Kim Ansell and Dan Tinkler from our Governance team reflect on our “Shaping the Future of HE Governance” session discussing the new CUC code
We recently had the pleasure of bringing together chairs, governance professionals, university secretaries and executive leaders for “Shaping the Future of HE Governance”, our session on implementing the new CUC Code.
With James Dunphy, Chief Executive of the Committee of University Chairs, in conversation with our Chief Executive, Alistair Jarvis CBE, and reflections from Professor Ross Renton, Dr Amanda Wilcox and Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods, it was a rich couple of hours. Over 150 colleagues joined us live, and the discussion in the breakout groups and on Padlet was every bit as valuable as what happened on stage. A few themes stood out to us:
The first is that governance effectiveness is a mindset, not a compliance exercise. Ross put it well: the Code should be a catalyst for deeper conversation about what effective governance looks like, not another list to tick. Amanda made a similar point. The Code is, in a practical sense, a list of things institutions must or should do, so it inevitably gets turned into ticks and crosses somewhere in the system. The task for governance professionals is to make sure it becomes more than that: a prompt for genuine conversation between boards, executives and governance teams, not a box-ticking exercise that sits alongside the real work, but rather something that shapes and informs strategic oversight and decision-making to be optimum for an institution.
The second theme, and the one that generated most discussion, was culture. James was clear that the evidence base behind the Code, drawn from over 300 people and more than 100 written submissions, pointed overwhelmingly to culture as foundational to good governance. That chimes with what we see in our own effectiveness reviews. Where governance goes wrong, it is rarely a process failure. It is usually a culture or relationship issue. Roberta and Amanda both spoke candidly about the practical steps their institutions are taking, from rewriting behavioural policies into a proper code of conduct, to thinking harder about how staff and student survey data might help boards understand culture rather than just report on it.
Academic governance was the third recurring theme. Several of our panellists flagged the shift that the new Code asks for: boards can no longer simply rely on assurance reports passed up from Senate or Academic Board. They need enough fluency in academic matters to test that assurance themselves. Amanda’s point about governors attending Senate was well made, but we know that in practice this is rare. If governors better understood what they’re accountable for in relation to academic governance, and they’re clearer about what responsibilities that they delegate to academic board or senate, then they’ll have more confidence to actually attend and accept an invitation to observe, because they’ll understand why they’re there. At the moment, there’s not that confidence or impetus to attend because they don’t know why they’re going.
Underneath all of this sat a recurring question about effectiveness: not, “did we complete a governance review”, but what changed as a result of it. That question is close to our hearts because it is exactly what shaped our own response to the Code review. Advance HE’s submission, informed by over 75 governance effectiveness reviews and extensive sector consultation, called for institutions to undertake externally facilitated effectiveness reviews at least every three years, alongside stronger internal appraisal in between. We also pushed for a sector-wide knowledge bank of good practice, so that institutions are not each reinventing the wheel on culture, academic assurance or stakeholder engagement. We were glad to see the final Code lean further into evidenced, active governance rather than passive assurance, and we will keep making that case as institutions move from words on the page to practice in the boardroom.
So what does this mean for our own support to the sector? Our governance offer is being refreshed around three pillars: a renewed, practical governance effectiveness framework aligned explicitly to the new Code; a more flexible and developmental approach to effectiveness reviews, shaped by an expert advisory group; and a broadened CPD offer focused on the real pressures boards face today, particularly financial sustainability, risk and transnational partnerships. Alongside this, we are launching a new series of tailored consultancy, including workshops on reshaping board culture and on writing board papers for better decision-making, plus critical friend support for institutions running their own self-led governance reviews. Do register your interest as these become available and save the date for our Annual Governance Conference on 8 December.
Thank you to everyone who joined us, in the room and in ‘the chat’. The conversation continues, and we would love to hear how implementation is going at your institution.
