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

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.

1. Introduction

Since the 1990s, universities have been functioning in increasingly competitive environments (Marginson, 2004). In an era marked by rapid transformations in higher education, including student demographics, evolving funding models, technological advancements, and increased accountability, the role of college and university presidents is becoming more complex and increasingly demanding than ever before (Shattock, 2014; Liu et al., 2020). Effectively managing higher education institutions amid rising demands poses a significant challenge for university presidents (Shattock, 2014). Therefore, effective presidential leadership in higher education institutions is critical for navigating the complexities and challenges of academic environments (Kezar et al., 2020).

Boards of Trustees, who oversee institutional governance, play a critical role in shaping the future of higher education institutions (McGoey, 2007). However, there exists a lack of comprehensive understanding of how the trustees understand and prioritize the attributes that constitute effective presidential leadership in this evolving context. Despite the growing body of literature on higher education leadership, few studies have focused explicitly on the voices of trustees. Meanwhile, these individuals are responsible for hiring, evaluating, and supporting presidents. This gap in research presents a significant challenge for scholars and practitioners who seek to develop a comprehensive understanding of stakeholders’ perceptions of presidential effectiveness and ensure that institutional leadership meets the demands of the changing higher education context. Without a clear understanding of how trustees conceptualize effective leadership and their expectations, efforts to recruit and support presidents are at risk of being misaligned with their institutions’ strategic goals and governance frameworks. By understanding these perspectives, the university presidents can better align their actions with the trustees’ and stakeholders’ expectations, ensuring the success and sustainability of their institutions.

This paper explores the critical attributes necessary for effective presidential leadership, emphasizing the distinctions and commonalities between the perceptions of trustees in two different contexts, Kazakhstan and the United States. Studying trustees’ perspectives in different contexts offers a unique opportunity to better understand how effective leadership is conceptualized and evaluated across cultures and how institutional contexts, governance structures, and other influences shape leadership expectations. It also helps to address the gap in the literature on board members’ perspectives on institutional leadership practices.

Given the importance of understanding the trustees’ perspectives and the unique opportunity to compare two governance settings, it is important to situate the study within two higher education systems. The section below presents a brief overview of higher education environments that shape how effective leadership is perceived in both settings, what institutional and cultural dynamics influence their perspectives, and what the influences of broader higher education reform agendas are on trustees’ expectations and why they may differ across systems.

1.1. Contextual Background

While Kazakhstan and the United States represent different historical, political, and cultural contexts, both are experiencing important shifts in the governance of higher education. In Kazakhstan, these changes are primarily driven by state-led reforms aimed at modernizing the higher education system, aligning with global standards, and enhancing institutional performance (Hartley et al., 2016; Sagintayeva et al., 2017). In contrast, the United States faces mounting pressures related to accountability, financial sustainability, and market responsiveness (Monahan & Shah, 2011). These pressures have prompted many institutions to reconfigure leadership roles and performance metrics and adapt to shifting public expectations.

The United States represents a more mature decentralized model of higher education governance characterized by a high degree of institutional autonomy. American colleges and universities operate with considerable independence in setting academic priorities, managing finances, and governing internal affairs (Altbach et al., 2011). This institutional autonomy is grounded in the historical evolution of US higher education and is protected by constitutional and legal norms. Within this decentralized landscape, institutions vary widely by size, mission, funding sources, and governance models, shaping how leadership is conceptualized and enacted across different settings (Kezar & Eckel, 2004). In addition to this structural complexity, U.S. higher education is guided by a deeply embedded tradition of shared governance, where power is distributed among trustees, faculty, and administration. This distribution influences decision-making processes and trustees’ leadership expectations, which often emphasize relational competencies, transparency, and consensus-building.

Another defining feature of U.S. higher education is the principle of shared governance, in which faculty, trustees, and administrators each play a role in institutional decision-making (Taylor, 2013). This shared governance model reflects the principles of participatory democracy, with various stakeholders actively involved in institutional decision-making (Hartley, 2003). Presidents must therefore act as collaborative leaders, mediating between the strategic priorities of boards, the academic concerns of faculty, and the needs of students and staff. In this context, the role of the university president is multifaceted.

As the position demands have expanded, presidential responsibilities have shifted from primarily focusing on academic oversight to managing complex financial operations, leading fundraising efforts, shaping institutional image and branding, and addressing various additional challenges. Their effectiveness often hinges not only on managerial skills but also on emotional intelligence, communication, and the ability to build consensus across diverse actors (Hartley, 2003; Gearhart et al., 2020).

In contrast, Kazakhstan offers a transitional model, which seeks to align its higher education governance with international standards (Hartley et al., 2016; Sagintayeva et al., 2017). Since gaining independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan has been engaged in transforming and modernizing its higher education system. It had undertaken a set of reforms, which facilitated the transition from Soviet-style education designed to serve the needs of a planned economy and an authoritarian regime to one that aligns with the demands of a market economy and a more pluralistic society (Hartley et al., 2016). The reforms at the higher education level entailed substantial structural changes, such as the introduction of tuition-based models and private investment, curriculum modernization, greater institutional autonomy, and others.

