When the President Becomes the Crisis

The hardest crisis to manage is the one where the leader becomes the story.

Not because of a scandal or misstep --- but because external forces decide the leader is the problem, and the only solution is their exit.

We've seen it repeatedly in higher education: Penn, Harvard, Texas A&M, and now Arizona State. Presidents who, months earlier, had board support and donor confidence suddenly find themselves at the center of a coordinated pressure campaign.

The pattern is consistent:

1. An external actor --- a governor, donor, federal agency, or activist group --- demands action.
2. Internal stakeholders --- faculty, students, or trustees --- split.
3. The board faces a choice: Stand with the president and risk escalation, or negotiate an exit and restore stability.
4. The president, regardless of their performance, becomes the variable that can be changed.

The Structural Trap

Here's what makes this crisis so difficult: It's not about guilt or innocence. It's about whether the organization can function with the leader in place.

Even if the president did nothing wrong, their presence may now:

• Block federal funding (if regulators demand a leadership change)
• Fracture donor support (if major funders threaten to withhold gifts)
• Paralyze governance (if the board can't agree on a path forward)
• Distract from the mission (if every conversation becomes about the president's future)

At that point, the board isn't asking, "Did the president fail?"

They're asking: "Can we keep moving forward with them in place?"

And if the answer is no --- even unfairly --- the president usually loses.

The 72-Hour Window

When a "president in crisis" scenario unfolds, there's typically a 72-hour window where the outcome gets decided.

That window starts when:

• A major donor makes a private ultimatum
• A board member leaks division to the press
• Faculty leadership drafts a no-confidence resolution
• A governor or federal official makes a public demand

Once that clock starts, three things happen simultaneously:

1. The Board Splits

Some trustees rally around the president. Others calculate the cost of keeping them. A third group stays silent, waiting to see which way momentum shifts.

2. The Stakeholders Mobilize

Faculty, students, alumni, and donors start choosing sides --- and making noise. Every hour that passes without clarity amplifies the uncertainty.

3. The Media Locks In

Once the story becomes "embattled president," the narrative is nearly impossible to reverse. The question shifts from if they'll leave to when and how.

What the Best Boards Do

The boards that navigate this moment well don't wait for the crisis to define their options. They pre-negotiate the process:

• Who speaks for the board? (Not everyone --- one voice, pre-approved.)
• What's the threshold for action? (A single donor? Faculty vote? Federal threat?)
• What does "support" actually mean? (Public statement? Private conversation? Negotiated exit?)
• Who manages the transition if the president steps down? (Interim in place? Search committee ready?)

The boards that fumble this moment make it up as they go --- and the president, the institution, and the board all pay the price.

The Role of AI in Leadership Crises

When a president becomes the crisis, the challenge isn't finding information --- it's synthesizing it fast enough to act.

AI can help by:

• Mapping stakeholder positions in real time (Who's saying what? Where's the bloc forming?)
• Drafting scenario-specific messages (What do we say if the president resigns? If they stay? If we're silent?)
• Simulating governance outcomes ("If we take this action, how does the faculty respond? The governor? The donors?")
• Identifying decision triggers ("At what point does inaction become its own crisis?")

At CrisisCommand, we've seen boards use AI to compress days of back-channel negotiation into hours --- not by replacing judgment, but by organizing it.

The Question Every Board Should Ask

If your president became the target of a coordinated external pressure campaign tomorrow, would your board know how to respond?

Do you have:

• A communication protocol (Who speaks? When? To whom?)
• A decision framework (What constitutes "loss of confidence"?)
• A succession plan (Who steps in if the president exits?)
• Message discipline (Can your board avoid leaks and contradictions?)

Because here's the reality: The crisis will move faster than your governance process.

If you don't have answers to these questions before it happens, you'll be negotiating them in real time --- with the press watching, stakeholders divided, and the clock running out.

The best boards don't wait for the crisis. They game it out before it arrives.