. Plans may not engender human commitment, but they do commit organizations. A ‘flexible plan’… is thus an oxymoron.
And, this is certainly the case when one observes the disconnect between the current “Strategic Plan” at Laurentian, and the actual reality of the underlying organization. How many other Strategic plans in post-secondary also ring hollow, or sounds like some other institution’s plan.
Mintzberg: “…in the absence of strategy, there is no reason to engage in formalized strategic planning. It will not generate strategies; at best, it will extrapolate strategies from the past or copy them from other organizations.”
Is it coincidence that Athabasca University also bludgeons the “Imagine” slogan? Do a search on my friend the goo-machine and pages of post-secondary institutions in Canada and the US come up with the slogan “Imagine”.
I can’t help but see the contradiction in this, as by definition imagine means to: assume, guess, suppose, fancy.
Be definition, to plan means to develop “a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something”. Maybe less imagining and more actual planning might be in order?
_ _ _ _ _
To begin wrapping this post up, and closing the loop on the moose.
In 2007, Jim Clemmer published the book Check out Moose on the Table: A Novel Approach to Communications @ Work. On his website, he has a post with a short description Authentic Communication: Dealing with Moose-on-the-Table
Imagine a team meeting around a conference-room table. They are reviewing progress and making plans. Charts are reviewed, slides are projected, documents are handed out, and calculations are made. Now imagine that standing in the middle of the conference-room table is a great big moose.
No one says a word about the moose.
And here’s the scenario that may ring too true for too many:
“The moose-on-the-table scenario is one that we run into very often within management teams. The problem is that conversations among the team aren’t authentic. They don’t deal with the real issues that are blocking progress. Some teams have a huge moose to deal with; others have a smaller moose.
Some teams have a whole moose family crowding them out. Do you have a moose on your meeting room table?
Here are a few symptoms:
The real conversations happen in the hallways or office after the meeting. There the moose or issues are clearly named.
Team members complacently agree to a consensus at the meeting – then go off and do their own thing. They don’t voice their disagreements for fear that they’ll be labeled as not being team players.
Commitments aren’t kept and deadlines are missed. It’s considered whining or copping out for a team member to give his or her real opinion about the feasibility of the proposed change.
Once the team leader gives his or her opinion, everyone else stays quiet or falls in line behind the Executive. Team members suck up to the leader and pretend the moose doesn’t exist.
Sudden surprises often come “out of the blue” – especially from within the organization. The team leader is frequently surprised to see a simmering problem suddenly erupt into a full blown crisis.
The team leader dominates meetings and most conversations. If he or she wants any of your ideas, he or she will give them to you.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Are there moose on your organization’s table? Are they included in the equity plan?
How many post-secondary institutions in Canada have moose on their tables?
Do you know what it costs to feed a moose?
Maybe it’s an “Imagine” moose?
_ _ _ _ _
The Nous Group provides some strong recommendations in its reports. In the Operations report, it concludes by recommending a Project Management Office to provide central change management expertise.
The critical tasks of this office would include:
building leadership capability;
embedding a culture of accountability;
redesigning key performance indicators and processes;
reviewing and redesigning job roles;
developing a training program; and
reviewing governance mechanisms.
The report recommendations include “establishing a lean, executive-led governance model to help drive progress, ensure ownership and remove roadblocks. Effective governance and accountability are essential for the transformation to achieve its potential benefits. Otherwise, business as usual will quickly usurp the Transformation Program agenda.”
Included as part of this, and based on their “broad consultations”, the Nous Group lays out that it “heard that Laurentian can be disjointed in its strategy-setting and decision-making, restricting its ability to decisively direct change.
To combat this, we recommend a lean, executive-led executive steering committee (ESC) whose membership would include: program executive sponsors and Dean’s representatives.”
As well as, the recommendation to establish “a customer focus group to engage the end-users of administrative services throughout the transformation on initiatives. This group should include students, faculty and staff.”
I would speculate, or hope, better yet, imagine that communities would also be an important component of this - especially in any institution that purports to be indigenizing, and/or decolonizing. The evaluation of that lies with Indigenous communities and peoples, otherwise, it is imaginary.
_ _ _ _ _
Is there a reason why recommendations such as these provided by Nous Group have to await institutional insolvency to be implemented? Why does it take insolvency to engage management consultants from outside of post-secondary realms to recommend wise business practice, like SMART goals in planning for example?
What if these types of external reviews were conducted regularly, maybe every 5-8 years as standard practice?
Imagine.
How many other moose are on the tables of post-secondary institutions (actual or virtual) that aren’t being talked about, at the table and in the hallways? How many more institutions will approach insolvency, or inadequacy, or lack of accountability to intended purposes? Or, simply government intervention?
Is it realistic for Boards of post-secondary to continue to be led by volunteers? In the north of all provinces, and into the actual north of the country, are there enough individuals to continue to serve as volunteers on post-secondary Boards with the scope of practice and responsibility expected?
Is the moose population on the rise on tables across the country? Or, maybe they’ve been resident for years, and only discussed in the hallways of institutions across the country.
A moose is probably on the loose at an institution near you.