Category: Higher Education

When higher education leaders talk about the “moment,” we should do so in ways that do not reinforce a common but inaccurate narrative that suggests the enrollment cliff, equity issues, and public pressures arrived suddenly or will recede quickly. They did not. The demographic contraction has been building for more than a decade.

Inequities across K–12 systems have been widening for even longer. And doubts about the value of higher education have been simmering since at least the 1980s, when tuition began rising far faster than inflation and family income.

These forces do not constitute a moment. They are the defining conditions of our time. Many institutions are scrambling to recalibrate. Antioch University and the Coalition for the Common Good, however, are structured to meet these conditions head-on.

The Higher Education Reality Today

Across the country, fewer high school graduates are entering college. Among those who do, many arrive with uneven preparation when compared to peers from one, five, or even thirty years ago. National reading and math scores have dropped to historic lows. ACT scores continue to fall.

Economic instability is intensifying, with nearly half of students in some states qualifying for free or reduced-price meals. These shifts reach well beyond admissions. They affect students’ academic trajectories, the support systems they rely on, the faculty time needed to assist them, and the financial planning essential to institutional stability.

They also make the demographic cliff steeper and more perilous by reducing both the size of the incoming student body and the level of preparation students bring with them. When understood together, these dynamics signal a long-term recalibration for higher education. They point to a future in which success depends less on historical assumptions about who will enroll and more on an institution’s capacity to understand who learners actually are and what they need to thrive.

What Antioch Has Long Understood

While many institutions are just now confronting the implications of this reality, Antioch has been educating for it all along. Three elements of Antioch’s identity align directly with what this decade demands.

1. A Mission Centered on Justice, Access, and Equity

Antioch’s commitment to social mobility and public purpose predates the current crisis by more than a century. We do not need to retrofit our values or reinvent our rhetoric. Our programs already serve learners whose educational paths are shaped by uneven preparation, complex life circumstances, and structural inequities.

2. An Academic Portfolio Linking Passion to Purpose

Antioch’s largest graduate programs are in counseling, psychology, health, leadership, and environmental studies. These are the fields communities rely on heavily as inequities widen and support systems fray. Students drawn to these professions understand the impact they have on people and communities. They choose Antioch not simply to “skill up” and get a job promotion but to become part of a learning community that is rigorous, relevant, and rooted in purpose.

3. A Learner-Centered Model and Narrative Evaluation

At the front end, Antioch does not rely primarily on GRE scores or years-old undergraduate transcripts. We read the realities behind the résumé. We design programs for adult students who work, care for families, lead in community organizations, or translate insight into real-world problem solving.

During the academic journey, Antioch evaluates learning through real-world assessments: structured observations, role-playing, and demonstrated skills. Faculty do not assign letter grades. They write detailed narratives that capture each student’s progress, strengths, and areas for growth. 

Prioritizing adult learners, meeting them where they are, and assessing them via detailed narratives that capture nuances become even more essential as traditional pipelines contract.

How the Coalition for the Common Good Strengthens Our Position

The Coalition for the Common Good (CCG) has been designed to amplify Antioch’s strengths and create pathways for undergraduate students at partner institutions to earn an AU graduate degree. The CCG does this in structural, not symbolic, ways.

Shared Graduate Programs

CCG affiliates transfer their graduate programs to Antioch, creating a common platform that increases scale, improves quality, and reduces duplication. At a time when demographic decline shrinks regional markets, the Coalition opens broader pathways for students who want direct, accelerated, mission-aligned graduate degrees.

Shared Services to Reduce Costs

The CCG’s shared services organization is being built so that member institutions can access scaled HR, IT, compliance, and legal support. The sharing of such services lowers overhead expenses for each member institution. This lowering allows the individual universities to reinvest in student-facing priorities that are often being reduced at the very time they need to be bolstered.

Financial Resilience Through a Federation Model

While other institutions compete for shrinking pools of students, the Coalition aligns around shared purpose, shared programs, and shared efficiencies. This creates a network that can withstand volatility better than any one campus could on its own.

Looking Forward: A Coalition Built for What’s Ahead

Many universities still frame today’s challenges as the problem of the day. Antioch and the CCG treat them as defining features of the era ahead.

• Demographics: Many institutions hope the demographic cliff will flatten. We assume it will not.
• Readiness: Many campuses wonder how to adapt to declining readiness. We were founded to educate in precisely those conditions.
• Value: Many leaders are now asking how to strengthen the value proposition. Our value proposition has been consistent for 170 years: preparation for purposeful work, democratic engagement, and victories for humanity.

Higher education cannot meet this enduring new normal by recycling models built for abundance. It must confront the realities of scarcity, volatility, and inequity with candor and courage. Antioch and the Coalition for the Common Good are not immune from these pressures. But we are structured, staffed, and mission-driven in ways that align with the realities of today, not with an idealized version of the past.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How is Antioch University addressing the higher education demographic cliff? 

A: Antioch University focuses exclusively on adult learners seeking to complete the bachelor’s degree and/or earn a graduate degree rather than relying on traditional high school pipelines. Through the Coalition for the Common Good, Antioch partners with undergraduate institutions to build direct pathways for students to earn mission-driven, market-wise graduate degrees.

Q: What is the Coalition for the Common Good (CCG)? 

A: The CCG is a federation of undergraduate institutions that transfer their graduate programs to Antioch University so that their students have direct and clear pathways to graduate school. As part of the transfer, the undergraduate universities get a share of the revenue the transferred program generates. They are also able to participate in the CCG’s shared service organization called CCG Services, Inc. This organization is designed to provide scaled services in areas such as HR, IT, and legal services. This reduces overhead and allows institutional members to spend more time, money, and attention on academics.

Q: Do faculty at Antioch University use letter grades to assess students?

A: No. Antioch faculty use detailed narrative evaluations rather than letter grades to assess student learning. This system captures and describes a student’s progress, strengths, and development through observed competencies, assessments of role plays, and demonstrated skills.

How Universities Achieve Financial Sustainability Through Collaboration

Across higher education, leaders are rethinking how to strengthen mission-driven, tuition-dependent institutions in the face of demographic decline, cost escalation, and market volatility. The old playbook—incremental tuition hikes and deeper discounts—no longer delivers stability. Financial sustainability now depends on innovation, collaboration, and scale.

The Coalition for the Common Good (CCG)—founded in 2023 by Antioch University and Otterbein University—offers a practical model. Rather than merging, its members join a federation that allows each university to retain its own board, accreditation, and identity while sharing academic pathways and operational systems. The result is a coalition that lowers costs, expands opportunity, and preserves independent board governance while creating interdependent degree pathways.

This collaborative approach is grounded in progressive education principles and democratic values. Learn how experiential education shapes innovative higher education models.

Shared Services Organization (SSO): Driving Innovation in Higher Education

Presidents and boards increasingly recognize that sustainability cannot rest on cost containment alone. The CCG’s Shared Services Organization (SSO) aims to show how business innovation in higher education can generate both efficiency and quality. By coordinating information technology, legal services, payroll, and other administrative systems, member institutions access enterprise-level tools that could be cost-prohibitive to sustain individually.

This shared-services framework helps redirect institutional resources toward what matters most at small independent colleges and universities: teaching, campus and community service, and the student experience. It transforms collaboration from a gesture of goodwill into a disciplined strategy for operational strength.

Value-Based Student Recruitment: Beyond Traditional “Discounting”

Long-term financial sustainability depends on thoughtful, value-based student recruitment. Through the CCG, undergraduate students at member colleges can earn multiple degrees all with a purpose. Students are able to travel affordable, accelerated pathways to Antioch’s justice- and leadership-focused graduate and professional degrees. Named Graduate Early Admissions Pathways (GEAPs) on one campus, these pathways create a seamless route from bachelor’s to master’s, reducing both time and cost to degree.

Value-Based Student Recruitment: Beyond Traditional “Discounting”

Long-term financial sustainability depends on thoughtful, value-based student recruitment. Through the Coalition for the Common Good, undergraduate students at member colleges can earn multiple degrees all with a purpose. Students are able to travel affordable, accelerated pathways to Antioch’s justice- and leadership-focused graduate and professional degrees. Named Graduate Early Admissions Pathways (GEAPs) on one campus, these pathways create a seamless route from bachelor’s to master’s, reducing both time and cost to degree.

Early outcomes are promising. Otterbein University, one of the founding partners, saw a 23 percent increase in new-student enrollment within two years of joining the CCG—growth driven not by deeper discounting but by greater value and visibility. See GEAP webpage for additional information

GEAPs exemplify experiential learning in action, connecting undergraduate and graduate education in meaningful ways. 

Explore how experiential adult education drives student success

Aligning Purpose, Scale, and Student Success

The CCG advances student success by connecting learners to a broader academic and professional ecosystem. Cross-registration among member universities will allow  students to take select online or hybrid courses taught by faculty across the network. Shared internship and employer partnerships will expand access to purposeful work. And because all programs operate under Antioch’s Higher Learning Commission accreditation, students gain both quality assurance and federal-aid eligibility.

A Model Worth Watching

The CCG offers an emerging model for small and mid-sized universities that want to double down on delivering mission- and student-centric opportunities while staying independent and becoming financially strong. It presents a new way of thinking about collaboration—one that goes far beyond back-office shared services while steering clear of the mergers and acquisitions that have become increasingly common across higher education.

See these short essays more details https://commonthread.antioch.edu/describing-the-ccg-in-four-short-essays/ 

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the Coalition for the Common Good?

A: The Coalition for the Common Good is an innovative higher education system founded in 2023 by Antioch University and Otterbein University.

Q: How do Graduate Early Admission Pathways (GEAPs) work?

A: As imagined, GEAPs will allow undergraduate students to take graduate courses during their senior undergraduate year, earning credit toward both the bachelor’s and the master’s degrees. The model is being designed to reduce both the time to graduation and the cost of these two degrees.

Q: What services does the Shared Services Organization provide?

A: The SSO is being constructed to coordinate IT, legal services, payroll, and other administrative systems across member institutions.

Presidential turnover at colleges and universities is high. Between 2022 and 2024, more than one in five presidents and senior executives left their roles. At many of those institutions, the departure came sooner than expected and without a transition plan in place.

Boards cannot always prevent a president from stepping down earlier than anticipated. They can, however, require that the sitting president develops a viable succession plan—one that can be activated to keep the university moving forward when a planned or unexpected departure occurs.

This article delineates six recommendations for sitting presidents to consider as they plan their own succession. When used together, these recommendations might turn a moment of disruption into one of continuity and confidence.

1. Name the Reality and Normalize the Conversation

Continuity matters in higher education. It takes years, not semesters, to build programs, partnerships, and policies. When a presidency ends abruptly or without an orderly handoff, initiatives stall, confidence wanes, and institutional energy dissipates.

A president’s planned departure should not be expressed or experienced as rupture. It should be conceived and experienced like a relay—marked by the careful handoff of responsibility and insight.

Presidents and boards should design that handoff before the leader enters the starting—or, in this case, the “exiting”—blocks. The first act is acknowledgment. Turnover will occur sooner or later. Giving the president and vice presidents permission to discuss it out loud normalizes the conversation. It also frames succession planning as a sign of organizational evolution not of personal exit.

2. Build Strong Benches, Not Single Successors

Succession planning must go beyond naming a successor. It requires building the systems and people that carry knowledge, culture, and priorities forward.

The strongest universities cultivate leaders at every level through cross-training, mentoring, and opportunities to lead outside one’s “home” department. When mid-career deans understand enrollment drivers or department chairs learn to read the divisional budget, they become institutional thinkers, not just unit leaders. That shift embodies the essence of collective transmission: the passing of cumulative wisdom to a greater whole.

Equally vital are the knowledge keepers who hold institutional memory. Boards and senior teams must build electronic systems that capture the stories, experiences, and rationales of long-serving faculty and staff. As they step away, their personal observations, papers, meeting minutes, and the like should be stored in an easily accessible file, not locked away in an unknown, dark place. Future administrators would be well served to review these past treasures. 

3. Expect Boards to Routinize and Reimagine Succession Planning

Succession planning should not be delegated entirely to the incumbent president. Governing boards play an indispensable role that begins long before they are reading a resignation letter.

Effective boards treat succession planning as a standing agenda item—a periodic review of presidential readiness and institutional continuity. When boards and presidents discuss leadership succession as part of broader strategic planning, they signal that this work is essential to governance and growth, not ancillary to them.

Boards that take succession seriously also think beyond the predictable list of internal candidates. Too often, presidential succession plans start and stop with the provost, the CFO, or another senior cabinet member. Out-of-the-box thinking invites a wider lens. Some boards consider respected leaders from partner institutions, nonprofit executives whose missions mirror the university’s, or seasoned community leaders who could serve as a credible short-term president while a comprehensive search unfolds.

These types of considerations do not reflect unintentional “planning creep” but critical and creative planning that deliberately fosters out-of-the-box thinking. This proactiveness prepares boards to respond with steadiness and imagination when change occurs, ensuring that the presidency is filled by the type of leader who understands both the gravity of the role and the distinct context of the institution.

4. Consider an Interim as Part of the Overall Transition

Even the most intentional transitions can be disrupted by the unexpected: a health crisis, a governance impasse, or an external offer that is just too good to refuse. That is why every university needs two complementary plans—a long-term succession plan that guides leadership continuity over time and an interim plan that maintains stability if the presidency changes abruptly.

An interim plan clarifies who could assume short-term authority, how decisions will be managed, and what communication steps will preserve confidence across the community.

Interim appointments work best when they are not assembled in the heat of the moment. Charting them in advance, as a direction to follow and recalibrate as circumstances unfold, smooths what would otherwise be a very bumpy path. Advance charting steadies the institution, protects its people, and keeps attention fixed where it belongs—on students, staff, and mission.

5. Model Presidential Responsibility

Though it may feel awkward at first, presidents must model succession planning by planning for their own. Every leader who cares about institutional longevity should ask two questions early and often:

What am I building that will outlast me?

And who am I preparing to carry it forward?

Presidents model this responsibility not by naming a replacement but by cultivating readiness within their cabinets, their governance partners, and the wider institutional culture. They share context rather than hoard it, delegate meaningful work rather than symbolic tasks, and involve others in decision-making processes that reveal how institutional priorities are set and sustained. These habits make continuity a natural outgrowth of leadership, not an afterthought.

Presidents should speak candidly about succession not to spotlight their individual departure but to demonstrate organizational preparedness. In doing so, they normalize departure as part of the leadership arc. That transparency builds confidence across the community and quiets speculation about what might happen “if.” It affirms that the institution’s stability rests not on one person’s presence but on a shared embodiment of mission and a joint desire for continuity.

When presidents model the notion that succession is not a private concern but a collective discipline, they replace anxiety with agency and show that leadership is less about possession of power and more about the transfer of knowledge and empowerment of others to carry on.

6. Move Forward Amid Change

Presidential transitions test more than logistics; they test an institution’s ability to move forward in the face of change. Forward movement comes from discipline—the discipline to document, to delegate, to plan, and to revisit plans regularly. Presidents who approach succession in this way resist the extremes of panic on one side and denial on the other. Part of the legacy an effective president builds is a system capable of absorbing change without losing coherence.

By embedding succession planning into everyday leadership practice—rather than waiting for an impending departure—presidents can model the foresight they ask of others. Without such a plan, institutions lose more than leaders. They lose momentum, memory, and morale.

