1. Improve cooperation between board and administrative leadership.
Using standardized templates and sharing executive summaries for briefings — instead of long and impenetrable presentation documents — can help focus discussions. And regular updates on key performance indicators and regular communication with the administration can ensure that the board clearly understands the university’s current and projected position.
2. Redefine board structure.
Good board systems – consisting of about 20 to 25 members, or 12 in corporate settings – are more effective, generationally diverse, have clear term limits and lengths, and consist of members representing a varied set of capabilities.
3. Set clear board processes and norms.
McKinsey research on effectiveness of corporate boards — how well they execute on their core functions — found those that are successful spend 25 to 30 percent of their time discussing strategy, 20 to 25 percent focused on performance management, and the remaining time discussing other topics, such as organization, culture, talent, investments, and governance. University boards should take heed — allocating the right mixture of time to the core functions is a delicate balance.11
The Changing Role of a University President
As society and culture change, so has the role of the university president. Consider, for example, a 2017 report by Deloitte, which identified the role presidents have played over the years:
•
College presidents were mostly clergy, who split their time between running the institution and teaching.
•
As colleges became a more complex institution, boards began searching for managers to run the campus. Presidents see their role more as a profession and adopt informal clubs amongst their peers.
•
After WWII and passage of the GI Bill, a surge in student enrollment required presidents to build bigger and more formal administrative structures, larger physical plants, and more academic offerings.
•
As federal and state financing shifts from student grants to federal loans and small state appropriations, presidents become fiscal agents of their institutions who focus on fundraising, building new revenue streams, and searching for and creating new partnerships to share costs.
•
•
•
Today, post-COVID, a college president is “more of a modern marketer than the esteemed academic of yore.”12
Why is this? According to the annual survey of college and university presidents conducted by Inside Higher Education, 91 percent of respondents said, “they would prioritize cultivating new donor bases; 87 percent said they would request or lobby for additional federal and/or state support; 81 percent said they would pursue grants; and 64 percent said they planned to start or expand a capital campaign.” Identifying a common thread among each initiative that effectively suggested having a ‘strong brand narrative to win over prospective funders,’ Deloitte concluded the college president has merged as “Chief Storyteller and Brand Ambassador” of his or her institution.13
Citing Beardsley in Higher Calling, Deloitte confirmed that the ideal four-year college
123