A Blog Series on Presidential Fit, Fit Drift, and Governance Under Strain
By Lori E. Varlotta, PhD
The Structural Nature of Presidential Strain
University presidencies rarely become untenable in a single moment. More often, strain accumulates over time, conditions intensify, and governance structures that once supported leadership no longer remain aligned with what the moment requires. This is a dynamic I explore in The Demands of Center Stage: Delivering Results and Making Tough Decisions.
Across higher education governance, boards and university presidents are increasingly encountering this kind of accumulated strain. Too often, however, they lack a shared language to name and describe its structural—rather than personal—dimensions.
Five Conditions Shaped by Structure as Much as Relationships
This series describes the structural dimensions of five interrelated conditions that shape presidential effectiveness and vulnerability:
- presidential–institutional fit;
- fit drift;
- transparency and board support;
- perception and narrative; and
- the management of goodwill.
These conditions are often interpreted as reflections of personal style, temperament, or competence. In practice, they are equally rooted in structural dimensions that sometimes remain unexamined: the alignment (or misalignment) between presidential authority and board expectations; institutional readiness for change; the execution of governance; and the adequacy of presidential support.
I explore related themes in The First 100 Days of a University Presidency: Curiosity, Generosity, and Discernment, where early structural signals often predict later outcomes.
Summary of Blog Series: From Blame to Foresight in Higher Ed Leadership
This series is not about bad presidents. It is about organizations under stress and about what happens when governance structures, decision-making clarity, and support mechanisms do not keep pace with changing conditions. Drawing on my experience as a three-time university president and my work advising other presidents, these essays aim to name patterns that are widely experienced, rarely named with precision, and too often misread as individual failure.
The goal is not to blame. It is to provide foresight so that presidents and boards can recognize what is emerging early and respond deliberately rather than defensively. For more on this topic, please see Presidential Succession Planning: From Troubling Turnover to Transition and Transmission.
Next: Blog 2 examines why presidential “fit” is structural, not sentimental—and how it begins to unravel.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is “fit drift” in higher education leadership?
In higher education, fit drift describes a structural misalignment that occurs when conditions change and presidential expectations escalate, but corresponding adjustments in institutional readiness, presidential support, and decision-making clarity fail to keep pace.
2. What are the key conditions for university presidential effectiveness?
University presidential effectiveness depends not only on experience and judgment, but on structural alignment: clear authority, disciplined governance, sustained board support, institutional readiness for change, and sufficient goodwill to absorb strain over time.
3. What is structural misalignment in university governance?
Structural misalignment in university governance occurs when roles, approval pathways, expectations, and support mechanisms no longer comport with changing conditions. When unexamined, these governance incongruencies are often misattributed to presidential performance rather than system design.
4. How can university boards identify governance strain early?
University boards can identify governance strain early by naming and describing fit drift, recognizing expanded approval layers, attending to inconsistent delegation, determining whether heightened scrutiny is necessary and resolving ambiguity about decision authority.
5. What is the difference between personal failure and structural misalignment in higher education leadership?
Personal failure in higher education leadership typically includes a lack of professional judgment, inadequate capability, and/or acts of personal or professional misconduct. Structural misalignments, on the other hand, reflect systematic or governance conditions that make it difficult to keep presidential authority and support in sync with university resources, public pressures, campus readiness for change, and board support.
