Across interviews, this relationship emerged as one of the strongest predictors of governance effectiveness. Leading boards recognize this dynamic and conduct periodic presidential assessments that explicitly evaluate the quality of the board–president relationship alongside performance outcomes, treating relationship health as a governance priority rather than an implicit assumption.
We examine those practices through three lenses:
First, information flow : not simply what boards are told, but when they are brought into emerging issues.
Second, relationship architecture : the role of the board chair–president dynamic in maintaining alignment and stability.
Third, decision‑making dynamics : how boards and presidents work through complex choices, and the extent to which partnership enables or constrains accountability.
Boards govern; presidents lead. The quality of governance depends less on maintaining that distinction than on how well the board–president relationship bridges it.
Information Flow The most immediate and visible fault line in the board–president relationship is timing. Trustees consistently emphasize that the issue is not whether boards are informed, but when that information arrives. “No surprises” has become a baseline expectation. Not because disruption can be avoided, but because it can rarely be managed effectively once decisions are already framed or issues have become public. The distinction between notification and engagement is critical. Boards may receive comprehensive updates yet still find themselves unable to shape outcomes if those updates arrive late in the process. By that point, momentum has already built around a particular direction, and governance becomes an exercise in validation rather than judgment. The result is a subtle but consequential shift: boards remain formally involved, but their influence on direction is constrained.
13 | Boards of Trustees in Higher Education
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator