In higher education, “fit drift” names a structural asymmetry—a misalignment that evolves as expectations of the presidency increase and governance readiness, decision-making authority, and institutional support fail to proportionally adjust. Fit drift is not a diminishment of presidential commitment or competency, but it does limit presidential effectiveness.
What Is Fit Drift in Higher Education?
In higher education, fit drift names a structural misalignment or asymmetry—not a change in personality, commitment, or competence of the officeholder. It occurs when internal or external conditions significantly shift the expectations placed on the presidency while governance practices, decision-making channels, leadership support, and institutional readiness remain static or adjust unevenly.
The resulting disconnect leaves even capable presidents exposed as expectations rise and authority, support, and resources no longer move in concert.
Fit drift is neither a verdict on presidential performance nor a personality change. It often coincides with a leadership phase where internal or external conditions deteriorate and presidents are asked to design and implement changes that are necessary, difficult, and unpopular.
Why Naming and Addressing Fit Drift Matters in University Governance
Fit drift is often felt by presidents before it is formally recognized by boards or campuses. It rarely arrives with a single decision or visible rupture. Instead, it accumulates through small, compounding shifts in authority, expectations, support, and institutional readiness for change.
Naming and addressing fit drift does three important things simultaneously:
- It gives language to a pattern presidents often recognize but struggle to describe without personalizing it.
- It reframes vulnerability as structural rather than individual.
- It establishes a diagnostic category rather than a moral judgment.
Without this language, governance strain is too easily interpreted as a weakness of leadership style or temperament rather than an asymmetry between presidential expectations, change readiness, and support.
The Catalyst: When Institutional Conditions Shift
As described here, most presidencies begin with relative coherence. Board confidence is visible. Decision pathways feel familiar. Authority appears proportional to expectations. Governance relies on shared assumptions rather than constant renegotiation.
Then conditions shift.
Enrollment softens. Finances tighten. Political scrutiny intensifies. Community pressure escalates. Presidents are expected to move faster, decide more quickly, and absorb greater risk. Boards appropriately reassess institutional exposure. Expectations of the presidency rise.
What does not always adjust at the same time or to a proportional degree is institutional readiness for the change being demanded: clarity about who decides what, how decisions move through governance structures, what support accompanies difficult actions, and how risk is shared rather than concentrated.
Change may be broadly acknowledged as necessary, while acceptance of specific changes remains uneven across the board, administration, and campus.
The Consequence: Degraded Presidential Authority
In this environment, presidential authority may remain formally intact, but its on-the-ground usability degrades.
Decision-making becomes conditional and inconsistently applied. Formal governance channels are supplemented—or quietly bypassed—by informal ones. Support becomes situational rather than structural.
Accountability increases while authority and backing fragment.
This asymmetry is a defining feature of fit drift.
Early Warning Signs of Fit Drift for University Presidents
University presidents are often socialized to persist, adapt, and absorb. That orientation can delay recognition that a structural shift is underway.
Common early signals include expanding expectations without corresponding resources, ambiguous or inconsistently applied decision rights, increased board involvement in operational matters, shifts from prospective guidance to retrospective judgment, and the quiet replacement of formal governance processes with side conversations.
Individually, these signals may seem manageable. But when they occur collectively and persist without explicit discussion, they are a sign of fit drift.
Why Do Good Presidents Lose Board Support?
Often, they do not—at least not at first.
What shifts initially is not confidence in the individual, but the board’s assessment of institutional risk and readiness. As conditions intensify, governance posture may change from personally connected to professionally detached. Support becomes more procedural than organic. Overall direction setting which may have been exploratory becomes prescriptive.
These changes reflect altered governance conditions, not diminished temperament or talent. When board members fail to recognize its structural nature, emerging strain is read as a presidential shortcoming. This means a governance problem is misdiagnosed as presidential failure.
Addressing Fit Drift Before Governance Hardens
Addressing fit drift early allows boards and presidents to work deliberately on conditions rather than assign blame.
Institutional readiness can be reassessed. Decision pathways clarified. Support for willing and able presidents strengthened. Facilitated governance conversations about risk tolerance, authority, and capacity can help restore alignment before positions, postures, and new patterns solidify.
When those efforts do not succeed, the most responsible outcome may be a planned transition—timed, structured, and governed in ways that protect institutional stability and preserve the dignity of both the presidency and the person who holds it.
A Final Governance Reality About Fit and Fit Drift
Fit drift is not soley, or even largely, about personality or performance. It is about whether governance structures, institutional readiness, and presidential support remain in sync with the changing conditions of today’s environment.
Presidential fit is not permanent. It is contingent. And sometimes the most responsible course is not persistence, but clarity—and, when necessary, exit with agency.
FAQ: Fit Drift in Higher Education Leadership
1. What is “fit drift” in higher education?
Fit drift names a structural misalignment or asymmetry that arises when expectations of the presidency shift while governance practices, decision-making clarity, and institutional support fail to adjust in step.
2. What are the early warning signs of fit drift for university presidents?
Common signs include expanding expectations without added authority or resources, unclear and inconsistent decision pathways, increased informal governance, and accountability that grows without corresponding institutional backing.
3. Is fit drift a sign of presidential incompetence?
No. Fit drift reflects changing institutional conditions and governance dynamics, not deficiencies in competence, commitment, or leadership capacity.
4. Why do good university presidents lose board support?
Often they do not lose support outright. Many boards readjust their positions and postures in response to heightened risk. This can unintentionally reduce the president’s concrete authority and create strain if not explicitly addressed.
5. Can a university president recover from fit drift?
Sometimes. Early recognition, explicit governance recalibration, and shared clarity about authority and support can restore alignment. When that is not possible, a structured transition may be the most responsible outcome.
