Whither the College or University Presidency

Failed searches for college presidents are now commonplace. It has happened at Evergreen State, New Mexico and Wisconsin, among other institutions. We’ve also seen a succession of extremely short-lived presidencies, at universities including Auburn, Central Florida, Colorado, Louisville, Oklahoma, Oregon State, Tulsa and Wyoming, no doubt partly because fewer presidents are hired without sufficient vetting or due diligence or faculty and student input. At the same time, presidential turnover has intensified, with 123 resigning in 2019 and 107 in 2021.

Given the pay, benefits and prestige, candidates for college presidencies aren’t in short supply. But finding an effective president who can navigate the academy’s rough waters is tough. Finding a leader who can inspire or strengthen an institution is even harder. Someone who can speak out effectively on behalf of higher education? Not impossible (think of Michael Sorrell), but exceedingly difficult.

There was a time, within my living memory, when there were a number of college presidents who were leading public intellectuals and spokespersons for higher education as a whole, like Derek Bok, William Bowen and Kingman Brewster, or their much celebrated (or maligned) predecessors: James Conant, Charles Eliot, Daniel Coit Gilman, William Rainey Harper, Robert Maynard Hutchins, David Starr Jordan and Clark Kerr.

I’m not thinking here simply of truly effective presidents like Mark Becker, Leon Botstein, Julieta Garcia, John Hennessy, Freeman Hrabowski, Renu Khator, Diana Natalicio, Carol Quillen, Rafael Reif, Ruth Simmons and Adam S. Weinberg, who transformed their institutions to much deserved acclaim, or the current or recent crop of higher ed innovators who are much in the news, like Joseph E. Aoun, Michael Crow, Mitch Daniels, Paul LeBlanc, Michael Sorrell and Scott Pulsipher, who have certainly left an indelible imprint on their institutions and on the higher education landscape, or those, like Bill Powers and Teresa A. Sullivan, thrust into the news by various campus controversies.

To be sure, there are some current or recent presidents who are genuine public intellectuals, including Drew Gilpin Faust, John Kroger, Brian Rosenberg, Michael S. Roth and Lawrence Summers. But it’s hard to find figures of the stature or public recognition of higher ed’s 3 Big B’s: Bok, Bowen and Brewster.

Why is this the case?

Certainly, part of the explanation lies in the declining respect for leaders of all kinds. Only rarely does media coverage of higher education showcase campus presidents except in instances of scandal or controversy. It’s exceedingly rare to see college presidents portrayed as visionaries, change agents or creative thinkers.

Partly, it’s because fewer college presidents are academics who compiled a scholarly reputation before taking on leadership posts and who continued to speak out about higher education even after their retirement from office. Most of the college presidents who rose through the ranks made their reputation not as scholars but as administrators, typically as provosts or deans.

These days, a background in law or politics is not uncommon or surprising, given the fraught legal issues that many campuses face, such as those involving labor relations or sexual assault, and circumspection seems to be embedded in the DNA of many of those former attorneys or law professors.

Given the dependence of public institutions on state legislatures’ largess, it’s not surprising that many campuses chose a former politician as president, with Florida’s Ben Sasse the latest example.

In a thoughtful 2017 opinion piece in The Washington Post, the prolific higher education observer Jeffrey J. Selingo argued persuasively that the exemplar for the contemporary university president is the corporate CEO, with all that implies. Today’s CEO is less likely to be a diva, scene stealer or charismatic leader along the lines of Elon Musk or Steve Jobs than a cautious, carefully guarded, focused functionary or apparatchik, eager to avoid controversy at all costs.

Such a model of the university presidency certainly make sense, what with the size of institutional budgets, the range of a college or university’s functions and responsibilities, and the fallout from any missteps. Better, many think, to cultivate allies, stay under the radar screen, focus on fundraising and speak pablum than to risk provoking a firestorm.

It’s not surprising that college presidencies have grown shorter over time, currently averaging less than six years, compared to over eight as recently as 2006. After all, the job itself has become tougher, with the primary responsibilities to raise money, manage crises, worry about rankings and revenue and enrollment, and hire subordinates to handle everyday matters involving admissions, athletics, budgets, curricula, research and technology, among other items. Making matters even more challenging is the lack of deference from alumni, faculty, students, local and state officeholders, and journalists. Presidents are more answerable to a host of stakeholders, who expect a level of accountability and responsiveness far greater than in the past.

All this said, I have seen, close up, a handful college presidents who truly are transformational leaders. We might ask: What do such figures as Michael Crow, Freeman Hrabowski, Renu Khator and Michael Sorrell share in common?

First, vision. That vision may be highly ambitious, for example, becoming a Tier 1 research institution and adding a medical school, or more focused: dramatically increasing the number of underrepresented students who enter STEM fields. But in any case, it’s an inspiring vision that excites a campus’s sense of mission. Faculty members come to recognize that their stature benefits when their institution’s reputation rises.

Second, fundraising acumen. The key: a vision that proves contagious, that generates enthusiasm among donors, foundations and legislators. Targeted investments can, in turn, pay off and lead faculty to pursue institutional grants that can transform an institution.

Third, partners. Presidential success depends on allies and comrades in arms who share a common vision and sense of mission and who have a capacity to execute and implement. The most successful presidents identify, support and showcase faculty innovators and prove willing to share credit.

The most effective presidents aren’t merely caretakers. They have a unique capacity to inspire, to motivate and to generate enthusiasm—to prompt a sense of urgency as well as a sense of possibility. The best that I’ve encountered aren’t nice in a conventional sense: they’re pushy and assertive, determined and decisive, ambitious and daring—with extraordinarily high expectations. But they also delegate authority to their lieutenants (and fire them without a second thought if they fail to perform).

Over the course of a long academic career, I’ve discovered that leadership matters more than I ever imagined when I was wet behind the ears. I’ve seen bad leaders—who were self-absorbed or indecisive, who communicated poorly and were unable to resolve conflicts—and the damage that they can inflict on faculty and staff morale. But I’ve also seen the accomplishments that effective leaders can achieve.

Publilius Syrus, a slave and a contemporary of Cicero who later became a writer of Latin maxims, wrote, “Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm.” How true. Today’s higher ed seas are anything but smooth; they’re choppy or worse, and strategic vision is essential.

So take heed of the words of Peter Drucker, the management consultant: “Effective leadership is not about making speeches or being liked; leadership is defined by results not attributes.”

Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin.