Some higher education observers suggest that the increasing complexity of academic governance is a way of characterizing the evolution of social expectations. Others say it underscores the adaptability of higher education's organizational structures and practices. As a general account, increasing complexity fits better during times of growth than during times of consolidation or selective reinvestment. Alternative accounts are needed to analyze the dynamics of change during restructuring. Such conceptual advancements could add analytical sharpness to public academic governance rather than merely tracking changes in premises and norms in the division of academic labor. A chasm exists between management and governance. Faculty members are often characterized as unwilling to learn the principles of quality and efficiency espoused by trustees, presidents, and deans. They are commonly cast as scapegoats, protecting their turf from downsizing and restructuring even when the good of the whole depends on such changes. Trustees, presidents, and deans are often accused of bypassing faculty consultation and acting to further their own partisan interests. This chasm is seen as a gap between the common good and self-interest. The paper calls for deliberative efforts to bridge these chasms, noting research that may shed light on effective ways to foster collaboration. (Contains 37 bibliographic references.) (SM)