A central component of these reforms has been the introduction of new corporate governance mechanisms to enhance institutional autonomy (Bilyalov, 2016; Sagintayeva & Kurakbayev, 2015). Historically, the universities operated under a centralized governance model inherited from the Soviet past, with the Ministry of Education appointing university rectors and exerting substantial control over institutional decisions (Bilyalov, 2016). Recognizing the need for modernization, the government aimed to introduce the Boards of Trustees in 90% of all public universities, granting them enhanced powers which included the authority to appoint rectors, approve budgets, and define strategic directions (Sagintayeva, 2013). Unlike the US, where trustees operate with relatively high institutional autonomy, trustees in Kazakhstan navigate a hybrid governance space, often balancing new formal responsibilities with legacy practices of ministerial oversight. However, little evidence exists on board members’ actual practices and understanding of effective leadership within Kazakhstan’s still highly bureaucratic and centralized higher education system. This complexity makes Kazakhstan an important case for studying how governance transitions affect trustee expectations and how leadership criteria are negotiated in systems undergoing reform.

The study undertakes a purposeful comparison of Kazakhstan and the United States to examine how trustees conceptualize effective leadership across contrasting systems. The United States represents a mature, decentralized higher education system where trusteeship is a longstanding and institutionalized practice (Barringer et al., 2023) and expectations of leadership are embedded in well-established traditions of board autonomy, shared governance, and market-oriented responsiveness. Kazakhstan, by contrast, exemplifies a post-Soviet, transitional system where governing boards were introduced only recently as part of wider reforms to modernize and internationalize higher education (Bilyalov, 2016). In this evolving context, trusteeship is still taking shape, influenced by a legacy of centralized state control, ambitious reform agendas, and broader cultural norms around authority and leadership. The study provides an opportunity to explore how effective leadership is conceptualized across both mature and emerging governance systems. This contrast highlights the interplay between institutional continuity and reform, and between Western-derived leadership models and their adaptation in non-Western contexts. It also addresses a critical gap in the literature, as trustees’ perspectives on institutional leadership remain underexamined globally (Barringer et al., 2022). Ultimately, the study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how governance structures, reform trajectories, and cultural differences shape divergent expectations of effective presidential leadership across the educational landscape.

1.2. Overview of Previous Research

University presidents shape institutional success (Spendlove, 2007). As higher education faces increasing complexities, the leadership of university presidents becomes even more critical in fostering innovation, maintaining financial stability, and ensuring institutional resilience (Kezar et al., 2020). Leadership at this level influences virtually every aspect of university life, from academic priorities and stakeholder relations to long-term strategic direction (Birnbaum, 1990; Kezar & Eckel, 2004). In this evolving landscape, institutional governance is becoming more interdependent, requiring collaboration between presidents and governing boards to align leadership approaches with accountability, reform, and innovation.

Effective leadership is multifaceted and context-dependent, influenced by individual beliefs and organizational culture (Neumann & Bensimon, 1990; Birnbaum & Eckel, 2005; Spendlove, 2007). From various viewpoints on academic leadership, numerous studies have suggested a connection between the intricate university environments and academic leadership (Birnbaum, 1992). Leaders’ primary challenge is their capacity “to recognize the boundaries of their own culture and adaptively evolve that culture” (Schein, 2004, p. 2). Thus, a deep understanding of an institution’s organizational culture is crucial to effective presidential leadership.

Since the 1960s, researchers in higher education leadership have explored the kinds of competencies university presidents should demonstrate (Dodds, 1960; Smith & Adams, 2007; Ioannidis, 2025). Several previous studies on leadership highlighted a wide range of leadership traits that the effective president should possess. Earlier studies argued that effective university presidents should possess administrative, moral, and emotional capabilities and a deep commitment to education (Dodds, 1960).

Other studies on leadership emphasized a wide range of effective leadership traits the president should possess. For instance, Hockaday and Puyear (2000) argued that effective leaders must possess a combination of personal traits, which include integrity, courage, self-confidence, sound judgment, and persistence. More recent studies emphasized such characteristics as strategic vision, change management, and a capacity to navigate political and financial pressures (Liu et al., 2020). Smith and Adams (2007) categorized the essential characteristics that leaders should possess as follows: (1) engagement with academic life; (2) imagination to extend boundaries and envisage changes; and (3) alignment with the academic/institutional enterprise. Spendlove (2007) suggested that academic credibility and the ability to communicate with others are the most critical attributes for university presidents. Overall, existing studies vary in how they categorize the skills university leaders should have, but the majority of the studies agree on the significance of academic credibility, knowledge of institutional processes, communication skills, and the capacity to navigate the challenges (Spendlove, 2007; Kenedi & Mountford-Zimdars, 2018). These traits are often cited in presidential selection criteria, yet how trustees themselves evaluate or prioritize them remains understudied.

In recent years, the governance role of trustees has gained renewed attention, particularly in light of expanding board responsibilities and growing accountability pressures in higher education (Phillips & Hammond, 2023). Previous research suggests that the relationships university presidents build with institutional stakeholders are very important, as they are closely tied to leadership success. More specifically, the relationship with trustees is pivotal in shaping institutional direction as they serve as strategic partners in setting long-term goals. Furthermore, trustees’ expectations can shape institutional priorities and enable or constrain presidential leadership (Freeman & Kochan, 2012). When trustees and presidents align their vision and communication, institutional governance is more effective, particularly in navigating crises, institutional change, or public scrutiny (Freeman & Kochan, 2012). Trustees can also influence the balance between instrumental leadership (focused on performance and accountability) and interpretive leadership (centered on meaning-making and culture), making their perspectives central to understanding presidential effectiveness.

To expand this conversation, international scholarship has introduced broader leadership models that are increasingly relevant across diverse governance settings. For example, previously Birnbaum (1990) distinguished between two principal leadership approaches: instrumental and interpretive. Instrumental leadership emphasizes technical competence, administrative coordination, and judgment. Interpretive leadership, on the other hand, concerns meaning-making, aligning institutional values, identities, and cultural symbols through the president’s speech, behavior, and vision. Interpretive leaders connect their institutions to a broader social mission, often shaping stakeholder perceptions and fostering internal legitimacy. According to Birnbaum (1990), while instrumental leadership can function without deep stakeholder engagement, interpretive leadership depends on the president’s relational credibility, emotional intelligence, and cultural fluency.

Iqbal and Piwowar-Sulej (2022) have recently introduced the term sustainable leadership, which is the ability to lead an organization toward sustainable development by implementing socially responsible activities. Sustainable leadership is in line with earlier introduced concepts, such as adaptive leadership (DeRue, 2011). Sustainable leaders inspire and encourage subordinates, define the working atmosphere, and align the needs of subordinates and the organization (Gjerde & Ladegard, 2019), thus increasing the sustainable performance of employees and organization’s sustainable performance. DeRue (2011) argues that modern university presidents must demonstrate adaptive leadership, characterized by the ability to respond to dynamic contexts, stakeholder conflicts, and evolving expectations. This flexibility becomes a key effectiveness metric in systems undergoing reform. Adaptive leadership focuses not on pre-set solutions but on the capacity to diagnose challenges, mobilize learning, and manage tensions between stakeholders. In higher education, this means leading institutions through ambiguity, such as navigating shrinking resources, political reforms, or cultural resistance, by fostering flexibility, dialogue, and change readiness. This lens is particularly relevant in reform-driven systems, where presidents are expected to implement top-down mandates while managing institutional transformation.

Grano (2025) contributed to this conversation by emphasizing the competing values framework (CVF). This framework, originally developed by Quinn and Roherbaugh in 1983, helps leaders to understand how different values and organizational cultures can shape how they lead and make decisions, as well as how culture influences employee behavior, decision-making, and institutional change. It is based on the idea that organizations need to balance competing but equally important values (Grano, 2025).

Despite these developments, there remains a noticeable gap in research that directly explores trustees’ conceptualizations of effective leadership. Previous studies have focused more on the role and functions of university leaders (Smith & Adams, 2007) and the university leaders’ perceptions of their roles (Smerek, 2013). There is also limited research on how effective leadership is contextualized in different settings. Remarkably underexplored are cross-national comparisons of trustee perspectives, which could reveal how governance systems, cultural expectations, and institutional histories shape differing leadership criteria.

To fill these gaps, this paper focuses on the critical attributes necessary for effective presidential leadership, emphasizing the distinctions and commonalities between the perceptions of trustees in two different contexts, Kazakhstan and the United States. It aims to add to the growing but still sparse body of research that centers on trustees as key informants in assessing, supporting, and co-constructing presidential effectiveness.

To explore trustees’ perceptions of effective university leadership, this study employs an integrative theoretical framework that combines several models of higher education leadership, such as Birnbaum’s (1990) models of higher education leadership, the competing values framework (Grano, 2025) and the concepts of sustainable leadership (Iqbal & Piwowar-Sulej, 2022) and adaptive leadership (DeRue, 2011). This multi-theoretical approach enables a nuanced analysis of how trustees interpret leadership effectiveness across different institutional and cultural contexts and allows for a more holistic understanding of how trustees conceptualize effective leadership in both stable and rapidly evolving educational environments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study employs a qualitative research design, specifically a multiple-case study approach (Yin, 2018). This methodology enables an in-depth exploration of the perceptions of effective presidential leadership from the perspectives of university trustees across two distinct contexts, offering a comprehensive understanding of nuanced and complex ways concerning leadership attributes and presidential effectiveness in different governance environments. A comparative case study design is particularly appropriate for exploring leadership in cross-national contexts where institutional histories, governance structures, and cultural expectations vary significantly.

The semi-structured interview was chosen as the primary data collection tool. This type of interview was selected due to its flexibility in probing and clarifying participants’ responses while maintaining a consistent focus on key topics.

An interview guide was meticulously developed, informed by the study’s research questions and covered the following areas: (1) definitions and perceptions of effective presidential leadership; (2) evaluation of various leadership attributes and competencies; (3) narratives of effective and ineffective presidential leadership; (4) indicators used to assess presidential effectiveness; (5) impact of contemporary challenges on leadership perceptions. At the same time, the interview process remained flexible, utilizing open-ended questions to allow participants to speak freely and express their perspectives in depth. This approach was utilized to enhance the study’s trustworthiness, credibility, dependability, transferability, and authenticity, following the criteria outlined by Guba and Lincoln (1982).

2.2. Sample and Participants

The sample consists of 10 trustees from 10 private liberal arts colleges—5 located in Kazakhstan and 5 in the United States. A purposive sampling strategy was employed to select participants based on their roles and experience in university governance, ensuring the collection of rich and relevant insights. To strengthen the comparability of cases, institutions in both countries were selected based on specific shared characteristics: (1) small-to-medium enrollment size (under 4000 students); (2) commitment to undergraduate education; (3) liberal arts curricular focus; (4) private or semi-autonomous governance structures. The US institutions include regionally accredited, tuition-dependent colleges with non-profit status and active Boards of Trustees. In Kazakhstan, the selected institutions are either independent private universities or public institutions granted enhanced autonomy under recent reform mandates.

The participants varied in several characteristics, such as age, gender, region of employment, years of working experience, and trustee status (current/former), to capture a broad spectrum of perspectives and experiences. All participants had served a minimum of two years on their respective boards. US trustees included professionals from business, law, education, and philanthropy, while Kazakhstani trustees represented a mix of state officials, industry experts, and university-affiliated members. This diversity reflects typical trustee composition in both settings and allows for capturing the influence of sectoral and cultural perspectives on leadership expectations (a summary of participant characteristics is provided in

Table 1. Participants’ background characteristics.

Participant ID	Country	Years as Trustee	Professional Background
Trustee #1	KZ	6	Legal and Government
Trustee #2	KZ	4	Higher Education
Trustee #3	KZ	9	Industry/Engineering
Trustee #4	KZ	3	NGO/Development Sector
Trustee #5	KZ	5	State/Policy Expert
Trustee #6	US	8	Business Executive
Trustee #7	US	12	Philanthropy/Board Chair
Trustee #8	US	6	Education Administration
Trustee #9	US	10	Governance Expert
Trustee #10	US	7	Financial Services

below).

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

Each interview, lasting between 60 and 90 min, was conducted in person or via secure video conferencing platforms, depending on participant availability and preference. With the participants’ consent, all interviews were audio-recorded to ensure accuracy in data capture and transcribed. After transcribing interviews, thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) was employed to analyze the interview data systematically. Research team members read and re-read the interview transcripts to develop a deep understanding of the data, and significant data features relevant to the research questions were identified and coded.

Both inductive coding, allowing themes to emerge organically from the data, and deductive coding, guided by the integrated theoretical framework, were utilized. Firstly, codes were collated into potential themes, then reviewed and refined to ensure they accurately represented the data and provided meaningful insights (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Each theme was defined and named to capture its essence. Secondly, detailed descriptions of each theme were composed, supported by illustrative interview quotes. Finally, the themes were organized into a coherent narrative addressing the research questions, highlighting the comparative perspectives of Kazakhstan’s and the US trustees on effective presidential leadership.

Several measures were undertaken to enhance the study’s reliability and validity. Trustworthiness was maintained through: (a) triangulation, which meant comparing trustees’ perspectives from different institutional and national contexts; (b) member checking, which involved sharing preliminary findings with a subset of participants to validate the accuracy of the interpretations. Additionally, the researchers maintained a reflective journal to document the decision-making process during the data analysis and mitigate potential biases.

3. Findings

3.1. Case Study: Kazakhstan

Trustees in the Kazakhstan case conceptualized effective presidential leadership as a dual responsibility. On the one hand, they expected the president to demonstrate technical proficiency in institutional management by setting priorities, solving problems, and achieving strategic goals. As one trustee noted: “In my opinion, this [effective leadership] means clearly defining the main goals of the task and being able to solve problems.” On the other hand, they also emphasized the president’s capacity for inspiring people: “Firstly, this is the ability to solve problems and then it is the ability to inspire others.” This dual expectation aligns closely not only with Birnbaum’s (1992) distinction between instrumental and interpretive leadership but also with the notions of adaptive leadership (DeRue, 2011) and sustainable leadership (Iqbal & Piwowar-Sulej, 2022), both of which underscore the importance of guiding teams through change while also cultivating trust and meaning within the institutional community.

3.2. Prioritizing Instrumental Skills

The analysis of interview data identified that Kazakhstan’s trustees seem to place more emphasis on instrumental leadership capacities. The central expectation among them was the president’s ability to meet predefined performance indicators in strategic planning documents or by external agents, such as the Ministry of Higher Education and Science. Trustees regarded these indicators as tangible evidence of presidential effectiveness. One trustee described this focus clearly:

The board publishes a list of key performance indicators. I think that the achievement of these indicators reflects the efficacy of the rector’s work and their leadership within the organization.

Furthermore, trustees expect presidents to employ linear strategies to achieve institutional goals. Meeting strategic objectives and institutional goals is seen as a reflection of the president’s effectiveness. For example, when asked about the effectiveness of the university president, another trustee stated:

I believe effectiveness can be demonstrated through various scenarios. For example, successfully passing accreditation checks or improving the university’s ranking by 1–2 positions showcases strong leadership qualities and effective work by the rector.

It should be noted, however, that trustees in Kazakhstan also acknowledged that rigid adherence to strategic plans must be balanced with contextual agility. When asked about other essential characteristics linked to effectiveness, some trustees also noted that adapting to changes is an essential trait of effective leadership. One participant noted, “We set the goals in the strategic plan, but sometimes the environment changes. The president needs to adapt, not just stick to the script.” This perspective reveals a pragmatic interpretation of goal-oriented yet adaptable leadership, especially in a demanding context where results and measurable performance remain central. This flexible approach to goal achievement reflects core elements of adaptive leadership theory (DeRue, 2011), which emphasizes responsiveness to unpredictable challenges. Another illustrative quote:

The indicative indicators are subject to change to align with modern trends, so they are flexible. We consider various factors, including the impact of events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. We understand that achieving all indicators may not always be feasible for objective and subjective reasons.

3.3. Acknowledging Interpretive Leadership Attributes

While discussing the president’s technical competencies, interviewed trustees also referred to the role of interpretive leadership capacities (Birnbaum, 1992). While instrumental leadership skills seem to be dominant with all participants, some trustees also mentioned interpretive competencies, particularly team cohesion, communication, and trust-building. In this respect, one of the interviewees highlighted the growing importance of trust, which ensures cohesion within the administration team:

At the same time, we think that the effectiveness of management is determined by the trust of the team because the presence of a cohesive, functional team precisely signals the effectiveness of the rector’s work.

A similar comment: “I consider that the president is effective if he works well with the team.” Another trustee emphasized the importance of the president’s communication with other stakeholders: “As the administration team changes, communication in the office also changes. In my opinion, the involvement of faculty and students and the rector’s ability to captivate are essential for presidential effectiveness.” These insights reflect growing awareness that trust and team cohesion are functional necessities for sustainable leadership (Iqbal & Piwowar-Sulej, 2022).

Some trustees also mentioned the importance of ensuring transparency. These findings affirm that while trustees prioritize instrumental and performance-oriented leadership capacities and they also view interpretive leadership skills as important to long-term institutional health.

It should be highlighted, however, that interpretive leadership in Kazakhstan’s case seems to serve a supporting role: it is important for internal administrative team dynamics and goal achievement and ultimately instrumental to delivering outcomes. This corroborates with the competing values framework (Grano, 2025), which emphasizes that effective leadership involves balancing multiple, and sometimes conflicting, organizational values. Trustees’ focus on trust, transparency, and communication suggests that they value both relational and structural aspects of leadership. On one hand, the ability to build trust and communicate openly reflects the importance of interpersonal connection and a collaborative work environment. On the other hand, transparency also implies an expectation for accountability, clear processes, and consistency in leadership behavior.

Additionally, the recognition of interpretive leadership as essential to long-term institutional health suggests that trustees appreciate leaders who can make sense of complex challenges and provide strategic direction. Interestingly, the importance of interpretive leadership was emphasized again when the trustees were asked to give evidence of an ineffective president. Some trustees believe an ineffective president usually has a dysfunctional and incoherent team. One participant commented: “An ineffective leader is the one who lives on their own.” If the president meets the targets and indicators but cannot inspire the faculty and other college constituents, the president is regarded as an ineffective leader. Such narratives indicate that instrumental success without interpretive leadership is insufficient. One trustee provides a very articulate response to the question on ineffective presidential leadership as follows:

It becomes evident that when a college president fails to meet the goals, it often results from team fragmentation and internal conflicts, which create an unhealthy environment. An effective president unifies the team to achieve the university’s main objectives.

Another participant also stated that ineffective presidents prioritize personal goals over institutional ones. Interestingly, this participant also highlights the importance of performance indicators set by the government:

I think that ineffectiveness can be observed when personal ambitions, such as self-promotion or self-importance, precede the university’s goals. In our experience, we have also encountered rectors who prioritize their personal interests over those of the university. Consequently, the leader’s effectiveness diminishes, and as a result, the university’s standing is compromised, both in terms of its reputation and performance against key indicators set by the Ministry. Therefore, placing personal ambition at the forefront, rather than focusing on the university’s strategic development, is the root cause of this issue.

Similarly, another trustee also underscored the importance of prioritizing institutional goals over personal gains: “The team should be motivated by a shared vision and commitment rather than personal gain, as prioritizing personal interests over the university’s can impede progress and leadership effectiveness.”

3.4. Case Study: The US

In the US context, trustees similarly conceptualized effective presidential leadership as balancing technical expertise and relational qualities. However, their perceptions of effective presidential leadership reveal a more nuanced and relational approach, where instrumental competencies are important but insufficient. US trustees seem to emphasize collaboration, self-awareness, and team dynamics more than their Kazakhstan counterparts.

Trustees expected presidents to surround themselves with competent advisors, continuously self-assess, and demonstrate humility. They suggested that leadership is not only about knowing the answers but also about asking the right questions and building a team that can challenge and support the president’s vision. For example, one trustee advised new presidents “to have the right people around,” and “ensure solid relationships with those people.” Others echoed this collaborative ethos, highlighting the need for a dynamic team capable of engaging in constructive dialogue and challenging the president’s ideas, fostering effective decision-making. Here is an example of how a US trustee elaborates on the signals of ineffective leadership related to communication breakdown:

Usually when a president’s in trouble… it’s because they’ve lost contact. The board starts to ask questions, and regular communication begins to wane. Then you wonder, ‘What aren’t I being told?’ It’s a problem that grows slowly and then suddenly hits the wall.

Similarly to Kazakhstani trustees, U.S. trustees emphasized the importance of meeting institutional goals. According to the participants, fundraising, financial planning, and measurable objectives were critical components of instrumental leadership. U.S. trustees strongly emphasized the president’s financial expertise, particularly in fundraising and long-term financial planning. As one trustee said, “You do not want someone who is just good at raising money; you want someone savvy enough to know what keeps an institution sustainable and viable.” Another trustee also cited the refusal to engage in fundraising as a significant shortcoming: “Presidents who avoid major donor interactions are not fully embracing their responsibilities. Fundraising is critical to presidential leadership and avoiding it can hinder the institution’s financial stability.”

Furthermore, the trustees highlighted the importance of the president’s ability to meet key performance indicators (KPIs). An important detail is that U.S. trustees viewed KPIs as mutually defined between the board and the president. One participant stated: “The board publishes a list of key performance indicators. I think that achieving these indicators reflects the effectiveness of the president’s work and their leadership within the organization.”

Notably, the collaborative development of KPIs in the U.S. context contrasts with Kazakhstan’s more state-driven metrics, underscoring the decentralized and negotiated nature of leadership evaluation in American higher education governance.

According to US trustees, effective presidents must balance strategic planning with a deep respect for the institution’s culture and traditions. As one trustee stated, “The president must align their strategies with the institution’s mission to maintain community support and foster long-term success.” US trustees’ emphasis on mission, culture, and values indicates that they view effective leadership as a holistic process that integrates strategic objectives with a deep understanding of the institution’s identity. As one trustee explained, “The board’s primary qualification for a new president was a deep grasp of the university’s unique ecosystem, including aspects like the university’s lack of tenure and its politically neutral campus environment.” Such perspectives echo the notion of sustainable leadership, where safeguarding mission, values, and identity is viewed as central to ensuring continuity and resilience (Iqbal & Piwowar-Sulej, 2022).

3.5. Emphasizing Interpretive Leadership Attributes

In addition to instrumental skills, almost all US trustees emphasized the importance of interpersonal capacities. Several participants mentioned the balance between confidence and vulnerability, suggesting that effective leaders are transparent and willing to admit their limitations. One trustee highlighted the importance of truthful and transparent communication: “A President must ensure they are telling the whole truth, albeit in a loving, kind, and generous manner.” Another illustrative quote:

You’ve got to be sure that what you’re telling people is the truth. Now, I’m all about telling the truth lovingly. You get a kind and generous way, but you gotta tell the truth.

According to participants, the presidents should exhibit relatability, gravitas, and genuine care for their community. These insights suggest that even effective presidents must be mindful of maintaining balanced relationships and engaging in all aspects of their role. As one trustee stated: “It is important to make room for others, to step back and allow the board to hear from others.” This observation underscores the importance of self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and the ability to foster an inclusive and dynamic team environment.

Several trustees noted that presidents should not only be forward-thinking but also manage the pace of change to ensure that the institution can adapt without being overwhelmed. This balance is crucial for sustaining long-term growth and stability.

One participant stressed the need for presidents to anticipate future trends and prepare the institution accordingly. “You have to look around the corner and see what is coming,” he stated. Another agreed but cautioned against the pace of change, noting: “Too much change too fast can ruin things. What would have been accepted might not be just because it came at them too fast.” This perspective aligns with the competing values framework (Grano, 2025), which emphasizes that effective leadership requires balancing competing imperatives rather than privileging one set of values at the expense of others. This dual need for vision and pacing also echoes the notion of adaptive leadership (DeRue, 2011), which recognizes the president’s role in regulating institutional capacity for change.

Several participants emphasized the importance of understanding the institutional mission and culture for effective presidential leadership. As one trustee stated, “You have to stay on mission. Be true to the mission.” A deep understanding of the institution’s unique characteristics and values is crucial for effective leadership. Another highlighted the importance of selecting leaders who inherently understand the institution’s ecosystem and values. A powerful quote from this participant: “We wanted someone who had it in their DNA. You either have it or you do not have it.”. This alignment ensures that the president’s actions and decisions are consistent with the institution’s goals, fostering a sense of unity and purpose among stakeholders.

US trustees’ perspectives highlight the importance of both instrumental and interpretive leadership for institutional effectiveness (Birnbaum, 1992). They seem to value technical competencies and achieving key performance indicators, but also emphasize the need for collaboration, delegation, open communication, and alignment with the institutional culture and mission. At the same time, trustees seek presidents who balance short-term goals with long-term vision, fostering a collaborative and dynamic environment. This approach is crucial for navigating the complexities of academic leadership and ensuring sustainability (Iqbal & Piwowar-Sulej, 2022).

3.6. Cross-Case Analysis

This section compares trustees’ perspectives on presidential leadership attributes in Kazakhstan and the United States’ higher education institutions. The study revealed that in Kazakhstan, trustees place a significant emphasis on technical proficiency in institutional management by setting priorities, solving problems, and achieving strategic goals. A central expectation from trustees was the president’s capacity to meet predefined performance indicators laid out in strategic documents or by external bodies such as the Ministry of Higher Education and Science. This aligns with a more hierarchical and metric-driven governance environment, where effectiveness is often judged through compliance with state-defined targets.

It should be noted, however, that the increasing appreciation for interpersonal dynamics and stakeholder engagement reveals a shifting leadership culture. The analysis revealed that Kazakhstan trustees are beginning to recognize the value of adaptive (DeRue, 2011) and sustainable leadership practices (Iqbal & Piwowar-Sulej, 2022), especially in response to external disruptions and internal change.

In contrast, in the U.S. context, trustee perceptions of effective presidential leadership reveal a more nuanced and relational approach, where instrumental competencies are important but insufficient. Trustees expected presidents to possess technical expertise and the ability to articulate a compelling, future-oriented vision. There was notable emphasis on adaptive capacity, emotional intelligence, and distributed decision-making, attributes aligned with U.S. higher education governance’s decentralized and pluralistic nature.

Unlike their Kazakhstani counterparts, U.S. trustees emphasized self-awareness, collaboration, and team dynamics more. Sustainable leadership, adaptability, and cultural alignment were perceived not just as support mechanisms but as central components of effectiveness (DeRue, 2011; Iqbal & Piwowar-Sulej, 2022).

Similarly to Kazakhstani trustees, U.S. trustees emphasized the importance of meeting institutional goals. Fundraising, financial planning, and measurable objectives were critical components of instrumental leadership. Trustees expect presidents to navigate complex financial landscapes and engage in successful fundraising efforts. However, even within instrumental expectations, trustees emphasized collaboration and strategic delegation. Furthermore, compared to Kazakhstan’s focus on meeting ministry-defined metrics, US trustees viewed KPIs as mutually defined between the board and president, often negotiated based on internal priorities and long-term strategic goals. These differences reflect the distinct cultural and institutional contexts within which these leaders operate. They also illustrate how institutional autonomy shapes the relational dynamics between trustees and presidents, hierarchical in one context, consultative in another.

In Kazakhstan, trustees’ conceptualization of effective presidential leadership reflects the distinct post-Soviet governance structure and cultural expectations that shape higher education in the region. However, trustees’ growing awareness about the importance of trust, team cohesion, and adaptability suggests a localized evolution toward more adaptive and relational leadership, especially as institutions face global benchmarking and social demands (DeRue, 2011). There is also an appreciation for interpretive leadership, especially in how the trustees expect presidents to engage with and inspire internal stakeholders and ensure communication and trust-building. This context reinforces a view of presidential leadership that is directive and performance-driven, even as it increasingly acknowledges the value of interpretive leadership skills.

In contrast, US trustees function in a decentralized, market-influenced system with strong traditions of shared governance and institutional autonomy. In the United States, leadership focuses on flexibility, adaptability, and visionary qualities, reflecting the diverse nature of American higher education. As a result, US trustees emphasize adaptability, emotional intelligence, and the management of meaning as essential to sustaining long-term institutional health.

Examples of effective and ineffective leadership in Kazakhstan and the U.S. highlight the importance of team cohesion, vision, and strategic alignment. However, Kazakhstan examples focus more on goal achievement and on internal team dynamics, while U.S. examples emphasize adaptive leadership and stakeholder engagement. While Kazakhstani trustees saw dysfunction in presidents who acted unilaterally or prioritized personal ambition, U.S. trustees were concerned with a lack of transparency, misalignment with institutional culture, or insufficient vision. These variations are culturally and structurally rooted, reflecting different norms of presidential accountability.

