Trust-based governance is often seen as the antithesis of New Public Management (NPM) as a fundamentally different governance philosophy. I think this is both right and wrong. NPM is about governing by setting goals and measuring results and less by providing detailed definitions of how resources should be used. The warnings perhaps have most to do with the fact that excessive measurement of results can lead to the building up of both a control machinery and detailed management through excessively precise instructions and guidelines.
KTH as a university wants to continue to manage with goals and continue to be able to control results. That is almost self-evident. But in a trust-based system, employees are given a greater degree of independence when it comes to interpreting how work is best organised in individual cases or areas. However, this requires an ability to take a holistic view and a knowledge of what best contributes to the organisation as a whole.
Sometimes it is not appropriate to do things in many different ways. Procedures for security work, for invoicing, for recruitment or for procurement should probably be standardized to a large extent. But at the same time, it is necessary to trust that employees can actually do this in their daily work without overloading the organisation with detailed instructions.
At the same time, the methods of research, the pedagogy in the classroom or online, the way of interacting with business partners, or the skills needs of different research teams can take many different forms.
In other words, work can be carried out in different ways without needing to be managed at a more detailed level as long as we rely on staff to take overall responsibility for the whole and for delivering good results.
The question is whether, for example, it is enough to say that travel should be carried out in a way that minimizes costs and the climate footprint, or whether detailed descriptions are needed of exactly over what distances flights can be allowed and when people can use their own cars instead of public transport?
Is it possible to require research supervisors to have termly conversations with all doctoral students about the progress of the projects relative to learning objectives, etc. without it being documented with more than a note that such a conversation took place. Or do we need to ensure the content of such conversations through checklists of all topics that must be reviewed?
I realize that one can argue for both detailed and more trust-based governance. But, the important thing is that in reviewing our own bureaucracy, we constantly ask whether the level of detail in governance is proportionate to what we are achieving.
Fewer guidelines, less bureaucracy and more trust paired with greater accountability and sense of ownership of the whole. If nothing else, that should be our compass as we build the university for the future.