The high turnover rate of chief academic officers is a disturbing but little-known fact in higher education today.
Frequent turnover can hurt institutional planning and a college’s capacity to achieve its strategic goals, especially during these times of economic strain and calls for change within the academy. The role of the CAO, or provost, varies based on a college’s identity and how the president defines the job. But the chief academic officer almost always plays a vital role in shaping and executing the strategic plan, leading the design and refinement of academic programs, and recruiting and retaining faculty members. It takes several years to carry out major planning initiatives associated with institutional strategy, curriculum design, and the faculty. Without stable and effective CAO leadership, making progress toward institutional goals is extremely challenging, if not impossible.
Statistics show that provosts view the job as less stable than in the past: A national study of 323 chief academic officers, conducted by Eduventures Academic Leadership Learning Collaborative, where I worked until recently, found that 43 percent believed provosts were holding their positions for shorter periods of time compared with five years ago. The top three reasons cited were: expanded responsibilities without sufficient resources (57 percent), economic issues at the college (50 percent), and faculty discontent (30 percent). Perhaps as a consequence, 40 percent also said that the job had become less desirable.
A 2009 study of chief academic officers by the American Council on Education found that the average tenure was 4.7 years on the job—less than half that of presidents.
While many factors contribute to CAO’s leaving their jobs, respondents in the Eduventures survey anticipated eventually leaving their current roles for three commonly cited reasons: About one-third predicted they would take a new opportunity as president or chancellor of a different institution; one-third cited retirement; and 21 percent cited the desire to return to teaching and a scholarly career. Others anticipated leaving because of “irreconcilable differences” with the president or an incoming president’s desire to hire new staff members.
David Mead-Fox, who conducts CAO searches for Korn/Ferry International’s education practice, has found attrition to be a real challenge for institutions because there are fewer candidates in the pipeline who are both qualified and interested.
High turnover of chief academic officers takes its toll in several ways. It costs time and money to conduct an effective executive search. Productivity suffers during a transition period because of lost momentum. It takes time for a new provost to build relationships and assess the political and cultural landscape, along with institutional strengths and weaknesses. This is especially true at a time when provosts, in addition to providing leadership on numerous academic and faculty projects, must also deal with such complex issues as the shifting demographics of high-school graduates, the growing presence of online education, the challenging financial environment, and the need to innovate.
The changing demands of the job offer a great opportunity to rethink how chief academic officers should be trained and supported in ways that will promote their longevity and success. One chief academic officer who took part in the Eduventures survey put it this way: “The traditional concept of a provost’s preparation (department head to dean, dean to associate provost, associate provost to provost) is coming to an end. Within the next 10-15 years, I project that provosts will not follow this traditional path, a development as much a product of supply and demand as it will be changes in the expectations of provosts within a market-driven, accountability-focused institution.”
What will the training for such a job entail? Will candidates with proven leadership, planning, and problem-solving abilities be as attractive as candidates who have exceptional records of research and teaching and have effectively managed an academic program? Provosts surveyed in the Eduventures study said the next generation of CAO’s would need skills in seven key areas: leadership (66 percent), change management (56 percent), financial management (47 percent), academic planning (46 percent), strategic planning (46 percent), organizational communication (42 percent), and program development/innovation (40 percent).
Following are recommendations on how to improve training for chief academic officers, made by those who currently hold the position:
Peer collaboration. Regular, facilitated interaction with a peer cohort of provosts could provide a routine way to share ideas and brainstorm. This dialogue could focus on both immediate and longer-term leadership and change-management issues.
Restructuring the performance-review process. This process varies greatly, but many provosts believe there is too little feedback. Of the CAO’s interviewed, over one-fourth said they received no formal feedback on an annual basis. Only 35 percent were required to submit a written self-evaluation as part of their review process, and only 5 percent participated in a midyear review. Given the challenges of the position, institutions should consider revising their evaluation processes to ensure that there is, at minimum, an annual review that includes a written self-evaluation and is tied directly to established goals for the year.
A curriculum for on-the-job development. Formalized, continuing programs that allow provosts to develop necessary new skills would provide a key source of training and support. A regional or systemwide model could leverage the expertise of leaders from other institutions, as well as faculty experts, professional associations, and consultants. Current models include the Institute for Academic Leadership, sponsored by the State University System of Florida, and ACE’s Institute for New Chief Academic Officers. Colleges should consider using existing information technology to facilitate the sharing of information and best practices.
Mentoring and coaching programs. Such programs are common in the corporate world, but less so in higher education. A mentoring program could provide a provost with access to an experienced person—within the institution, or at another college in the area—to act as a supportive guide in professional development. Executive coaches could provide CAO’s with a disinterested third party from outside the college to share objective advice—a “truth speaker,” in the words of Thomas DeLong, a professor of management at Harvard Business School.
Mentoring programs can often be done at low cost, while executive coaches would require an investment from the college.
Higher education has not effectively trained and prepared the next generation of academic leaders. The lack of stability in the chief academic officer’s role over time affects strategic momentum, and should cause higher-education leaders, search committees, and human-resources officials to take pause and consider these and other strategies for developing—and keeping—talented people in academic leadership.
