A national survey of college presidents sought to develop a profile of the leadership behaviors of effective college executives. First, a number of qualified observers (association heads, foundation heads, or scholars) and presidents were asked to nominate effective administrators as survey recipients. The resulting 412 nominees and a…

Although institutional advancement is the area about which new college presidents are the least well informed, it will be one of their most important responsibilities during the 1980s. Two-year colleges and their presidents must build more complete and better advancement programs if the institutions are to prosper. (MSE)

A thorough review conducted by the right person can be a priceless tool for boards and presidents, incumbent and newly appointed, in guiding their institutions. Good reviews often carry more weight than accreditation reports. Article includes a reading list detailing the tools reviewers need to begin an institutional evaluation. (Author/MSE)

A college president has a right to expect competence, loyalty, knowledge of the president, sensitivity, new ideas, contingency plans, a knowledge of higher education, effective management, partisanship, and hard work from his/her public relations officer. In return, that officer should expect respect, support, reward, and status in decision…

The president of CASE explains the 12 characteristics of a competent presidential assistant including: an other-person centered orientation toward life, identity with people individually, identity with humanity, efficient and accepting view of reality, deep interpersonal relations with others. (MLW)

Research on power and the presidency shows leaders can develop charisma, the key to exercising authority. There is nothing genetic or intuitive about charisma; it comes through social distance, personal, style, and perceived self-confidence. (Author/MSE)

If a college governing board is to intelligently satisfy its obligation for presidential evaluation, its method should not include systematic and public involvement of faculty, students, and staff. If it handles the process sensitively, the result will be a valuable assessment of the institution, its people and policies, and its president. (MSE)

The national movement toward a stronger, more effective college presidency could be largely obviated unless the trend toward formal presidential evaluation is reversed. Formal assessment reduces the charismastic potential of the president, further politicizes the president's role, and shortens the CEO's term in office (MLW)

The future of higher education rests on the decisive leadership of college and university presidents. Governing boards must set the stage for strong, assertive, enlightened presidents and then support them. (Author/MSE)

A two-year study of the characteristics of effective college presidents resulted in a profile that shows significant differences between effective and representative administrative styles. (MSE)

A reversal in the decline of strong college presidents is occurring, and governing boards are realizing their responsibility to set the stage for assertive, enlightened presidential leadership and then to support their administrations. (MSE)

A two-year national study of effective college presidents found that effective presidents think and behave differently from their representative counterparts. Three basic leadership attitudes and behaviors were: those related to the person; those reflected in the position; and those evident in social relationships. (MLW)

The college president's role in institutional leadership is discussed, focusing on the president's relationship with the governing board and his/her empowerment in the face of responsibility. Examples of presidents who have been able to transform institutions are offered. It is concluded that professional distance is an essential quality. (MSE)

This article suggests that increasingly, college governing boards are using presidential evaluation techniques that compromise the incumbent president's ability to lead. If the board feels it has an objective evaluation method, it should not accept self-motivated faculty evaluations. Guidelines are offered for both formal and informal assessments.…

Some optimistic views about the future are presented, on the presumption that institutions will honestly face their problems and shortcomings and set about the process of self-renewal and self-regulation. Important to this process is a mutual acceptance of responsibility by the president and the advancement professionals. (Author/MSE)