First Law of (Institutional) Decision-Making

Decisions are made at all levels of an institution, so the question naturally arises: At what level should certain sorts of decisions be made? Here’s the First Law of Decision-making:

A decision should me made at the lowest level administrative unit that has the requisite expertise, information, perspective, and institutional sanction to make and enact a grounded decision. Let’s unpack this a bit.

First, consider a decision like which textbook to adopt for a discipline. Historically, we’ve tended to view this decision as the province of faculty in that discipline.

Who has the requisite expertise? Clearly, the faculty who teach that discipline. But does that mean the faculty decide in a vacuum, as it were? What about other consequences of this decision: Who has appropriate information about such consequences? What about, to take a few examples, the book store, or a unit in the college that supports students like the library or student services? Or how about the students themselves? Typically, we’ve taken the position that faculty either know or should know about the consequences, but to some extent, consequences are dependent on other institutional decisions, policies, or values.

Consider this: Suppose the college has made it a priority to keep the total cost of textbooks as low as possible. Does this have a bearing on the decision? Surely it should have some bearing — and that’s the point of building in perspective: The decision-makers must be aware of the larger institutional context of a decision.

This is why, for instance, many departmental decisions, while originating in a department governance meeting, are approved by a department chair or even dean. It’s not that members of a department lack the expertise or information, or even perspective, to ground that decision; rather, it’s because the department chair is responsible for knowing the institutional context.

Let me illustrate this with a nonbinding survey: Have you read all the administrative rules? Board policy? Our institutional strategic plan? (If you said no and you’re a department chair, you know your homework!) Most faculty do not spend their time reading administrative rules — at least, not until they have a complaint and are looking for guidance (or ammunition).

Department chairs and deans have a responsibility to stay current with the institutional landscape, precisely so they can serve as a sort of guide to decision-making at the department level.

Let’s analyze another example: Food. ACC has what many people would argue is an excessively rigid approval procedure for refreshments, enshrined in a policy called Food/Refreshment Guidelines. Personally, I would argue that deans should have the expertise and information to decide whether to approve refreshments, or else you’ve hired the wrong people to be deans. Nevertheless, ACC has decided to ensure the institutional perspective is respected in such decisions by having all food purchases approved by a Vice President. (This is why my favorite nickname for Mike is “Vice President of Doughnuts.”)

We can laugh at this (or be offended), but the underlying principle makes sense. Decision-making is placed in the hands of a unit at a level in the institution to ensure expertise, information, and perspective. Sometimes we discover that a unit lower in the food chain is adequate, but sometimes an organization discovers that momentous decisions for  were being made by people who lack expertise, information, or perspective — and this is why I’m drawing these considerations to your attention.

If you are a member of a department, no doubt at some point your department has adopted decision processes. (Note that it is certainly possible to “adopt” decision-processes unintentionally. In that case, departments run by received folklore rather than explicit principle, and that generally causes problems in the long run, especially as a department grows.) Some departments vote on everything, leaving relatively little discretion to the DC. On the other hand, some departments cede decision-making to the DC, who then exercises broad discretion. Neither of these models is good or bad; the question is whether a model is a good fit for the department at a particular historical moment and whether that model results in effective decision-process.

So, when crafting (or revising) your department’s decision process, a hard look at this First Law is a good idea, to help you and your colleagues think through the types of decisions required of your governance body, and how you want to balance these factors.