"The job of mayor and Governor is becoming more and more like the job of university president, which I used to be; it looks like you are in charge, but you are not"

Lamar Alexander draws a compelling analogy between the roles of mayor, governor, and university president, emphasizing the complicated reality of leadership in modern institutions. He reflects on the paradox of apparent authority: while these positions carry the visible trappings of power and are assumed by the public to be centers of decisive control, actual influence is often much more limited. Layers of bureaucracy, entrenched interests, legal constraints, and diverse stakeholders shape and frequently restrict the options available to those in formal leadership.

Mayors and governors are popularly elected, as are university presidents to a degree, through processes involving boards, committees, and significant participation from various constituencies. Once in office, these figures must navigate competing demands and persistent opposition, whether those come from city councils, legislatures, faculty senates, advocacy groups, or other power structures. Decision-making, therefore, becomes not a matter of unilateral fiat, but of delicate negotiation, persuasion, and compromise. The expectation of rapid, direct action is seldom met with the reality of inertia, resistance, and procedural limitation. Leaders often find that, while the title suggests command, the job itself is far more about brokering consensus and working within existing systems.

Alexander’s comparison highlights the pervasive misunderstanding about authority in public and institutional life. The illusion of control persists, leaders are blamed for failures and credited with successes, but the truth behind closed doors is that effective change is slow, uncertain, and requires building coalitions rather than issuing orders. The mechanisms that preserve stability and fair process within a city, state, or university often make genuine transformation complex and fraught.

Ultimately, Alexander points to the humility required in governance and leadership: the necessity of recognizing both one’s potential impact and profound limitations. The appearance of being “in charge” is seductive, but the substance of influence rests on relationships, negotiation, and the patience to work within imperceptible but powerful constraints that define every leader’s experience.