This chapter proposes to build a more open and productive working relationship between higher-education board members and the institution's president. The methodology identifies eight flashpoints that can cause potential conflict based on the diametrically different views that trustees and presidents may hold concerning their roles in the leadership of the college or university. The flashpoints that are explored include college staff performance, fiduciary responsibilities, directing the president, board conduct, presidential behavior, campus interaction, trustee authority, and community representation. Examined within the context of a board retreat held at an unnamed community college, trustees and the president participate in a “boardsmanship” exercise that sparks sometimes courageous and often enlightening discussions for scenarios that are based on past interactions that have taken place at that institution.
TopLiterature Review
In identifying the chief responsibilities of trustees for nonprofit boards, writers typically cite those related to mission, organizational policies, fiscal oversight, resource acquisition and development, community communication, and—arguably their most important charge—the hiring and firing of the chief executive officer or president (Drucker, 1990; Hardwick, 2011; Murray & Harrison, 2014; Stewart & Kuenzi, 2018; Wolf, 1999). Competencies that trustees would ideally possess include what Rosenberger (1994) posits to be “a high level of communication, decision-making, and conflict-management skills.” In addition, Watson and Hoefer (2014) assert that “oral and written communication skills are among the most important skills for nonprofit leaders to have.” Ingram (2015) identifies ten board responsibilities that include leading strategic planning, setting mission and goals, evaluating and hiring the chief executive, ensuring legal and ethical standing, protecting financial assets, and enhancing the institution’s public profile.
Other than those inevitable personality conflicts that often arise when people with grandiose titles interact with one another, presidents and boards generally tend to be at loggerheads when presidents perceive that trustees are trying to “micromanage” college or university operations. Wolf (1999) identifies three sources of this conflict, namely, trustees’ interference into the day-to-day operations of the college or university, trustees’ unwelcome input into the hiring of staff other than the chief executive, and trustees’ personal involvement in advancing programmatic or operational initiatives that are outside the purview of the whole board and are not in consultation with the president. Further, Vaughan (1986) discusses a number potential landmines that include trustees meddling with job hires and with on-campus interaction with faculty and staff. Such interference proves inimical when the college’s operational chain of command is undermined by a perceived “outside influence” such as a board member.