College faculties often use votes of “no confidence” to try to push out the leaders of their institutions. Many do so, however, without giving much thought to what such a vote actually means, whether they are using it appropriately, or how it will affect their campus —and their own future.
Mae Kuykendall, a professor of law at Michigan State University and an expert on corporate law, has spent much of the past two years studying the no-confidence vote’s origins and uses in higher-education institutions and other organizations. She discussed her findings in Washington this month at an international conference on college governance, academic freedom, and globalization sponsored by the American Association of University Professors. The Chronicle asked her to share her insights in an interview conducted via e-mail:
Q. Where did the no-confidence vote originate as a way to change an organization’s leadership? Where is it used?
A. The phrase arose in the British Parliament [in 1782, in response to the British surrender to the Americans at Yorktown]. The vote has come to express the loss of support by a group whose cooperation is necessary for a leader’s exercise of her duties. Libraries, police departments, public schools, fire departments, universities and their subunits, and various nonprofit groups use the vote of no confidence.
Q. How does the vote fit in, or contrast, with other means of trying to remove a leader?
A. A vote of no confidence undermines a leader’s claim to legitimacy, a feature made evident by contrast with common, but illegitimate, means of trying to remove a leader, such as mutiny, rebellion, work stoppage, mob action, and assassination. … The essence of the vote of no confidence is that the group need not give reasons or a set of charges. It is simultaneously unauthorized and legitimate.
Q. You’ve talked about colleges as “fuzzily governed” institutions. How do they differ from other places that you have examined, and how does the no-confidence vote fit into a “fuzzy” governance structure?
A. In authoritarian groups, regular members cannot demand a change. At the other end of the spectrum, democratic structures have clear, weighty procedures —impeachment and recall —for ousting their leaders. Universities and other nonprofit institutions sit in the middle of this spectrum. There is consultation to select leaders and to make decisions.
Q. Is there a typical response to these votes from college presidents and boards of trustees?
A. My research does not support a definite statement about a “typical” response. I can, however, describe one recurring pattern that almost could be said to follow a script. By a circular logic, the leader often claims that the outbreak of opposition is proof of his success: He or she is challenging an entrenched organizational culture that requires bold intervention. The president and his or her allies cite the call for ouster as evidence of stellar performance. The claim verges on a generic defense —one made even when the basis of a no-confidence petition arises from idiosyncratically personal flaws of the leader with no discernible connection to larger political concerns for the advancement of an institutional agenda. This response also serves to stigmatize those voting for removal, suggesting that they have betrayed their institutional trust and resist useful change. …
When leaders eventually exit after a period of resistance and denial, the leader and/or the board typically issue bland claims that the exit and the no-confidence vote are unrelated. … There is merely the change of mood by a leader, who, after a claimed success in one domain, decides to move on to private concerns or new challenges.
Q. How effective is the vote?
A. A review of public announcements concerning leaders’ exits plainly reveals that no-confidence votes often work. … One hypothesis that I have developed is that votes of no confidence are more likely to be effective in smaller institutional settings than in larger, more-complex universities, in which the president is more remote from the faculty and the mission-related concerns of the schools differ. The credibility that accrues to a group that works directly with a leader is not present in larger, more-complex settings. The concern of an institution about its reputation [to] its relevant audience matters. If a school is willing to forgo the esteem of professional organizations and to risk prospective students’ concerns about a leadership under a cloud, the vote of no confidence will fail to drive out a leader backed by a determined board.
Q. Can such votes make matters worse for faculty members?
A. One can readily find articles urging faculty members to avoid votes of no confidence, on the grounds that less disruptive, mediated solutions are better. … The claim that the vote of no confidence always yields an outcome that is worse than some other imagined state of affairs is not persuasive. Faculty members, who are generally averse to risk, see a vote of no confidence as a last resort in a bad situation. …
The risks are real. Opposing the leader and losing can bring about what [the] management theorist [Jean] Lipman-Blumen has called exile or “social death.” In addition, a successful effort can have unpredictable effects on group dynamics. … These risks help discipline groups to avoid casual resorts to such votes.
