30 Strategic Leadership
Consistent with our emphasis on strategic leadership, it is interesting to note
the following central recommendation concerning the role of the president:
“It is... to provide strong and comprehensive leadership for the institution by
developing a shared vision of its role and mission, forging a consensus on goals
derived from the mission, developing and allocating resources in accordance with
a plan for reaching those goals” (Association of Governing Boards of Universi-
ties and Colleges 1996, 19). Several of the emphases in the 2006 report have the
same strategic focus. The president’s role includes “pursuing a shared academic
vision” with the faculty and developing a strategic plan as key components in
what the report calls “integral leadership” (Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges 2006, 9). It is worth emphasizing that these responsi-
bilities cannot be accomplished simply by reaffirming the president’s authority,
no matter how much the role is clarified and strengthened. Effective methods
of collaborative strategic leadership have to be joined to the president’s formal
role to fulfill each set of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges’ recommendations.
The Strong Presidency
The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges commis-
sion’s belief in the desirability and possibility of stronger presidential leadership
is not a solitary view but has confident echoes in the literature. James Fisher and
James Koch argue in their 1996 work, Presidential Leadership: Making a Difference,
that much of the research that plays down presidential influence and authority
is misleading and inaccurate. In a striking reversal of most of the views we have
examined, they claim: “The effective leader will learn how to use authority and
recognize its value.... To lead, to influence, and to use authority is to be pow-
erful” (Fisher and Koch 1996, 22). In coming to these conclusions, they draw
on research and personal experiences that contradict the interpretations of the
weakness of the presidential office (Fisher 1984; Fisher, Tack, and Wheeler 1988).
They argue that presidential vision and inspiration should be central components
of leadership, which does not have to detract from collaborative processes. A vision
is decidedly of the president’s own making and is given to the campus more than
derived from it. A number of personal traits are important for the president as
well, including charisma. The ability to keep a proper social distance and manage
campus appearances, even while projecting an image of warmth and friendliness,
is a valuable skill and an important part of a systematic effort to manage the
presidential image (Fisher and Koch 1996). Ironically, Birnbaum (1992) explicitly
singles out each of these points as a myth of presidential leadership.
In The Entrepreneurial College President, Fisher and Koch (2004) continue to
develop their case concerning the significant impact of presidential leadership,
this time using the notions of entrepreneurial and transforming leadership as their
key categories. Based on statistical analyses of questionnaires from “effective” and
“representative” presidents, as defined by peer nominations, they argue that