Know thy governing structure; they vary quite a bit. Once you’re familiar with the position you’ve found yourself in, you need to cultivate a model that serves the university and your needs, whatever structure you have inherited.
If you are an experienced president, you may want to skip this post, unless you want to fantasize about what life might be like under a different board structure. My experience as Provost at the University of South Dakota and as President of the University of Idaho was with a system board.
Every university has some sort of governing board, but they all range in structure, mission, and operation. Three structures are probably the most common:
- A university governed by a self-nominating board: This structure is very typical of private universities. Board members are often alumni – often donors – but always people interested and invested in the university, usually very accomplished in business, government, or academia. An advantage of such boards is that they are frequently advocacy boards, meaning that their prime interest is helping the president ensure the success of the college.
- A university governed by a government-appointed board: This is a common structure for public universities. Board members may serve because of their position in government, be elected, or be appointed by the governor or the legislature. Again, members are typically accomplished in business, government, or academia. These boards can unfortunately – and unsurprisingly – be political. Like the self-nominating board, in most instances the primary focus of board members is helping the university succeed, though in this particular scenario that idea of success is often colored by a specific political perspective.
- A university system governed by one system board: The most obvious examples are state systems, but there can be systems governed by a religious or business entity. The most extreme version of a state system is Idaho in which all of public education, K20, is governed by one board. More common are systems in which higher education is one system and K12 is governed separately. The advantage of system boards is that they can take a very systematic look at the needs of a state; the disadvantage is that these are typically governance rather than advocacy boards. Presidents may need advocacy help from some supplementary board. Systems usually employ a system officer or executive director and staff to oversee daily operations of the system.
The Board ideally sets priorities, general direction, and hires a president who can execute. The most important decision that a Board is likely to make will be whom they hire as president. The Board will decide whether to renew the president’s contract and can help a president set and achieve priorities, so this is definitely a “managing up” situation.
Ultimately, Board relations led to the end of my presidency, so perhaps I can retrospectively give a few pointers on challenges. Be sure to align your presidential priority with the Board priority. Speak to them frequently about that priority, sharing at least monthly the progress you have made and engaging them for assistance wherever possible. In my own case, I feel that while I kept the Board informed, I did so too infrequently and with too little positive detail; when you have infrequent communication the tendency is to highlight what needs work rather than what’s going well or improving. In hindsight, I think all Board members may not be able to separate the daily challenges they have entrusted to you from the bigger picture; they may see small irritations like constituents who resent a tuition increase more readily than they perceive a need to support the university, for example. In many public institutions, Board meetings are highly regulated by public meeting laws. Incredibly, these laws have probably driven significant debate and question underground rather than brought them to light; in my experience many Board meetings are formulaic and not impactful. The Executive Director in such a situation can be a powerful ally in communicating with the Board; this relationship is worth cultivation.
If you find yourself with a system Board, I recommend that you not only cultivate the Board but also seek powerful advocates elsewhere in a structured Board. This may be, in some cases, a foundation board that oversees your endowment and is usually composed of accomplished alumni who might otherwise serve on a one-institution board. If that body does not align with your needs, simply constitute an advisory board of your own. I found interacting with 8-10 influential and intelligent, yet independent people one of the most valuable interactions of my presidency. I expected more difficulty positioning this advisory board relative to the existing foundation board and state board; in the end there was, unfortunately, remarkably little interest in the workings of this advisory board by other boards or interested parties like faculty.