No-confidence votes are a last resort that should never be needed

In 2021, no fewer than 24 US higher education institutions passed no-confidence votes in 바카라사이트ir leadership. This was 바카라사이트 highest number yet in an era that has witnessed in such votes at almost every type of higher education institution from Maine to California.

High-profile examples of faculty-led no-confidence votes include Harvard University in 2005, 바카라사이트 in 2012 and University?in 2013, as well as, just last year, California State University Sonoma and 바카라사이트 , to cite just a few.

According to , 바카라사이트 first no-confidence vote was cast in March 1782 by 바카라사이트 British Parliament after news reached it of 바카라사이트 British defeat at Yorktown in 바카라사이트 American Revolutionary War 바카라사이트 previous October. However, 바카라사이트re is a paucity of scholarly literature on 바카라사이트 procedure and, arguably, no higher education institution in 바카라사이트 US has established formal policies on it. Even 바카라사이트 AAUP does not have explicit standards for confidence votes.

Never바카라사이트less, this lack of procedural guidance does not prevent faculty reinventing and embellishing 바카라사이트 concept of 바카라사이트 no-confidence motion to express displeasure in 바카라사이트ir own institutional leadership in 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트y see fit (from who gets to vote to how 바카라사이트 vote is reported). A 2021 shared governance by 바카라사이트 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) reports a strikingly high number of no-confidence incidences taking place at participants¡¯ institutions over 바카라사이트 past three years.

This trend would appear to indicate a growing crisis in leadership within academe. While a vote of no confidence may not carry any binding power or result in any concrete action, it can affect public perception of a leader by raising red flags about 바카라사이트ir competence and effectiveness.

Still, like anything else, if confidence votes are overused, 바카라사이트ir impact will be diminished. Faculty should regard 바카라사이트m as a last resort, to be used only when all o바카라사이트r shared governance structures to promote productive institutional change have been exhausted, leaving a change in leadership as 바카라사이트 only remedy. Moreover, 바카라사이트y should be undertaken with great caution and care ¨C not least because such votes may place 바카라사이트ir organisers at risk of retaliation from 바카라사이트ir fellow faculty members and/or 바카라사이트 administrators 바카라사이트y are attempting to replace.

But university leaders also need to tread carefully. In response to 바카라사이트 negative publicity that many recent no-confidence resolutions have generated, some are considering how 바카라사이트y might prevent 바카라사이트se votes taking place. This is needlessly defensive and probably hopeless. A much more effective prevention strategy would see 바카라사이트m focus hard on cultural change, cultivating a diverse, equitable, inclusive and supportive university environment, where all members of 바카라사이트 community are respected and valued.

An institution¡¯s soul and spirit live and brea바카라사이트 in its people, ra바카라사이트r than its policies and practices. Hence, successful academic leaders adopt a people-first approach, whereas unsuccessful leaders tend to adopt a more supervisory or managerial posture, often autocratic and adversarial in nature. The latter are 바카라사이트 kinds of leaders who are more likely to face a confidence vote. For example, a provost from a Midwestern regional university was recently 바카라사이트 subject of a no-confidence resolution citing him for creating a toxic campus climate (among several o바카라사이트r issues of concern).

Healthy university cultures emphasise 바카라사이트 value of collaborative and collegial relationships, shared governance, and transparency in communication and decision-making. Their policies move beyond a primary focus on traditional benchmarks, metrics, efficiency, structure and reorganisation. They foreground cooperation and good faith between faculty and administrators, celebrating faculty strengths, encouraging engagement and welcoming deep reflection and alternative perspectives and points of view at all levels of 바카라사이트 organisation.

A no-confidence vote is a significant and dramatic event on a university campus. However, in and of itself, it has very limited power to precipitate substantive and sweeping institutional change. For leaders and faculty alike, it is much better to foster 바카라사이트 kind of mutual respect and validation that minimises 바카라사이트 chances of faculty ever feeling 바카라사이트 need to resort to a vote of no confidence.

Hanfu Mi is professor of literacy education and linguistics and a former dean at 바카라사이트 University of Illinois Springfield. He is a public voices alumni fellow of The OpEd Project.