The statistics referenced in the first section of this blog are drawn from this article: https://hepinc.com/newsroom/examining-leadership-turnover-rates-in-higher-education-over-the-past-decade/

The Presidential Imperative

AI is no longer relegated to tech labs, computer science courses, or futuristic think tanks. At many universities, it is already reshaping how students learn, how faculty teach, and how institutions operate.

Professors, no doubt, are on the front lines of this teaching-and-learning transformation—the focus of this particular blog. But that does not excuse presidents and provosts from playing a key role in co-creating not only the pedagogically possible but the pedagogically probable as well.

The presidential position makes accessible various institutional levers available to precious few. In this case, we have the weighty responsibility of situating our universities on an AI spectrum whose end points might look like this:

Catalyst for strategic advantage —— source of confusion and fear.

 This post offers six recommendations to help presidents position their institutions closer to the left side of that spectrum.

1. Set the Vision and the Vocabulary

Presidents set both tone and tempo. When we talk about AI as a teaching ally rather than a threat, crutch, or shortcut, we give faculty permission to explore responsibly.

Other elements of the AI lexicon are equally important. A president’s early messages should:

• Frame AI as a pedagogical opportunity and option, not an administrative mandate.
• Invite faculty to help establish non-negotiable academic guardrails: integrity, creativity, and intellectual fairness.
• Center faculty voices in the conversation, asking questions such as:
  • What might AI make possible in your discipline that was previously out of reach?
  • How could AI streamline the routine parts of teaching so you can focus more deeply on mentoring and feedback?
  • Where might students use AI to strengthen—not shortcut—their own learning?

Strategically, presidents can connect these discussions to pedagogical aims such as student engagement, access, and meaningful learning outcomes. AI should not replace our academic aims; it should help advance them with more insight, intentionality, and care.

2. Fund the First Steps

Faculty adoption doesn’t happen by rhetoric alone. Presidents can make immediate progress by investing in professional development and small pilot projects that encourage exploration without risk.

A few high-impact moves:

• Create an AI Teaching Fellows Program that supports cross-disciplinary teams to redesign courses or assignments.
•  Provide micro-grants for classroom-based AI pilots with built-in assessment of learning outcomes.
• Sponsor AI-in-Teaching Institutes every semester so faculty can share early results and build confidence.

When faculty see the institution investing in them—not just the technology—they engage more fully and model the mindset we need across the campus.

3. Co-Construct Ethical Guardrails

Presidents should make it clear that AI literacy must evolve alongside academic integrity—not in its shadow and certainly not in its absence. Faculty, who live the daily realities of teaching and learning, are best positioned to ensure that academic innovation moves forward with conscience.

Ethical guidance in this space is not about “finding the middle.” It’s about continually recalibrating between possibility and prudence—between the freedom to explore and the duty to uphold educational standards. The appropriate AI boundary in a psychology lab, for instance, may look different from that in a design studio or a writing seminar. That variation isn’t inconsistency. It’s contextual intelligence: a recognition that each field defines learning, originality, and evidence in its own way.

In psychology, AI might help analyze data or simulate human responses, but ethical lines must be drawn tightly around participant privacy and research validity. In a design studio, by contrast, generative tools may be integral to the creative process; students learn by manipulating them openly and iteratively. In a writing seminar, faculty may emphasize authorship and voice, allowing AI to assist with structure or grammar but not with conceptual framing.

These contrasts remind us that responsible AI use cannot be standardized across the academy. It must be interpreted through each discipline’s values, methods, and learning outcomes. For presidents, the leadership task is not to impose identical rules but to support a governance framework that honors disciplinary nuance while maintaining institutional coherence.

This work is iterative, contextual, and inevitably messy. Ethical practice evolves as understanding deepens, and early guidelines must be elastic enough to stretch with experience. What begins as a caution may, over time, become a best practice—or vice versa. The key is to build a system that is nimble enough to move with the technology it seeks to govern. That is no easy task!

Presidents can begin to build such a system by:

• Dialoguing rather than decreeing. Encourage the cabinet, deans, and academic departments to hold structured conversations about what “responsible AI use” looks like within their disciplines and to share key insights openly across the institution.
• Creating protected spaces for ethical experimentation. Make room for pilot projects where faculty can test AI approaches, analyze outcomes, and refine guidelines without fear of premature judgment or reputational risk.
• Examining what is meant by “academic integrity.” Lead honest conversations about how AI is reshaping long-held understandings of authorship, originality, and evidence. Encourage faculty to explore how the principle of integrity can remain constant even as its expression evolves—demonstrating that ethics, like learning, is a journey shaped by experience, discernment, and evolving understanding.

4. Aim for Progress Not Perfection; Affirm Context not Conformity

Presidents who champion AI in teaching should a) celebrate progress as movement along a spectrum, not as arrival at an endpoint and b) recognize that adoption will vary since disciplines, pedagogies, and professors find their footing at different tempos. Making this variation explicit reinforces that appropriateness, not uniformity, is the higher aim. An art professor who uses generative tools to critique bias in visual media, a psychologist testing AI-assisted transcription for interviews, and a writing instructor guiding students to transform an AI draft into their own voice are all exercising discipline-specific discernment. These examples signal that curiosity and conscience can coexist when context leads the way.

Equally important, celebrate honest lessons learned. When a pilot stalls or a tool disappoints, presidents can model reflective leadership by asking what insight emerged—not what initiative failed. Over time, the culture shifts from “proof of concept” to “proof of learning.” That shift signals an institution led by reflection rather than reaction.

5. Build Systems That Support Ethical Adaptation

Faculty innovation accelerates when experimentation is principled and well-supported. Presidents can use their vantage point to ensure that systems—budgeting, technology, staffing, and shared services—adapt to inquiry rather than constrain it.

That may mean negotiating enterprise licenses that protect privacy while enabling responsible access; funding instructional designers fluent in AI-enhanced learning; or developing shared repositories where syllabi, prompts, and reflections evolve together. Within federations like the Coalition for the Common Good (link), shared services can make these supports scalable across universities while honoring local context.

The aim is not centralization for its own sake. It is to create adaptive infrastructures—strong and malleable enough to reinforce the mission while responding to the ever-evolving dynamics of technology, teaching, and learning.

6. Lead by Learning

Presidents earn credibility in the work of AI integration by modeling the same curiosity and discipline they ask of faculty. When they attend AI workshops, experiment with new tools, or invite instructors to demonstrate classroom applications, they show that leading well requires learning continually. 

This stance dissolves the unhelpful divide between “those who lead” and “those who learn.” It affirms that all of us—faculty, staff, administrators, and students—share responsibility for interpreting technology through the lens of our educational mission. The president’s role is not to pronounce conclusions but to sustain inquiry that remains honest, ethical, and alive to context.

AI may streamline routine tasks, but it cannot reproduce discernment, empathy, or vision. Those remain distinctly human capacities—and precisely the ones higher education most needs from its leaders right now.

Closing Reflection

Artificial intelligence is reshaping not only what students can produce but what educators must design—and what presidents must make possible. The task before senior leaders is to keep courage and care in deliberate dialogue by encouraging experimentation guided by the ethical guardrails co-created at your institution.

Presidents who chart this type of movement guide their universities to one of higher education’s most coveted places—the one where innovation serves mission, where technology deepens understanding, and where humanity continues to define the measure of progress.

A Growing Challenge in Higher Education Leadership

Across higher education, the role of the university president has always been a challenging one. But in recent years, it has become what some have called a “position impossible.” The data bear this out. The average presidential tenure has dropped from 8.5 years in 2006 to 5.9 years in 2022. A 2023 industry podcast puts it at a strikingly brief 3.7 years. For boards and campuses, this means costly searches, more frequent leadership transitions, and, at times, institutional drift.

