"The Leadership Imperative": Questions and Answers

The following answers may be quoted by reporters, writers, and researchers and attributed to a "Q&A feature on the AGB Web site."

What is the main point of task force report?

    That the modern academic president faces new accountability and fund-raising pressures, globalized competition, flat or shrinking government funds, 24/7 schedules, and harsh criticism from faculty internally and from business groups, policymakers, news media and political activists externally.
    At a time when we need to maximize our institutions' productivity to educate a broader slice of our population, too many presidents today have become managers more than visionaries, many of their 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.
    Too many incumbent presidents and candidates lack the necessary skill sets-to speak the languages of politics and fundraising as well as the language of scholarship, for example-and many lack the authority and power to apply firm leadership in controversial areas.
    To adapt, the task force believes presidents and governing boards should embrace "integral leadership"--in which a president exerts a presence that is purposeful and consultative, deliberative yet decisive, and capable of course corrections as new challenges emerge.
    Concretely, it links the president, the faculty, and the board together in a well-functioning partnership purposefully devoted to a well-defined, broadly affirmed institutional vision.

Why is this issue emerging now?

    The simple fact is all of our colleges and universities need to educate more students more cost-effectively than ever. Why? Because the United States is beginning to lose ground to other nations in terms of college participation and completion. All of this at a time when global economic competition is demanding even higher skill levels.
    Policymakers as well as higher education leaders need to take heed and redouble their efforts to ensure that students graduate from high school ready for college, then have access to an affordable, high quality postsecondary education program. College and university presidents and boards must raise their voices publicly to make clear that they stand ready to serve as part of the solution to this problem.
    Furthermore, for a variety of reasons, presidents' tenures have shortened to six years-and too many presidents in recent years have departed under unfavorable circumstances. Boards can address this problem head-on by establishing clear, mutually agreed-upon expectations with presidents, and by periodically assessing presidential performance and the health of the presidency in relation to the institution and its community.
    At the same time, in too many states, the boards of public colleges and universities especially have been caught in the crossfire between political and economic agendas that view these institutions as theirs to capture and bend to their own purposes.
    Governors and legislators who appoint and confirm these boards need to ensure that merit and an understanding of the public good comes first in selecting trustees-and in boards' selection of presidents. And after the November election, presidents and boards must make common cause with others in their states' education communities to effectively make the case with a new slate of governors and legislators for the value of a higher education sector that appropriately responds to community needs.

What specific recommendations are most important?

    Boards should charge the president with clarifying the institution's mission and vision, and hold the president accountable.
    Presidents should actively engage the board in meeting its responsibilities to the institution and the public trust, while deploying the talents of these skilled volunteers in supporting the higher education community as a whole.
    In all of their work, boards need to understand that it is their duty to adhere to the highest legal and ethical standards, with a clear sense of their primary fiduciary responsibilities as well as their responsibilities to a wide variety of constituencies.
    The task force also encourages governors, legislators, and other public and business leaders to develop a shared set of goals for higher education in their state, and to provide sustained, strategic financial investments to higher education to help meet those goals.
    A presidential search--one of the most important jobs a governing board has--should be organized with an eye on the future. To ensure that the search is viewed as fair and legitimate, the board needs to be in charge, not the search consultant. And searches should focus on who is best for the institution, perhaps including strong internal candidates, rather than just on charismatic outsiders.

What qualifies boards of trustees to play such a central role?

    Boards, though they cooperate closely with presidents and delegate much, are the institution's fiduciaries, with ultimate responsibility for the institution's long-term health, financial stability, and adherence to mission. Board members don't micromanage day-to-day decisions, but focus on policy and evaluation. The board's job is to focus on the big picture, help define a strategic direction, and to serve as a sounding board for the president, support the president in tough times, and make sure the process is working.

Does integral leadership have support from presidents, administrators, and faculty?

    The depth of experience and wisdom of the task force members--combined with the testimony we received from a broad array of scholars, analysts, and policymakers--led us to what we would describe as a broad consensus across public and private institutions of every scale, from community colleges to research universities.
    As part of our deliberations we had conversations with literally dozens of presidents, board leaders, and policymakers, so we are confident that this is a solid approach to these complex issues.

How does AGB plan to advance the report's recommendations?

    We are distributing it widely among the 35,000 trustees, presidents, chancellors, and administrators who are members of AGB. It will be a part of our work with governors, legislators, state education policymakers, and it will play a key in our future programs and Board Education and Consulting Services.