Strategies for Evaluating a College President’s Performance

“There are goals and metrics that are set for a president,” McClure said. “And those metrics are typically tied to the strategic plan of the institution. And so, in a lot of ways, what you’re evaluating is not necessarily the individual performance of the president, but the institution’s performance in relationship to the goals that were set.”

McClure added that while ranking presidents on student success, access, and affordability can be valuable, it’s important to consider other factors as well, such as the president’s ability to navigate complex political environments, manage relationships with key stakeholders, and lead the institution through times of crisis.

“There are so many aspects to the presidency that are not captured in any one set of metrics,” he said. “So while it’s valuable to rank presidents based on certain criteria, it’s important to remember that this is just one piece of a much larger puzzle.”

Ultimately, the debate over whether college presidents can be effectively ranked is likely to continue. As higher education faces increasing scrutiny and pressure to demonstrate value and accountability, the role of the college president will continue to evolve, and the criteria by which they are evaluated may need to adapt as well.

When evaluating university presidents, factors such as finances, enrollment, and national rankings performance are often considered important. However, the specific metrics used may vary depending on the circumstances.

According to McClure, there may be specific goals that a president was hired to achieve, such as leading a fundraising campaign or restoring trust after a period of crisis. Evaluations may also take into account faculty views, which often prioritize transparency, shared governance, manageable workloads, and academic freedom.

See also  Seagate's Stock Declines Despite Strong Earnings Performance

McClure points out that crafting an external evaluation for presidents can be challenging due to the limited data available and the complex nature of leadership and performance in higher education. He notes that presidents rely on a team of subordinates to carry out their responsibilities, and that the institution’s performance is influenced by the faculty and staff who work directly with students.

Christensen also acknowledges the limitations of rankings, stating that they only reflect part of a university leader’s roles and responsibilities. He warns against placing too much emphasis on rankings, especially since some factors may be beyond a president’s control, particularly in public universities.

Despite these limitations, Christensen believes that his study can provide insight into how presidents have impacted student success, access, and affordability at their institutions. While rankings may not drastically change institutional behaviors, they can serve as a starting point for constructive discussions.

Overall, it is important to consider various factors when evaluating university presidents, and to recognize the complexities of leadership in higher education.