Higher Education Governance - Expert Advice for Leaders

The relationship between a college president and the governing board is the hinge on which institutional health turns. When it works, the institution can move decisively through crisis and opportunity alike. When it fractures, even a wealthy, well-staffed university can stall. Presidents, board chairs, and trustees who understand how to build and sustain this partnership give their institution a durable advantage. This article offers direct, experience-tested advice for leaders on both sides of that relationship, with a focus on the president–board dynamic rather than the mechanics of trusteeship in general.

Want expert help putting this into practice? Higher Education Governance can guide you through it.

Understand the Roles Before You Try to Improve the Relationship

Confusion about roles is the root cause of most president–board conflict. The board owns three things it cannot delegate: hiring and evaluating the president, approving major strategic and financial commitments, and safeguarding the mission. Everything else in the operation of the institution belongs to the president and the team the president builds. The president, in turn, owns the responsibility to keep the board informed, to bring forward significant decisions in time for genuine deliberation, and never to surprise the board.

Leaders who write these boundaries down and revisit them annually spare themselves recurring friction. A useful exercise is a jointly authored one-page statement of who decides what, reviewed at the start of each academic year. It converts an implicit and often contested understanding into an explicit agreement that new trustees and new cabinet members can read.

The Board Chair and President Partnership

Related: Higher Education Governance Structures Requirements Explained: What You Need to Know.

Beneath the full board relationship sits a more intimate one: the working partnership between the president and the board chair. These two individuals set the tone for everything else. When they trust each other and communicate frequently, the full board tends to function well. When they compete or go silent, dysfunction spreads.

Practical habits sustain this partnership. A standing weekly or biweekly call keeps small issues from becoming large ones. The chair should hear difficult news from the president first, never from a trustee or the press. The president should treat the chair as a thought partner on sensitive matters before they reach the full board. And both should agree on how they will handle the inevitable trustee who oversteps, presenting a united front rather than leaving the president to police the board alone.

Communication Discipline: No Surprises in Either Direction

"No surprises" is the most valuable single principle in the president–board relationship, and it runs both ways. Presidents must not spring major problems on trustees at a meeting; trustees must not blindside the president with public criticism or backchannel maneuvering. Building a rhythm of communication is how leaders honor this principle in practice.

• A regular written update from the president between meetings, brief and candid, covering wins, worries, and what is coming.
• Early warning of bad news, delivered privately and promptly rather than managed and delayed.
• Consultation before commitment on decisions that will require board approval, so trustees are not asked to rubber-stamp choices already made.
• Clear escalation paths so a concerned trustee knows to raise issues through the chair rather than directly with staff.

Setting Expectations Through the Evaluation Cycle

See also: Higher Education Governance PDF: Key Concepts & Practical Insights.

The annual presidential evaluation is where the relationship becomes formal and fair. Leaders who treat it as a developmental partnership rather than a verdict get far more from it. The cycle begins with jointly set goals: the president and board agree on a handful of priorities for the year, tied to the strategic plan. Progress is reviewed at midyear, giving the president a chance to adjust and the board a chance to signal concerns before they harden.

A worked example illustrates the value. Suppose a board and president agree in the fall that the year's priorities are stabilizing enrollment, launching a capital campaign, and improving faculty relations. At midyear, enrollment is flat but campaign preparation is behind. Because the goals were explicit, the board can offer support rather than blame, and the president knows exactly where to concentrate. The summer evaluation then rests on shared expectations, not shifting or unspoken standards.

Navigating Conflict Without Breaking Trust

Disagreement between a president and board is normal and often healthy; the danger lies in how it is handled. Leaders should distinguish between conflict over substance, which sharpens decisions, and conflict over authority, which corrodes the relationship. When trustees disagree with a presidential recommendation on the merits, that is the board doing its job. When individual trustees try to direct operations, recruit allies against the president, or communicate directly with faculty to undermine leadership, the chair must intervene.

Common failure modes include the board that will not deliver hard feedback until it has decided to remove the president, and the president who hides problems until they explode. Both destroy trust. The antidote is a culture in which candor is routine and expected, so difficult conversations happen early, in private, and with the shared goal of the institution's success rather than the defense of individual pride.

Practical Habits That Keep the Partnership Strong

Leaders can strengthen the president–board relationship with a short list of durable practices. Establish and document role boundaries and review them yearly. Build a genuine working partnership between president and chair, with frequent contact. Adopt the no-surprises rule and honor it in both directions. Run a structured, goal-based evaluation cycle. Invest in trustee orientation so new members understand their role before they are tempted to exceed it. And schedule occasional relationship check-ins that ask not only how the institution is doing but how the working partnership itself is holding up.

These practices are general guidance rather than legal advice, and each institution should adapt them to its own charter, culture, and the counsel of qualified advisors. Still, the pattern is consistent across strong institutions: leaders who invest in the president–board relationship as deliberately as they invest in strategy or fundraising build resilience that shows most clearly when times are hard. Higher Education Governance is dedicated to helping presidents, chairs, and trustees develop exactly these habits, so that the partnership at the top becomes a source of strength rather than a recurring point of failure.