Introduction
Different institutions usually employ different mechanisms in monitoring organizational functions and operations. The methods used to identify the best mechanisms to be employed usually get inclined towards the issues affecting leadership in institutions. In the given scenario, the person involved moves from a collegial institution to an anarchical organization that consists of more complex and larger functions and operations as compared to the former institution.
This transfer makes him feel confused about senate governance his new institution, and it is clear that he needs to understand the difference between the two organizations. The following paper gives some insight in to the transformation that he needs to go through while offering some information on the unique characteristics of a complex anarchical institution. The paper will also identify the best of Minor’s faulty senate models that best fits with the new anarchical organization in which this colleague works.
Collegial Institution vs. Anarchical Institution in consideration of the best Senate Model
It is vital for one to understand that there is a difference between collegial institution and an anarchical organization, to assist in understanding the best faculty senate model to use. The greatest emphasis in collegial institution is consensus, consultations and power sharing among the faculty and administration members. The institution portrays a picture of a rich community that believes in shared values since a majority of the faculty leaders come from the dominant community.
In this essence, the leaders remain respected agents for faculty and community at large. In this institution, the faculty possesses professional authority in decision making affecting institutional and academic aspects. There is usually a sense of equality brought about by the entire community, and laws are passed after long deliberations and consensus among the members. However, decisions may take long to make, and policies may take time to achieve.
On the other hand, anarchical organization refers to an institution that consists of loose bonds among the faculty members and other participants. Unlike the collegial institutions, anarchical institution does not consist of cohesion among the people involved. During policy making, the identified goals are not usually clear; they are ambiguous and the process of implementations seems to take place with extremely little coordination. Anarchical institution can be found in various colleges and universities that consist of loose structures, unclear goals and technology. Thus, shifting from a collegial institution to an anarchical organization would require a systematic learning of the best model to use in the faculty senate (Kolodny, 2000).
The Best model that fits with the anarchical organization
The model that fits best with the anarchical organization is the influential model. This model can be effective in the creation of goals, meeting of targets and implementations in institutional and academic aspects of the organization. The faculty senate takes an influential initiative and offers the required professional authority in the governing of an institution.
The new anarchical institution is larger and more complex than the collegial institution meaning that it could be consisting of other branches and campuses. All these schools need a collaborative and coordinated senate model that can oversee the operations of each school or campus. This is the reason as to why an influential model remains the best choice among the Minor’s faculty senate models.
The senate works with the administration through collaboration instead of confrontations that leads to an enhanced relationship between the two. Influential senate takes an initiative to ensure that all global concerns are addressed appropriately rather than just concerning itself with a faculty. In other words, the senate possesses authority and influence in the academic and other areas not associated with the faculty.
The global perspectives of their involvement in anarchical organizations can be seen in their active roles in the curriculum, athletics, budgets, promotions, work conditions and appointments of various school administrators. Thus, the senate has a broad spectrum of what they get involved in while working in the organization (Birnbaum, 1991).
While creating goals, the influential senate ensures that the objectives cover a wide area of the institution, not just the faculty department. They analyze issues affecting the entire institution or university while promoting the necessary policy changes. The members of the senate usually listen to the views of the administration while giving their views based on the global needs of the institution. In this model, every member of the senate takes responsibility for enhancing development and improving the general welfare of the organization (Birnbaum, 1991).
The word influential comes from the fact that this team of members can bring and drive change due to their governing authority over the institution. They do not behave like the ceremonial senate that remains dormant and never actively participate in campus governance. A ceremonial senate is characterized by a high level of inactivity, and as the term suggests, they just perform latent duties that are not concerned with the institution’s governance or policy- making.
Influential model is different from a cultural model since cultural senates put more emphasis on informal processes and governance than influential senates. The difference between influential models and traditional models is that the traditional model does not possess the legal authority to impact decisions. The best thing they can do is to offer recommendations to the administration while the administration possesses the right to accept or refuse the proposals. Understanding the above elements of each of the explained difference can help in identifying if the new institution indeed has an influential senate model (Keller, 2001).
People will always want to be associated with the influential senate, since it seems to be more effective as compare to other senate models such as traditional and ceremonial. In most cases, an influential senate model can enact real change within an organization and can bring positive and productive changes to an anarchical organization. However, it is crucial to note that achieving an influential senate model does not come easy, as it seems.
This is because in most cases people have a different idea of how senate should be, and some feel that it should be dysfunctional while others say it should be underperforming and impeding. Senates usually become dysfunctional when the administration and presidents take all the authority and dominate over the senate. This leads to a breakdown or reduction of communication among the senate, presidents and administration. Thus, it would be vital to ensure that all get analyzed when creating an influential faculty senate model.
Conclusion
After checking, the pros and cons of the situation, one can conclude that it can be easy to fit in the governance of the new anarchical organization. This can be made possible through an understanding of the characteristics of that institution and the corresponding senate models. The paper already explained the difference between the two institutions, both the collegial and the anarchical organizations.
This forms a commendable basis for the new member of the anarchical institution to understand the processes and complexity of his new role. The model that fits best with the anarchical organization is the influential model. This model can be effective in the creation of goals, meeting of targets and implementations in institutional and academic aspects of the organization. Thus, the paper succeeded in identifying Influential Model as the best model among the Minor’s faculty senate models that can be used in that anarchical organization.
References
Birnbaum, R. (1991). Chapter 9: Effective Administration and Leadership in the Cybernetic Institution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (1991). Chapter 8: The cybernetic institution: Providing direction through self-regulation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Keller, G. (2001). Governance: the remarkable ambiguity. In defense of higher education. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Kolodny, A. (2000). New Approaches to research on leadership and governance. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Session paper No. 43.