Search News


Browse Archives

News

Institutional Leadership 101

September 25, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

College presidents should lead boldly, and trustees ought to clearly define their expectations for presidents and provide them with adequate support, according to " The Leadership Imperative," a 50-page report from the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Saying that presidents and governing boards share a responsibility to articulate their institution's mission, the report outlines what its authors believe are key components of presidential leadership and trustee oversight. Its main recommendation for presidents is that they adhere to a style defined as "integral leadership," in which they are “purposeful and consultative, deliberate yet decisive, and capable of course corrections as new challenges emerge.”

For the report, the AGB's Task Force on the State of the Presidency in Higher Education interviewed presidents and chancellors at a range of private and public institutions, looked at case studies of presidential searches and evaluated presidents throughout their tenures. (Its findings in a similar report issued 10 years ago were that presidents should be "purposeful" decision makers.) This report notes that an increased demand for institutional accountability and fund raising, and a shrinking amount of public support in higher education, is changing the daily lives of presidents.

"Many academic presidents have become managers more than visionaries,” Gerald L. Baliles, a former Virginia governor and chair of the project, said in a statement. “Many faculty are more committed to their disciplines than to their institutions, and state legislatures are focusing less and less on the financial needs and public benefits of higher education.”

The report said presidents should seize the bully pulpit and lead with a sense of moral authority. It chides the “arrogant and insensitive” president who doesn’t respect subordinates and gets so involved in institutional micromanagement that the leader fails to articulate and follow long-term goals. Using data from The Chronicle of Higher Education's 2005 Survey of College and University Presidents, the report notes that institutional governance matters – including fund raising and budgeting issues -- rank among top issues for which presidents report being unprepared. That survey found that more than half of presidents reported fund raising at least once a day.

Presidents, early on in their tenures, have to find out what are the particular needs of their institutions and "adapt to the institutional saga" -- even if they didn't rise up through the ranks at a particular college or university. That, the report said, is where trustees come in. Too few presidents receive support for visionary leadership from their trustees, the report found.

"Once in office, new presidents often come to feel orphaned by their boards," according to the report. The board should help presidents confront controversial issues, support them in their efforts to be an advocate for all of higher education, but not intrude into operational or management issues -- such as admissions and athletics -- which "severely undermines a president's ability to lead," the report said.

The trustees' association reminds public college governing boards that they shouldn't feel beholden to the state legislature, and that they should keep their institutions' needs in mind above all else. It also calls on each governing board to speak as a unified voice through its chairman -- even if factions within the group exist. The report calls on the trustees to come up with clearly defined benchmarks and goals for presidents, and for them to tie compensation to how well the presidents follow through on these measures.

AGB offers a message to state policy makers, too: Choose trustees based on merit and financial support, not loyalty to a political benefactor.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Institutional Leadership 101

  • Boards have got to go
  • Posted by PS on September 25, 2006 at 9:31am EDT
  • The historic role of Boards - providing accountability - is gone. The state and federal government has a lot of regulatory requirements. Additionally, colleges must meet specific unit or professional standards (accounting, health and safety regulations, etc.).

    Secondly, Boards are rarely interested in educational policy issues, are woefully ignorant of how colleges run, and invest little time or energy in understanding the higher education environment. What they are interested in is advancing their own political careers, micro-managing pet projects, and catering to specific, narrow constituents (usually through encouraging administrators to hire friends and cronies) - often to the detriment of the rest of the campus.

    Boards used to exist to ensure the public the college was operating efficiently and ethically. Now the opposite has occurred - college administrators spend inordinate amounts of time protecting the college from meddling and unethical Boards!

    A final reason they have to go, and perhaps the most important one, is that they never evaluate themselves nor are they evaluated by states, federal govt., or AGB. There is no mechanism for ensuring Boards are accountable - they have a free ride...and budget, usually including travel. It is ironic, and frightening, that in the most recent calls for accountability, Boards are absent.

    Boards have outlived their usefullness and purpose. College administrators have more important things to work on than to cater to their wacky ideas on a moment's notice and respond to their political whims - they've got to go.

  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
  • Posted by R.J. O'Hara on September 25, 2006 at 9:31am EDT
  • AGB offers a message to state policy makers, too: Choose trustees based on merit and financial support, not loyalty to a political benefactor.

    How about just on merit, period. Is that such an alien idea in the world of higher education?

    I taught for ten years in the North Carolina state system, where university trusteeships were little more than political patronage positions given to thuggish local millionaires. Sports and real estate development were the top priorities, and as for education, well, who needs that anyway. We know what the students are: a population of serfs we can tax at will to support our economic and egotistical interests.

    A legal mechanism is needed in every state to allow the voters to remove corrupt university trustees. How about it, ACTA?

  • Institutional Leadership
  • Posted by William McGinnis , Trustee & Board President at Butte-Glenn Community College on September 25, 2006 at 11:20am EDT
  • I am sorry to read the comments so far about this article and how Trustees seem to be the fault for what ails higher education. The truth is that Trustees have very little authority to lead especially when the State dictates the budget, the outcomes, and the process for instruction. Added to these limitations, trustees are not often allowed to stray from the agenda they are provided by the administration - thus administration is focusing the conversations on the topics they desire and not necessarily what the Board desires. In order for trustees to become more effective they need to have the authority to set the agendas and have conversations about the future of the institution and not just to fix problems of the present or past. Where Trustees are afforded the opportunity to have conversations - new ideas can be added to the discussion about the future of the institution.

  • Boards have the power to set the agenda
  • Posted by Matt Wetstein , Political Science at Delta College on September 25, 2006 at 12:55pm EDT
  • William McGinnis suggests that boards of trustees lack agenda control and have to respond to the agenda set by the administration of the college. If this is the case, it only occurs where a weak board allows this to happen. The reality of California Community Colleges is that college presidents are serving at the pleasure of the board -- not vice versa. What is needed in many institutions is a reassertion of vigorous leadership and questioning by board members. A healthy democratic process should not allow an administration to simply control the agenda of the board. Instead, faculty leaders and board members ought to have a significant voice in the leadership and future direction of a college, and good presidents will recognize the need for collaborative engagement.

  • re:
  • Posted by PS on September 25, 2006 at 1:00pm EDT
  • The problem isn't that Boards don't have authority. The problem is that they have too much authority. Boards can fire and hire, set tuition, and back up threats and retaliate with real action. For instance, if an administrator fails to hire a political hack for a made-up college job, they risk getting fired. Boards are also very adept at cutting the budget, but when it comes time to make a decision about what programs to cut, they walk away, leaving the administrators to do the dirty work. The constant spector of being fired - a power Boards are very adept at wielding - prevents faculty and staff from being critical and engaging in any kind of meaningful discussion with them.

    Finally, there is no - repeat, no - evidence that Boards provide effective leadership or make a real difference in the colleges they serve. Their failure to provide any evaluation of themselves or evidence of effectiveness is the result of two things: 1) they don't know how and will never be able to agree on what is important, except for what is politically expedient for individually, and 2) they don't want to expose themselves and their political actions to the public.

    Boards aren't the cause of all problems in higher education - they are too ignorant of major educational policy issues and too afraid to make tough decisions, leaving those to administrators, to be that dangerous. But they do distract faculty and staff from concentrating on fulfilling the college's mission of learning and engagement (how rarely does a Board discuss those issues?!?!)