New government research into theological higher education suggests that without clarity, the governance model a school uses may not matter.
For decades, theological schools have debated the “right” way to govern. Should boards focus primarily on policy? Should they be strategic partners? Should they emphasize fiduciary oversight, generative thinking, or some combination of approaches?
New research from the In Trust Center’s Governance Initiative suggests that school leaders and boards may be asking the wrong question.
During an episode of the Good Governance podcast, In Trust Center President Amy Kardash said the research indicates that institutional effectiveness is linked less to a particular governance model and more to whether board members share a common understanding of how they are supposed to govern.
She said there is a correlation between “ambiguity” as it relates to the governance model “and poor institutional effectiveness.”
The opposite, she said, also appears true: If schools understand and agree on how they’re governing, there’s a better chance the institution will be effective.
The finding emerged from an unprecedented study of theological school governance. The Governance Initiative gathered responses from more than 1,100 individuals at 192 ATS-accredited schools – representing 71% of accredited institutions – along with interviews involving executive leaders and board chairs and observations of board meetings. Researchers then analyzed those findings alongside two decades of institutional data collected by the Association of Theological Schools, looking for correlations between governance characteristics and measures of institutional effectiveness.
The finding that no governance model has emerged as definitive is notable, given the long-standing debate over how governance should be carried out. Instead, researchers found that boards tend to be more effective when members have a shared understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
The Rev. David Rowe, Ph.D., project director for the Governance Initiative and president of The Windermere Group, said it “doesn’t appear that any one model necessarily leads to better institutional performance than another.”
We’re trying to do something different and think about what might be really strong principles for institutions to use going forward.
“It may not matter as much how you put the pieces together as much as it matters that you all understand, in the same way, how the pieces are put together,” Rowe said.
The trouble can be when a board and the president, or various members of the board have different ways of seeing governance. The confusion can cause trouble in schools.
“If you have that kind of diversity in thinking (about governance models) on the board,” Rowe said, “that tends to correlate with poor institutional effectiveness.”
The implication is significant for governing boards. Rather than searching for the ideal governance structure or adopting the latest governance trend, boards may benefit more from ensuring that members share a common understanding of how the board operates and what its responsibilities are.
The finding also challenges a tendency within higher education to benchmark governance practices against peer institutions.
“We want to know how we compare to our peer group on so many levels,” Rowe said. “We have such rich data to be able to see how we are doing relative to our peer group or to other institutions in our religious tradition. That may not be relevant to what you’re doing.”
Rowe said one of the study’s goals is to link board effectiveness to institutional effectiveness. He said the research rests on the question of whether an ineffective institution could claim it has an effective board.
“I do think you have to start thinking about how you actually govern an institution in a way that leads to institutional effectiveness over a period of time,” Rowe said.
Kardash said the study has been able to put data to questions and assumptions about governance in the field, such as whether certain governance models are better than others. Researchers are attempting to identify principles that correlate with institutional success regardless of institution size, denomination, governance structure, or organizational context.
Governance approaches may need to shift depending on an institution’s circumstances. Kardash said that institutions experience different seasons and challenges that can require boards to think differently about their work. A board overseeing a leadership transition may need a different approach than a board working with a long-tenured president. Likewise, financial pressures, strategic planning efforts, or organizational change may call for different governance approaches.
Clarity, Kardash said, also comes in understanding that there are “different seasons in the life of the institution” and those “might call the board toward thinking in different ways together.”
The study’s findings align with the broader goals of the Governance Initiative, which was launched not simply to produce another governance report but to identify enduring principles that can help boards strengthen institutional effectiveness.
It may not matter as much how you put the pieces together as much as it matters that you all understand, in the same way, how the pieces are put together.
“We’re trying really, really hard not to answer the question, ‘What do most schools do?’” Rowe said about how researchers were considering the work. “We’re trying to do something different and think about what might be really strong principles for institutions to use going forward.”
The In Trust Center plans to continue releasing research findings over time and expects the data to inform future board-development resources, governance tools, and educational programming. So far, other findings from the study include:
- A strong correlation between high presidential or CEO turnover and poor institutional effectiveness.
- Evidence that boards play a significant role in supporting leadership continuity and long-term institutional health.
- Emerging indicators that board development should be viewed as an ongoing process rather than a one-time orientation effort.
- Preliminary findings that challenge assumptions about advisory bodies at embedded institutions, with additional analysis expected in future reports.
For theological schools seeking to improve governance, the emerging lesson may be surprisingly simple: Effectiveness may depend less on finding the perfect governance model and more on ensuring that everyone around the board table understands the same model.
Read more about the Governance Initiative at: intrust.org
