Higher education operates with two sets of rules: the formal ones outlined in governance documents and strategic plans, and the informal ones that shape how decisions are actually made. Those who have served long enough in academic leadership understand that these unwritten rules, political calculations, informal alliances and quiet pressures often influence outcomes as much as policy does. 
At a time when institutions face enrollment contraction driven by demographic shifts, increasing legislative scrutiny, financial strain, and rising leadership turnover, how leaders navigate those unwritten rules matters more than ever. The question is not simply who leads. It is what they are ultimately loyal to.
Recently, as a member of the 2026 HBCU Executive Leadership Institute (ELI) cohort, I participated in a candid discussion among senior leaders about trust versus loyalty. Which is more important? Who are we truly loyal to? The conversation circled repeatedly around boards, presidents, cabinets, and communities. However, what we ultimately agreed upon was this: loyalty must begin with the institution’s mission and the students it serves.
Loyalty to individuals vs. loyalty to mission
Leadership transitions are inevitable and often signal a new strategic phase for the institution. Whether it’s presidents advancing, provosts departing, or cabinets restructuring, alliances shift quickly and institutional memory can become fragile during these periods of recalibration.
Too often, loyalty in higher education is interpreted as allegiance to individuals in power. That interpretation is unstable.
When leadership culture prioritizes personal allegiance over institutional mission, decision-making becomes transactional. Silence becomes strategy. Ethical flexibility becomes normalized.
The more durable form of loyalty is that to institutional mission and to the students the institution was created to serve.
When loyalty is anchored in student success rather than personalities, leaders ask different questions:
Does this decision strengthen academic quality?
Does it remove barriers to completion?
Does it align resources with student needs?
Institutions serving first-generation students, working adults, and economically vulnerable populations cannot afford leadership cultures centered on political preservation. This is particularly true at HBCUs and other Minority-Serving Institutions, where leadership decisions directly shape opportunity for communities historically underrepresented in higher education.
Proximity to power and the illusion of security
In higher education, proximity to senior leadership is often mistaken for stability. Access to presidents and provosts can feel like influence. However, proximity to power is not the same as institutional grounding.
When leadership transitions occur, those closely associated with prior administrations can become politically exposed. The consequences extend beyond individuals; they disrupt the continuity of academic initiatives, student support systems, and long-term strategy.
Sustainable leadership requires credibility across faculty governance, student affairs, finance, board relationships, and community partners. Influence rooted in competence and coalition-building is more resilient than influence rooted in affiliation.
Institutions seeking stability must develop leadership pipelines grounded in transparency and accountability rather than informal patronage systems.
Integrity must be operational
Higher education leaders regularly face subtle pressure to reinterpret policy, accelerate approvals, reallocate funds creatively, or overlook inconsistencies “for the sake of progress.”
Ethical erosion rarely begins with overt misconduct. It begins with small compromises justified as temporary or necessary.
Institutions frequently speak about access, opportunity, and student success. However, those commitments lose credibility when governance practices lack transparency or when accountability is inconsistently applied.
In an era of public skepticism and political oversight, integrity is institutional currency. Students, faculty, legislators, and communities are watching not only what institutions promise but how leaders act.
Leaders who uphold policy and principle may encounter short-term resistance. However, they protect long-term institutional legitimacy.
Discernment in leadership
Persistence is often celebrated in higher education narratives. Strategic discernment may be the more essential competency.
There are moments when remaining steady strengthens institutional culture. There are also moments when political environments become misaligned with the stated mission and long-term strategy.
Staying too long in environments where mission is secondary to politics diminishes impact. Leaving prematurely disrupts continuity.
Effective leadership requires evaluating whether one is advancing institutional purpose or merely protecting position.
Institutions must also examine whether they retain leaders who challenge systems constructively or reward those who prioritize comfort over accountability.
Loyalty to Students Over Titles
Administrative titles are conferred by human resources systems and adjusted during reorganizations. Salaries are negotiated within fiscal cycles. Organizational charts shift with each new administration.
Students remain.
Leadership anchored in student success requires investing in advising, academic support, retention strategies, and pathway clarity — even when those investments are less visible than capital projects or branding campaigns.
If loyalty is primarily to title or compensation, leadership becomes transactional. If loyalty is to institutional mission and student achievement, leadership becomes transformational.
The true measure of leadership is not longevity in a role, but durability of impact on student outcomes.
Moving beyond survival
For too long, informal leadership advice in higher education has centered on survival: who to align with, when to remain silent, how to avoid becoming politically vulnerable.
Survival matters. However, institutions navigating demographic contraction and fiscal constraint cannot afford leadership cultures built solely on risk avoidance.
If higher education is serious about maintaining public trust and expanding opportunity, leadership norms must evolve. Institutions must normalize transparent transitions, protect governance integrity, and hold leaders accountable to the mission rather than to an individual.
The unwritten rules of higher education will not disappear. However, they can be named, examined, and reshaped.
Leadership is not about holding power. It is about stewarding institutions in ways that honor public trust and student aspiration.
Presidents are temporary. Cabinets are temporary. Titles are temporary.
But students are not. And that is where our loyalty should begin.
Dr. Jonelle Knox serves as assistant provost at New Jersey City University and adjunct associate professor at Bronx Community College.
