What do Public Boards Do?

Set mission and purposes
Virtually all policy decisions a board ultimately makes or affirms should reflect what the institution or system of institutions is and strives to be. An articulate and compelling mission statement, in both strategic terms (the long view) and operational terms (a more immediate view), should guide everyone who has a decision-making role. A kind of "mission mania" currently is sweeping the nation, and with good reason. The tremendous growth of public higher education inevitably causes governing boards and policy makers at all levels to reassess what colleges and universities are doing and providing, especially in a period of slow economic growth.

Although the governing board may not have unilateral authority to decide the ultimate shape of the mission statement and related statements of operational goals and objectives (and although trustees do not in any case write these statements), the board does have a pivotal role with the chief executive in determining priorities. It does so, however, through its prerogative of asking the right questions and its ability to persuade and lead--both internally, with its management team and faculty leaders, and externally, with legislators, governors, coordinating agencies, and state government officials.

The board's aim is to educate its many publics and internal constituents about the institution or the system (and each college or university within the system) in the most effective and compelling way possible. To do so, trustees and other leaders throughout the university or system must use good judgment in answering questions along these lines: What makes this university or campus distinctive among the other public institutions in the state? Whom does it serve? Why and how? Why does the university or the system deserve a significant investment of tax dollars?

Among the board's responsibilities, setting institutional missions and distinguishing between them in systems are especially important. The board should have a strong sense of ownership for the missions of their institution(s), even as they evolve over time and are influenced and shaped by faculty, legislation, availability of resources, or statewide coordinating boards. Institutional missions inevitably influence the board's decisions and how it addresses its various other responsibilities.

Appoint the president or chancellor
As Clark Kerr emphasized in his 1984 study of the academic presidency, Presidents Make a Difference, the ultimate test of a board's effectiveness is its ability to attract and keep strong, competent executive leaders. The board plays a crucial role in providing an environment that attracts top talent to the university or system. No board decision is likely to have greater impact on the institution or system--or be more political, consequential, or a greater test of the board's leadership and vision--than selecting the chief executive. This is no less true for the selection of campus leaders within systems, even though the board may not be as involved in the process. Selecting a president today is increasingly difficult for boards--and the reasons are extensions of the same reasons presidents find it so difficult to lead or be "agents of change. The average tenure for public college and university presidents is about six years, according to AGB research. The position is becoming more political externally, leaving presidents less opportunity or time to exercise academic leadership (also political in nature) internally. That academic vice presidents and deans--traditional successors to presidents--are exhibiting increasing reluctance to aspire to the presidency is a symptom of the problem.

The lack of confidentiality in the search process, due in part to unreasonably restrictive open-meeting laws in some states, also makes presidential selection difficult. Too many careers have been ruined when names have been revealed prematurely, and too many institutions have missed outstanding leaders because superb would-be candidates did not trust the integrity of the selection process. Here again, the board must perform a delicate balancing act between assuming a difficult and important responsibility and consulting with the many groups that have a stake in the ultimate decision. The board must not abdicate its responsibility to make the final decision (this responsibility is its least ambiguous), but it should consult widely with campus leaders.

A clear sense of the institution's assets, needs, and strategic priorities should inform the qualities and experience to be sought in a new leader. (Executive search firms often refer to this as the "presearch" phase.) Allowing adequate time for thoughtful deliberation of these matters before the search process begins helps to set the stage for consensus on the qualities and experiences of candidates the board seeks. Achieving consensus on strategic priorities also helps to make the position more attractive to potential candidates.

Support the chief executive
When a board is blessed with a leader or group of campus leaders it can look to with pride and satisfaction, its job is immensely easier. But effective leaders are increasingly difficult to find in all industries, commercial and nonprofit. Our society is extremely demanding of those in positions of authority.

Given the amount of time, money, and luck required to find an effective leader, it is helpful to think of the president or chancellor as a significant investment that should be protected. The only place a chief executive of an academic institution can look to for consistent support is the board. In the public sector, however, the relatively frequent turnover of trustees (especially of board chairs), the increasingly politicized nature of the trustee-selection process (described by Clark Kerr and Marion L. Gade in The Guardians), and the demands of special-interest groups that claim a stake in the university present special problems and opportunities.

The board has an opportunity to demonstrate its leadership by seizing and creating initiatives that these lessons from boardroom behavior have taught us:

• A chief executive's performance can be little better than that of his or her board--and vice versa.
• The leadership of the president and that of the board, while distinctive and complementary, inevitably are interdependent. In assessing the chief executive's work, the board also is assessing its own effectiveness.
• Personal style and professional competence are important to a president's success, of course, but presidents more often find themselves in difficulty because of their operating styles and personalities than because of their competence; boards can be more helpful when offering advice and counsel if they distinguish between style and substance.
• Both the president and the board should strive to be reasonably consistent and predictable, adhering to the dictum of "no surprises" or at least as few as possible.
• Trustees often tend to be more critical than complimentary. Acknowledge good work and express appreciation for exceptional initiatives.
• Boards should not take an effective chief executive or his or her spouse for granted. Recognize their respective contributions, and demonstrate concern for their health and morale in tangible and intangible ways.

Excerpted from AGB's Board Basics, "Trustee Responsibilities: A Guide for Governing Boards of Public Institutions," by Richard T. Ingram. 

To learn more about AGB's services to strengthen public higher education, visit the Ingram Center for Public Trusteeship & Governance.