Barry Dornfeld
Principal
Universities have historically been glacial in their approach to change, evolving slowly, if at all. However, as a result of both internal and external pressures, higher education institutions are experiencing more rapid and intense pressure to change than at any other time in their existence. Shifting demographics, increasing financial pressures, lingering disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic, and shifting societal expectations are forcing institutions to change policies, rethink their business models, review governance practices, contemplate mergers, and, in some cases, even consider closing entirely. Of course, the recent tension and debates on campuses across the country about political issues — most notably those concerning Israel-Gaza — are the most intense examples of turbulence, resulting in a string of resignations by university presidents.
Change underscores the need for effective leadership in these times, yet paradoxically, we also see more frequent changes in leadership roles. The average tenure for university presidents in the United States has dropped to around 6-7 years, down from about 8.5 years in 2006.[1] This revolving door of leadership can contribute to rather than alleviate instability, hindering long-term planning and the implementation of strategic initiatives. Moreover, the pool of qualified presidents is shrinking as the roles’ demands grow more daunting and scrutiny more intense. Institutions increasingly turn to non-traditional candidates from outside academia for leadership positions, bringing fresh perspectives and potential cultural clashes as they navigate deep-rooted institutional traditions and cultural practices.
Leadership transitions pose numerous challenges for institutions, and preparing for and navigating these changes and the polarizing issues that lead to them has become a critical capability that staff, faculty, and boards are not necessarily experienced with or adept at. Often, organizations default to inertia in these challenging moments, treading water while waiting to see what happens as the new leader comes aboard. This stasis can delay needed advancement and adaption. Similarly, the need for the incoming leader to quickly understand and adapt to unique institutional cultures while implementing necessary changes creates a delicate balancing act.
In our work consulting institutions amid change, we have highlighted nine key capabilities to create a successful pathway to help both institutions and individuals navigate change.[2]
- Consider the context and the leadership requirements for the next chapter, as they may be shifting. Schools are finding their strategic priorities and the type of leadership required to implement them to be as dynamic as the pressure from current events, the evolving ecosystem of higher education, and specific school strategic opportunities and needs create new dilemmas of direction and stakeholder management. Be explicit about what kind of leadership will best prepare the organization for the next chapter, considering what is different.
- Develop an ongoing “succession mentality” and readiness for leadership change. Organizations should think constantly about future leadership needs and cultivate talent both inside and outside the organization to prepare for both planned and unplanned transitions.
- Prepare the organization. A successful transition should focus on preparing the whole organization and creating conditions for the new leader’s success, not just hiring the right individual.
- Think strategically during transitions rather than putting strategy on hold. The strategy should inform the profile needed in a new leader. Governing boards endure, and their responsibility is to maintain strategic momentum during the transition to a new leader.
- Link past, present, and future. Effective leadership during transitions involves creating a narrative that provides continuity from where an organization is coming from, embracing both history and recent successes while pushing for change and adapting to new conditions and demands.
- Deepen inquiry and listening. During transitions, leaders and followers should genuinely probe within their community for what is and isn’t working as they learn to collaborate. This includes developing processes, policies and capabilities for working through polarizing issues in constructive ways.
- Create harmony by linking people, processes, and levels. Proactively connecting related people, processes, functions, and organizational levels increases coherence and effectiveness.
- Create space to work through transitions. Making “not-to-do” lists, dropping low-value activities, and questioning old routines can create headroom and capacity to handle the expanded initiatives that transitions inevitably trigger.
- Reflect and re-commit. Transitions provide a natural point to reflect on broader, long-term goals and re-assess the alignment between likely realities and ambitions.
Leadership transitions provide a critical opportunity to reflect on the organization’s future strategic direction and needed evolution in culture, relationships, and governance to enable constructive evolution under the new leader and not stay stuck in the present or past. Transitions should be leveraged proactively as inflection points, encouraging fresh perspectives, thinking systemically, deepening communication and reflection, linking across boundaries, and actively creating capacity.
As the higher education sector continues to evolve, developing effective strategies for leadership transitions has become critical to ensuring institutional success and sustainability.
[1]Danielle Melidona, Benjamin G. Cecil, Alexander Cassell, and Hollie M. Chessman. The American College President: 2023 Edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. 2023.
[2] Thomas North Gilmore. Making a Leadership Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.