Court Internal Effectiveness Review - 2025
Executive Summary
The Internal Effectiveness Review results suggest that the University’s governing body is operating with a high degree of maturity, cohesion and strategic alignment. Responses show confidence in current governance arrangements, particularly in areas such as organisational stewardship, risk management, financial resilience, and alignment with institutional mission and values.
The data arising from the survey is attached at the Appendix to this paper.
Formal annual Internal Effectiveness Review forms one component of the University’s governance review arrangements, supporting collective reflection, learning and continuous improvement. It sits alongside other elements of the governance assurance framework, including activities conducted as part of the Court Strategy Day, Senate and academic committee effectiveness reviews and periodic (quinquennial) externally facilitated effectiveness review.
Such review forms part of sector best practice articulated in the Scottish Code of Good Higher Education Governance and the recently published Scottish Funding Council’s Good Governance Expectations (September 2025).
During this academic session, additional review was conducted to provide assurance on the extent to which the University was exposed to any of the failings set out in the Gillies report on the University of Dundee and expressed particularly through the seventeen areas for learning. The University’s internal auditors were commissioned to undertake an independent evaluation of how Queen Margaret University is placed against the Gillie Report findings. Through discussions with a sample of Court members, the Secretary and other key members of staff, and through examination of relevant documentation, Henderson Loggie reviewed the University’s financial management and governance arrangements. The audit findings were provided to the University Court in December 2025.
In this round, the survey focussed on a number of key areas, including decision-making structures, diversity of Court membership and commitment to culture and values, and the extent to which the Court and the Executive work collectively to develop and to support delivery of the University strategy.
The survey was launched in early December 2025 and circulated to all members of University Court eligible to participate at that time. Responses were collected on an anonymised basis. Further reminder was issued in January 2026, with thirteen responses being received in total. This represents a response rate of 65%. As responses were anonymised, it is not possible to disaggregate returns by membership category.
Questions were structured around governance themes and captured using a seven point Likert scale, ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, with a Don’t Know option where appropriate. The survey did not include qualitative free text questions, and this is suggested as being include in the next iteration of the survey.
The survey questions were derived from established, sector recognised governance effectiveness approaches (Advance HE governance guidance). Responses to each of the questions are presented as an Appendix to the paper.
The findings set out in this report therefore represent aggregated perceptions of governance effectiveness at a point in time and provide one evidence base for reflection, discussion and ongoing enhancement of governance practice.
Understanding of, and commitment to Effective Governance (questions 1 and 2)
The significant majority of responses under this heading strongly agree or agree that there is shared understanding of governance responsibilities between the Court and University leadership. The majority of respondents selected Agree or Strongly Agree, suggesting collective ownership of effective governance and a commitment to fulfilling governance roles in line with good practice.
Responses relating to the Court’s review of its own performance also show a generally positive pattern. Where responses vary, this may reflect differences in experience of formal review processes, rather than any lack of commitment to reflection or improvement. The data suggests an opportunity to strengthen the consistency and visibility of self evaluation and review activities.
Governance Structures and Processes (questions 3 to 9)
Responses relating to governance structures and processes indicate that members consider that there are effective mechanisms in place to provide assurance across key areas of institutional activity. Across this section, most respondents selected Strongly Agree or Agree. One response indicated partial agreement, three responses indicated disagreement and there was one instance of strong disagreement.
There is strong confidence overall in the Court’s ability to assure itself of academic quality and standards, financial resilience, organisational stability and risk management. There were just two negative responses, one in each of the Strongly Disagree and Disagree categories. Collectively, the responses suggest that core governance processes are well established and support the Court in fulfilling its statutory and regulatory responsibilities.
Responses relating to the scheme of delegation and the clarity of accountabilities between the governing body and academic governance structures are generally positive. This suggests that roles, responsibilities and decision making authority are understood and applied appropriately in practice. However, the variation in responses indicates that there is a need for further development work and awareness raising to strengthen shared understanding and consistency of interpretation across the full Court membership. A review of the Scheme of Delegation is currently being undertaken and will be presented to the Court at its June meeting.
Responses relating to understanding stakeholder needs show a slightly broader range. This variation appears to reflect differences in individual Court members’ visibility of engagement mechanisms, rather than concern about their existence or effectiveness. These aspects of governance are often embedded across committees and operational structures, and not all Court members may engage with them directly.
Overall, the findings indicate that governance structures and processes are effective and aligned with good practice, with scope to further enhance shared understanding and visibility of engagement and stakeholder focused assurance and understanding of the scheme of delegation.
Membership, Quality and Diversity (questions 10 to 20)
Responses relating to membership quality and diversity indicate confidence in the collective capability, skills and contribution of Court members. Across this section, most respondents selected Strongly Agree, Agree or Partially Agree, with few members disagreeing.
Respondents expressed confidence that recruitment practices are effective and transparent and enable a diverse pool of candidate to be appointed. There is agreement that the Court membership reflects the University’s key stakeholders.
Induction is generally viewed as effective and relevant, with strong agreement that induction is effectively managed and is relevant. There appears to be a relatively low level of understanding of the extent to which induction is periodically evaluated, which would be consistent with the fact that members being inducted are not aware of previous arrangements. This an area that would benefit from further reporting eg in the annual report. Responses also indicated variation in levels of understanding around the extent to which induction is tailored with four respondents selecting Don’t Know.
Court membership is considered to have the appropriate range of skills and experience and there is strong agreement that discussions and decision making are informed by different perspectives, supporting effective challenge and well rounded governance decisions.
Overall, members assess that the Court is well constituted and effective, with scope to continue enhancing the transparency, consistency and visibility of member development opportunities, post induction.
