So You Want to Hire a College President...
So You Want to Hire a College President...
Shockingly, things have gotten worse in the last six months.
Say, remember when I wrote the following six months ago in the wake of Elizabeth Magill’s resignation as president of the University of Pennsylvania?
Yeah, higher education administrators are paid pretty well, but there is no amount of money in the world that could get me to say “yes” to one of these positions….
Why are these horrible, no-win positions? Because the primary job of any college dean or university president is to deal with the most spoiled, entitled, pig-headed interest groups imaginable….
[Another] primary job of any dean or president is fundraising, and some folks might be surprised at how hard it is to perform that task with any dignity or grace. The key thing to understand is that if you think speaking truth to power is hard, try speaking truth to money. It’s harder. Donors are rarely if ever contradicted when they posit and pontificate about the best way to run a university. They do not make suggestions — they impart wisdom from on high, and if they do not see an institutional response they will ask to speak with the manager….
I never want to be a university president. That’s okay — I would be a horrible one. The problem, however, is there are not a lot of folks who are able to do these jobs well. They require a unique blend of scholarly gravitas, organizational competence, political skill, and fundraising abilities. What worries me about the fallout from Magill’s resignation is that, the longer it continues, the number of folks willing and able to do these jobs will shrink into nothingness.
That rant touched enough of a nerve for the Chronicle of Higher Education to publish a less scruffy and more fleshed-out version.
After the Chronicle piece ran, I received some very respectful pushback from a variety of academic administrators who said that I viewed these positions too narrowly — as a political job in which the primary goal was to placate a variety of interest groups. Many of these administrators suggested that there are more aspirational aspects of the job: innovating new ways of educating and mentoring students, simulating new and pathbreaking basic research, or even inspiring new ways of thinking how the role of a university in society.
These were valid points to make — a good leader is someone who doesn’t do the minimum to placate entrenched interests but inspires those groups to rethink their interests. And six months later I’m sure that my take will be judged as overly cynical and — wait, what is this New York Times story by Alan Blinder and Stephanie Saul saying?
In most any other era, the next leaders of U.C.L.A. and Yale would have already been announced. But the uncertainties from California to Connecticut show just how complex top campus jobs have become in an environment that has grown increasingly polarized.
Since December, Cornell, Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania have abruptly announced presidential departures, with Harvard and Penn’s departures coming after widely derided appearances before Congress….
Presidential posts have always been challenging. The jobs can require the aplomb of a diplomat and sterling scholarship, as well as the talents to raise money from demanding alumni, manage exacting faculty members and connect with maturing students — all while conjuring a spirited enthusiasm for football.
But today, even top-tier presidencies — buffeted by protests and politicians, personal attacks and endless scrutiny — do not always appeal as they once did.
“I can see why people would be reluctant and think twice about it,” said the Rev. John I. Jenkins, whose nearly 19-year run as the University of Notre Dame’s president will conclude this month. “It’s not for the faint of heart.”
A 2022 survey by the American Council on Education found that incumbent presidents were generally newer to their roles than in the past but that more than half expected to step down within five years. In Massachusetts, 12 of the 58 private school presidencies have been vacant in the past year, according to Steven DiSalvo, the president of Endicott College in suburban Boston….
A persistent challenge is that presidents must contend with so many constituents — students, parents, faculty members, other university employees, public officials, donors, alumni, athletic program sponsors — with competing interests.
Well knock me down with a feather. Who could have ever predicted that in today’s environment of political polarization, empowered political interests, and a partially mobilized student body that a college presidency would prove even less attractive than it did six months ago?
Where Blinder and Saul’s story gets interesting is how boards of trustees are responding to these challenges:
Facing political and financial pressures, university boards appear to have grown even more allergic to risk, and searches have lately grown more rigorous, with sweeping background investigations and new screenings for plagiarism that can lead to dozens of hours of eye-glazing reviews….
“Anybody who has a whiff of controversy, they are, if not disqualified, certainly scrutinized more carefully,” said Dr. Dirks, who recently wrote “City of Intellect,” an account of the pressures he faced at Berkeley during a fiscal crisis and campus unrest….
For the time being, higher education veterans said, cautious boards could prove more prone to elevate university insiders rather than to gamble on newcomers….
“Finding a president is a big complicated process because everyone in the university constituency cares about that selection, and getting it right is important to everyone,” said John Isaacson, the chair of Isaacson, Miller, a firm that has helped with searches for many top schools. “It’s a process that takes time.”
I have very mixed feelings about the risk-averse response to the challenges of hiring university leadership. The possible opportunity costs are not hard to envisage. Caution in hiring might prevent institutes of higher education from picking the next transformative leader, the person capable of cracking the 21st century code of better university education. Furthermore, the Isaacson quote is just so damn self-serving. An executive search firm characterizes the process as so arcane s to require an executive search firm? How shocking! This just highlights the need for labor economists and sociologists to evaluate the role these firms play in hiring, a role that one article described as “underexplored by academics.”
At the same time, the risk-averse turn to in-house candidates might prove to be less sexy but more beneficial in the long run to a lot of universities. The endless search for the new and innovative can cause some to forget that local knowledge can be extremely valuable. Aspiring college leaders who have already spent time in the universities they seek to lead can hit the ground running while knowing where the land mines are buried.
The one thing of which I am certain: there remains no amount of money that would entice me to take such a job. But I admire those willing to serve in those positions. One can hope that they are buying low into a position that used to possess more perquisites.
These presidents were progressives who thought their progressive friends would defend progressive ideals. They were wrong.
Two things overlooked in finding academic leadership is that unlike other institutions colleges & universities have no program for growing leaders and few successful academics have any experience outside the academy.
The military begins training leaders from the beginning, & businesses of any size have programs to recognize & groom strong candidates for leadership. In higher ed, it's hit & miss. Someone becomes bored with scholarship, becomes dean, moves up to provost so long as nothing horrible happens, and may well become president somewhere else when a new president wants a new provost. In the past, this worked ok, not only because academic leadership jobs were different, but because academics had experience outside higher ed, usually in the military. Now, successful academics have done nothing but go to school & teach school: they are good at identifying problems but horrible at finding solutions & building consensus to implement them. Moreover, managing academic affairs may give little or experience in managing the business side of a school or dealing with alumni. Worse, in my experience, often they don't want to get the training they need. One president, when I suggested he go to Harvard's very good bootcamp, refused because he was afraid doing so would be an admission he didn't know how to do the job. The end of his presidency was tragic.
I think that promoting someone in house to interim & then keeping them if they do a good job is an excellent idea. Knowing the institution makes the big jump to president easier. Why? In my experience outside hires tend to do the job they know, provost, rather than doing the job they need to do, preside. They're more comfortable that way. Insiders tend to have a clearer idea of how to preside, because they're familiar with both the institutions & their predecessor's weaknesses. Hiring a headhunter is also an excellent idea, so long as they're experienced in evaluating candidates' potential for leadership & trustees recognize that hiring a university president isn't the same thing as hiring a CEO in the widget industry. They need to be acutely aware of how big a jump it is from provost to president & interview candidates accordingly.