U.S. colleges and universities are frequently characterized as inefficient and slow to change, with shared governance models and expectations often blamed. During COVID-19, however, the nation witnessed campuses rapidly adjust practices and policies to continue operating in the ‘new normal’ of a global pandemic. This study aimed to explore the governance adaptations that facilitated colleges’ pandemic responses and what this can teach us about innovating decision-making processes in a shared governance context. Through a multiple case study of three Mid-Atlantic colleges that developed new governance structures to manage COVID-19 decision-making, this dissertation examined: How college governance practices were innovated to meet the demands of COVID-19; campus member perceptions of pandemic decision-making approaches; and lessons for effective innovation of college governance, especially in response to disruptive crisis conditions. Analysis of institutional documents and interviews with key campus members produced several findings with implications for the theory and practice of postsecondary governance and campus crisis management. First, examination of decision-making approaches shows that college leaders utilized a combination of consultation with existing shared governance bodies (e.g., board of trustees) and development of new parallel governance—the latter serving as the primary mechanism for crisis management and planning. While the exact configurations of COVID-19 governance varied across institutions, one interesting commonality was that leaders continued to innovate decision-making structures and processes as the crisis continued across semesters. At some institutions, this included efforts to make decision-making more representative or inclusive. This suggests the need to adjust current conceptualizations of campus crisis management to capture the adaptive nature of campus responses when disruptive events are longer term. In practice, as leaders make initial innovations to governance at the start of a disruptive event, there is value to designing these with flexibility in mind. Doing such allows crisis governance to evolve in tandem with crisis evolutions, and can accommodate increased sharing of decision-making across the course of a disruptive event. Second, findings reveal that, when disruptive conditions threaten safety and feature broader ideological divides, belief in the legitimacy of decision-making processes is particularly difficult to foster and interpret. Analysis of campus perspectives by constituency group furthers understanding of the unique ways that legitimacy and organizational justice factors function in crisis conditions. Although dissent is perhaps unavoidable, findings support that campus members directly involved in some aspect of crisis decision-making are more likely to trust in innovated governance and the overarching approach to the crisis. As such, leaders are advised to incorporate broadly-shared decision-making into at least one stage of their crisis response. Additionally, great care and consideration should be given to the selection of individuals to serve on innovated governance bodies. Across the cases, decisions related to representation had consequences—positive and negative—for sentiments about crisis decision making, and perspectives on the condition of shared governance at institutions more generally. Lastly, although leaders and researchers categorize crisis management as a distinct institutional activity, this research highlights the interconnectedness of crisis approaches and ongoing shared governance practices and culture. An argument is made for conceptualizing crisis management—and associated governance innovations—as part of a larger shared governance strategy. This reframe has the potential to improve the effectiveness of campus responses to disruptive events and presents crises as opportunities—not to circumvent shared governance, but to strengthen it.