This chapter will discuss the role of the campus president as chief purpose officer as well as chief executive officer and explore the implications of word choice in fulfilling an institution's mission. The analytical framework used will examine the alignment between and among mission, purpose, goals, strategies, resource allocations, rewards, and results in higher education. For example, low graduation rates suggest a poor alignment between mission statements and results. The chapter also will discuss the inadequacy of collegiate governance. The composition of boards of trustees, then, has an influence on how campus presidents approach their roles. How presidents and boards view their roles and responsibilities affects the role of faculty in shared governance. While there is general acknowledgment of the traditions of shared governance, little is done to help faculty members develop leadership skills or governance knowledge for them to participate fully as part of the tri-partite governance structure.
TopFault Lines
Higher education’s serious fault lines were evident even before COVID-19 interrupted the Spring 2020 semester and beyond. Consequently, the disruptions were more severe than expected and the recovery has taken longer.
Much has been said about the heavy reliance on student tuition supported by ever more student debt, increasing levels of tuition discounting, rising levels of campus debt for facilities, expanded commitments to marketing and branding that seem to exceed attention given to academic quality, and generally poor student success metrics, among others.
However, much less has been said about two other dynamics in contemporary higher education. These dynamics, which have disrupted relations between and among boards of trustees, presidents, and campus faculty, have threatened the traditions of shared governance.
The first dynamic concerns the way boards of trustees are composed. Under 15% of American college and university trustees have professional experience in higher education. One cannot imagine a corporation like Google or Amazon declaring that 85% of its directors knew little if anything about the characteristics, economics, and competitive landscape of their enterprise. Yet college and university trustees, whether nominated or elected through a political process as at public institutions or approved by a board at private institutions, are not selected for their knowledge of higher education or their governance acumen. (Scott, March/April 2021)
The second dynamic is the evolution of the college and university president’s role. Campus presidents have variously been described as cheerleaders, budget masters, lobbyists, sales reps, high-stakes panhandlers, promoters, and entrepreneurs. Too seldom are they thought of as educators, the keepers of an institution’s mission and legacy for transformational teaching and learning.
Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) focus on size and scale, organization and delegation, short-term goals, the efficiency of means, money and markets, customers, personnel, and labor. By contrast, Chief Purpose Officers (CPOs) focus on mission and meaning, the long-term, the integrity of ends, student success, and faculty as partners in a moral and noble enterprise. This change in the president’s perspective is due in large part to the focus on money, whether state appropriations, fundraising, debt service, or state and federal compliance requirements.
A third dynamic in the current campus environment is the failure of boards and presidents to prepare faculty members for their roles in governance and leadership. After all, faculty are closest to the students whom institutions are chartered to serve, and they are integral to the fulfillment of institutional missions. Higher education leaders cannot fulfill their commitment to shared governance if the parties to it are unprepared for their roles in it.