The quality of board decision making processes in Higher Education institutions: UK and European experiences

We investigated governance practices in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK and in selected EU countries, with a focus on the quality of strategic decision-making processes at the level of governing boards against a context of increasing challenges, uncertainties and expectations facing the UK HEI sector.1 The report examines factors affecting the quality of decision-making. Specifically, we investigated awareness of the impact of heuristics (mental shortcuts that act as decision aids) and cognitive biases on judgement, and whether boards regularly adopt active processes to mitigate bias in reviewing or approving plans set out by university management. Documented in the report are significant differences, commonalities and nuances in approaches by governing boards. Interviews with board members, observations of board meetings and a review of documentation (eg council effectiveness reviews) reveal wide diversity in decision-making and risk management approaches, varying opportunities for board members to review information critical to their decision-making, low levels of awareness of heuristics and biases, and a general absence of systematic implementation of bias mitigation procedures. Comparisons of governing board experiences between UK and selected EU countries (Italy, Netherlands and Cyprus) highlight the existence of a formal and informal moderation of strategic decisions in the latter countries. This arises either from an internal form of democratic governance (senate or similar academic board) or more directly from the state (eg ministerial authority). This sharply contrasts with the mainstream form of managerialism in the UK context which emphasises dominant control by the top management team (led by the vice-chancellor) and the governing board chairperson in the decision-making process. After reviewing all interviews and board observations, we conclude that instances of reflection on ways to arrive at better decisions, constructive reflections on past outcomes (especially poor ones), and awareness of the need for bias mitigation procedures appear haphazard and isolated in nature, and almost accidental. There is a void of evidence on the existence of a consistent, systematic, or deliberate use of processes and procedures to systematically mitigate cognitive bias. Little evidence was provided of an awareness of heuristics in human judgement and the likely presence of bias in everyday decision making, either at individual or at group level. There was also little evidence of a desire or intention to systematically learn from past mistakes or that past mistakes represent significant learning opportunities