5  Module 3: Governance and Leadership Models (40 minutes)

5.1 Content Block: Governance Structures That Work (20 minutes)

5.1.1 Opening Connection (2 minutes)

Say: “Communication helps teams work day-to-day, but governance determines how teams make big decisions and handle authority. Let’s look at what research tells us about structures that actually work.”

5.1.2 Governance vs. Management Distinction (3 minutes)

Key Distinction:

  • Management: Day-to-day operations, task coordination, resource allocation
  • Governance: Decision rights, accountability structures, conflict resolution, strategic direction

Why It Matters: “Many teams focus only on management and wonder why they struggle with bigger decisions.”

5.1.3 Model 1: Distributed Leadership (4 minutes)

Core Principle: Different people lead different aspects based on expertise and interest.

Research Support: Pearce & Conger’s studies show distributed leadership increases team performance in knowledge work.

Structure Example:

  • Scientific Leadership: Domain expert guides research direction
  • Operational Leadership: Project manager handles logistics, timelines
  • External Leadership: Senior person manages stakeholder relationships
  • Innovation Leadership: Creative thinker drives new approaches

Pros: Leverages expertise, develops multiple people, reduces single points of failure Cons: Can be confusing if roles aren’t clear, may slow some decisions

When It Works Best: Diverse, highly skilled teams with complex projects

5.1.4 Model 2: Rotating Leadership (3 minutes)

Core Principle: Leadership rotates based on project phase or expertise needs.

Real Example: “In the Human Genome Project, different institutions led different phases based on their comparative advantages.”

Structure Example:

  • Phase 1: Data collection led by field research expert
  • Phase 2: Analysis led by computational specialist
  • Phase 3: Dissemination led by policy expert

Pros: Matches expertise to needs, develops multiple leaders Cons: Requires smooth handoffs, can create discontinuity

5.1.5 Model 3: Collaborative Hierarchy (4 minutes)

Core Principle: Clear hierarchy with democratic input mechanisms.

Research Support: Tannenbaum & Schmidt’s leadership continuum research shows this balances efficiency with engagement.

Structure Example:

  • Principal Investigator: Final decision authority, external accountability
  • Advisory Council: Representative input from all stakeholder groups
  • Working Groups: Delegated authority for specific domains

Decision Process:

  1. Working groups develop recommendations
  2. Advisory council provides input and alternatives
  3. PI makes final decision with transparent rationale

Pros: Clear accountability, incorporates diverse input, efficient Cons: Can feel top-down if not implemented well

5.1.6 Model 4: Network Governance (4 minutes)

Core Principle: Hub-and-spoke coordination across autonomous units.

Real Example: “Think of how the Large Hadron Collider collaboration works - thousands of scientists across hundreds of institutions.”

Structure:

  • Central Coordination Hub: Manages overall project, standards, resources
  • Autonomous Nodes: Independent teams with specific responsibilities
  • Liaison Roles: Boundary spanners who connect nodes

Pros: Scales to large collaborations, maintains autonomy Cons: Complex coordination, potential for fragmentation

Key Success Factor: Strong coordination mechanisms and shared standards

5.2 Activity 3: Governance Design Challenge (20 minutes)

5.2.1 Scenario Assignment (2 minutes)

Four Scenarios - Assign One Per Team:

  1. Multi-institutional Clinical Trial
    • 5 medical centers, 200 patients, 3-year timeline
    • Regulatory compliance requirements, patient safety critical
    • $2M budget, industry sponsor
  2. Interdisciplinary Data Analysis Consortium
    • Computer scientists, social scientists, domain experts
    • Large shared dataset, multiple research questions
    • Different publication norms across disciplines
  3. International Field Research Collaboration
    • Teams from 4 countries, remote field sites
    • Equipment sharing, varying resource levels
    • Different institutional policies and cultures
  4. Industry-Academic Partnership
    • University researchers + company R&D team
    • Proprietary data concerns, different timelines
    • Academic freedom vs. commercial interests

5.2.2 Design Phase (15 minutes)

Instructions to Teams: “Design a governance structure for your scenario. Address these key elements:”

Governance Elements to Address:

  1. Leadership Structure: Who has authority for what decisions?
  2. Decision-Making Process: How are key choices made?
  3. Conflict Resolution: What happens when people disagree?
  4. Resource Allocation: How are shared resources managed?
  5. Credit and Recognition: How are contributions acknowledged?

Deliverable: Create a visual representation (flowchart, org chart, process diagram) that shows your governance model.

Your Facilitation Approach:

  • Visit each team twice during the 15 minutes
  • First visit (5-7 min): Check understanding, clarify scenario details
  • Second visit (10-12 min): Push thinking with questions:
    • “What happens if this person leaves the project?”
    • “How do you handle a major disagreement using this structure?”
    • “Where might this break down under pressure?”

Common Challenges and Responses:

  • Teams default to simple hierarchy → “What are the downsides of that approach for this scenario?”
  • Teams create overly complex structures → “How would new team members understand this?”
  • Teams ignore the human dynamics → “What about trust, communication, relationships?”