The Ambiguities and Possibilities of Leadership in Higher Education 29
or systematic methods. They are rooted in a concept of cultural leadership that
involves “influencing perceptions of reality” by creating a shared understanding of
the values, traditions, and purposes of the organization (Birnbaum 1992, 55). In
this cultural context, appraisals of presidential performance by trustees, staff, and
faculty are taken to be reliable measures of presidential success. More quantifiable
indicators of organizational performance may be less valid since they could be the
results of the efforts of others or of circumstances over which the president has no
real control (Birnbaum 1992).
Birnbaum’s principles of leadership suggest ways to use the real but limited
authority of college presidents contextually within their distinctive cultural and
organizational worlds. So, presidents should make a good first impression, learn
how to listen, balance governance systems, avoid simplistic thinking, deemphasize
bureaucracy, affirm core values, focus on strengths, evaluate personal performance,
and know the right time to leave (Birnbaum 1992). This approach makes clear
that the use of authority by itself is not leadership but can be a key resource in the
larger cultural task of shaping a shared sense of values and purposes. It is clear
that Birnbaum’s cultural and cognitive lessons may help presidents to achieve
organizational equilibrium, but they do not add up to a method of leadership for
strategic change (Birnbaum 1988).
Differentiating and Affirming Presidential Authority
We found that the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Col-
leges’ report Renewing the Presidency (1996) offered a perceptive diagnosis of the
complications of presidential leadership. When it turns to proposals for action
to address the problems, it recommends the reform of shared governance by a
careful differentiation of the process. “It should not be impossible to clarify and
define areas where faculty decision-making is primary, and subject to reversal
only by justifiable exception [curriculum... , appointment, tenure]. In impor-
tant areas like the budget and planning, faculty should be involved and con-
sulted, but will not have determinative authority. In other areas, faculty will
not be involved, but will be kept informed of developments” (Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges 1996, 26). Following its own
example, in 1998 the Association of Governing Boards issued a new Institu-
tional Governance Statement, which makes clear assertions of the board’s ultimate
authority in governance.
As to the president’s authority, no new structural elements or decision-making
powers are proposed, either by the 1996 commission or the 2006 Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges Task Force on the State of the
Presidency. The reports of both bodies, each chaired by former governor Ger-
ald Baliles of Virginia, strongly advise governing boards to support and evaluate
presidents systematically and regularly. Presidents are counseled to exercise the
full authority of the office that they hold and to find “the courage to persist with
initiatives... for change” (27).