Utilizing Presidential Evaluations as a Strategic Growth Tool
University presidents play a crucial role in shaping institutional success, yet their performance evaluations often lack the rigor and structure necessary for true accountability. While accrediting bodies mandate presidential evaluations, many institutions still rely on informal or verbal assessments that fail to provide meaningful oversight. This gap in evaluation practices not only weakens institutional governance but also raises concerns about board independence and effectiveness.
An effective presidential evaluation process is not just a regulatory obligation—it is a strategic tool that enables boards to assess leadership performance, align institutional goals, and ensure long-term sustainability. By implementing structured, transparent, and data-driven evaluation processes, boards can strengthen their oversight and hold presidents accountable for the institution’s success. This article explores the significance of presidential evaluations, best practices for implementing them, and how they contribute to stronger institutional governance.
How University Boards Can Strengthen Accountability Through Presidential Evaluations
One would think that all university presidents have an annual evaluation process in place that helps the board effectively monitor presidents and their institutional performance. However, many institutions that I know of, despite the requirements of the accreditors, give only a “verbal” evaluation of the president performance. And this frequently is a symptom of an issue of a lack of board independence.
But why is it important to evaluate a president every year? And how do you do that?
The president of the University is an employee just as his/her executive assistant is an employee. The only difference is the reporting structure – executive assistant generally reports to the president, but the president reports to the board. Going back to the fiduciary duties, the board should hold the president accountable for EVERYTHING that goes on at an institution – that is the nature of the beast. If marketing and enrollment fail to bring in the needed students for financial sustainability, the board doesn’t (or shouldn’t) hold the marketing team accountable, they should hold the president accountable.
One of the ways that boards and do this is by establishing an accountability framework to effectively monitor presidents and institutional performance. Not only is this good business practice, all major accreditors have as part of their standards the requirement of evaluating their president. For example, from the WSCUC 2023 standards, CFR 3.7 states that “The governing board selects and evaluates the chief executive officer,” and CFR 3.9 states that “The institution has sufficient and qualified leadership capacity at all levels, characterized by integrity, appropriate responsibility, high performance, and accountability.” The NWCCU standard 2.A.2 states “The institution has an effective system of leadership, staffed by qualified administrators, with appropriate levels of authority, responsibility, and accountability who are charged with planning, organizing, and managing the institution and assessing its achievements and effectiveness.”
Such evaluation processes should include annual performance reviews for the president based on quantifiable metrics, such as student retention rates, graduation rates, financial health, and alignment with strategic goals. Many boards use the SMART goals acronym (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) that align with the institution’s mission as a basis for the evaluation.
The most effective evaluations that we have seen (and used) are jointly developed based on goals with reflective KPIs that are transparent and involve stakeholders. One example of this would be a presidential evaluation process over a three-year cycle. In years one and two, the board governance committee (or executive committee) would conduct an evaluation of the president based on the goals that the two have set for the president in the previous spring. However, in year three, a full 360 is conducted on the president that includes faculty, staff, administration, and the board. Thus, with this level of transparency, and by clearly communicating evaluation criteria and performance expectations the board has for the president and institution, boards can foster a culture where presidents understand their responsibilities and are held to objective standards.
One example of this would be enrollment declines at one institution mentioned in a previous post – the board abdicated its fiduciary responsibilities by not holding the president accountable for the declining enrollment.
If a board is not prepared to assess a president’s effectiveness and hold him/her accountable for results, they should resign their position from the board.
Why University Boards Must Conduct Self-Evaluations for Effective Governance
We all know how difficult it is to introspect on our own behaviors and performance, but to get a board to introspect on their own performance, both individually and collectively, is something only the best boards do. This is why we build into every board engagement we conduct, a board assessment.
There are two sides to this coin: the collective effectiveness of a board and each board member’s effectiveness. A board assessment survey can enable board members to reflect on their own performance collectively, and help them to understand how effectively they are fulfilling their fiduciary duties. Insights gained from this survey can guide future training, inform adjustments to board practices, and reinforce a culture of continuous improvement.
Evaluating individual board members’ performance can enable trustees to reflect on their performance, identifying areas where they may have fallen short or could improve. This can be a bit more difficult but doable. This process should be structured and may include anonymous surveys, one-on-one interviews with the board chair and/or governance chair, or facilitated discussions by a governance expert.
How Boards Can Engage Stakeholders to Improve University Leadership Oversight
Board independence doesn’t mean isolation. Engaging stakeholders—faculty, students, alumni, and the community—can provide valuable perspectives that enhance board decision-making. Transparent communication with stakeholders about institutional goals and the board’s accountability measures builds trust and reinforces the board’s role as a steward of the institution’s mission and values. Regular town halls, open forums, and structured feedback mechanisms allow stakeholders to participate meaningfully in governance and keep the board attuned to the institution’s needs and concerns.
Stakeholder engagement also allows the board to gauge the institution’s alignment with its mission and strategic goals from multiple perspectives. For instance, by involving faculty in discussions around academic program viability or student services, the board can gain insights into areas that may require further oversight or intervention. Alumni, on the other hand, may offer feedback on institutional reputation or fundraising efforts, providing a more holistic view of the institution’s performance.
One institution we worked with had the reputation of the board being isolated and out of touch with the institution’s faculty, staff, and students. To remedy this, we recommended that the board eat lunch in the cafeteria with students on the day of its meeting and that the board chair conduct a debrief of the board meeting with faculty and staff immediately following the meeting. Both these practices were well received, enabling the board to be more in touch with the institution and receive improved reviews from its constituency.
Another institution we worked with was having difficulty with institutional perceptions of board performance. During our process of restructuring the board bylaws and committee structures, we included staff and faculty members on the board committees. This enabled stakeholders to inform board members of what was going on without any kind of filter from the president.
The Role of External Reviews in Ensuring Independence
An external review of board governance practices can provide invaluable insights and promote greater accountability. For example, one prominent private university that we worked with asked us to conduct an external review after facing accusations of administrative mismanagement and conflicts of interest on its board. The review led to a major governance overhaul, including the implementation of stricter conflict-of-interest policies, the establishment of an audit committee, and new guidelines for president evaluations. This process not only improved board accountability but also restored public trust in the institution’s board.
Another institution that we worked with required a comprehensive governance assessment as part of its reaccreditation process. We reviewed the institution and discovered both a lack of clear evaluation processes for the president and an inconsistent oversight of the institution itself. In response, the board implemented annual review protocols and created a process for documenting and tracking executive performance. These changes were essential in helping the college maintain its accreditation and, more importantly, in ensuring that governance practices met the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
Wrapping Up
Presidential evaluations are essential for maintaining accountability, ensuring institutional effectiveness, and reinforcing the board’s fiduciary responsibilities. Without a structured and transparent evaluation process, boards risk allowing leadership inefficiencies, declining performance, and strategic misalignment to go unchecked. Implementing a robust evaluation framework—one that includes measurable performance indicators, stakeholder engagement, and periodic 360-degree reviews—helps boards maintain institutional integrity and long-term sustainability.
As higher education governance continues to evolve, boards must take proactive steps to enhance their evaluation processes and reinforce their commitment to institutional excellence. Effective presidential evaluations are not just about compliance with accreditation standards—they are a cornerstone of responsible governance. By fostering a culture of accountability, transparency, and strategic oversight, boards can ensure that their institutions remain competitive, resilient, and mission-driven in an increasingly complex higher education environment.
