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.