Why Presidential Search Strategy Matters More Than Ever

The stakes of a presidential search have never been higher. Selecting the wrong leader—or conducting the right search in the wrong way—can leave a university vulnerable at precisely the moment when stability and strategy are most needed. When searching for a new president, boards and search committees may feel pressure to advance the kind of candidates that vocal groups want rather than identifying the type of leader the institution needs at this moment. The mismatch between stakeholder desires and institutional needs can make it difficult, if not impossible, for a new president to address what needs to be done in today’s “new normal.”

As someone who has served in the presidency at more than one university, I know, firsthand, that the search process itself shapes the presidency ahead. A search conducted without sufficient strategy, transparency, and foresight can unintentionally set up a new president for struggle rather than success. The chances of such struggle increase exponentially if the board wants and hires a particular type of leader when the campus wants another.

Understanding the Two Critical Phases of Presidential Search

In this blog series, I will explain the means and ends of specific phases: the stakeholder input phase and the announcement and launch phase. I will not only describe the “what is” but will also recommend “what should be.”

The Problem with Current Search Practices

In a nutshell, it is frequently the case that these two phases are not only treated as routine but also as “reassurance rituals.” 

The stakeholder input phase becomes a stage for making nice with the campus community—offering people the chance to voice what they want, even when they may not have the full picture of what the university needs to survive and thrive. 

The announcement and launch phase is similarly orchestrated to make the new president and the university look good. Flowery press releases, campus receptions, and community celebrations abound. Yet rarely are these moments used to call attention to the pressing issues awaiting the new leader.

Moving Beyond Superficial Search Exercises

A presidential search must do more than generate warm feelings or ceremonial consensus. When key phases of the search are exercised for comfort and optics, they miss the chance to ready both the institution and its incoming president for what is needed at this particular place at this particular moment. 

To be clear, the search should prepare both the community and the candidate for the real work ahead—the tough decisions, the unpopular changes, and the strategic pivots that are often unavoidable. 

The Essential Question for Search Committees

There is a question boards should ask before they even commence the search. It is this: if the university presidency is now seen as ‘position impossible,’ how can we reimagine our search processes to give both our incoming leader and our institution the best chance to thrive?

Three Recommendations for Improving the Higher Education Presidential Search

1. Leverage Board Authority and Direction

Best practices associated with the presidential search process require boards to engage directly in developing the leadership agenda and profile. The board has the presidential hiring authority and fiduciary accountability for the long-term direction of the institution. Before the search commences, trustees should be fully aligned on what they want this person to do and what qualities and characteristics they expect this person to embody.

2. Question Traditional Input

Many presidential selections are largely informed by the desires and comments of stakeholders who contribute input into the search process and by search committee members appointed to this critical committee. Much of the search process input comes from a genuine (albeit often narrow) vantage point. Few faculty- and staff-at-large have access to or training in the types of data that would allow them to develop an informed perspective of what the university needs from a fiscal leadership, community and fundraising, or technological perspective.

3. Rethink the Purpose of Key Stages 

To identify and support leaders who are equipped to do today’s heavy lifting and campuses that are willing to help carry the load, there must be a fundamental shift in how we approach presidential searches. By reimagining these processes as strategic tools rather than ceremonial exercises, boards can better prepare their institutions, its leader, and the campus constituents at large for the changes necessary for long-term success. 

3 Ways to Elevate Higher Ed Presidential Searches – Download the PDF

Coming Soon

Stay tuned for Blog 2, where I will examine how boards can move beyond an approach that generates only superficial stakeholder input to one that yields deeper, more honest insights into what the university requires in its next leader.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. How long does a presidential search process take in higher education?

 The typical presidential search process takes 12 months from start to finish. The search begins with the formation of a search committee and the gathering of input from stakeholders (months 1-2). This is followed by candidate recruitment and initial screening (months 3-5), finalist interviews and campus visits (months 6-8), and final selection (months 9-10). The process concludes with contract negotiation (months 11-12). Many searches aim to have the new president start on or around July 1st to align with the academic year.

2. What qualifications are required to become a university president?

It is still the case that the majority of university presidents come from academic backgrounds. Common qualifications include a doctoral or terminal degree, executive experience at a university or nonprofit, proven fundraising ability, demonstrated financial acumen, proven crisis management skills, strong communication abilities, and a lived commitment to shared governance. Many highly selective universities require a track record in teaching and/or research.

3. Who selects the university president and how is the search committee formed?

The Board of Trustees has ultimate responsibility for selecting the university president; their decision is typically shaped by the input or recommendations of a presidential search committee. These committees are typically large and highly engaged: 12-15 members that include board trustees (~4-5), faculty representatives (3-4), a student or two, staff (1-2), and a representative from the alumni or community. It is best practice for the Committee chair (a board leader) to appoint committee members in consultation with governance bodies, ensuring diverse representation while maintaining confidentiality expectations.

4. What are the most important personal attributes and past experiences search committees look for in presidential candidates?

 It is increasingly the case that search firms and search committees look for candidates who have demonstrated visionary leadership, fundraising expertise, change management success, financial acumen, enrollment management skills, and crisis mitigation. Relationship savviness, political awareness, emotional intelligence, and empathy are also highly valued in a world where more and more faculty, staff, and students feel vulnerable and underappreciated.

5. How can stakeholders participate in the presidential search process?

Many universities provide multiple opportunities for stakeholder participation. These may include the following: listening sessions with faculty, staff, and students; online community surveys to gather input on desired presidential qualities; and representation on search advisory committees. At some universities, the search is “open” such that campus members can participate in candidate forums during finalist visits and submit surveys after candidate interviews. At other campuses, the process is “closed” to protect the privacy of sitting executives who will need to go back to their home campus if they are not chosen during the search. 

Unlocking the transformative power of artificial intelligence as a pedagogical partner in modern universities and colleges.

Key Takeaways: The Future of AI-Powered Higher Education

• AI serves as a pedagogical partner that enhances rather than replaces faculty expertise
• Adaptive learning platforms provide personalized education at scale through data-driven insights
• Virtual teaching assistants offer 24/7 student support while freeing faculty for complex interactions
• Personalized content delivery addresses diverse learning styles and preferences
• Successful AI integration requires proper faculty training, support, and ethical guidelines
• The competitive advantage goes to institutions that thoughtfully blend AI innovation with human connection

Introduction: Embracing AI in Higher Education Without Losing Human Connection

In colleges and universities throughout the world, educators are weighing the promise of artificial intelligence in higher education against the apprehensions that many of us are experiencing. On one hand, most of us can see how AI tools for university faculty equip professors with powerful capabilities to tailor classroom prompts, examination questions, homework problems, and academic support to the unique needs of every student. On the other hand, we worry that computer-generated exam questions, auto-graded assignments, and canned feedback may distance professors from their students and undermine the trust that anchors healthy student-professor relationships.

As educational leaders, the issue is not whether AI will enter the academy—it already has—but how we will help our faculty and staff meaningfully integrate these transformative educational technologies into the learning environment.

Why AI Partnership Matters in Higher Education

As a three-time university president, I have seen that the most successful use of new academic tools happens when they are designed to enhance, refine, and elevate the faculty role. Therefore, I suggest that academic leaders position AI as a pedagogical partner that assumes select instructional duties and assessments so that professors can dedicate significantly more time to mentoring students and individually preparing them for the steps they take at and beyond college.

Used in this way, AI becomes less about replacing human judgment and more about strengthening the faculty-student connection that remains at the heart of a high-quality university experience. The challenge, of course—and the theme for an upcoming blog—is ensuring that faculty are given the training, support, and freedom to experiment with these tools in ways that fit their disciplines and teaching styles. When that happens, AI is not a threat to the professor but a partner that helps faculty cultivate rigorous and responsive learning environments.

