---

Inter-Institutional Faculty Senate

 

July Board Meeting, 2008

 

Good Morning Madam President Dyess, Vice President Blair, Chancellor Pernsteiner, Directors, University Presidents, students, staff, and guests:

 

Thank you for this opportunity to address you today. 

 

IFS met at Eastern Oregon University June 6th & 7th.  Although I was absent from the meeting, several key issues were discussed… one of which former IFS President Mina Carson brought to the June board meeting regarding the salary pool. Noting that ALL 7 OUS Institutions had passed legislation regarding the funds IFS followed up with a letter sent to the Governor, legislators, chancellor, university presidents, provosts, and campus senate leadership in mid-June. 

 

A second area of concern to the IFS was brought to the attention of Chancellor Pernsteiner.  He was asked a very serious question about the role of the University President and the power presidents hold over faculty?  This concern comes from the number of noted vacancies across the system.  Discussion included the process of hiring a new president and how process of the academic search is more of a business model than in years past. A reoccurring theme across higher education is “taking charge of our own destiny!”  Using the SWOT approach (not in the law enforcement sense of a tactical team called into a crisis situation) but in the business sense of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats,  what does this change of leadership offer OUS and how can faculty set aside their fears of the “us versus them” during this critical time?

Recognizing that the role of the president has changed since the start of the first “colleges” in the United States, (this position often fell to members of the clergy, who served as teachers and disciplinarians) economic and social demands changed the role from teacher to administrator in the early 1900s.  The president then primarily dealt with administrative issues to ensure survival of the institution. Today’s college presidents oversee a complex organization. What will tomorrow’s president’s role be with a changing student body, current economic roller coaster ride effecting funding, fund raising & tuition , accompanied with the increasing need for a variety of delivery methods (to include technology), and evidence-based accountability and practice? Does a picture come to mind?

Harvard historian Samuel Eliot wrote in 1848 that the American college had become an ivory tower, “ ... from which the president emerged as a figure of tremendous power; power which he did not always use well, but power that was nonetheless his by virtue of it not belonging to anyone else” (Rudolph, 1991, p.167). In the 1800s the role of the college president and the power of the office was very different than the position that emerged with the presidents of in the 1900s. Changes in higher education during that decade were experienced by the position to include role, power, and expectations of the president.

A written job description seeking a president for Princeton University in 1802 included duties such as: presiding over faculty meetings and executing their decisions; presiding at academic ceremonies, including commencement; arranging for daily prayers and weekly worship, and lecturing on Christianity; visiting the classes of other instructors and offering support; and promoting the general interests of the college. In some cases, they were also the farmer of the institution’s lands, reaping the fruits and vegetables grown by the students.  Whatever the title, the role was still the same: primarily a teacher and role model and to a much lesser extent, an administrator.

Schmidt, (1930) describes the president's relationship with the board of governors or trustees was secondary. For the most part, the overseeing boards became less involved with the day-to-day operations of the institution, leaving the president to serve as the expert advisor and as liaison between the board and faculty. The president’s power was designated in very broad-- general terms. The actual range was a matter of interpretation.  He goes on to explain that practically, the president’s duties were said to have evolved into three areas: administration, supervision, and instruction. This new system meant more students, more faculty, a greater breadth of curriculum and new methods of teaching, new buildings, and as a result of all of this, more administrative problems

The growth brought a need to unite and control the varying areas of the institution. The 1900s brought a more formal organization to the administrative structure of the college. The supervision of students came under the authority of a dean. Classroom instruction became the responsibility of specialists in each academic department. The president was expected to have strong financial skills, organizing ability, and be able to build morale; however, scholarship was still important. Rudolph (1991) notes that in the twentieth century, the faculty were seen as the employees, the trustees as the employers, and the president was the superintendent of the plant. With the increasing complexity of the institution, it is believed that during this time period, college administration changed from a profession to an art.

The 1960s brought turbulent times to the colleges and universities, financial crunch of decreasing tuition revenue and increasing costs of the 1970s and 1980s did not make things any easier (Nason, 1980). Demographic changes in the typical college age population presented their own challenges to colleges and universities in the 1990s. Bryant (2000) documents that as the population of the country became more diverse and the cost of higher education continued to rise, institutions were faced with smaller pools of traditional students who could afford higher education. How has this changed in the 21^st Century?

While the occasional president can still be found in the classroom or pursuing academic scholarship through research and writing, many see the college or university as a business because what Wiseman (1991) refers to as the “never ending quest for money”(p. 5). Bottom line and accountability are seen as the primary functions and most significant issues that the president addresses; as a result, many administrative duties are delegated to subordinates. Recently, President Anderson (Adventist System, Southwestern University) notes his misconception about the job.  When I accepted the position of president, Anderson notes, the board was seeking things such as “ …bringing enrollments back to normal, balancing the budget, and finding in the right sized staff for the operation of the institution.  He coins the phrase The mirage of stability…as stability alone is not enough. Bigger dreams, distant goals, and change are keys to the future of every institution.  He closed by noting the current President of the United States calls this the “vision thing.”

