Transformational Change in Higher Education

Transformational Change in Higher Education

Positioning Colleges and Universities for Future Success

Edited by Madeleine B. d’ Ambrosio and Ronald G. Ehrenberg

This unique volume discusses the management of transformational change in higher education as a key element of success. With input from researchers, presidents, provosts, and other senior leaders of the higher education community, this edited volume explores transformational change in a range of institutions from small teaching and community colleges to large comprehensive research universities.

Chapter 2: Strengthening the Academic Presidency: Recommendations for Presidents and Governing Boards

Robert M. O’Neil

Subjects: business and management, management and universities, economics and finance, public sector economics, education, management and universities

Extract

Robert M. O’Neil Shortly before the TIAA-CREF Institute convened the conference, Transformational Change in Higher Education, the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) released the report of its Task Force on the State of the Presidency in American Higher Education. The title of the report, The Leadership Imperative, clearly signaled its central theme. At the outset, the Task Force ‘contends that a new style of collaborative but decisive leadership – integral leadership – is the key to addressing [the most daunting issues facing contemporary higher education]’. Integral leadership, continued the executive summary, ‘succeeds in fulfilling the multiple, disparate strands of presidential responsibility, and conceives of these responsibilities as parts of a coherent whole’. Such leadership, in essence, links the major academic constituencies ‘in a well-functioning partnership purposefully devoted to a welldefined, broadly affirmed institutional vision’. Some 43 specific recommendations spelled out the import of such bold declarations – desirable actions addressed respectively to governing boards, to presidents, to state policymakers, and to AGB itself. The attention of university boards was specifically drawn to the most pertinent and sensitive areas of trustee responsibility – supporting presidential leadership, conducting a presidential search, presidential evaluation and compensation, board accountability, and presidential renewal and succession. Had there been any uncertainty about the timeliness of the Task Force’s mission when the group convened in the fall of 2005, not the slightest doubt remained when the time came for issuance of the report a year later. Indeed, the intervening 12 months may well have 30...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information