Bruce Harreld Holds On at the U. of Iowa. Does That Mean He’s Succeeded?

Bruce Harreld, a former IBM executive, made some bold statements in September 2015 as he touted his candidacy to be president of the University of Iowa.

“I think I can help,” Harreld said during an open forum where he faced a deeply skeptical group of faculty members and students. “If I can’t,” he said, “kick me out of here. Literally kick me out of here because I have better things to do, you have better things to do.”

Nearly four years later, opinions diverge widely on whether Harreld has truly succeeded in leading the university from “great to greater,” as he said when he accepted a five-year contract, paying nearly $600,000 annually, and an opportunity to use his corporate-management experience in academe.

This month the Iowa Board of Regents extended that contract — set to expire in 2020 — for three more years. The regents gave little explanation for their decision at their meeting, saying only that they were trying to preserve stability at Iowa as well as at the state’s two other public universities, where presidents were also reappointed. Michael Richards, president of the board, declined an interview.

“Stability in the university leadership is conducive to a successful implementation of strategic visions at our universities,” Richards said at the meeting, which was recorded.

On the campus Harreld has facilitated major changes in the university’s budget and organization, said Sue Curry, who has served nearly two years as interim provost. Those changes have made the university more efficient and transparent about its spending and have allowed people to collaborate more easily, she said. In addition, Harreld is generally described as an agreeable personality who has championed diversity and inclusion.

Even Harreld’s critics say he is mostly pleasant to deal with. But he has done little to make good on big promises that he made as a candidate for the position, they say, and has failed to overcome the shadow of a controversial search.

“I think he’s the mediocrity we thought he was, not the high-level executive the regents thought he was,” said Katherine H. Tachau, a professor of history and the past president of the campus chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “He came in with no relevant knowledge of the job and still doesn’t know what the job is,” said Tachau.

Through a university spokeswoman, Harreld declined an interview, as he has for every request from The Chronicle.

Making Iowa Greater?

“Great institutions don’t stay where they are; they either go up or down,” Harreld was quoted as saying by the Iowa City Press-Citizen in 2015, when he accepted the position of president. “And I think we have all the opportunity in the world to go from great to greater.”

But in many ways, some external measures of the university’s status remain very much the same as when Harreld took office, in November 2015.

The overall number of students is down just slightly since the fall of 2016, according to university figures. The number of tenured or tenure-track faculty members continues to slide from previous years, though the number of clinical and adjunct faculty members has grown steadily. While some faculty salaries are slated to increase, the average pay for tenure-track positions at Iowa remains near the bottom in comparison with their official peer group.

External research grants have grown, especially prestigious federal scientific awards, but Iowa is still next to last in overall research expenditures compared with peers in the Big Ten Conference, according to the university’s data.

State appropriations are set to rise $7 million, about 3 percent, since the 2018 fiscal year, but they are still 5 percent less than in the year Harreld started. Tuition revenue, however, has gone up more than 13 percent over that time, and the regents have approved an increase of nearly 4 percent for the fall.

The financial challenges led to some delays in raising faculty salaries last year, as well as a freeze in new building projects. But the same issues are facing public flagships across the country with leaders from academic backgrounds.

Curry, the interim provost, acknowledged the fiscal hurdles but said philanthropic gifts to the university have risen during Harreld’s tenure, signaling that donors have faith in the institution and its direction.

She said it’s harder to identify changes that can be more directly attributed to Harreld because the president’s style “is to empower the people on the front lines, not to take the credit and do it all himself.”

The new budget model, for example, gives departments and colleges more responsibility for their revenues and more flexibility in how they spend those dollars. And that has allowed academic leaders to create new programs to earn more money and cut some that are losing dollars, Curry said.

“Do you want to give the credit to the president of the university, do you want to give the credit to the dean of the college, to the chair of the department? It takes a village,” she said.

Campus Climate

Reactions within the university village, however, differ on whether those changes have been positive and who exactly should get the credit or, in some cases, the blame.

A written statement from the leaders of the Faculty Senate gives Harreld good marks for meeting regularly with the group and says he is open to their advice even when they push back against his proposals. “Indeed, we feel entirely comfortable and secure to speak our minds and question his ideas,” the statement says.

The faculty leaders describe the new budgeting model as “more transparent and inclusive.” But they note it is a result of the state’s disinvestment in higher education, not just a way to make the institution more efficient and effective.

While Harreld may listen to faculty advice, Faculty Senate leaders have noted occasions when the administration seemed to ignore their counsel. In particular, the 2018 decision to cut off university funding to several academic units, such as the Labor Center, which provides programs on “practical industrial relations, labor and employment law, occupational health and safety, labor history, communications and leadership, and economics and public policy.”

After protests, the university allowed the center four years to find other sources of revenue.

“Over all, I would describe Harreld’s tenure as characterized by a gap between rhetoric and reality concerning shared governance,” said Loren Glass, a professor of English and the current president of the university’s AAUP chapter.

Outside of Iowa, higher-education experts say the decision to keep Harreld is less of a surprise. Governing-board members tend to have more in common with a president from a political or corporate background than they do with faculty members, said Jon McNaughtan, an assistant professor of educational psychology and leadership at Texas Tech University.

Susan Resneck Pierce, a former president of the University of Puget Sound and a consultant to boards and presidents, said the best practice for boards is to be clear with the public about how they are evaluating a president.

In addition, she said, even if the process is confidential, they should conduct an extensive “360 degree” review. “I don’t know if the board did any of those things,” she said.

So far, neither does anyone outside of the regents. A spokesman for the board said: “Generally, the board and the presidents discuss past performance and future goals.”

If the process was opaque, however, the message from the regents was unambiguous.

“The goal of the Board of Regents is to determine how we can help our universities continue with the current leadership team,” Richards said during the board’s June meeting. “We want to be clear and transparent to all that this is the team we want to be here for now and in the foreseeable future.”

Eric Kelderman writes about money and accountability in higher education, including such areas as state policy, accreditation, and legal affairs. You can find him on Twitter @etkeld, or email him at eric.kelderman@chronicle.com.