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.
