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 they may not fully grasp the intricacies at play.
As a faculty member, my awareness of the Board of Trustees at my public university was limited, primarily shaped by the criticisms I heard from colleagues regarding their hiring practices. Over nearly twenty years, our institution has seen six different 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 expressed their frustrations. I watched in discomfort, and when the board 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. Although I have never been particularly social, I felt flattered by the attention.
During our discussions, the trustee asked for additional faculty contacts, and I provided several names. Our communication continued, and eventually, the board made the decision to dismiss the president and appoint a new leader. The trustee and I would occasionally discuss campus matters, as well as our shared interests in literature and pets. These exchanges made me feel acknowledged and appreciated, which is a rarity in academia.
It wasn’t until I began writing a newsletter for an educational publication and engaged in confidential discussions 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 valid reasons. While it is beneficial for trustees to gain insight into 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 input, but their understanding of administrative realities is often limited. Additionally, some board members, like certain faculty, may enjoy stirring controversy.
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 toward positive outcomes. These stories, while encouraging, are often overshadowed by troubling accounts of board misconduct. Instances of trustees reliving their college days, engaging in inappropriate behavior, and undermining the president through covert alliances are not uncommon.
I have come to understand that many challenges in higher education stem from a lack of oversight for trustees and a vague understanding of their roles. While there are associations and consultants available, those who seek assistance are often already aware of their dysfunction, typically after significant issues have arisen. Most training occurs only after a crisis, when someone with authority decides to bring in outside help.
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 toxic environment after they transition to a new position and realize that their new board operates differently. This realization can be quite jarring.
Boards may hire a president to instigate change or address significant challenges, but when an institution is accustomed to a particular way of operating—especially under a long-serving president—the new leader often becomes the scapegoat for any discomfort caused by change. When trustees hear complaints from their social circles about the institution’s transformation or faculty express no confidence, the new president is often the one who 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. However, most trustees are accustomed to being in control and expecting immediate results, which is not how higher education functions. We have yet to address the complexities of shared governance, which adds another layer of difficulty.
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 will not scrutinize them too closely, while others selectively share information to leverage the board’s expertise. Effective trustees are inquisitive and thoughtful, yet not all seem to grasp that their role is one of governance, not management.
Similar to faculty development, those eager to improve their skills attend training sessions, while those who most need it often do not participate. Those 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.
Effective trustees understand 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 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 deteriorate. Many presidents have enjoyed strong, supportive relationships with board chairs, only to see everything change when a new chair is appointed or a new group of trustees joins the board. The sudden shift can be inexplicable, leaving only the realization that things have changed.
This is often when we 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 them. 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 wise to prepare for the possibility that one party may choose to walk away.