Content uploaded by Badrilal Gupta
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Badrilal Gupta on Jan 12, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Education (IJARE)
Volume 1 Issue 1December 2020 1 ISSN: 2738-9987
Governance and Management Structure for
Higher Education Institutions
B. L. Gupta
Professor, Department of Education Management
National Institute of Technical Teachers’ Training and Research, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
Abstract: The government of India declared the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 which is the first education policy
of the 21st century. The NEP 2020 envision quality higher education through multidisciplinary universities and
autonomous colleges. The policy focuses on a radical change in higher education in the regulatory system at the country
level and governance and management system at higher education institutions (HEIs) level. Leavitt’s model of change
suggests that the change in one or more than one element viz task, technology, structure, and people disturb the
equilibrium of the system so it is necessary to re-establish the equilibrium. The successful radical change can be designed
and implemented by the teams’ structure at HEI level. A research study on governance and management of 15
autonomous technical institutions was conducted in the state of Maharashtra to analyze the existing governance and
management system and suggest future governance and management systems.The researcher made structured and semi-
structured questionnaires and interview schedules were used to gather the data. Total 460 responses were collected and
171 interviews were conducted. The data were tabulated and analyzedconcerning research objectives and research
questions. Based onthe analysis of data the existing governance and management system was described and new
governance and management systems were evolved. The governance and management system is very briefly described in
the context of NEP 2020.
Keywords: Governance, Management, Teams’ structure, Autonomy
I. RATIONALE
NEP 2020 has envisioned quality education and excellence. Autonomy is a tool to govern and manage higher
education institutions (HEIs) and make them accountable to the stakeholders. The governance and management
system of HEIs needs to be designed and implemented in such a manner so that it achieves the vision and goals
stipulated in NEP 2020 and its vision and goals. The governance and management should ultimately lead to full
freedom and empowerment of governing and managing teams and individuals along with accountability and
responsibility. The students should be encouraged to become autonomous learners so that they develop learning to
learn skills, thinking to think skills, and lifelong learning skills. The students of the 21st century should be equipped
with a wide range of skills as stipulated in NEP 2020. They should become mature learners so that they can learn
and perform in their life whenever the need arises. In an autonomous institution,the decision-making process should
percolate down to the teams and person responsible to perform the role, and the benefits of services of the institute
to reach the students and other relevant stakeholders.
II. REGULATORY STRUCTURE AT NATIONAL LEVEL
NEP 2020 section 18 states “about transforming the regulatory system of Higher Education at the country level. It
states to constitute the Higher Education Commission of India under which four empowered bodies called the
National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC), National Accreditation Council (NAC), Higher
Education Grants Council (HEGC), and General Education Council (GEC) will function”. These empowered bodies
will remove the conflict of interest among regulatory bodies, empower HEIs, and devolve responsibility and
accountability to HEIs. The regulatory system will be transparent and depersonalized to ensure efficiency and
transparency. The regulatory system will make the regulatory process easier, ensure effectiveness, and provide
financial backing for long term stability. NEP 2020 section 19 states about effective governance and leadership for
higher education institutions.
III. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AT HEIS
The NEP 2020 has envisaged three major functions of the HEIs. The first function is to offer multidisciplinary,
interdisciplinary, and cross-disciplinary programs to satisfy the changing needs of the admission seekers, employers,
society, and other stakeholders. The second function is to conduct research studies in the domain-specific
specialization area, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary areas. The third function is to offer a variety of services to
students, industry, society, and other stakeholders.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Education (IJARE)
Volume 1 Issue 1December 2020 2 ISSN: 2738-9987
GB
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7 G8
T21
T1
T2
T3 T4 T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
T17
T18
T19
T20
T22
T23
T24
T25
T26
T27
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
In the context of NEP 2020 substantive autonomy may address decisions related to offering new educational
programs, closing obsolete educational programs, establishing new centers and departments, setting benchmarks for
performance, compensations, incentives, promotion, redeployment, retrenchment, diversification, experimentation,
and the like. The HEIs will function under certain well-defined policies, rules, regulations, norms, and guidelines.
The governance structure of HEIs need to design to timely provide policy decisions, which set direction and govern
the functioning of HEIs.
The governance structure of the institute should be decisive, flexible, innovative, responsive, facilitating, guiding,
and accommodative to address the ever-changing needs of the students, industry, society, and stakeholders. It should
be evolving to move forward in the direction of empowerment, expansion, quality, and excellence. It should work
under a broader regulatory framework provided in NEP 2020.
The author has studied the governance and management structure of 15 autonomous institutions of Maharashtra
State and developed a team’s structure for autonomous institutions for the 21st century. The team’s structure shown
in Fig. 1 is built on various teams, which acts as building blocks for synchronized functioning to accomplish the
goals. The governing body is considered as the nucleus of all the teams. The governing body is facilitated by 8
governing teams. Chairman/Members to these teams are also a member of the governing body, which establish
proper links between the governing body and governing teams.
GB- Governing Body
Governing Teams:
G1 Board of studies G5 Appeal & Grievance Team
G2 Programme wise Board of Studies G6 Purchase Team
G3 Planning Team G7 Finance Team
G4 Evaluation Team
International Journal of Advanced Research in Education (IJARE)
Volume 1 Issue 1December 2020 3 ISSN: 2738-9987
Institution Management Teams - Priority Area Teams
T1 Curriculum Development T2 Admission of student T3 Learning Resource
Development
T4 Library T5 Staff training and
development
T6 Hostel Management
T7 Gymkhana T8 Cooperative Store T9 Examination
T10 Guidance, counselling,
coaching & mentoring
T11 Administration &
Discipline
T12 Industry Institute
Interaction
T13 Continuing Education T14 Research & Innovation T15 Consultancy
T16 Community
Development and social
services
T17 Building construction &
maintenance
T18 Purchase
T19 Finance T20 Internal quality
assurance, monitoring
and evaluation
T21 Documentation &
Publication
Specific Requirement Teams
T22 Condemnation of materials T23 Campus
development
T24 Performance appraisal and
development
T25 Evaluation of programmes
& projects
T26 Service
conditions
T27 Recruitments
Voluntary Participation Schemes
S1 Quality circles/students clubs/students council S4 Joint objective setting
S2 Suggestion box S5 Organising creativity sessions
S3 Co-operation & support S6 Exchange of ideas
Fig. 1: Teams Structure for HEIs
IV. INSTITUTION MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
In the context of NEP 2020 procedural autonomy may address decisions related to budgeting, generating and
utilizing revenue, recruitment and selection, purchase, construction, IT infrastructure, setting labs and workshops,
creating centers/cells, signing a memorandum of understanding, and the like.
All governing teams are supported by one or more than one institutional management team with common
membership. In the first layer of institutional management, 27 teams are proposed to be constituted which are
considered to be in the priority area of institutional functioning. The individual institution depending on specific
requirements may constitute some more institutional management teams. These teams become building blocks for
each other for an excellent performance. Apart from the governing body, governing teams, and institutional
management teams, it is also proposed to promote voluntary participation of institutional members including
students and stakeholders through various schemes. The institutional management teams constituted in various areas
of institutional functioning will communicate with each other depending on the requirements of the task. They will
also communicate with the governing body and governing teams. All the teams are networked for different purposes
to coordinate, cooperate, communicate, understand, share the resources and experiences, give, and take feedback.
The networking will remove roadblocks to quality, innovations, and excellence. Networking among teams will also
spread and accelerate the progress of innovation. There is no hierarchy in the functioning of various teams. They
supplement and complement each other. Institutional management teams generally prepare the groundwork for the
governing teams and governing body for policy formulation and strategic planning which is discussed, debated, and
approved by the governing teams and governing body. Once the policy and strategic plans are through the institution
management teams implement them. Institution management teams also implement many innovations in the
institution. They continuously improve the quality of performance in their respective area of functioning. Team
structure promotes the involvement of stakeholders and all institutional members to accomplish the vision and
mission of the institute.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Education (IJARE)
Volume 1 Issue 1December 2020 4 ISSN: 2738-9987
There are ample evidences for justification of teams’ structure in HEIs. Teams’ structure in HEIs is considered to be
the key to governance and management of HEIs. The effectiveness of teams will result in high-quality education,
research, and services. It will create a network of teams to bring synergetic effects within a team and among teams.
It will lead to collaborative and community working. Teams working will result in improving the effectiveness and
efficiency of the functioning of the institutions. Teams are formed from inter-discipline and multidiscipline areas so
it takes care of multi-dimension development of people and their skills development. Teams will result in preventing
the problems and resolving conflict among institutional members. Over the years teams’ structure of the HEIs will
result in a learning organization. (Charles, 1996, Katzenbach, 1993, French, 1996, Sallis, 1993, Joseph & Susan Berk,
1995, AnthoryRmontebellow, 1996, David &Tade, 1982, David &Tade, 1982).
A greater degree of autonomy and empowerment is required to take the right decision at right time at all levels of the
institute through teams’ structure.Teams’ structure satisfies the requirements of bottom-up and top-down planning
and effective implementation of plans. It fosters a blueprint as well as a process approach to planning and
implementation. It facilitates proactive planning leading to effective change and management. Teams’ structure
inherits the benefits of working in a team and community approach.
V. FORMATION OF INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT TEAMS
Institutional teams are constituted by the head of the institute, consulting autonomy in-charge, heads of departments,
and chairman governing body. While constituting these teams, criteria like; experience, interest in a specific area,
training in a specific area, the willingness of members, ability of members, and institutional priority are kept in
mind. The term of these teams is generally kept three years. These teams function under the overall leadership of
the principal and implement the decisions of the governing body. Apart from implementing decisions of the
governing body, they bring quantitative and qualitative improvements in their respective areas of functioning. The
decisions of the governing body are communicated to these teams using various modes of communication like;
circulating the minutes of the meeting, brief circulars, verbally, telephonically, and through meetings. The Head of
the institute provides all the necessary resources and support to implement the decisions or to bring innovations.
Everybody in the organization encourages these teams and their efforts are openly recognized. Their functions are
flexible but broadly defined.
VI. MODE OF FUNCTIONING
Institutional management teams constituted in key areas of institutional functioning undergo intensive training in
teamwork and their respective area of working. They receive the decisions of the governing body, which are detailed
out in an action plan to be implemented by each team in which roles and responsibilities of each team member is
decided and commitment is obtained. Each team implements the action plan for which the head of the institute
provides resources and support. The significant accomplishments of these teams are presented openly and
recognized. Continuous monitoring, problem-solving, and feedback are considered key to the success of teamwork.
All Institutional management teams are responsible to the governing body through the head of the institute.
VII. BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF TEAMS
It is observed that different teams face different kinds of barriers. Careful planning and preventive actions can
overcome these barriers.
Barriers faced by Governing Body: There are some barriers like; low commitment of members, lack of ability of
members to contribute in a specific area, lack of resources, the resistance of high profile persons to attend meetings,
hidden agenda, conflicts in interests, lack of quorum and inadequate preparation for the meetings are generally faced
by the governing body.
Barriers faced by governing teams: There are some barriers like; inadequate time, inadequate resources, less
motivation, inadequate budget, absence of training, low support, no recognition and reward, and inappropriate
guidance faced by governing teams.
Barriers faced by institutional management teams: There are some barriers like; inadequate time, low budget,
motivation, reward/recognition, irregular meetings, the interest of members, administrative and financial autonomy,
uncertain nature of work, training, and complex government rules are faced by internal management teams.
VIII. STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TEAMS
The effective functioning of various teams is necessary forthe team structure of management. It is ensured through
well-designed strategies and theirimplementation. Strategies for the effective functioning of the teams’ structure are
International Journal of Advanced Research in Education (IJARE)
Volume 1 Issue 1December 2020 5 ISSN: 2738-9987
as follows; imparting need-based training, openly recognizing the accomplishments of the teams, providing
autonomy to evolve team norms, solving the problems timely, making roles and responsibilities clear, providing
necessary resources and support timely, encouraging team members to accept the challenges, providing relevant
information related to the task, promoting healthy competition, circulating minutes of the meeting, ensuring
effective communication and taking timely actions.
IX. OUTCOMES OF TEAMS’ STRUCTURE
Heads of autonomous institutions reported following outcomes of teams’ structure; quick and enhanced quality
decisions at all levels in the institute, increased responsibility emerged because of challenges in work, shared
responsibility and accountability of team members, enhanced commitment of team members for achieving
challenging goals, enhanced self-confidence, increased transparency in working because of social pressure, effective
coordination and cooperation among team members to produce synergetic effect, improved quality of academics,
time saving in performing complex task, increased flexibility in teaching learning, on the job training of team
members, improved performance in academics and research, healthy academic environment, creative problem
solving, enhanced trust among core team members, distributed work according to talent of the member, risk factor
lowered down, readiness to face challenges, sustained interest in academic work, work does not suffer in case of
absence of a member, quick implementation of academic and administrative decisions, less conflict among teachers,
effective utilization of library and laboratories, effective communication among teachers and students, good
interpersonal relationship between faculty and staff members, members discipline and satisfaction.
X. IMPACT OF AUTONOMY ON PERFORMANCE OF THE INSTITUTE
Independent institute: The institute becomes empowered to take immediate decisions at all levels to deal with the
situation. This type of functioning of institute prevent problems and crisis and encourage proactive approaches to
dealing with the situations. The innovation and change can be designed and implemented in totality as and when
there is an opportunity for improvement.
Unique vision and institution development plan: The institute may grow and excel in its way to create its brand
image. It can take the advantage of the market niche and offer educational programs, research, services, consultancy,
and extension.
Empowered for quality assurance: The institute may design quality systems and processes within the national and
international framework and implement them effectively and efficiently. Based on the experiences of
implementation, feedback, and evaluation it can continuously improve the design and implementation of the
systems. The institute may empower the faculty and staff members and students for curricular, co-curricular, and
extracurricular activities.
Responsive to stakeholders: The institute may take fast and spontaneous decisions and address the changing and
challenging needs and requirements of students and stakeholders. The institute analyses the potential needs of the
students, employers, and stakeholders and prepares itself to address the needs.
Financially sound: The institute becomes financially sound-generating revenue through legitimate sources like
tuition fees, research grants, renting the infrastructure, testing material, offering continuing education programs,
offering internship, industrial projects, conducting conferences, organizing joint events, and the like.
Capacity to compete: The institute becomes competitive in performing and achieving its goals. It may compete with
sister institutions at the same time have the capability to compete for taking national and international projects
related to education, education and training resources development, research, and problem-solving.
Self-evaluation for continuous improvement:The institute becomes self-evaluative for taking corrective and
preventing actions to improve the inputs, processes, systems, and outcomes. The goals for the next cycle are raised
to take the advantage of learning curve effect, experiences, and feedback.
Contribution for solving complex problems of industry and society: The institute takes the advantage of autonomy
and become proactive to contribute for industry and society through research, projects, problem-solving, and
organizing collaborative events. This leads to solving complex problems in a collaborative manner. Institute become
confident for contributing to national missions and state government missions.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Education (IJARE)
Volume 1 Issue 1December 2020 6 ISSN: 2738-9987
XI.AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Autonomy and accountability go together in a balanced way to maximize the benefits of autonomy. As envisaged in
NEP 2020 the light but the tight principle of regulation is considered to be a good principle. It is proposed that self-
accountability needs to be enforced at the governance, leadership, and faculty member level rather than making
them accountable to someone else. The accountability should be seen in terms of achievements against the approved
goals at all levels in HEIs and not incomparable terms with other institutes or within the institute. The core business
of HEIs is academics, research, and services so more degree of accountability should be determined concerning
goals related to these areas than supporting areas.
XII.CONCLUSION
The greater degree of autonomy and accountability can be beneficial to the institute and its stakeholders under the
condition of having teams’ structure at governance and management level, decentralization and delegation at the
level where the role is performed. The teams’ structure will result in creativity, innovation, change, development,
quality, and excellence at the institute level. Similarly,students’ quality circles, clubs, and community will result in
interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, and multidisciplinary abilities. Teams will make them mature for learning,
developing learning to learn, and lifelong learning skills. It will enable the institute to come out with purposeful
results in teaching-learning, research, and services as envisaged in NEP 2020. At the institution level, intensive
teambuilding and leadership development exercises need to be taken to shift from a highly traditional culture of
working towards an entrepreneurial way of functioning. The leadership role at the governance and management
level plays a key role in bringing transformation. The heads of the institutions need to demonstrate visionary,
transformational, and transactional leadership abilities effectively and efficiently.
REFERENCES
[1] Anttony R. Montebellow (1996). Work teams that work, Jaico Publishing House, Bombay.
[2] Charles Margerism (1996). Team Management practical new approaches, Lawrey
[3] David Osborne and Task Gaebler (1982). Reinventing Government, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
[4] David Frean (1977), The Board and Management Development Business Books Comminica-Europa
[5] Don Martin (1993), Team Think, Dutton USA.
[6] Gupta B.L. (1999), Evolving models of participatory Governance & internal management of Polytechnics, TTTI, Bhopal.
[7] Joseph & Susan Berk (1995). Total Quality Management, Excel Books, New Delhi.
[8] Katzenbach Jon R. Douglas K. Smith (1993). The wisdom of teams, Harvard Business School Press Boston, Massachusetts USA.
[9] Mike Woodcock and Dave Francis (1994). Team building strategy, Corporate Media Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Bombay
[10] Rupest Eales White (1996). Building your team, Kogen Page Limited, London
[11] Sallis Edward (1993). Total Quality Management in Education, Kogan Page, Philadelphia, London.
[12] Reehana Raza (2009). Examining Autonomy and Accountability in Public and Private Tertiary Institutions for Human Development
Network. The World Bank November 2009