Despite the change from educator to administrator, the role of the president is still seen as the most powerful and influential individual in the academic community. To the external community, the president represents the institution and its values, and leads the institution in its contributions to the community. Internally, the president is expected to direct and control the complex institution and all of its branches and headaches (Nason, 1980; Wiseman, 1991). Power has many definitions, depending upon the use. Pfeffer (1992) defines power as “the use of force” (p.12). Fisher (1984) cites several definitions in relation to the presidential role, summarizing all by equating power with influence. If the group (faculty) accepts the leader Fisher acknowledges, Pfeffer’s claim that legitimate power can be equated with authority is realized because the end result is to influence others to do something that may not normally be done.  It can be noted that when a power match does not occur within the group and the leader, the power issue becomes that of struggle.

In 2005, The Chronicle of Higher Education Surveyed Presidents of 4-Year Colleges and the results were published.  The Survey of Presidents was based on responses from presidents and chancellors who lead institutions that offer a four-year degree, had a comprehensive academic program, and fell into one of six classifications by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Those classifications are: Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive & -Intensive, Master's Colleges & Universities I and II; Baccalaureate Colleges-Liberal Arts and General.

The Chronicle's 39-question, 12-page survey, with an option to answer online or on paper, was sent to 1,338 institutions. The data collection took place between June 23 through July 29, 2005, almost three years ago. A total of 764 presidents and chancellors responded, (57 percent), a good response by survey standards.

The survey was entitled, “WHAT PRESIDENTS THINK” The Chronical ran the story by Jeffrey Selingo as a look at Leaders’ Views About Higher Education, Their Jobs, and Their Lives.

According to the survey, the number one performance indicator by which four-year college presidents measure their success is a balanced budget.  The survey showed that financial issues permeate almost every facet of the president’s job. When asked to rate their level of concern about 29 issues that their institution may face, the issues at the top of the list all affect the bottom line in some way: rising tuition, increasing health-care costs, inadequate faculty salaries, and student retention.

Fifty-three percent reported fund raising was a daily activity. While presidents still have the most frequent contact with the provost (53 percent of presidents report talking or meeting with the provost on a daily basis), the chief financial officer and the director of development are next in line (49 and 43 percent, respectively).

John Maguire conducted the survey and analyzed the results for The Chronicle, and he noted the overall findings indicate that many college presidents “have an obsession, day in and day out, with things related to finance.”  Maguire, who was at one time a physics professor and former admissions director at Boston College, notes that Presidents who are most unhappy in their jobs are those “living life on the edge, who face enrollment challenges, financial challenges, and retention challenges.”

Still, few presidents seem to get so frustrated with their job that they decide to give up their position. Of all issues the survey examined, the one that respondents almost universally agreed on was this: If they had to do it all over again, 94 percent of them would still become a college president.

“Despite the many challenges, the university presidency in 2005 is one of the true dream jobs left,” noted one president. The survey results provide a rare glimpse at the leaders of teaching and research enterprises who have become more like corporate CEO’s in recent decades. Despite their similar backgrounds, there is little agreement on major higher-education issues among a majority of presidents. There are a few exceptions: 93 percent said that a university should notify parents if their son or daughter is at risk of suicide; 77 percent said that there is still an important place for affirmative action in college admissions; and a surprising 75 percent said that colleges should be more accountable for their students’ educational outcomes.

One president commented, “Families should start insisting on proof of the value they receive for their tuition investment” noting “Colleges are awful at documenting the value received.”

It is among the “hot-button issues” that presidents are more divided in their opinions: 53 percent said tenure for faculty should be replaced by a system of long-term contracts; 46 percent said colleges should not be held legally responsible for the consequences of excessive student drinking; 59 percent said big-time college athletics programs are more of a liability than an asset; and 30 percent agree there is little that colleges can do about rising tuition costs.

The job, one president notes, “just gets harder, particularly at a small tuition-dependent institution.”  Another went on to say that “It's a 24-7 job,” and “Unless a person has been president, it’s impossible to know the stress and time commitments. I need to find more time for myself and to socialize with friends — not just people important to the university.”

At the end of the survey was the open-ended question— “Is there anything else you would like to tell us concerning the college presidency or issues facing colleges and universities today?” —this question elicited some lengthy responses from presidents. They wrote about why they like their job or how the position is becoming more difficult because of increasing pressure from lawmakers and the public over issues like costs and curriculum. Some took the time to discuss decreasing public funds for higher education.  A few used the opportunity to call for more training for would-be presidents. One president professed that “Preparation for the college presidency should be more intentional…As leadership talent is recognized, current presidents should take more initiative in mentoring senior and junior administrators.”

In closing, one recent provost turned president notes that the job of a college president in the 21 century isn’t easy to define.  The job description keeps changing.  He noted that it almost lends itself to something like the following:

Wanted, a president who can play....symphony conductor, train conductor, whose most important job at times is to holler "All Aboard!"  Another aspect of the job is to speak, with the commanding authority of a sailing master of a square rigged ship at sea and listen closely with all the skill of a cardiologist making meaning out of murmers, swishes and thumps in the heart.  One can start to see the bigger picture.  It's incredibly complex and difficult; however, I am sure a very rewarding job for which the Oregon University System needs the very best people that we can find.  Making a footnote on the job description is however suggested.  This position requires maneuvering through rapids of constant change, one who does not panic under the pressures of financial struggles, and the ability to juggle while multi-tasking is a bonus. 

Extra Notes:

Some issues keep college chiefs up at night. Others roll off their backs.

Most worried about

·       A balanced budget

·       Excellence of educational programs

·       Quality of faculty

·       Meeting fund-raising goals

Least worried about

·       U.S. News & World Report rankings

·       Good record of student placement

·       Favorable publicity

·       Good town-gown relations

SOURCE: The Chronicle's Survey of College Presidents

 

WHERE COLLEGE PRESIDENTS DIFFER: MEN VS. WOMEN   Men Women Student aid 49.1 percent agree that colleges should award merit aid even if it means less money for need-based aid. 32.3 percent agree that colleges should award merit aid even if it means less money for need-based aid. Military recruiting 69.2 percent disagree with allowing bans on campus because of the military's policy on gays and lesbians. 48.5 percent disagree with allowing bans. Family time 62.6 percent say they spend time with family daily. 40.4 percent say they spend time with family daily. Community service 8.1 percent say they never volunteer. 17.6 percent say they never volunteer. Politics 52.5 percent voted for John F. Kerry in last year's presidential election. 72 percent voted for Kerry. Defining success of their presidency 42.6 percent say faculty and staff morale are "extremely important." 57.7 percent say faculty and staff morale are "extremely important." Previous experience 28.5 percent were previously a provost or chief academic officer. 46.3 percent were previously a provost or chief academic officer. Who is in their office 26.7 percent meet with the general counsel less than once a month; 18.5 percent meet with the athletics director less than once a month. 41.1 percent meet with the general counsel less than once a month; 28.6 percent meet with the athletics director less than once a month.

 

 

WHERE COLLEGE PRESIDENTS DIFFER: PUBLIC COLLEGES VS. PRIVATE COLLEGES   Public Private Need-blind and legacy admissions 44.5 percent say ability to pay full tuition should not play a role in shaping a class; 34.8 percent say legacies should not play a role. 19.2 percent say ability to pay full tuition should not play a role; 19.7 percent say legacies should not play a role. Student retention, faculty salaries, and the academic profile of entering students 50.3 percent say student retention is of "very great concern," 44.7 percent say the same about faculty salaries, and 21.8 percent say that about the academic profile of entering students. 28.9 percent say student retention is of "very great concern," 28.1 percent say the same about faculty salaries, and 13.2 percent say the same about the academic profile of entering students. Faculty position 67.6 percent hold a tenured faculty appointment. 28.2 percent hold a tenured faculty appointment. Previous experience 42.4 percent were previously provost or chief academic officer. 26.2 percent were previously provost or chief academic officer. Salary 12.8 percent say they are "highly satisfied" with their compensation. 34.9 percent say they are "highly satisfied" with their compensation. Affirmative action in admissions 7.8 percent disagree that there is still an important place for affirmative action. 20.3 percent disagree that there is still an important place for affirmative action. Religion 9.7 percent engage in religious practices daily. 27.2 percent engage in religious practices daily. Politics 12.4 percent are Republican. 22.4 percent are Republican. SOURCE: The Chronicle's Survey of College Presidents

RESOURCES

Bryant, P. 2000. (2000, February) Enrollment management proposal. Rosemont College Enrollment Marketing Committee, Rosemont, PA: Rosemount College.

Fisher, J. L. (1984). Power of the president. New York, NY: American Council on Education/MacMillan Publishing Company.

Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in American higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Nason, J. (1980). Presidential search: A guide to the process of selecting and appointing college and university presidents. Battle Creek, MI: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rudolph, F. (1991). The American college and university: A history. Athens, Ga: University of Georgia Press

Schmidt, G. (1930). The old time college president. New York: Columbia University Press.

Thelin, J. (1994). Campus and commonwealth: A historical interpretation, in Higher education in American society, (3rd, Ed). Edited by Altbach, P., Berdahl, R. and Gumport, P. New York, NY: Promotheus Books.

Wiseman, L. (1991). The university president: Academic leadership in an era of fundraising and legislative affairs. Found in Managing Institutions of Higher Education into the 21st Century. Sims, R. and Sims, S., ed. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.