Modern Universities have been required to achieve accountabilities for their stake holders. Especially, Japanese national universities have been required to achieve their“mission”from government after they transformed into national university corporations. Many programs concerning reorganization have focused on changing decision-making processes from emphasizing faculty meetings which formed through the years based on collegiality of faculty to emphasizing the decision of university president. But these programs have not brought success to Japanese universities. The university as organization has many different characteristics compared to for-profit organizations. Among these points, a loosely coupled system is one of the most essential characteristics of the university and its members find it difficult to share the common purposes in this system. Therefore if university presidents seek to achieve their purposes by headship based on their power without consensus, then this organization will cause a serious split in the university. To prevent such problems and to realize substantial reorganization, university presidents will be required to change organizational culture, but can university presidents change organizational culture like a successful for-profit organization? This paper analyzes the relationship between organizational culture and presidential leadership to clarify this question. Universities are now facing difficult situations which have never been experienced; therefore, this study will have significance for university governance research. A quantitative approach was adopted in this research and its analysis uses the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to clarify this relationship. The results of the study suggests that university presidents do not have sufficient influence to change organizational culture. They are the persons who represent their organizational cultures rather than transformers of them. Furthermore the study indicates that the relationship between cultural typology in the Competing Values Framework and the Leadership Typology in Parsons’ AGIL scheme. These new findings may make possible the development of further research on university governance.