Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
The Review

How Trustees Can Do Better at Presidential Transitions

By Clara M. Lovett November 6, 2016
How Trustees Can Do Better at Presidential Transitions 1
David Cutler for The Chronicle

Presidential transitions at colleges and universities typically do not receive much media attention, unless they occur in the context of scandals or controversies. The recent and fairly extensive coverage of the presidential transition at the University of Dayton is an exception to the rule. It also might be a harbinger of change in how leadership transitions occur in higher education, and in how governing boards manage them.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Presidential transitions at colleges and universities typically do not receive much media attention, unless they occur in the context of scandals or controversies. The recent and fairly extensive coverage of the presidential transition at the University of Dayton is an exception to the rule. It also might be a harbinger of change in how leadership transitions occur in higher education, and in how governing boards manage them.

The University of Dayton’s recent transition was newsworthy precisely because it did not conform to the common pattern. Predictably for a presidential search, the chosen candidate came from outside the institution; he was not the product of an internal leadership pipeline. However, this new president was not handed the keys to the institution after his predecessor had vacated the president’s office and residence. Nor did the new appointee have to rely on an interim president who might or might not have been a well-informed and well-intentioned guide to the institution’s strengths and weaknesses. The new appointee was asked to work with the retiring president for a period of many months before starting his own tenure.

The University of Dayton’s transition was not just civilized and orderly: It was planned. Dayton’s trustees did not leave the stage after choosing the new CEO and wishing him good luck. They remained engaged to ensure that, to the greatest possible extent, the new appointee would be well prepared for his role on Day 1. The role required understanding the goals of the governing board for the institution and a commitment to meet those goals.

Dayton’s trustees, it appears, practiced their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and obedience in a way that is uncommon in the governance of higher education. Those principles, clearly spelled out by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, have both legal and ethical dimensions.

Trustees of for-profit companies, whether privately held or publicly traded, have strong incentives to recruit new members who understand those principles and to review annually how well the board as a whole and its chief executive practice those principles. Failure to abide by them can have grave consequences for the corporation itself and for individual trustees.

In contrast, many higher-education boards, especially politically appointed ones, do little to brief new members about their fiduciary duties. They do not review their collective practices on a regular basis, or they do so fitfully, sometimes when confronted with crises such as financial shortfalls or the sudden departure of a chief executive.

Why does this happen? What might higher-education leaders do to ensure that Dayton-style presidential transitions become the norm rather than the exception?

Skeptics might observe that Dayton’s trustees were in a privileged position: a successful presidency, a successful search that produced a candidate well attuned to the culture of the institution, and no major crises on the horizon. This is true, of course. But it is also true that most presidential transitions occur under similar, generally benign circumstances. Yet most boards of trustees seem unable to capitalize on their good fortune. They disengage too early from the transition process and fail to plan a meaningful agenda for the new appointee.

What are the consequences of this behavior over time and across the spectrum of higher-education institutions? Part of the answer may be found in examining those very short presidential tenures that ended in terminations or involuntary resignations.

While serving as scholar in residence at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni in 2014-15, I reviewed about 30 examples of presidential tenures that ended three years or less after the initial appointment. A couple of them ended due to death or grave illness; a handful of others involved documented personal misconduct or financial malfeasance. But most very short tenures occurred against a background of conflict and distrust between governing boards and new appointees.

ADVERTISEMENT

Academic institutions generally take pride in the deliberate, participatory, and inevitably lengthy process by which new presidents are chosen. This process should, and in many cases does, lead to a low margin of error. Yet errors do occur, and they are inevitably painful. Conflicts between trustees and new CEOs are always destabilizing; for fragile institutions they can be devastating.

Even the most elaborate and participatory search process will not produce good outcomes when those who have legal as well as ethical fiduciary responsibility for an institution fail to understand or to practice their duties.

The most common mistakes? First, trustees begin the presidential-search process without solid data about the institution, its comparative strengths and weaknesses, and its prospects in a complex higher-education universe. Most trustees understand the importance of data, but they convince themselves that “the right person” will figure out what there is to figure out, and go from there.

Second, trustees get strong signals from various constituencies inside their institutions, and sometimes from their own management team, that they are expected first and foremost to be cheerleaders and checkwriters. They are not always clear which functions they can safely delegate to their staff (if they have any) or to campus-based officials. Trustees do routinely delegate two very critical functions: the searches for senior management and the formulation of strategic plans.

ADVERTISEMENT

Two assumptions underlie the now ubiquitous delegation of presidential searches and strategic planning to hired consultants, and both have far-reaching implications for the governance of higher education.

One assumption benefits consulting firms in general and executive-search firms in particular. It is that the best help to resolve institutional issues comes from the outside. Uncritical acceptance of this assumption explains why academic institutions are much less likely to develop internal leadership pipelines than are corporations, although they have as much or more untapped human capital available. Even leadership-training programs, like the American Council on Education’s Fellows Program, tend to groom successful applicants to pursue opportunities outside their home institutions.

A second assumption is that the talent pool for prospective CEOs is small and shrinking. In support of this assumption, executive-search firms cite the number of baby-boomer presidents who are approaching retirement age. The assumption that a wave of retirements translates into a scarcity of available talent is questionable at best. In the past 20 years, the higher-education universe has expanded steadily in size, institutional types and missions, and demographic diversity. The potential talent pool is larger and deeper than it has ever been.

When selecting and working with new chief executives, most higher-education trustees can and should do better. If circumstances at their institutions suggest the need for major changes of strategy and direction, including the recruitment of visionary, “break the mold” CEOs, governing boards should expect to be fully engaged in the recruitment process and to remain engaged for some time after they have selected the new leader.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sustained engagement over weeks and months is onerous, of course, but the payoff is clear: stronger institutions, and sometimes a bonus — those favorable media stories money can’t buy.

Clara M. Lovett is president emerita of Northern Arizona University.

A version of this article appeared in the November 11, 2016, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

Video: U. of Dayton Stretches Out Presidential Transition
A Preordained Presidential Pick Gives Rise to a New Governance Battle
Inside a Presidential Search
More Public Colleges Opt for Closed Presidential Searches
Anatomy of a Search

More News

Marva Johnson is set to take the helm of Florida A&M University this summer.
Leadership & governance
‘Surprising': A DeSantis-Backed Lobbyist Is Tapped to Lead Florida A&M
Students and community members protest outside of Coffman Memorial Union at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, on Tuesday, April 23, 2024.
Campus Activism
One Year After the Encampments, Campuses Are Quieter and Quicker to Stop Protests
Hoover-NBERValue-0516 002 B
Diminishing Returns
Why the College Premium Is Shrinking for Low-Income Students
Harvard University
'Deeply Unsettling'
Harvard’s Battle With Trump Escalates as Research Money Is Suddenly Canceled

From The Review

Illustration showing a valedictorian speaker who's tassel is a vintage microphone
The Review | Opinion
A Graduation Speaker Gets Canceled
By Corey Robin
Illustration showing a stack of coins and a university building falling over
The Review | Opinion
Here’s What Congress’s Endowment-Tax Plan Might Cost Your College
By Phillip Levine
Photo-based illustration of a college building under an upside down baby crib
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Must Stop Infantilizing Everyone
By Gregory Conti

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin