Power imbalances and over-familiarity between senior managers and governors have been identified as some of the key issues facing UK university boards, with research showing strong support for change.

An updated “code for ethical university governance” has been published calling for a “clearer separation between governance and management” and greater transparency on boards.

It builds on a draft code released earlier this year by the Council for the Defence of British Universities and also calls on boards to abide by principles of constructive criticism; equity of membership; collaboration and professional trust; open communication; and institutional and sector responsibility. 

Consultation feedback published by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) alongside the new code shows that membership of boards was a key concern for those commenting, with issues identified around recruitment, representation, and internal roles and their allocation.

̽����Ƶ

Respondents feared members were too often drawn from similar backgrounds, limiting viewpoint diversity with financial or legal expertise seen as being routinely privileged over academic or civic experience.

The revised code therefore calls for “open and democratic recruitment processes, with nominations committees accountable to staff, students and other stakeholder communities”.

̽����Ƶ

There was also widespread support among respondents for the code’s attempts to “address power imbalances, tiered cultures and over-familiarity between senior managers and governors”.

There was a risk that “cliques and hierarchies” left unchecked “could become intimidating for other members and suppress alternative views”, the feedback says. 

Amendments to the code have therefore strengthened language on constructive challenge and the “duty to call out excessive closeness between governors and senior managers”.

Overall the code outlines that “ethical” governance should be “open” with “proper accountability”, and “serves the interests of students, staff, and the wider public”.

̽����Ƶ

“Achieving this requires more than receiving management reports and other second-hand assurances: governing body members are expected to be active in their approach, bringing curiosity, even-handedness, and persistence about and towards the university at all times,” it says.

To “maintain the trust of staff and students”, boards should issue “full disclosure” of the rationale behind decisions to enact severance schemes or force course closures, and, to further increase transparency, board minutes should typically be publicly available within five working days, it adds.

Steve Jones, professor of higher education at the University of Manchester and the main author of the code told ̽����Ƶ that it came at a “vital time” for the sector amid widespread redundancies and financial crisis.

He noted that “governing bodies have significant power, but they mostly remain static, comprised of the same kind of individuals keeping to the same kind of script”, adding that the code was an “attempt to empower ordinary members of the governing body to speak out”.

̽����Ƶ

“Because it’s based on academic research and extensive consultation, it offers a different perspective.”

Jones said, while the code offers “practical” advice and should serve as an “useful first step towards helping members see themselves differently”, what was really needed was “wholesale cultural change on governing bodies”.

̽����Ƶ

Nick Hillman, director of Hepi and a former and current governor of two universities, said good governance was “a rock that secures the foundations of our higher education institutions”, adding, “when governance goes bad, it can infect a whole institution”.

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com