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.
