My family business has thrived across four generations, founded on community values and a passion for ensuring access to clean water. Sustaining this legacy requires constant evaluation of our leadership and a clear understanding of our impact. We deliver services where measurable outcomes are critical, like installing geothermal systems that are "four times more efficient" or water conditioning that tangibly improves water quality. We consistently track these results to guarantee our "unwavering quality" and effectiveness for our clients in Springfield, Ohio. Applying this to a college president, goals like enrollment growth and completion rates are crucial, non-negotiable metrics. These indicators directly reflect how effectively the institution is fulfilling its mission and serving its community, much like how we measure our success in delivering clean water for future generations.
When Dirty Dough started tracking franchise openings against our projections, it changed everything. Suddenly we had to get honest about where we were falling short. I'm not saying metrics fix everything, but they force you to look at your weak spots. It's the same for a college president. Instead of vague goals, track enrollment and completion rates. You need actual numbers to work toward, otherwise you're just guessing.
In other industries, I've noticed the best leadership evaluations always tie back to hard numbers. We switched to judging performance on financial metrics and operational data, which made decisions clearer and coaching more focused. You might suggest bringing in an outside team to review using this results-based approach. It's fairer and you know exactly what to do next.
The performance of college presidents should be judged by the same standards as executives in other fields with significant fiduciary responsibility. Performance should be judged by measurable objectives rather than vague stories about leadership and vision. Boards can't tell the difference between strategic and operational activity when enrollment, completion, financial, or community impact objectives are not set in advance. Boards in higher education and corporate settings both have made this mistake in my experience. In an objective model, KPIs should be complemented by qualitative criteria, including stakeholder trust, clarity of purpose, and systems for transparency. College presidents should be held accountable for both the output as well as the systems which will drive long-term success. Hard numbers must be balanced with rigorous qualitative assessments to replace current self-reinforcing patterns of "meeting expectations" with a culture of strategic accountability that is required to compete in today's rapidly changing environment.
To take a surface view of a college president evaluation format I would begin with the issue of whether the document is crafted around outcomes or simply anecdotal impressions. Unless it identifies some clear objectives associated with strategy it can hardly be referred to as performance at all. Those objectives tend to be enrollment net tuition retention completion and perhaps fundraising or academic quality indicators in higher education. And this is how I would rate it. I would overlap the existing evaluation areas with the institutional strategic plan and observe where the quantifiable targets ought to be but are not. Next I would propose a thin scorecard format layer that employs a combination of hard measures and circumstance such as demographic headwinds or program releases. That makes it fair yet the job can be tested. It also assists to ensure the board and president are on an agreement with the goals at the beginning of the year and not afterwards. In case of goal absence I will tend to insert three to five priority measures, with ranges and schedule and a brief reflection area as to the story behind the figures.