This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Dr Alex Bols, governor at Writtle University College 2019-2024 and Deputy Chief Executive at GuildHE from 2014-2024, and Professor Jo Price, Chair of Governors at the University College of Osteopathy since 2022 and Vice Chancellor at the Royal Agricultural University from 2016-2021.
Professor Jo Price was Chair of Governors at the University College of Osteopathy since 2022, a Council member at Cranfield University since 2023, the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology since 2019 and a member of BBSRC Council since 2022. She was previously Vice Chancellor at the Royal Agricultural University (2016-2021).
Institutional mergers are not new and as the HE sectors faces into unfavourable headwinds they are likely to become part of the evolving landscape. We therefore thought it timely to share our experience as governors involved in navigating two small specialist institutions through the process during the last year.
The merger between Writtle University College (WUC), and Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) was completed in March, and between the University College of Osteopathy (UCO) and the AECC University College Bournemouth [recently renamed the Health Sciences University (HSU)] in July. These mergers have attracted relatively little comment, perhaps due to their size or because the outcome has been seen (eventually) as positive by all the parties involved.
As a former governor of Writtle and chair of governors at UCO, we emphatically do not view mergers only as the last option for failing institutions, as is often suggested, but rather as potentially strategic advantageous outcomes which should be decided upon in a timely manner by institutions that have a range of options available to them, only one of which is continued independence. Naturally, mergers should have long-term benefits for students that would otherwise have enrolled at each institution and for the advancement of the subjects that they would have studied.
Unfortunately there is no ‘roadmap’ for those considering a merger which is why we felt it was important to highlight some of the lessons we have learnt.
Don’t wait too long
In both cases, the merger took place before institutional failure was an imminent risk. Both the assets of Writtle and UCO outweighed their liabilities and the academic opportunities for all involved were evident. Writtle had a large estate, depth and breadth in land-based disciplines and long-term opportunities for NHS engagement. UCO was well established in its London base and had a disciplinary heritage that aligned with the vision for the new HSU.
Starting the process of merger from a relatively stable position, at least in the short term, enabled both weaker institutions to find a mutually beneficial partner and be able to identify their key issues for negotiation, including continuation of the subject portfolio, continuity of provision on the Writtle and UCO sites and retention of the name in some form.
It’s the board’s responsibility to sift through the options (the “beauty parade”) and decide which partner best fits with their institution’s values. A watchful eye must be kept on duplicitous approaches as there will always be some parties looking to serve their own ends, rather than working towards serving the best interests of students and correctly valuing the historic backgrounds and goodwill a long-established provider may hold.
The role of the Board
To determine whether the merger is the right option, it is crucially important for governors to take a long-term view of the financial and academic prospects of their institution. They must distinguish between a short-term downturn and longer-term systemic risk. The institution’s executive may be tempted to provide a rosy picture of the situation they are responsible for. In this situation developing an accurate assessment of the future is difficult because it requires a culture of trust and transparency between the executive and the board and a willingness to face what some may think as the unthinkable. This may involve difficult conversations and potentially the withdrawal of some participants in the decision-making process. It is clearly preferable if the executive recognizes that a merger should be on the table, as was the case at Writtle. Initially this was not the case at UCO, although once the decision had been made to merge the executive and board worked together effectively. Nervousness about crossing executive boundaries should not prevent the board ‘leaning in’.
At the end of the day, the decision to merge should always be about preserving the mission/objects of an institution, and it was helpful to keep reminding ourselves of this. Institutional reputation, arguments about heritage or the reputation of university leaders must not be allowed to divert attention from the main question.
An external perspective may be necessary to build consensus across the board and the executive. In smaller institutions, this may be essential when there is unlikely to be a strategic planning unit. After UCO we engaged an international HE consultancy to review the market and strategic options (including what type of institution to merge with).
It is also critical that the principles of good governance are upheld and that staff and student governors should be involved throughout. Concerns around confidentiality should not lead to the temptation to restrict decision-making to independent governors; students and staff governors bring invaluable perspectives and their support and engagement will be critical as the process unfolds. Their opposition when excluded from the process is profoundly unhelpful.
The time commitment from the board must also not be underestimated and ‘Merger Fatigue’ is a risk; at Writtle, Alex attended more than 50 governors’ meetings in a year and for a period the chair of governors role at UCO almost became full-time.
Obtain the right legal expertise and project management experience. Once the decision has been made to merge and another institution has agreed to the arrangement, a merger is essentially a legal process. It is therefore vital to work with lawyers who have expertise in HE mergers, and the process needs to be overseen by experienced project managers to keep the project moving and on time.
Engagement with OfS
The OfS are always keen to highlight the importance of letting them know early, and maintaining good communication throughout was something we prioritised and their engagement throughout the process was appreciated However, it felt like a one-way process of providing information to reassure them for their regulatory processes, rather than it being a two-way dialogue drawing on their experiences of previous cases or even providing funding for additional costs.
The role of students
Beyond their role as governors, at both institutions the Students’ Union Presidents were very engaged which ensured that the views and concerns of students were always central to the process, enabling them to see the positive benefits of the merger. This felt like a more effective way of protecting the rights of students rather than trying to constantly update the student protection plan based on the ever-changing circumstances.
Conclusion
Whether an increasing number of mergers is seen as a good or bad thing – and there is a case to be made either way – they should be an intentional component of a wider strategy for higher education, rather than a way of saving something useful from failing institutions. At the moment it seems to be more of an ad hoc and rather than haphazard process where we are sleepwalking into a less diverse sector without deciding if that is what we actually want and whether it is good for students. We hope that by sharing our experience it helps others start the conversation and intend to publish a more detailed account of the intricacies of the process in the near future.
Having to buy in an International HE Consultant – would that be USA?
Made me wonder whether some of the UK MAT mergers would have provided some useful perhaps less expensive support?