Adaptive Learning Platforms: AI as a Partner in Instructional and Assessment Customization

What Are AI-Powered Adaptive Learning Systems?

One of the most promising applications of AI in education is the development of adaptive learning platforms. These systems draw from multiple streams of student data analytics to analyze how each individual learns and to adjust the pace, content, and assessment of instruction accordingly.

Three Types of Data Driving Personalized Education

Typically, adaptive learning platforms rely on three types of data:

• Student performance metrics on quizzes, tests, and assignments which reveals error patterns and mastery levels
• Student engagement indicators such as login frequency, time on task, and interaction history
• Student context information such as prior coursework, language proficiency, or accessibility needs

How AI Enables Personalized Learning at Scale

By integrating these data points, adaptive platforms customize learning in ways that reflect a student’s strengths and areas for improvement. Faculty can then focus their attention where it is needed most—serving as coaches in areas where students require development and as motivators in areas where students excel.

For example, in a first-year math class, the system might detect that one student struggles with algebraic formulas while another breezes through those but falters with applied word problems. The platform would then adjust supplemental instruction—offering tailored readings, videos, resources, or homework problems—to meet each learner where they are.

Importantly, the professor is not sidelined. Instead, the system becomes a partner in helping the instructor pitch problems at the right level, enabling students to build confidence and prepare for the next stage of their studies.

Virtual Teaching Assistants: AI as a Partner in Supplemental Assistance

24/7 Student Support Through AI Teaching Assistants

To extend faculty reach, AI can also offer 24/7 course-specific support through virtual teaching assistants (VTAs). One of the best-known examples is “Jill Watson,” created by Georgia Tech’s Design Intelligence Lab. At any time of the day or night, Jill responds to student inquiries about the class presentations, course videos and transcripts, textbook materials, and study guides associated with several online courses at Georgia Tech.

Students can log in from their computers or mobile devices, pose questions, and receive guidance drawn from instructor-approved courseware.

Research-Backed Evidence of AI Teaching Assistant

Emerging research shows “preliminary evidence that Jill Watson may support deeper understanding of the subject matter ….and that Jill positively impacts student performance.” These early results need to be explored further.

Even so, Jill’s presence highlights the way AI can serve as a partner who handles basic questions so faculty can devote more time to complex discussions that spark curiosity. Faculty can also spend more hands-on time mentoring students to ready them for disciplinary careers and graduate studies.

Read more about Georgia Tech’s breakthrough study on Jill Watson – an AI teaching assistant that successfully served 1,300+ students with 97% accuracy using ChatGPT and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG).

Personalized Delivery Modes: AI as a Partner in Multiple Modalities

Addressing Different Learning Styles with AI

Beyond adaptive platforms and virtual teaching assistants, AI can also align the delivery of instruction with the needs of different learners. Not all students absorb material most effectively through lectures or textbook readings. Some learn best through videos, visualizations, interactive puzzles, or simulations. Others benefit from narrative explanations, case studies, or collaborative problem-solving scenarios.

Smart Content Recommendation Systems

AI-powered systems can analyze engagement patterns and recommend formats—text, video, audio, or experiential activities—that resonate with a particular student. A classroom that incorporates these diverse modalities offers students more than one pathway to mastery, and AI becomes a partner in expanding access to those learning options.

A Partnership in Practice: Faculty and Administrators Guiding AI for Educational Good
The Future of AI-Enhanced Teaching

I cannot imagine that AI will replace professors in the near future. It is likely, though, that professors who completely shun AI will see lower enrollments than those who engage with it in thoughtful and ethical ways. In a competitive marketplace, serious students are drawn to courses that balance academic rigor with technological innovation.

Setting New Standards for Excellence in Higher Education

Faculty who learn to weave AI into their teaching without compromising human connection will not only maintain relevance but may also set new standards for excellence in higher education.

As I will discuss in a forthcoming blog, the duty of educational leaders is to prepare faculty for this work—positioning AI not as a threat to professors but as a partner in helping them do their best teaching.

Frequently Asked Questions About AI in Higher Education

How can AI improve student learning outcomes?

AI enhances student learning through personalized instruction, adaptive content delivery, and real-time feedback systems that adjust to individual learning patterns and needs.

What are some of the concerns about using AI in the classroom?

Common concerns include maintaining faculty-student connections, ensuring academic integrity, teaching students how to use AI ethically and responsibly, pinpointing misinformation or even “system biases,” protecting student privacy, and preventing over-reliance on automated systems.

How should universities prepare faculty for AI integration?

Universities should provide sophisticated training programs, create clear ethical guidelines, offer technical and research support, and encourage experimentation within established boundaries.

What types of AI tools are most effective for higher education?

Some of the effective AI tools include adaptive learning platforms, virtual teaching assistants, intelligent tutoring systems, and AI-powered content recommendation engines.

Will AI replace university professors?

Not likely. AI should be designed to augment and support faculty rather than replace them. An effective use of AI enables professors to focus on personalized mentoring, high-level critical thinking development, and individualized student guidance.

The transformation of higher education through artificial intelligence will not occur in the future—it’s happening now. Universities that embrace AI as a collaborative tool while maintaining their commitment to human-centered learning will lead the way in educational excellence.

A. The Both/Ands of Resource Allocation

• Brake and accelerate simultaneously
• Rely on both the ethical and legal imperatives of a fiduciary
• Set expectations for hard and necessary tradeoffs

University leaders rarely face clear-cut choices in the budget and resource allocation process. More commonly, they navigate “both/and” realities that demand speed and restraint, innovation and tradition, in investments and curtailments. At every turn, the president’s fiduciary responsibility requires balancing legal and ethical imperatives with institutional mission. Hard tradeoffs are unavoidable: expanding a high-demand program may require downsizing another, or investing in technology may delay facility upgrades.

Modeling candor and courage, leaders must set the expectation that budget and allocation conversations will be difficult but necessary. Leaders must ensure that resource allocations are done in responsible, principled ways, preparing all the while for decisions that are not uniformly satisfactory to members of the community.

B. The Three “Ends” of Resource Allocation— Mission-Alignment, Long-term Institutional Sustainability, and Student Success

• Financial stewardship responsibilities
  • Reinforce institutional viability over departmental preferences
  • Align strategic priorities with resource realities
  • Take some calculated risks with contingency plans ready to go
• Mission alignment, institutional sustainability, and student success as the guiding lights
  • Make decisions through the institutional purpose lens
  • Put and keep students first
  • Plan for the long term not merely the short term

Every budget decision should advance at least one of three ends: mission alignment, long-term sustainability, or student success. Financial stewardship means looking beyond immediate pressures to ensure that today’s choices bode well for future sustainability. This involves prioritizing innovations with mission fidelity and maintaining traditions with a positive student impact.

The changes adopted and the history preserved should jointly support student learning and achievement. By using these three ends as touchstones, leaders reinforce clarity in decision-making, allow for measured risk-taking, and demonstrate that difficult tradeoffs ultimately serve the institution’s higher purpose and enduring excellence.

C. The Principles and Processes of Budgeting and Resource Allocation

• Performance-based allocation principles
  •  Make data-driven decisions
  • Reward individuals and departments that are constructive
  • Decide which financially unstable programs will be sustained as “loss leaders” and which will be paused or sunsetted
• Transparent decision-making processes
  • Provide criteria and rationale early and clearly
  • Engage constituents with appropriate experience and expertise
  • Share and document final decisions

The process by which budget and resource decisions are made is as important as the outcomes themselves. A student-centric performance-based allocation framework, grounded in data and mission alignment, ensures that resources support programs with strong recruitment, retention, and reputational outcomes. Such a framework still allows for measured support to struggling areas that are mission essential.

