Leading the University: The Roles of Trustees, Presidents, and Faculty

Legon, Richard D.; Lombardi, John V.; Rhoades, Gary

doi:10.1080/00091383.2013.749144

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though research on why presidents decide to communicate is limited, scholars have identified common times when presidents do engage with their campuses through public communications outside the formal institutional speeches (e.g., state of the university and commencement address). Specifically, presidents communicate often when promoting a significant strategic change at their institution (Gioia & Chittipeddi, ; Gioia, Thomas, Clark, ‖ Chittipeddi, ), during time of institutional crisis or success (Legon, Lombardi, & Rhoades, ) and during significant external events (McNaughtan et al, ). These studies have typically analysed times when presidents engaged in communication, but have not discussed why leaders chose to engage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging election contention: Understanding why presidents engage with contentious issues

McNaughtan

2018

Higher Education Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, technology has made it possible, and in some ways critical, for college and university presidents to increase campus‐wide communication. Following the 2016 US presidential election, many college presidents across the country sent campus‐wide communications in response to the election, while others chose not to respond. The resulting reactions from campus and community stakeholders to these communications, or the lack of communication, from presidents was mixed due to the contentious nature of the election. In an effort to better understand a president’s decision to communicate, this study utilised coded interviews with 12 US flagship institution presidents or vice‐presidents for communication, providing insight into why presidents generally respond to contentious events and, more specifically, why presidents chose to respond to the 2016 election of Donald Trump. Four motivations that generally influenced presidential communications were identified (i.e., responsibility to campus stakeholders, pressure to respond, emphasise university values and the role of a public university), and subsequent sub‐themes were identified while analysing why presidents responded to the 2016 election specifically. This study concludes by offering implications for presidential communication and directions for future research on presidential engagement with contentious events.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging election contention: Understanding why presidents engage with contentious issues

McNaughtan

2018

Higher Education Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the most prominent differences in board involvement is related to financial rewards and compensation. Public and not‐for‐profit institutions on one hand, rely on the spirit of volunteerism (Legon et al ., ). Trustees are generally not paid for their service on the board and are encouraged, expected, or required to donate to their institution.…”

Section: Boards Todaymentioning

confidence: 97%

Trustees versus Directors, Whom Do They Serve? Boards, For‐Profits and the Public Good in the United States

Garrity

2014

Higher Education Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Postsecondary education in the United States is provided by public, not-forprofit and for-profit institutions. Public and not-for-profit institutions are expected to serve the public good due to state control or chartering requirements; for-profit institutions are not. Therefore, the decision to serve the public good is vested in the board. The for-profit director's role as representative of shareholders' interests does not ensure deference to the public good. Currently, national priorities are aligned with shareholder interests creating an environment ripe for expansion of for-profit education. However, there are implications as national priorities shift to positions that do not complement shareholder interests. Most critically, continued growth of for-profit postsecondary education may lead to a reduction of service of the public good by all institutions. Private institutions (not-for-profit or for-profit) exist in every large country; therefore, a thorough analysis of the legal distinctions among sectors is encouraged to understand the implications of growth.Postsecondary education in the United States (US) is provided by a combination of public, not-for-profit and for-profit institutions in a decentralised system. Over the past 15 years these labels have become less descriptive of operational differences as changes have occurred in all sectors in levels of degrees offered, staffing models, scheduling and distance education (Kinser

show abstract

“…There is interchangeability and transferability of knowledge, skills, and experiences that make old ways bad ways. As Legon et al (2013) noted: … At its best, governance is a collaborative process … This collaboration requires mutual respect between boards, senior administrators, and faculty members, as well as an awareness on the part of each of the others' roles. (p. 25) Hoppes and Holley (2013) argued that participation, intentionality, absence of fear (of retaliation), and transparency are among the key factors in building organizational trust in higher education institutions.…”

Section: A Governance Model Builds Institutional Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chief among these other aims that can promote irrational and unreasonable discretion are appeal and codifications of power under expedience, the short-term decision calculus, managerial briefs to accomplish "change," leaders who seek deference, and a mindset that change should occur "top-down" (Legon, Lombardi, & Rhoades, 2013).…”

Section: Inherent Needs For a New Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As an example, Ayers (2014) identified, in his analysis of university "budget updates," the workings of administrative discretion are to minimize resistance by other stakeholders and legitimate managerial actions. Legon, Lombardi, and Rhoades (2013) noted an important threat to governance which arises when faculty perceive or situate:…”

Section: Inherent Needs For a New Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Whither Good Governance? Beyond the Current Malaise in Higher Education

Rowan¹

2016

UCER-A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper outlines a model for governance based upon mutual respect among organizational stakeholders, which it calls rational and reasonable governance. The first section describes some of the inherent or unmet needs in many governance structures, sources of irrational or unreasonable governance, or more simply anti-governance. The second section describes several sources of rationality and reasonableness for the self-understanding of higher educational professionals. These sources of better governance address the inherent needs. The third section sketches a model of governance that reduces the sources of anti-governance and opens up synergies for academic professionals who choose to collaborate through revisioning and renewing their interactions. The paper concludes with a comment on the relationship between a rational and reasonable model of governance and institutional trust.

show abstract

Leading the University: The Roles of Trustees, Presidents, and Faculty

Cited by 17 publications

References 1 publication

Engaging election contention: Understanding why presidents engage with contentious issues

Engaging election contention: Understanding why presidents engage with contentious issues

Trustees versus Directors, Whom Do They Serve? Boards, For‐Profits and the Public Good in the United States

Whither Good Governance? Beyond the Current Malaise in Higher Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About