A core responsibility of governing boards is the periodic evaluation of institutional leadership, starting with the president. Many very legitimate administrative techniques take time--and often more time than anticipated. But sometimes the use of those processes may deter boards from fulfilling their responsibility for assessing the president's performance in a timely manner. This article presents a few examples of administrative situations that may have the unintended consequence of compromising the process of assessing an institution's leadership. Individually and when used for specific projects, virtually all of the administrative strategies mentioned in this article can be effective tools for leaders. It is the compounding impact of and/or protracted reliance on these techniques that may hinder the governing board's ability to conduct a performance review of an institution's leader. It is imperative that the governing board maintain an active dialogue with the president that clarifies the intent and parameters of various approaches to planning.