This study focused on understanding the multiple transitions of the presidential office from the perspective of three categories of internal stakeholders: cabinet members, faculty members, and professional staff. The case study method was utilized to explore a deeper understanding of complex issues of multiple presidential transitions (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). Six internal stakeholders (administrators, faculty, and professional staff) from a single college were interviewed to ascertain their perspectives regarding the repeated presidential turnover which occurred during a five year period.
A presidential transition has a major impact on the life of an institution. Hundreds of presidential transitions take place annually, and when they are not amicable and carefully orchestrated, they can scar both the institution and the president. Sanaghan, Goldstein, and Gaval estimate that more than one-third of the presidential transitions in higher education are involuntary and have a negative effect on the institution. This book is designed to provide assistance to presidents, trustees, faculty, and other important stakeholder groups and help them avoid the pitfalls of poorly managed transitions. The authors discuss how, with proper planning, care, and execution, this presidential passage can be an opportunity for a transitioning president, and those who surround him or her, to write a positive chapter in the campus history. Readers will discover that appropriately addressing the anxiety that accompanies major transitions_for both those joining the institution and those already present_is essential. Dozens of presidents, chancellors, board members, and other senior executives were interviewed for this book. Each major chapter includes selected personal observations, from these interviews, which illustrate the critical issues addressed in the book.
American research universities take considerable effort when selecting a new president. They often hire expensive search firms and form carefully selected committees to ensure they hire the appropriate chief executive. Traditionally, presidents have come from the faculty ranks, having served in administrative roles of increasing responsibility. However, in the past few decades there has been an increase, albeit minor, in the number of research university presidents that have come from other industries, including business, law, and government. The impetus for such hires has often hinged on the need for experts in fields that are aligned with current strategic priorities at the institution, including better fiscal management and increased state appropriations. Higher education stakeholders have had mixed reactions to the hiring of these outsiders. Some, mainly faculty, staff, and students, believe that research universities should be led by individuals who are familiar with higher education's core mission of research, teaching, and service excellence. While others, including taxpayers, parents, and legislators, believe universities are shirking accountability as they raise tuition and increase infrastructure, and believe outsiders would be better suited to improve organizational efficiencies. As the debate continues, there has been little empirical analysis of which type of leader achieves meaningful change in institutional outcomes. This dissertation seeks to fill this gap in the literature to answer the question of whether there are differences in institutional outcomes based on the president's background by performing two studies. To address the reductive characterization of university presidents as academics or outsiders, a four-cell typology was created that groups presidents at Carnegie R1 & R2 institutions based on two dimensions, their experience in the field of higher education and their achievements as research faculty. A multinomial logistic regression tested the validity of the typology as predicted by presidential characteristics. The president types, along with several demographic, educational, and professional variables, were hypothesized to predict differences among outcome variables. Using data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and a manually derived dataset of presidential characteristics, several models were tested in a generalized estimating equations analysis. There were significant differences among president types based on their characteristics and experience, indicating that the typology effectively categorized the presidents. However, the predictive strength of the typology and presidential characteristics on institutional outcomes proved to be insignificant except for measures related to change in research revenue. Selected institutional characteristics appeared to be highly significant in predicting institutional outcomes. This suggested that presidential type and presidential characteristics did not matter, but the nature of the institution did. The results also supported the notion that research universities are large, bureaucratic, slow-moving entities, and their inherent inertia makes it difficult to effect measurable change in institutional outcomes.
Think you know what it takes to be an effective leader in higher education? You might be surprised. Think you know what it takes to be an effective leader in higher education? You might be surprised. Why is it so difficult to find and hire college and university presidents? Perhaps search committees are recruiting in all the wrong places. In The New College President, Terrence J. MacTaggart and Eileen B. Wilson-Oyelaran share the stories of seven exceptional presidents from diverse backgrounds. Drawing on hundreds of interviews, these vivid, deeply researched narratives depict the life stories and academic careers of university presidents whose unconventional backgrounds helped them grow into uniquely qualified leaders. The university presidents whom MacTaggart and Wilson-Oyelaran profile exhibit strengths of character and perspective developed through a range of challenging life experiences. Personal qualities like grit, resilience, compassion, and intercultural competence—along with academic credibility—contribute to their effectiveness as chief executives and are critical to presidential success in a fraught era of higher education. MacTaggart and Wilson-Oyelaran, who developed a "forensic" model for improving presidential searches that requires a much deeper look into personal leadership strengths and weaknesses than is typical in current search practices, are uniquely qualified to write this book. They present a fresh perspective on higher education leadership and actionable recommendations to improve presidential searches while arguing that a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is not just a moral imperative, but a valuable opportunity to recruit extraordinary leaders. Featuring Jeffrey Bullock, Waded Cruzado, Mary Dana Hinton, Freeman Hrabowski III, Robert Jones, Kwang-Wu Kim, and Mary Marcy
Dowdall's book offers sample documents for candidates as well as for the search committees, and includes a substantive bibliography. From her vantage point outside the institution, Dowdall is able to provide a unique point of view and insightful comments on the complex and often daunting process of the academic executive search. Key selling points include: The eagerness for career advice that exists, both from candidates (Part I of the book) and search committees (Part II of the book); a visible author, who writes a monthly column in the Chronicle of Higher Education and lectures often at leadership seminars; and information on this subject which covers all institutional types, including liberal arts colleges, comprehensive institutions, research universities, and community colleges.
Bridge the great divide between distanced administrative duties and daily classroom impact. This book introduces a top-down power mechanism called defined autonomy, a concept that focuses on district-defined, nonnegotiable, common goals and a system of accountability supported by assessment tools. Defined autonomy creates an effective balance of centralized direction and individualized empowerment that allows building-level staff the stylistic freedom to respond quickly and effectively to student failure.
