I am a regular reader of In Trust. As a seminary trustee, I find most of the articles informative, helpful, and insightful. I often circulate articles to fellow trustees for discussion and reflection.
I do find one thing particularly puzzling, however: Every article on shared governance in In Trust defends and promotes the importance and value of shared governance. The Spring 2012 edition, with two articles on the topic, is no exception. This partiality raises several questions in my mind:
Is something fundamentally flawed with an idea when it needs so much explaining and defense?
Are there any downsides or weaknesses to shared governance? Why are these, or alternatives to shared governance, never written about in In Trust?
Are there any objective data or studies that demonstrate that shared governance actually works? That is, does shared governance make education better? Are better and faster decisions made? Are schools better governed, led, and managed? Are there better educational outcomes? Lower costs?
I believe it would be interesting and instructive to take a broader and more balanced view of governance models to see what really works and what really is required to lead and drive change in this new complex and challenging environment.
Thomas J. Colatosti, Chairman & CEO
AMERICAN SECURITY VENTURES
Colatosti is chair of the board of trustees of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.