This is to show that the role of higher level academic institutions cannot be undermined.
Since universities may serve multiple classes of customers, referred to as 'multiversity' by Clark and Kerr, there might arise a problem of conflict of interest between fulfilling the core purpose and objective of the higher level academic institution such as that of generating profits and being business accountable to that of serving public sector by producing people who would provide their intangible services. These conflicts are resolved and avoided only by how they are governed internally and externally.
The public institutions' top level is usually managed by the contemporary political groups that are in charge of the government, who have no other means to run the academic institutions with consensus. Multiples of checks and balances are used as a protocol to define the roles and responsibilities of the campus managers, the faculty and the staff and the administrators. These people include not only provide services in hiring the qualified, trained and experienced teachers, but a bigger part is played by them in areas inclusive of establishing liaison with the alumni and their advancement in career and support, business operations of the institute and research purposes including writing of research papers, getting them published in reputed magazines and journals, the ultimate target of which is making the presence of the university fell across the board.
The process of institution governance and decision making is dependent on how the authority is distributed amongst the administration under the legal rights and obligation. This ultimately trickles down to the organizational behavior of the members of the institute, which is unfolded into what direction the institute adopts by unfolding its strategies that impacts all the stakeholders.
One of the solutions to avoid the conflict amongst different stakeholder groups by the board of the higher academic institute is by provisioning of 'shared governance', which allows representation of views of all the stakeholders that are affected by the decision making process. This happens because each stakeholder group provides the views and inputs related to their interest in the decision making process of the board. Faculty, student groups, members of the alumni, members of the board of trustees, founder members, investors etc. are all provided a chance to share their views in setting up a strategy by the board for the future of the institute.
Rivera (2008) pointed that shared governance is the process of involving many different actors in making decisions or choosing outcome direction that serve the best interest of the whole. But this has also been criticized by many schools of thought, since it is believed that institutions are to be managed like corporations. Hence applications of concepts such as delegation of authority, division of autonomy and negotiations form part of how the decisions unroll and who has the advantage in terms of higher bargaining power.
Whatever the method adopted in the governance might be on a set protocol and may vary from situation to situation, contingent on how the events are unfolded and how they