With a growing number of universities cutting courses, consolidating campuses, and, in a few cases, opening talks about merger, the question of what happens to an SU when its parent institution changes shape has moved from the hypothetical to the practical.
Earlier this year Coole Insight, working with Greenhouse, asked SU leaders how prepared they felt for that kind of change – and the answers suggest many are further from the conversation than they’d like to be.
Of the 52 SUs that responded to the consultation on risk, sustainability, and readiness for change, 27 said university structural change wasn’t currently reflected in their risk register or strategic thinking. That’s more than half of the participating unions, and it raises a question for SU boards – at what point should a significant change in the university’s direction become a matter for their own strategic attention?
By the time there’s a proposal to respond to, important choices may already have been made, and an SU might find itself trying to influence a timetable, structure, or set of priorities that it had little opportunity to shape.
Our consultation began with an interest in mergers and collaboration, but through discussions with SU CEOs, and then the responses themselves, it became clear that we needed to start further back and understand how prepared unions were to anticipate and influence significant change in the first place.
Scoring 49 out of 100
Thirteen of the 52 respondents reported active or early discussions about merger, partnership, or structural change, and only 17 felt their SU was involved early in significant university decision-making. Average self-assessed readiness was 49 out of 100.
These are findings from a consultation rather than a representative assessment of every SU, and the readiness score reflects respondents’ own judgements rather than an independently tested measure. Taken together, though, the responses give us good reason to examine the relationship between preparedness, access, and influence.
Don’t wait for a merger
A union can be working hard to sustain its services while having limited visibility of decisions that could fundamentally alter the conditions in which it operates. Our focus on mergers had also risked making this feel relevant only to unions whose universities were already discussing one, when a change in funding, campus provision, shared services, or institutional priorities could have significant consequences without any merger taking place.
Waiting for an institutional structural announcement, or not actively investigating one, is therefore a poor starting point for preparation. There’s useful work an SU can do now, even where no immediate change is known, and it starts with a board conversation about plausible scenarios.
A board might ask, for example, what a sustained reduction in income would mean for representation and advice, how a campus change would affect access to the union, and what collaboration with another SU might make possible – along with what would need protecting.
The value lies in working through the consequences – which assumptions underpin the current strategy, what would prompt a different response, and who would take responsibility for acting. Putting another entry on the risk register only helps if it changes the conversation and the decisions that follow.
Who’s in the room
Readiness also requires a clearer understanding of institutional relationships. Who is discussing the university’s future, and how does the SU contribute while options are still being developed? Where does that access depend on a single relationship, and what happens when either person leaves?
Universities have responsibilities here too, and greater preparation within an SU can’t compensate for a process that deliberately, naively, or ignorantly excludes it. As Jim Dickinson has argued on Wonkhe, students need a substantive role in shaping institutional change, and their understanding of how a university works in daily life belongs in the development of proposals.
For unions, that means being able to bring evidence about students’ needs, articulate priorities, and involve elected officers meaningfully. A well-connected CEO is always incredibly valuable, but the organisation also needs ways to retain knowledge and sustain influence through changes in leadership.
Keep it proportionate
Time and capacity were the most commonly reported barrier in the consultation, but any response that simply adds a substantial new process to an already stretched organisation risks reproducing the problem it’s meant to address – so the preparation needs to be proportionate.
A focused leadership or board session, informed by existing evidence, should help a union identify the decisions that need attention and a manageable set of actions, and it should also expose where additional expertise or resources would be necessary if change accelerated.
People before plans
People and culture belong within that discussion from the beginning. Can officers, staff, and trustees question assumptions openly, and can people raise concerns about a proposed collaboration without being dismissed as resistant? Are we considering what uncertainty means for the people expected to keep services running?
These questions affect whether plans can be delivered, because what might seem like an attractive arrangement can, and probably will, struggle if there’s insufficient trust, unclear authority, or no capacity to do the work involved.
Collaboration needs a purpose
Collaboration itself needs a clear purpose, and while sharing expertise, services, or infrastructure may create opportunities, the starting point should be the benefit for students and the ability to sustain it. Boards need to understand the costs, dependencies, and implications for accountability alongside the potential savings.
The support respondents requested was practical – tools, sector insight, case studies, and peer discussion – and 51 of the 52 wanted to remain informed as the work developed. There’s an opportunity to turn that interest into shared learning that unions can use in their own contexts.
Testing a readiness review
Greenhouse and Coole Insight are now developing a Strategic Readiness Review with a small, deliberately varied pilot group. The proposed approach combines a proportionate evidence review, stakeholder conversations, and a facilitated board or leadership session, with outputs including priority risks and opportunities, three immediate actions, and a longer-term readiness roadmap.
We want to test its usefulness across different circumstances, including unions with no known prospect of structural change, and participants would help us understand what works, what needs adapting, and how much time the process realistically requires. Shared learning would be anonymised unless explicit consent was given, and participation would carry no expectation of a positive testimonial.
We’re also exploring potential support from Howden, including whether funding could help make participation more accessible.
Put it on the agenda
For any SU board, an immediate step is to put a plausible institutional change on the agenda and work through its implications for students, the union, and the decisions it would need to influence. Doing that before a proposal arrives gives officers, staff, and trustees time to develop a considered position, identify gaps, and build the relationships they’ll need.
SUs interested in discussing the pilot can contact Steve Coole at steve@cooleinsightltd.co.uk.