Transparency throughout the process is critical. Leaders should clearly communicate criteria and rationales broadly while working closely with stakeholders who are equipped to offer input and recommendations. Leaders at all levels can and should be cooperative without ceding any decision-making authority that comes with their particular position. Describing and documenting the process and the outcomes build trust, reduce speculation, and promote accountability.

D. The Philosophies That Undergird Resource Allocation

• “Fair” resource allocation
  • Define what “fair” means in this context
  • Be clear: in resource allocation, like in DEIJ, “fair” is not the same as “equal.”
• Consider some quantitative models for “fair” distribution
  • The legal philosophy of fiduciary duty
  • Underscore duties of care, loyalty, and obedience
  • Act in the institution’s overall best interests rather than the interests of a few departments

The budget and resource allocation process is shaped by two essential philosophies: fairness and fiduciary duty. In budgeting, like in DEIJ, fair does not necessarily mean equal. “Fair,” from a budget perspective routinely means allocating according to mission priorities and the potential for return. It does not mean making across-the-board cuts or equal investments. Mathematical models of various sorts can augment the DEIJ-like principle to ensure that some quantitative measure help to distribute resources in reasonable and rational ways.

 Equally vital is the fiduciary framework: the duty of care, loyalty, and obedience. In assuming these required duties, presidents act in the institution’s best interests, not those of individual departments or vocal stakeholders. Accordingly, presidents must put institutional sustainability over Department A’s and B’s aspirations even though faculty and staff in A and B may be disappointed that their departmental interests are secondary to the interests of the “whole.”

Together, these models and philosophies keep leaders grounded in principle while navigating the competing pressures of limited resources, diverse needs, and institutional responsibility.

E. Individual Interests vs. Institutional Wellbeing in Resource Allocation

• Faculty and staff interests vs. institutional wellbeing
  • Build trust through honest communication
  • Manage to disappointment while maintaining engagement
  • Acknowledge the sacrifice needed at times
• Protection of student programs and services is paramount
  • Set and achieve ambitious retention and graduation rates for
  • Allocate resources with the above in mind
  • Focus more on long-term sustainability than short-term wins

When budgets tighten, presidents encounter heightened tensions between faculty, staff, and students, each with legitimate but competing interests. No employee wants their retirement benefits to be cut or their health insurance premiums to increase. But if the institution is running a deficit budget, cutting these expenses is typically more defensible than cutting student programs and services in recruitment, retention, and graduation. Particularly when the least worst choice needs to be made, honest and consistent communication helps constituents see that the tradeoff was not between “good” and “bad” but between “bad” and “worse.” 

At times, faculty, staff, and administrators may need to make very personal sacrifices to keep the university positioned for the long term. When this occurs, it is constructive and healthy for faculty and staff to air their disappointments and angst internally with their supervisor and the university leaders. But “airing dirty laundry” externally (in the press and with the public) can easily backfire. Drumming up negative media coverage and spotlighting disappointing decisions can quickly and negatively affect enrollment. If enrollment goes down, deeper cuts and further reductions to the things employees justifiably value are likely to occur.

F. The Communication and Engagement during Resource Allocation

• Proactive and transparent approach
  • Expose the context in which the decisions are embedded
  • Communicate early and often about potential changes
  • Solicit feedback before decision is made and provide updates once it is finalized
• A constructive place for conflict
  • Recognize not hide conflict
  • Create space for respectful disagreement
  • Establish and enforce “civil” engagement rules

When resource cuts or reallocations are on the horizon, silence breeds distrust. If faculty, staff, or students first hear about reductions through the rumor mill, a news article, or a broadcast email, leaders lose credibility. To maintain credibility, presidents should unearth the financial context/position early, pinpoint the challenges, outline the financial pain points behind them, and invite structured feedback from those with expertise and experience before decisions are finalized. Not every opinion will shape the outcome, but stakeholders should feel heard.

 Conflict—over benefit cuts, program consolidations, or tuition adjustments—will emerge. To manage it productively, leaders might create some type of discussion opportunity complete with a set of ground rules. A neutral facilitator could be invited to lead the discussion and enforce the ground rules, acknowledging all the while the emotional impact of the situation. The goal of such forums is not to reach consensus but to demonstrate respect and engender trust when decisions are hard and outcomes are painful.

G. Shared Governance and Data Utilization Should be Parts of the Resource Allocation Process

Proactive and transparent approach

• Develop a Budget or Resource Allocation Process that leverages Shared Governance
  • Clear governance structures and decision authority
  • Advisory committees vs. decision-making bodies
  • Balancing consultation with timely action
• Evidence-based resource allocation models
  • Activity-based costing and performance metrics
  • Regular budget reviews and adjustments
  • Hybrid models combining traditional and performance-based funding

Shared governance works best when everyone knows who advises, who recommends, and who decides. Presidents should invite faculty, staff, and student leaders into budget conversations but be transparent about the boundaries of advisory versus decision-making authority. Without this clarity, consultation can slide into gridlock and participants should be informed that this is not a direct democracy where everyone gets a vote that is tallied at the end. It is common, even best practice, for the president to establish a university budget advisory council that reviews data and provides input. At some universities, this committee also makes recommendations regarding allocations. Almost always, however, the final budget and allocation decisions are made by the president and approved by the full board. Making these roles explicit gives stakeholders a voice without creating false expectations of unanimity or consensus.

Data-driven budgeting strengthens shared governance by grounding conversations in facts rather than perceptions. A president may decide to use cost-center-based budgeting, student-centric performance metrics, and/or trend analyses to shape decisions about difficult tradeoffs. Presidents can reinforce accountability by scheduling regular budget reviews that adjust for enrollment, revenue, and expense shifts. Hybrid models—blending traditional allocations with performance-based funding—help institutions adapt to changing realities without abandoning mission-centered commitments. When evidence frames the discussion, resource allocation becomes less about politics or personalities and more about aligning dollars with impact. This disciplined approach models fiscal responsibility while preserving stakeholder trust in institutional decision-making.

H. Conclusion: Leadership Through Complexity

• The courage required for transparent leadership
• Building institutional resilience through fair but difficult decisions
• The invitation for ongoing dialogue and understanding

Resource allocation is one of the president’s most complex and consequential responsibilities. It requires courage to make transparent choices, resilience to withstand criticism, and wisdom to align finite resources with infinite needs. By balancing fairness with fiduciary duty, presidents model principled leadership that reinforces both mission and builds community. Stressful tradeoffs are inevitable, so addressing tensions head on rather than glossing over helps those with different perspectives get a sense for what others are thinking and feeling.

In Part 1 of this series, I provided a short overview of each of the five phases that mark a university presidency. Part 2 offered a deeper dive into the transition phases that include the discovery and honeymoon phases. Part 3 went into considerable detail about the accountability and conflict phases. Together, those stages build toward the inevitable final act, which is Phase 5. This is when the president prepares to step aside and, ideally, works to ensure a successful transition.

Phase 5. The Handoff Phase — A sitting duck, an accelerator, or a mix of both

Timing

This phase begins the moment you announce your departure—whether by retirement, a planned transition, or a new role elsewhere. It usually continues until your successor is in place.

Description

Once your exit is public, organizational dynamics shift dramatically. Some constituents begin looking right past you, hoping you’ll shelve unpopular decisions for later, laying them at the feet of the incoming administration. Others, who believe they have your ear, may seize the moment to push their priorities forward before you leave.

Your challenges are analogous to using a balance pole to walk a tightrope. On one side of the pole: hot-button issues that you ought to handle yourself rather than hand off. On the other: initiatives best left for your successor to own and shape. Your judgment in balancing these issues plays a large part in how you land the dismount.

