Forum: Crises of Confidence

Is a time of discontent for many academics. The lingering effects of the pandemic, diminished faith in the value of their profession, partisan divides that stretch beyond the statehouse into college classrooms, the corporatization of the academy, not to mention worldwide instability, combine to stoke widespread angst. As emotional temperatures rise on campuses across the country, more board leaders and their presidents are looking for answers to this question. They have reason to be concerned.

No confidence votes in college and university leaders are erupting as frequently as the common cold. And the president is no longer the only target. Increasingly, faculty express anger and distrust of boards as well as governance processes, including executive searches and strategic planning. Like the common cold, there is no easy cure for these crises of lost confidence.

Faculty members feel marginalized. They believe, correctly, that they exert less and less influence over the future of their institutions. Voting no confidence in the president and often the board becomes their only means of voicing their discontent.

Ask yourself these questions

No college or university is immune from a no confidence vote in its leaders. Understanding the dynamics leading up to such votes, however, will help boards avoid them in the first place and minimize their effects should a vote occur.

Answering these questions will help you forecast the likelihood of a vote and suggest how to prevent it.

1. Has the faculty taken a vote of no confidence in the past several years?

2. Are relations between the administration and a faculty senate or union more antagonistic than collegial?

3. Is your board taking or contemplating actions that adversely affect faculty workload, compensation, or job security?

4. Is the board considering other disruptions to the status quo such as a merger with another institution, internal reorganization, or shift in resources from the humanities to STEM disciplines?

5. Do the faculty and other groups dispute returning to campus for in-person teaching, requiring vaccinations or masking protocols?

6. Does your president or senior staff appear dismissive or tone deaf to the interests of the faculty in general and its leaders, as well as the traditions of shared governance?

7. Has the board recently awarded the president a substantial pay increase, refurbished the home or office, or approved what may seem to be lavish entertainment or living expenses?

8. Is the president perceived as inept when it comes to sustaining the institution through enrollment growth, fundraising, or persuading state authorities to increase the appropriation?

9. Have the president, senior staff, or board members displayed insensitivity in language or action to the interests of minorities, women, members of the LGBTQ community, conservative groups, and any others who feel aggrieved over past or current inequities?

10. Is the president or the board perceived to sacrifice academic freedom or staff and student safety in response to partisan political pressures or the wishes of conservative trustees or major donors?

Consider a “yes” to any one of these questions a warning sign. “Yes” to several suggests the odds of a vote are moving from possible to probable.

Preventing a no confidence vote

Remember that a no confidence vote is a political process within the academic community. The concerns may be legitimate, but the process itself necessitates a vote of individuals with differing opinions and interests. The instigators seek a majority in favor of no confidence. Even votes that fail by a narrow margin will damage the presidency and often the board as well.

Consider these preventative measures.

• The law of thirds. When it comes to group decisions like no confidence votes, a percentage of faculty (not necessarily 33 percent) may be convinced that a no confidence vote is their best option. Another group may be certain that a vote is not in the institution’s or their own best interests. And a large group in the middle may be open to persuasion either way. Confirming the support of those opposed to the vote and persuading the undecided should be the goal of concerted board and president communications.
• Assess your vulnerabilities. A diagnostic tool like the 10 questions above will highlight triggers of no confidence motions. Negative or openly hostile attitudes of administrators and board members toward faculty, the degree and pace of uncomfortable change, and egregious or ill-timed actions are prominent causes.
• Relationships matter. Check for excessive “we-they” biases in formal and informal communications with faculty. Striking a positive tone underscores the fundamental goodwill of the administration and the board even as policy differences remain. Perceptions of the fundamental decency of leaders will help to mitigate support for potential no confidence proposals.
• Expand communications. When the president and board must make unpopular decisions, increase the content and channels of your communications. Why are painful changes necessary? What steps will the board take to lessen the effects on individuals? Why will less painful alternatives only make matters worse? Focus not just on faculty leaders, but also on that open-minded middle range who may be convinced to hold an implicit vote of confidence in the president and board if given good reasons.
• Practice listening. Upstream listening sessions with faculty, especially about unpopular choices, may shed new light on the issues. As awkward and at times recriminatory as these conversations may be, they also provide a response to inevitable accusations that “the board never listens.”
• Establish back channels. Confidential conversations with well informed and influential faculty members outside formal channels are invaluable to both sides. These sources of intelligence can provide advance warnings. Moderate voices among the faculty may persuade activists to privately discuss their concerns with the board rather than going public with the attention-getting story.
• Finally, accept the reality that despite all your best efforts, a no confidence vote may occur. Emotions may be running so high among the faculty that they feel they have no other choice. There are always militant individuals ready to engineer a vote given the right circumstances. Academic politics may eclipse the board’s best intentions. And the board’s blindness to the genuine concerns of faculty may leave even the most reasonable among them feeling a dramatic event is the only way to capture the board’s attention.

After the vote

No confidence votes are bad news for the board, the institution, and the faculty. (A partial exception occurs when faculty vote against a hapless president who is unable or unwilling to provide effective leadership. In this case, the vote reminds the board to address their top responsibility of ensuring competent executive leadership.)

Publicity surrounding the vote leads students and their families to consider competing colleges less mired in turmoil. If the president departs as a result, the best replacements will be skeptical of applying. Prospective new faculty will question the wisdom of moving into a troubled environment. At public institutions, the governor and legislators will be tempted to intervene or take sides.

Seldom are program or staff reductions affected by the vote, at least not for long. The harsh demographic, cultural, political, and economic realities surrounding higher education will not change because a group of academics voted no confidence in the current leadership. The faculty will find themselves no better off following the vote.

Positive steps will help heal the wounds caused by a no confidence motion and help prevent a recurrence. Consider these actions.

• Manage the board’s emotions. The chair is responsible for setting the right tone. Displaying anger over what you perceived to be the unfairness of the vote is a mistake. The board’s behavior can help or hurt its reputation for evenhandedness and maturity. Recriminations or blaming a few angry individuals will only perpetuate hostilities.
• Seek objective professional help. Crafting a message that affirms the board’s respect for the president (assuming it is deserved) but also acknowledges faculty concerns requires expert guidance. Decide if the case requires an external assessment to get at the facts. If the vote is merely a tool a faculty group habitually takes to bring pressure during contract negotiations, be prepared to call it out as such and confirm the board’s confidence in the president.
• Stay the course. Abandoning necessary change, unpopular as it may be, only defers solutions to chronic problems. Consider minor adjustments or taking additional time to implement if a brief delay does not jeopardize the initiative. Setting aside painful choices makes the job of the incumbent president or the next one more difficult and leaves the institution worse off than before the vote.
• Apologize and correct when appropriate. If an ill-timed action such as a presidential pay hike or an expensive inauguration in a time of austerity triggered the vote, do not stubbornly proceed with something that may have been a mistake from the start. Reverse the pay hike, scale down the inauguration, and acknowledge the misstep. Apologies will not make the problem disappear, but they do show that you understand the concerns.

No confidence votes are an unfortunate fact of life. Board leaders should seek to understand and address the dynamics underlying the votes, take steps to prevent them where possible, and make the best out of an unpleasant situation when they do occur. Mature board leaders in these disrupted situations will accelerate the institution’s recovery and help restore productive relationships.

Terrence MacTaggart, PhD, is an AGB senior consultant and senior fellow who is an experienced leader and scholar in higher education.