I’ve always been keen to learn lessons from others (and other sectors), and I’m trying to apply that thinking institutionally. I’m also a firm believer in transparency as a guiding principle that can help to foster a trustworthy environment and, in turn, a climate of trust.
For the last couple of years, I’ve been Chair of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Neurosciences and Mental Health Board. The MRC runs observer schemes for all of its Boards (an initiative that Wellcome has also recently adopted).
This allows researchers (typically mid-career, but this can be flexible) to attend a Board meeting and observe the process, listening to the discussion of grants and how these are scored. This is obviously confidential and sensitive information, and observers are trusted to maintain this confidentiality.
Typically, observers come away reassured that the process is as fair as it can be, and that Board members strive to make balanced decisions (which is difficult given the level of competition for funding and the quality of applications received).
Another benefit is that observers learn what makes a grant more or less likely to succeed and can apply these lessons to their own grant writing. They can also use the experience to decide whether they might apply for a formal Board position in the future. In other words, it’s a useful development opportunity.
So… what can Bath learn from that?
I’ve suggested that we pilot opening up opportunities for colleagues across the University to observe the operation of some of our institution-wide committees. The aim is to de-mystify some of our governance processes, and also offer more transparency about what we do.
With the support of Ian Blenkharn, University Secretary, we invited Directors of Studies / Directors of Teaching to attend and observe a meeting of the Student Experience Advisory Board (SEAB), chaired by Cassie Wilson, PVC Student Experience.
We had a lot of interest, and two observers attended the meeting. I’ve included some quotes (with permission!) that illustrate what they took from the experience. Most importantly, it was seen to be an interesting and valuable experience, particularly from a personal development point of view.
I really enjoyed being an observer of the discussions taking place, and believe it would be a positive experience for many staff thinking about taking on future leadership roles.
It also seemed to provide useful insights into how our governance processes work, what our committees focus on, and how they support longer-term planning.
Just seeing the breadth of input to the board was insightful, and it was particularly interesting to see SEAB’s list of priorities from the previous year, in addition to plans for future development of housing for students in the years to come.
Perhaps most importantly, transparency does seem to build trust in the process.
It does seem that decisions are considered with care and attention.
It’s all too easy to imagine that decisions made behind closed doors involved sinister figures in long robes, complete with incense and incantations (perhaps that’s a bit strong). The reality is that meetings are procedural and designed to allow members to discuss complex issues and make good decisions.
I’m very grateful for Ian and Cassie’s support and their willingness to pilot this scheme, as well as the other SEAB members and those who applied to observe. Given the level of interest, I’m sure we will run this again with SEAB, and look to extent the pilot to other committees.
Of course, transparency has its limits. At MRC Boards, for example, observers are not present for ranking at the end of the process, when final funding decisions are made. But I think we should challenge ourselves to be as open as possible, and only as closed as is necessary.
If you have thoughts on how we can apply that principle at Bath, get in touch!
Respond