Vision, Culture and Values (questions 21 and 22)
Responses relating to the governing body’s commitment to organisational vision, culture and values suggest a high level of shared understanding and alignment. The majority of respondents selected Agree or Strongly Agree across this section, with very limited variation and no respondents expressing disagreement. Respondents also express confidence that the governing body demonstrates the personal qualities and commitment required for effective stewardship.
Overall, the results indicate that the Court provides strong, values led leadership, which supports coherent strategy, effective oversight and a positive governance culture across the institution.
Strategic Development and Performance Measurement (questions 23 to 26)
Respondents expressed agreement that effective performance reviews of the head of the institution are undertaken, demonstrating clear accountability and good governance practice.
Responses relating to the use of agreed performance measures show a generally positive pattern, with most respondents selecting Agree or Partially Agree. It is not clear whether variances in response reflect differences in how individual Court members experience or interpret performance information, or concern about the absence or quality of information. The findings indicate an opportunity to further strengthen shared understanding of how performance measures link to strategic objectives, supporting consistent assurance across the Court. This variation may also reflect the fact that the current approach is recent, with some Court members still becoming familiar with the framework. In addition, as performance reports are not presented at every meeting, some newer members may not yet have had the opportunity to engage fully with this information.
Overall, the results suggest that the governing body is effectively engaged in strategic oversight and performance monitoring, with scope to continue refining how strategic performance information is presented and tested.
Information and Communication (questions 25 and 26)
Responses relating to governing body information and communication indicate that Court members are generally confident in the quality, timeliness and clarity of information provided to support their legal, regulatory and strategic responsibilities. Across this section, most respondents selected Strongly Agree, Agree or Partially Agree, with one member disagreeing.
Responses relating to communication with stakeholders show a similar level of confidence. Despite the positive feedback against this question, it is noted that Court members will likely have differing levels of visibility of outward facing communication, depending on role, committee membership or external engagement. It is suggested, therefore, that there is opportunity to further enhance the consistency and visibility of how governance decisions and assurance are communicated to stakeholders.
Future Governance (questions 27 and 28)
Most respondents selected Strongly Agree, Agree or Partially Agree when asked about the governing body’s readiness to support future plans, suggesting a level of confidence in its collective capability, experience and strategic oversight.
Responses relating to awareness of changes in the external environment are also positive. These results suggest that Court members have a shared understanding of the external policy, regulatory and funding context within which the University operates, and consider that the Court’s ability to monitor, interpret and respond to external change is largely effective. Awareness of the wider higher education operating environment appears to be well embedded within discussions and decision making. Further work is suggested to understand from members the issues that have resulted in partial agreement with the above (four members).
Overall, the results suggest confidence in the Court’s collective ability to anticipate change and to consider its strategic and governance implications.
Working Relationships and Boardroom Behaviours (questions 29 to 33)
Responses relating to working relationships and boardroom behaviours indicate a high level of agreement on the effectiveness and maturity of the governing body’s culture. Across this section, the majority of respondents selected Agree or Strongly Agree, with very few negative responses recorded.
There is strong assurance that University Court meetings are conducted and chaired in a way that encourages active of all members in discussion and informed decision making. These responses suggest that members feel able to contribute openly and that different perspectives are welcomed within the boardroom.
The working relationship between the Court and the University leadership is also viewed positively with the majority of respondents agreeing that these relationships are transparent and effective. The balance between support and challenge is a key indicator of governance maturity.
Responses relating to constructive challenge are largely positive, with respondents indicating that challenge is both understood and accepted, and that it is undertaken effectively. This suggests a culture which promotes scrutiny as a collective responsibility and a constructive part of good governance, rather than a source of tension.
The role of the Chair in establishing, promoting and sustaining an effective governance culture is also strongly endorsed. Overall, the findings indicate that boardroom behaviours actively support effective stewardship, high quality decision making and strong working relationships across the institution.
Outcomes of Effective Governance (questions 34 to 39)
Responses relating to the outcomes of effective governance indicate confidence in the Court’s overall impact on the institution. Across all questions in this section, there were no areas of disagreement.
Respondents mostly concur that the Court has an overall positive impact on the University’s resilience and on its reputation, suggesting that governance decisions and strategic oversight are perceived as contributing meaningfully to the University’s stability, standing and long term sustainability.
Responses relating to the monitoring of planned outcomes agreed as part of the strategic plan are being regularly monitored, assessed and reported are largely in agreement, with no member disagreeing. However, seven respondents selected Partially Agree, suggesting this as an area where further work is required to increase the level of confidence that planned objectives are being tracked, assessed and reported appropriately.
Questions relating to ensuring that defined quality levels for the student experience are being met, and stakeholders’ confidence in the University show a slightly broader spread of responses. This is consistent with these outcomes being influenced by a wide range of operational, external and contextual factors, and not solely by Court directed activity. The pattern suggests there is an opportunity to strengthen members’ understanding of this area.
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) (questions 40 to 43)
Responses relating to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion are generally positive across the questions. One respondent partially disagreed, and there were four responses of Don’t Know across all questions in this section.
The variation in responses might reflect differing levels of exposure to EDI information, and the extent to which EDI is a cross cutting theme embedded across multiple committees, policies and operational areas. While there is no suggestion of concern regarding the Court’s commitment to EDI or its oversight role, the findings suggest that while appropriate mechanisms are in place, there is an opportunity to strengthen consistency, visibility and shared understanding of EDI assurance across the full Court membership.
Members are invited to consider the findings set out in this paper and to reflect on whether they align with their own experience of governance in practice.
Further written feedback is welcomed on the identified strengths and the areas highlighted for potential further development, including where members consider additional focus or assurance would be helpful.
