The dynamics of university governing boards often remain shrouded in mystery, much like the complexities of personal relationships. The true nature of these boards is often only understood by those directly involved, and even then, clarity can be elusive.
As a faculty member, my awareness of the Board of Trustees at my public university was limited. Most of what I heard came from colleagues expressing their frustrations over hiring choices. Over nearly twenty years, our institution has seen six presidents, a clear indicator of underlying issues.
Following a no-confidence vote against a previous president, the board organized a public Zoom meeting where faculty, students, and community members voiced their concerns. I watched in discomfort as the board faced criticism. When they invited further comments, I felt compelled to share my perspective on the deteriorating situation.
The next day, a trustee reached out to express gratitude for my input and inquired if I would be open to a conversation. I agreed, knowing that some of my colleagues had established informal relationships with board members. I was flattered by the attention, despite my usual lack of social prowess.
During our discussions, the trustee asked for recommendations of other faculty members to contact. I provided several names, and we maintained communication. Eventually, the board made the decision to dismiss the president and appoint a new leader. Our conversations evolved to include not just campus matters but also personal interests like literature and pets, making me feel acknowledged and appreciated.
It wasn’t until I began writing a newsletter for an educational publication and engaged in confidential dialogues with current presidents that I realized my informal communication with the trustee might not align with established protocols. Upon reviewing the board’s bylaws, I discovered that trustees are generally discouraged from bypassing the president to engage with university staff.
This regulation exists for a valid reason. While it is beneficial for trustees to be informed about the institutions they oversee, their primary responsibilities are fiduciary in nature, including the hiring and, when necessary, the firing of the president, who is tasked with educating them about the institution. Faculty and staff can provide valuable insights, but their understanding of administrative complexities is often limited. Additionally, some board members, like certain faculty, may thrive on creating discord.
Fortunately, the trustee I interacted with was genuinely invested in the university’s well-being, demonstrating intelligence and compassion. However, the existence of bylaws is a reminder that not all individuals act with integrity or possess adequate knowledge. I’ve learned that many board members, along with some presidents, often overlook important governance documents, which are seldom updated. A current president recently shared that when he assumed his role, the bylaws still referenced sending documents via telegram!
In recent years, I’ve encountered numerous accounts of successful collaborations between presidents and supportive boards, leading various institutions effectively. These stories, while positive, are often uneventful.
Conversely, I’ve also heard alarming tales of board misconduct. Instances of trustees reliving their college days by overindulging at events, making inappropriate comments, and undermining the president through secretive alliances with executive team members are not uncommon. Such behavior can create a toxic environment, especially when board members engage directly with faculty, bypassing the president.
I’ve come to understand that many challenges in higher education stem from a lack of oversight regarding trustees and a general ambiguity about their roles. While there are associations and consultants available, the institutions that seek their guidance are often those already aware of their dysfunction, typically after significant issues have arisen. Most training occurs only after a crisis, when someone with authority decides to invest in external expertise.
One might assume that leaders would easily identify a dysfunctional board. However, as a consultant once remarked, each board is unique. Many presidents only recognize they were in a problematic relationship after they transition to a new position and realize that their new board operates differently. This realization can be quite jarring.
Boards sometimes appoint a president to instigate change or address significant challenges, particularly when budgets are tight. However, if an institution is accustomed to a certain way of operating, especially under a long-serving president, the new leader may be unfairly blamed for any discomfort caused by necessary changes. When trustees hear complaints from their social circles about the institution’s transformation or face faculty votes of no confidence, the new president often bears the brunt of the backlash.
Some argue that larger boards are more effective, as fewer members can lead to less influence from dominant voices. Most trustees are accustomed to leadership roles and expect quick results, which is often at odds with the slower pace of higher education. Additionally, the concept of shared governance complicates matters further.
Presidents must navigate a delicate balance: providing the board with sufficient information to fulfill their responsibilities without overwhelming them. Some create extensive board reports, hoping that members won’t scrutinize them too closely, while others selectively share information to leverage the board’s expertise. Effective trustees are inquisitive and reflective, yet not all understand that their role is to govern rather than manage.
Similar to faculty development, those eager to improve their skills attend training sessions, while those who most need it often do not. Individuals who engage in bullying behavior may label themselves as ‘critical thinkers.’ A former president-turned-consultant noted that in the past, board members would call out inappropriate conduct, but now, when disruptive individuals appear, others suddenly find their phones captivating.
Competent trustees recognize their responsibilities. One trustee I spoke with told his president, “If I ever feel like I’m running the institution, it’s time to find a new president.” This sentiment reflects a healthy partnership built on mutual trust, clear boundaries, and a shared commitment to the institution’s success.
However, like any relationship, the dynamics between presidents and boards can shift. Many presidents have enjoyed strong partnerships with supportive board chairs, only to face changes when new chairs or trustees come on board. Such transitions can lead to unforeseen challenges, leaving no clear explanation for the shift in dynamics.
Ultimately, this is when we often see announcements stating that a president has “resigned unexpectedly.” The board expresses gratitude for their service, appoints an interim leader, and closes the door behind the departing president. In some recent instances, the interim leader has been the board chair, who then assumes the presidency.
This is why experienced presidents approach contract negotiations as if they are drafting a prenuptial agreement. Just like in any relationship, one hopes for longevity, but it is prudent to prepare for the possibility that one party may choose to exit.