The analysis identified that, despite contextual differences, both trustee groups implicitly endorse a hybrid model of presidential leadership that integrates several leadership competencies. Both cases affirm that a president who is only technically proficient but lacks relational depth is ultimately ineffective. Ineffective leadership in both contexts is marked by poor team dynamics and failure to meet institutional goals. Likewise, a visionary leader who cannot deliver outcomes or navigate the changing context is also seen as inadequate. This cross-national endorsement of hybrid leadership suggests the conceptual utility of a blended theoretical framework. Such integration is essential for understanding how leadership is interpreted across diverse governance systems and how trustees balance measurable outputs with symbolic legitimacy in evaluating presidential effectiveness.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Leadership is widely recognized as a critical driver of change in higher education (Shattock, 2014; Heffernan et al., 2021; Kezar et al., 2020). However, despite extensive literature on presidential roles and challenges, a notable gap exists in understanding how different institutional stakeholders conceptualize effective leadership. This study addresses that gap by exploring trustees’ perspectives on effective presidential leadership in Kazakhstan and the United States to capture the multidimensionality of presidential effectiveness across governance systems.

Findings from this study suggest that trustees in both Kazakhstan and the US endorse a hybrid model of presidential leadership. However, the emphasis and interpretation of each dimension vary significantly, shaped by national governance traditions and institutional histories. This echoes the broader insight that leadership is not a universal construct but is socially and contextually constructed (Gallos & Bolman, 2021).

In Kazakhstan, trustees prioritized instrumental leadership, often defining presidential effectiveness through measurable outcomes such as rankings, accreditation, and the achievement of state-mandated strategic objectives. These preferences reflect the enduring legacy of bureaucratic governance in post-Soviet higher education systems (Heyneman, 2010; Silova, 2011; Hartley et al., 2016; Sagintayeva et al., 2017), where hierarchical control, performance metrics, and state oversight remain dominant. Interpretive leadership, while acknowledged, was typically viewed as supportive of instrumental aims, helpful for motivating staff or building consensus, but ultimately subordinate to the president’s ability to deliver tangible results. This dynamic aligns with Karran and Mallinson’s (2019) observation that managerialism thrives in systems where stakeholder input is limited and academic freedom is constrained. However, the emerging trustee appreciation for trust-building and cohesion suggests a shift toward more adaptive leadership behaviors, particularly in response to reform pressures and global benchmarks (DeRue, 2011).

In contrast, US trustees highlighted the importance of interpretive leadership, particularly the president’s ability to unify diverse internal constituencies, articulate a compelling institutional vision, and manage complexity through symbolic and relational strategies. These expectations are consistent with the literature on shared governance, participatory decision-making, and the symbolic aspects of academic leadership (Kezar & Eckel, 2004). In this context, trustees perceive effective presidents not only as competent managers but as boundary-spanners and sense-makers (Barringer et al., 2023) who embody emotional intelligence, strategic communication, and the agility to respond to changing external demands. The prominence of interpretive leadership reflects deeper cultural values in US higher education, namely, pluralism and trust-based collaboration. It also aligns with distributed leadership logic, in which leadership is shared across networks rather than concentrated in a single individual. The cross-case analysis reveals that functional requirements, broader governance paradigms, and cultural norms shape trustees’ views of effective leadership. In Kazakhstan, effectiveness is defined through centralized accountability and top-down reform, while in the U.S., it is framed through relational leadership and shared vision-building. These findings contribute to the growing field of comparative higher education, which increasingly emphasizes the need for governance-sensitive and culturally contextualized leadership frameworks (Mohrman et al., 2008; Altbach & Salmi, 2011; Deem et al., 2008).

The study also provides empirical support for the value of context-driven hybrid leadership frameworks that go beyond traditional typologies and reflect the diversity of institutional realities. It underscores that successful university presidents must align their leadership behaviors with institutional values and cultural expectations.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

While this study provides valuable insights into trustees’ perspectives on effective presidential leadership in the United States and Kazakhstan, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample size was small, consisting of only ten participants. This restricts the generalizability of the findings and may not capture the full diversity of views across both national contexts. Second, as participants were drawn from a select group of institutions, their perspectives may reflect the particular institutional and cultural contexts of those universities rather than broader trustee experiences. The third limitation is that a qualitative study relies on participants’ self-reported perceptions, which may be shaped by personal biases or the desire to present socially desirable responses. These limitations suggest that the findings should be interpreted as exploratory and illustrative rather than definitive.

Further studies with more diverse samples across multiple countries are needed to validate and refine the findings from the current study. Longitudinal research could also explore how trustee expectations shift over time or in response to crises. Comparative studies involving emerging economies or regions such as Latin America and Eastern Europe could expand the global understanding of trustee–president dynamics. Additionally, future research should examine how trustee perceptions interact with those of faculty, students, and other stakeholders to co-construct leadership legitimacy in higher education institutions.