Common Activities

Outgoing leaders who are both future-focused and institutionally loyal use this phase to:

• Finalize projects that are budget-savvy and benefit the institution
• Resolve outstanding issues that could otherwise burden a successor
• Transfer knowledge, process know-how, and “relationship nuggets” to the new leader
• Fast-track operational moves that are necessary but unpopular (e.g., budget cuts or personnel changes)
• Defer major long-term strategic shifts that leave space for the new leader to put their stamp on the institution

Real-Life Example

One outgoing president spent their final year consolidating six academic schools into three interdisciplinary ones. In general, this move eliminated three deanships, tamped down criticism of “senior leadership bloat,” and redirected resources toward new teaching opportunities that were coveted but costly. More specifically, this restructuring created a framework upon which the incoming president could build—a structure that encouraged interdisciplinary learning and team teaching. Both were well received by students and faculty alike.

Closing Thoughts

Not every presidency unfolds in five neat phases. Some leaders skip stages entirely, while others cycle through them in a different order—or revisit certain phases more than once. On paper, these phases look tidy; in lived experience, they are often messy, nonlinear, and unpredictable.

What is consistent, however, is that almost all presidencies bring seasons of discovery, connection, pressure, and conflict—though not always in that order, and rarely with equal intensity. To endure even a handful of years in this role, presidents must embrace both the highs and the lows: generously accept praise, listen carefully to criticism, and make the tough calls that leave some cheering and others fuming.

Longevity, contrary to some schools of thought, isn’t always the measure of success. Some universities thrive on steady, decades-long leadership. Others need a disruptor—someone to reset systems, structures, and policies for the next leader to refine and strengthen.

In the end, what matters most is not how long you sat in the chair, but whether you used the phases you had to move the institution forward in ways that truly mattered.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should a university president focus on after announcing their departure?

One of the most pressing areas of focus is communication. The departing president should communicate with the trustees and the senior team about the “transition communication plan.” A clear and well-sequenced set of communiqués (for internal and external stakeholders) goes a long way in quelling rumors and decreasing anxiety about the unknown.

As the news is methodically shared, the outgoing leader should prioritize finalizing essential projects and resolving lingering issues. It’s smart to limit new long-term commitments that might encumber the successor. In the final weeks in office, some exiting presidents craft guidance documents or reflections to contextualize the current culture or key initiatives that are underway. Such documents are of benefit to an incoming president who is interested in maintaining continuity.

How can an outgoing president set up their successor for success?

In higher education, outgoing presidents rarely serve as formal mentors to their successors. A generous departing leader, however, makes themselves available to share information when asked by the incoming leader. This often means taking a “back seat”—providing institutional knowledge, historical context, or practical insights when the new president signals interest. The goal is not to shape the successor’s agenda but to clear pathways by answering questions candidly and ensuring no critical information is lost. Done well, this restraint respects the authority of the incoming president while still supporting institutional continuity.

Which decisions should be left for the incoming president to make?

Strategic, long-term decisions that shape the institution’s future should be deferred to the new leader. Major personnel restructurings or permanent cabinet-level hires should also be avoided unless absolutely necessary. If a senior position opens, the sitting president can appoint an interim instead of making a lasting hire. Large-scale projects—such as launching a new degree program, committing to a capital campaign, or establishing major partnerships—that lock the institution into a particular direction are best paused until the successor is on board. Ultimately, the incoming president deserves the space to set the vision, tone, and agenda. Unless an urgent issue requires immediate action, transformative decisions belong to their tenure, not the outgoing president’s final months.

Why do organizational dynamics shift once a president announces retirement or transition?

The announcement of a presidential departure triggers significant uncertainty—among those disappointed by the news, those pleased by it, and those somewhere in between.
Senior administrators, in particular, may experience anxiety around job security. This in turn, may prompt some internal jockeying for power and influence. At the same time, faculty and staff may be weighing how quickly or slowing to bring issues forward. Those who believe the incoming leader will lean more strongly in the direction they want to move will likely stall bringing forward issues to the existing administration. Meanwhile, others who have aligned with the outgoing president, may push agendas forward immediately. This group hopes the current leader will accelerate making a decision in their favor.

How can outgoing leaders ensure continuity during a leadership handoff?

Departing presidents should work with the board to map out a thoughtful transition plan. Key stakeholders can be invited into its design and implementation to foster trust and transparency. The outgoing leader should also make sure their assistant or chief of staff organizes and communicates where critical documents—such as cabinet retreat notes, board assessments, enrollment and financial modeling, donor briefings, and annotated climate-survey results—are stored and how they can be accessed.

Continuity also depends on relationships. While outgoing presidents don’t typically make direct introductions, they can provide confidential context about key external partners—major donors, community leaders, and government officials—including where those relationships stand and what sensitivities may exist. Additionally, the way an outgoing president speaks about those who remain and those coming in can build confidence and assurance through the transition.

What makes a transition successful?

Successful transitions occur when two key conditions are met: the departing president shows grace in handing off the leadership torch and the incoming president shows respect, both privately and publicly, for prior efforts and achievements.

In the first part of this series, I described the president-elect and new president phases of the presidential journey. These are the opening acts, with leaders waiting in the wings before stepping onstage to establish their presence. In this part of the series, I turn to the next two phases. Here, the leader takes center stage, where the spotlight shines brightly. At times, that light highlights the positive results the president is helping to deliver. At other times, it casts a harsh glare on decisions that are difficult to make and even harder to accept.

Phase 3. The President — Settling in and delivering on aims and intentions

Timing

This phase generally begins after your first full academic year (or thereabouts) and can last several years. It’s the stretch when the novelty—and perhaps a bit of the goodwill—wears off. As expected, you now need to deliver measurable results across myriad areas that are not always in sync with each other.

Description

The prefix “new” is gone. You are now the president. On some campuses you alone are seen as the administration. By either name, you hold both the authority and the accountability that come with the title.

In this phase, faculty, staff, students, alumni, and the board expect you to follow through on intentions, advance strategic priorities, and solve problems—some of which may have lingered for decades. The broader community looks to you to improve “town-gown” relationships. Business leaders expect you to position the university as an economic driver and, perhaps, a hub for cultural activity.

This is the point where you routinely translate your leadership philosophy to the concrete practices associated with shared governance, enrollment management, revenue diversification, the student learning experience, community partnerships, and more.

Common Activities

During this phase, you typically:

• Design or refine and implement the strategic plan.
  
• Build multi-year budget scenarios.
  
• Negotiate contracts that generate external funding or internal savings (leases, summer conferences, outsourcing services).
  
• Restructure or expand shared governance, ensuring that faculty, staff, and students all have a formal seat at decision-making tables.
  
• Work with your cabinet and other stakeholders to make structural or personnel changes (combining academic departments, adding or eliminating satellite campuses, rearranging vice-presidential portfolios).
  

Real-Life Example

In 2020, eight presidents I know took office just as the pandemic upended enrollment patterns. Three of these leaders inherited institutions that had long enjoyed stable or rising net tuition revenue. Their predecessors had never needed multi-year budget scenarios; single-year planning had always been sufficient.

That changed overnight at each of these places. Fall 2020 enrollments dropped sharply due to COVID restrictions, and for the first time ever, the boards required their new presidents to produce three- or four-year budget projections. At each university, the task created significant strain among vice presidents and their teams, who were suddenly asked to identify enrollment and fundraising targets in a time of deep uncertainty.

When the final enrollments fell short of budgeted projections, the three boards reacted differently. Two adopted a “wait and see” approach, allowing their presidents time to adapt to the changing environment and the missed target. The third board asked the new president to immediately reduce expenses to align with the lower revenues. The outcomes diverged: the presidents who were given the time to plan for strategic reductions were relatively well received. The one who was forced to make immediate cuts within her first six months got off to a rocky start, and the path was bumpy throughout her tenure.

Phase 4. The “Damn” President — Making hard, necessary calls that are not popular

Timing

This phase can surface at any point after the honeymoon period. Ideally, a president spends a meaningful stretch of time in the more routine “president” phase before this one begins. Yet, with the internal and external headwinds buffeting universities nationwide, this phase often arrives far too soon for many of today’s leaders. It emerges when the president finds themself at the helm as a crisis unfolds or an unexpected change takes precedence. In these moments, the leader is thrust into an even brighter spotlight and expected to make difficult decisions that inevitably unsettle some portion of the broader community. Depending on the scope of the challenges, this phase may last months—or even years.

Description

This is the phase that tests your resolve. The early goodwill has faded. The easy wins are behind you. Now you face decisions that will define your presidency—and in some cases, your legacy.

Common Activities

In this phase, you may be called upon to:

• Address structural deficits or market shifts.
• Close under-enrolled programs or cut faculty lines.
• Realign administrative functions or reallocate resources to programs and services that have a high return on investment.
• Navigate high-stakes legal cases where “both sides” speak loudly and often.
  

Every move is scrutinized. Even the most well-intentioned decisions may spark anger, protest, or mistrust.

Real-Life Example

I recall one leader who inherited a campus with a lopsided approach to shared governance. Faculty had both voice and vote at key decision-making tables—including the governing board itself—while staff and students had no formal role at all.

The board asked the new president to re-examine the governance model to make it more inclusive. In response, he created a representative advisory task force including board members, administrators, faculty, staff, and students. He also engaged two sets of consultants: one specializing in shared governance and another in higher-education law. Together, they gathered campus input, reviewed industry best practices, and drafted recommendations for the president and board.

All but one of the recommendations were endorsed unanimously by the task force. The consultants advised shifting the “faculty trustee” to a “faculty advisor” role, removing the vote but preserving voice, and creating the same advisory seats for staff and students. The faculty on the task force balked at this recommendation while others found it quite reasonable. The recommendation went forward to the board, which voted overwhelmingly, to enact the change.

For the president, however, it marked the start of a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” era. Faculty felt sidelined, even as staff and students celebrated inclusion. The decision defined this leader’s tenure, which lasted just four years.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens after the “honeymoon phase” of a university presidency ends?

Expectations shift from promise to proof. The “new” label drops, and presidents are expected to deliver measurable results across key operational and strategic areas including these: budget, enrollment, fundraising, revenue diversification, governance, and community partnerships.

Because the “rubber meets the road” in this phase, the roles assumed by key players—such as the board, the president, the provost, and the faculty—are clarified and differentiated in practice, not just in theory. If the president needs to make tweaks to role responsibilities, this can accelerate the beginning of the “damn president” phase (discussed here in this FAQ).

How do presidents manage competing demands from faculty, staff, students, and boards?

Having a broadly understood and embraced definition of shared governance is the first step to managing competing demands. Sometimes, such a definition already exists; other times it must be co-created. One of the best and boldest examples I have seen is the definition jointly crafted at California Lutheran University by faculty, staff, students, administrators, and board members:

Shared governance is a values-based system that facilitates and clarifies the complementary responsibilities that constituents assume in identifying, aligning, and implementing routine processes and strategic priorities. At Cal Lutheran, this system is designed to advance the university’s mission and promote a common good that prioritizes student learning and the student experience. This definition is accompanied by a decision-making matrix co-created by a broad swath of the university community.

Why is multi-year budget planning so important for higher education leaders?

Single-year budgeting—especially at tuition-driven institutions with small endowments and limited discretionary funds—has become a high-risk approach to financial management. Volatile enrollments, rising personnel and benefit costs, the temporary boost from the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), and frequent policy shifts with unfunded mandates all point to the need for multi-year, scenario-based plans.
These plans should bring many managers to the table and require them to record revenue projections and expenses for at least three years. Granted, projections will change over time. But the exercise of populating expense and revenue lines itself is illuminating. Both those who enter the numbers and those who interpret them will better understand the university’s current and future financial positions.

What structural changes might a president consider in this phase?

Common moves include: reorganizing academic units, consolidating or redefining administrative portfolios, adding entry- and mid-level student support positions (such as advisors), reconfiguring incentive programs to reward performance, and bolstering accountability systems. Leaders should also strengthen town–gown relationships that position the university as a regional driver of workforce development.

How do external crises, like a pandemic, affect a president’s ability to lead?

Crises compress timelines and force rapid decision-making in an industry that has long valued process, inclusivity, and deliberation. In early 2020, universities across the country pivoted almost overnight to online instruction. In many cases, these decisions were made and communicated before faculty could be consulted—a pace wholly uncharacteristic of higher education. Not surprisingly, both the processes and outcomes were poorly received at a good number of those institutions.

The following year brought additional pandemic-related challenges, most notably significant enrollment declines. Presidents were then tasked with aligning expenses to reduced tuition revenue, which often required deep budget cuts. 

Leading—and living through—major cuts is difficult for everyone.

Why do some university presidents face backlash and others don’t when making tough decisions?

A campus’s reaction to presidential decision-making depends on several variables. Were the decisions shaped by an inclusive, transparent, and data-driven process? Did the president have the community’s trust beforehand? Did stakeholders believe the decision was necessary? How and when was it communicated, and were the steps leading to it clearly explained? Did it affect jobs, wages, job security, workplace norms, or other deeply valued aspects of campus life? What was the prevailing campus climate—goodwill and satisfaction, or despair and change fatigue—at the time?

Recent examples show presidents drawing both criticism and praise for similar decisions about campus protests and governance. These episodes highlight how the same action can be welcomed on one campus yet resisted on another, depending on context, expectations, and climate.

How does shared governance complicate decision-making in higher education?

Shared governance is built on values like trust, transparency, timeliness, collaboration, communication, and equity. It clarifies the complementary responsibilities—such as providing input, making recommendations, granting approval, or exercising veto authority—that different groups assume as part of the decision-making process. When each group fulfills its defined role, the process can be inclusive and mission-centered.

Complications arise when urgency collides with process. Faculty, staff, students, and boards may all value shared governance, but they move at different speeds and view issues through different lenses. A decision that feels time-sensitive to the administration may feel rushed to faculty, while a carefully deliberated faculty proposal may seem too slow to trustees. These mismatched expectations can create friction, even when all parties are acting in good faith.

In practice, presidents often navigate competing timelines, overlapping expectations, and contested authority. Clear scopes and transparent consultation help, but they cannot eliminate conflict. By design, shared governance slows decision-making in the name of inclusivity—which strengthens outcomes but complicates leadership, especially when crises demand speed.

What kinds of unpopular decisions might a president be forced to make?

The list is long. Examples include: closing low-demand or costly programs, reducing positions, reallocating funds to higher-impact areas, increasing tuition, modifying budget models, enforcing unpopular federal or state policies, implementing furloughs or benefit reductions, or terminating a popular employee. Recent, widely covered program eliminations underscore the intensity of campus and public reaction to such calls.

How can presidents balance long-term institutional health with short-term resistance? 

Presidents must distinguish between opposition rooted in discomfort with change and opposition grounded in legitimate concerns. Balancing both requires pairing clear, evidence-based rationales with visible empathy for those affected. Small wins and incremental steps can help demonstrate progress while keeping the long-term vision intact. Ultimately, the president’s responsibility is to protect the university’s future—even if that means absorbing short-term criticism in service of institutional sustainability.

What does it mean for a president to be in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation?

These are moments when any decision will draw both praise and criticism. No matter what choice is made, one or more groups will be deeply upset. Consider the president who decides to sunset and “teach out” a struggling music performance major. The board, CFO, and others focused on fiscal pressures may support the move as a way to stem a resource drain. At the same time, it is likely to provoke outrage from faculty in the program, alumni who cherished their experience, and students currently enrolled in the major.

In such situations, backlash is unavoidable. The true measure of leadership lies not in universal approval but in whether the decision is made transparently and ethically in the best interest of the overall organization.