Understanding (In) Effective Presidential Leadership: Board Members’ Perspectives

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3390/educsci15101308
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This qualitative study examines trustees’ perspectives on effective presidential leadership in higher education institutions in Kazakhstan and the United States. Drawing on an integrative framework that combines established models of higher education leadership with the concepts of sustainable and adaptive leadership, the study identifies the attributes trustees consider essential for effective presidential leadership. The findings indicate that effective leaders are expected to demonstrate a blend of instrumental and interpretive skills, adaptability, and strong interpersonal competencies to address institutional challenges and foster long-term success while also engaging in balancing between competing values. Cross-national comparison reveals notable differences: trustees in Kazakhstan place stronger emphasis on instrumental leadership, particularly in relation to achieving state-defined performance indicators, whereas U.S. trustees highlight the alignment of strategy with institutional mission, culture, and values. Overall, the study shows that trustees in both contexts favor a hybrid model of presidential leadership, though the weight and interpretation of its dimensions are shaped by differing governance traditions, reform trajectories, and institutional histories