Deep Drive: Governance vs Stewardship

Mark Putnam

I’ve seen a lot over the decades, Liv, but nothing quite sticks in my mind like the stories of two CIOs I admired—both brilliant, both proven leaders, and both deeply frustrated by the end of their careers. One came out of a no-nonsense, command-and-control university. He was used to calling the play and having the team run it, right then and there. Then he landed in a place where consensus wasn’t just valued, it was... well, almost mandatory. Suddenly, every decision dissolved into committee after committee. Instead of leading, he felt he was mostly just asking for permission to do what he’d already done a hundred times before.

Olivia Carter

That had to be torture. I can picture it—from power play to committee theater. What about the other CIO?

Mark Putnam

She had the opposite experience. She’d thrived in a place where governance meant everyone gets a voice, decisions take time, but you leave the room knowing you’re aligned. Then she moved to a university expecting an executive to—how do I put this—just make the tough calls already. She tried to import threadbare committee processes where nobody wanted the burden of voting, just someone to carry the risk. The culture, the expectations, everything about authority and group decision-making—they clashed so hard she ended up blocked and exhausted.

Olivia Carter

So basically you can be world-class, but if your style doesn’t match the campus vibe, you’re toast. It sounds like what really broke them wasn’t skill, it was... this silent tug-of-war over who gets to decide. Why is “governance” such a dirty word in higher ed? I mean, it’s just rules for decision-making, right?

Mark Putnam

That’s the story we tell ourselves, sure, but the reason “governance” makes people tense up isn’t about logic—it’s history. In higher ed, the term ‘governance’ has collected a lot of baggage. It signals endless debates, slow ‘no’s, and a policing atmosphere instead of actual partnership. Even just suggesting an IT committee usually earns you a round of polite grimaces, everyone suddenly busy with their folders. It’s less about the proposal, more about the ghosts of failed committees past.

Olivia Carter

Mark, I’ve gotta push you on this. When people say, “We need more stewardship,” I kinda roll my eyes. Isn’t “stewardship” just governance with friendlier branding? Like, bureaucracy re-gifted in a softer box?

Mark Putnam

I get the skepticism. In higher ed, we are masters of renaming things without changing them. But this isn't just wordplay. Think about the physics of the relationship. Governance is almost always framed as a permission structure. It asks, “Who has the right to decide?” That turns every interaction into a border dispute.

Olivia Carter

Right. It’s a turf war. "You can’t put that server there because I own the network."

Mark Putnam

Exactly. And when you act like a Governor, stakeholders treat you like a Regulator. They hide things from you. They buy software on credit cards to avoid the "governance process" because they see it as a tax on their agility. Governance assumes that without my control, you will do something wrong.

Olivia Carter

Okay, so how is the Steward different? You’re still the CIO. You still have to stop people from doing dangerous things.

Mark Putnam

True, but the source of the authority changes. A Steward isn't a cop; a Steward is more like... think of an archivist in a rare book library. The archivist doesn’t "own" the history. But if you try to handle a 500-year-old manuscript with greasy hands, they are going to stop you.

Olivia Carter

Not because they’re power-tripping.

Mark Putnam

Because they are burdened with the obligation that that manuscript has to survive for the next generation. That is Stewardship. It shifts the conversation from "I am in charge of you" to "I am responsible for this."

Olivia Carter

So, less "I'm the boss," more "I'm the designated driver."

Mark Putnam

That’s actually not a bad analogy. It changes the friction. Governance creates friction between people. Stewardship directs that friction toward the risk. It becomes us against the entropy, rather than me against you.

Olivia Carter

So if you actually center the conversation on that... on the preservation of the asset... what changes in the room?

Mark Putnam

The temperature drops. Immediately. Instead of folks bracing for another power grab, they see the trade-off. You’re not looking to grab more power; you’re making clear you’re carrying a load for everyone’s benefit. It’s a structural difference, Liv. The job isn’t to police, it’s to caretake. That’s where you begin to build real trust.

Olivia Carter

But here’s the rub: even with the friendliest words, you’re still in rooms full of academics with big personalities and competing priorities. How much of this boils down to...psychology? Aren’t most professors and administrators wired for debate?

Mark Putnam

That’s right—universities attract both the Analyzer and the Accommodator. The Analyzer? That’s the person who needs their time and data. Rush them, and what you get isn’t disagreement, it’s just flat resistance—they feel urgency is reckless. What works is the “Two Readings” rule: introduce a proposal in meeting one, let everyone stew on it, and only decide in the next meeting. It’s not performative—it’s a psychological necessity for these folks, buying them enough time for real comprehension. You’re lowering their need for control by raising their sense of understanding.

Olivia Carter

I get that. There’s always at least one faculty member who calls out the fire drill pace and says, “Let’s not rubber stamp this.” So for the Accommodators—what’s their button?

Mark Putnam

Accommodators care about the relationship over the outcome. If there’s any whiff that conflict is going to spill into bruised feelings, they dig in their heels, or worse—go silent. That’s where the “Accusation Audit” comes in. Before anything else, list every likely negative—and say it out loud: “You’re probably worried this move is a power grab”; “I know you fear this’ll create more work for the departments.” That transparency shows the relationship is strong enough to weather disagreement, which is what the Accommodator needs to actually engage.

Olivia Carter

That explains a lot—sometimes just acknowledging the elephant makes people breathe easier. But isn’t this all kind of slow?

Mark Putnam

Ironically, slowing down through these tools—deliberate gaps, naming negatives—truly speeds up institutional trust. It lowers the temperature, lets everyone calibrate, and makes actual progress possible. You can have a long, fractious pseudo-debate, or give people enough room to process and get real alignment. The second way just works better, even if it feels slower at first.

Olivia Carter

Alright, but if stewardship is really about partnership, where do you draw the line? Does every stakeholder get a say in mission-critical decisions? Do faculty, for example, get to vote on IT security patches?

Mark Putnam

Stewardship depends on clarity—and that’s where most failures begin. There are Decision Rights and Influence Rights. Stewards—like a CIO—hold the Decision Rights. These are non-negotiables: information security, technical architecture, regulatory compliance. Not because we’re smarter or have fancier titles, but because we’re accountable if things collapse. If a server needs patching to ward off a ransomware attack, it’s not up for debate. That’s our burden to carry.

Olivia Carter

But the rest—like when you patch, how students are impacted—stakeholders get a voice, right?

Mark Putnam

Exactly. Stakeholders hold Influence Rights—on timing, prioritization, business impact. If there’s an upgrade that’ll affect classes during finals week, the “when” and “how” are up for real, meaningful input. The trouble always comes when these lines blur. If a dean tries to take over Decision Rights or if IT steamrolls through stakeholders’ Influence Rights, the whole process collapses. You need to call out, early and often, who owns which risk and who owns which cost. That’s how you avoid governance breakdowns and keep trust alive.

Olivia Carter

You know, every time there’s a messy governance fight, suddenly there’s talk of “bringing in an outside consultant.” Is that just another way to dodge accountability?

Mark Putnam

In most cases, yes. That’s what I call laundering accountability. Someone wants to expand their influence into decision-making but doesn’t have enough internal support to do it. So they call for a consultant—a rented authority who’ll deliver a report, maybe validate a favored position, then vanish before the real work or fallout starts. It lets stakeholders borrow expertise without accepting institutional risk or ownership. But that’s not stewardship—it’s avoidance.

Olivia Carter

So even if that consultant’s slide deck is perfect, nobody in the room wants to actually be on the hook for making the call?

Mark Putnam

That’s exactly it. The hardest, most political work—making trade-offs visible, protecting the health of the institution—that can’t be outsourced. You can bring in outside experts when you truly lack technical depth, but not to mediate the essential, sometimes messy, political work of stewardship. That responsibility belongs squarely with us.

Olivia Carter

Okay, so to pull it all together...

Mark Putnam

Stewardship is about protecting the nervous system of the university so it endures for another generation. It’s not about everyone being happy, and it’s not about who gets to swing the biggest stick. It’s about disciplined care—an obligation we carry not for our own authority, but for the long-term health of the institution. If we get that right, we survive whatever comes next.

Olivia Carter

And that’s a wrap for today’s Dispatch. Mark, thanks for your candor, and for grounding all this in reality—not jargon. We’ll dig even deeper next time. Until then, take care, everyone.

Mark Putnam

Always a pleasure, Liv. Talk soon.