From the issue dated July 30, 2004
|
|
The Authentic, and Effective, College President
When the University of Hawaii Board of Regents publicly fired Evan S. Dobelle after just three years as president, reports suggested it was the result of his partisan political involvement, his lack of consultation about new initiatives and expenditures, and his inattention to fund-raising commitments he made when hired. All presidents face the challenge of balancing their personal inclinations with the best interests of their institutions. Candidates for a presidency, once they have crossed the hurdles of relevant background, experience, and skill, are chosen for their particular constellation of charisma, personality, style, beliefs, and values. Yet as the candidate becomes the president, the very characteristics that attracted supporters become less visible. The need to act as the embodiment of the institution diminishes the president's individualism. Whether playing golf with trustees or having dinner with professors, most presidents are discreet in conversation and focused on their institutional agendas. The change is necessary for successful leadership, but it is challenging to personal authenticity. Consider the ways that a presidency can suppress or obscure the personality of the incumbent: Situational Personas. From the moment new presidents are selected, their utterances and decisions are scrutinized for meaning, and they quickly learn to tailor their remarks to the expectations of different groups. As presidents move among the various cultures of academe -- those of the trustees, faculty members, students, alumni, donors, and many more -- interpreting each to the other, they subtly alter their behavior and language, like chameleons changing color. Presidents have traveled, fished, sung, and gambled with trustees and prospects, even when they would have preferred doing something else. One president, who disliked dogs intensely, spent years cultivating a relationship with a donor who had three large, undisciplined dogs. It is no surprise that the president, whose agenda was to secure a big gift, bravely embraced these pets and feigned affection for them. Indeed, presidents sometimes participate in unsavory activities to mollify powerful constituents. One well-known example is the president who accompanied several trustees on a secret trip to recruit a new football coach without informing the current coach or other people on the campus. For that and other management problems, the president was forced to resign after 19 months on the job. Asymmetrical Relationships. In accepting a presidency, a person leaves behind the freedom to conduct a satisfying social life composed of authentic and reciprocal friendships. The many pleasant meals and social interactions with people involved with the college may have the appearance and characteristics of friendships. But for the president such interactions, pleasant though they may be, are work. For example, a president may spend time befriending a lonely, elderly, prospective donor. The prospect is flattered by the president's attention while the president is focused mainly on raising money. Or a president may use the relaxed atmosphere of a golf game to persuade a local city commissioner to support the college's proposed commercial development, or to lobby a state legislator for a new law school. Virtually all of a president's relationships are freighted with some sort of professional agenda. Political Nonpartisanship. College presidents often have backgrounds of political and civic activism that cannot be expressed once they assume the job. A president who enters the political fray by endorsing a candidate from a particular party may incur the enmity of those in the opposition party. That seems to have been the case at the University of Hawaii. Presidents cannot appear partisan for fear of alienating some constituents and legislators. Restraint in Public Discourse. In a session at the Presidents Institute of the Council of Independent Colleges this year, participants argued about their responsibility for speaking out on public issues like the war in Iraq. Several contended that they had a moral obligation to be visible and vocal on such matters of concern to society. Others, expressing reluctance to alienate important constituents, made a strong case for providing a forum for debate rather than issuing their own opinions. The latter approach is certainly understandable, as plenty of presidents have gotten into trouble for taking public stands. One state university made headlines after the president wrote a letter on his official letterhead in which he called homosexuality a "perversion." He was hard pressed to convince people that his private views had no influence on his actions as president. The presidency may also result in another sort of loss of self. The power, perquisites, and bully pulpit provided by the presidency can cause some presidents to inflate their importance and sense of entitlement. They can be swept away by the opportunity to act on a broad stage and participate in so many local, regional, and national activities that they neglect their primary responsibilities for institutional oversight, decision making, and governance. They can begin to believe in an "imperial" presidency and fail to develop and maintain relationships of trust. Longevity in office, in particular, can create a sense of omni-science and superior competence in a president. That may lead to impatience with the consultative process and spur the president to make unilateral -- and, therefore, often uninformed -- decisions. A few presidents who have viewed themselves as superior to others have even acted as though social norms and laws did not apply to them, engaging in misconduct that has included impersonating a police officer and stealing college funds. How can presidents fulfill the requirements of their positions without compromising their essential selves? As they prepare to exit the position, presidents often ask themselves: "Who am I, now?" "Who are my friends, now?" "Am I still constrained from speech or action that might offend some constituents?" In the final moments of a presidency, no issue is as compelling and challenging as how much authenticity one has lost, and how much of it can be reclaimed. After observing and studying successful presidents, I have concluded that, at every stage of their tenure, presidents who are aware of the challenges to their authenticity retain a clear-eyed view of who they are as individuals. As they gain legitimacy in the position, they find ways to reveal their true personality. One long-term president, for example, is praised for his effectiveness, based in part on his nonthreatening, "folksy" style. In just that way, presidents can judiciously express some personal characteristics if it enhances their ability to lead. Campus leaders can maintain their authenticity and integrity without compromising their institutions in various ways:
Rita Bornstein is in her 14th and final year as president of Rollins College and is author of Legitimacy in the Academic Presidency: From Entrance to Exit, published by ACE/Praeger (2003). http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 50, Issue 47, Page B16 |
Copyright © 2004 by The Chronicle of Higher Education