Governance and management are meant to be distinct roles — but as Denise Williams Mallett writes in a recent Inside Higher Ed piece, the line between them can blur quietly, and rarely out of bad intentions. It starts with urgency: an enrollment dip, an unflattering headline, an unpopular presidential decision. Trustees who care deeply about their institutions feel the pull to step closer, to advise, to intervene.
Mallett, chair of the Board of Trustees at Central Michigan University, argues that the antidote isn’t more board involvement in daily operations — it’s discipline. Her own board strengthened bylaws to clarify authority, restructured committees around strategic priorities, and tied presidential evaluation to measurable goals rather than impression. The shift, she writes, was asking not “what concerns us this month?” but “what is the board uniquely responsible for safeguarding?”
For any board navigating a season of pressure, it’s a useful reframe: disciplined governance protects presidents from volatility, and it’s precisely what allows presidents to lead boldly in return.
