PanelFinding’sReport
The Pipeline Challenge in Identifying, Recruiting and Supporting New Presidents at Small, Private Colleges and Universities A Panel Presentation and Dialogue A Doctorate of Higher Education Comprehensive Project Thomas R. Horgan New England College August 8, 2013 3:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. For more information about this publication or the August 8, 2013 panel presentation contact: Thomas R. Horgan Doctoral Student Graduate School of Education New England College Henniker, NH [email protected] Table of Contents P. 3 Background Panel Design and Organization P. 6 Proceeding P. 8 P. 10 P. 12 P. 13 Summary Acknowledgements References Page2
BACKGROUND Small, private colleges and universities, both in New England and across the country, are facing increasing and some suggest overwhelming challenges, including: financial viability, declining demographic shifts, rising costs and student debt, increased calls for accountability, declining enrollments and growing questions from key stakeholders concerning institutional ability to meet 21st century needs of students, businesses, and society (Astin, 2004). At the helm of these higher education institutions is the college or university president, who most often is perceived by campus stakeholders (trustees, faculty, administrators, staff, alumni and community leaders) as the single person most critically responsible for the ultimate success and advancement of the institution. Arguably it is from the president’s office where the strategic direction and vision of the institution is determined, where critical communication is generated and the culture of community engagement is endorsed and demonstrated. Some have questioned the real power and importance of presidential leadership in an era of increasing regulation and unionization (Bornstein, 2003) however; the role of the president continues to be seen at the center of institutional success and survival. While many presidents are expected to be influencers and consensus builders, in the end they are expected to be decisive and responsible leaders. Manyarequestioningjust
While significant corporate funding of higher education research, foundation grants and other diverse howmuchlongersmall,
funding sources offer potential alternative sources of privatecollegescanrely
institutional revenue, these resources are often outside the primarilyontuitionsto
reach of the small, private college. At the same time public fundthebulkoftheir
universities are starting to behave more and more like commercial entities, as they respond to massive state undergraduate
funding cuts. Indeed, nearly all university presidents, both operations.
public and private, are by necessity behaving increasingly like businesspersons and less like academics. Presidents at many institutions, both public and private, are even beginning to use the corporate title of chief executive officer (Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. 2003). Increasingly, various institutional constituencies (faculty, staff, board members, students) look to the president as the institution’s chief development officer, responsible for generating substantial and much needed external financial funding to balance the annual operating budget, build the endowment and secure the fiscal future of the college. As institutional costs continue to rise and resources become more precious, the role of the college president in securing external funding has become a paramount responsibility; one that most presidents recognize requires their attention and personal involvement Page3
As small private higher education institutions are facing a variety of challenges, there is a disturbing decline in the number of qualified candidates willing to seek the presidency (Fain, 2004) and an increase in the turn‐over in the tenure of presidents (Padilla, 2004). Additionally, the average age of college presidents has risen in recent years. “In 1986, when ACE first conducted its survey of presidents, 42 percent of campus leaders were 50 or under, and only 14 percent were 61 or older. By 2006, nearly half of presidents (49.3 percent) were 61 and over, and the new ACE survey shows that percentage rising to 58 percent in 2011. (ACE 2012) Traditionally, higher education institutions have looked to their provosts and chief academic officers as the pipeline of new presidents and they have represented the historic norm. Indications are that this talent pool may not provide the number of candidates it has in the past. In fact, less than one in four chief academic officers at small and mid‐sized colleges intends to ever seek a presidential appointment. Reasons for avoiding the presidential career tracks include the perceived unappealing nature of the work and the increasingly unrealistic demands of the position (Hartley and Godin 2009). Today nearly one‐third of college presidents have never been faculty members, and 20 percent come from outside of academe. Those proportions are rising and will continue to rise. With provosts increasingly saying they don't want to be presidents, search committees will have little choice but to consider candidates from nontraditional backgrounds (Selingo, J., 2013, March 4). If fewer traditional candidates are on the horizon to become college presidents then the likelihood is that increasingly nontraditional candidates will emerge as viable, and perhaps even desirable, alternatives to more traditional candidates. With increased presidential turnover, there are apparently fewer traditional candidates available to interview. Compounding the problem is an aging demographic of current presidents which is resulting in a small, but significant, increase in reliance on “nontraditional” presidential candidates willing to serve, especially as the president at small, private colleges and universities. In 2011, it was reported that twenty eight percent of private college and university presidents came from outside higher education, compared with only fourteen percent of all presidents in the public sector (ACE 2012). It is likely that the increased appointment of nontraditional candidates to lead higher education institutions, in general, and at small, private institutions in particular, will develop into a significant and growing trend in the years ahead. While the majority of new college and university presidents still come from the traditional academic pathway to the corner office, increasingly new presidents are being identified from other Page4
leadership roles, both on and off campus. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in 2012 that fifty six percent of the presidents appointed that year were from more non‐traditional positions. Typically, a nontraditional president would be someone who came to the position from outside of the academe. This might mean someone from business, politics or another non‐profit leadership position. While there is not a definitive definition of what constitutes a nontraditional president, for this research study it was determined to use the description offered by Birnbaum and Umbach. In their study of the president they proposed that to be considered a nontraditional president one would need to meet at least one of the following requirements: (1) have no faculty experience; (2) not hold a doctorate degree, or (3) come from a position outside of the academy (Birnbaum and Umbach 2001). While much has been written and researched about college presidents in general terms, especially their various leadership styles, their aging demographics and their rising salaries, little appears to have been undertaken to examine the career paths of nontraditional college presidents, particularly at small, private colleges and universities. This panel examined the phenomenon of the unique pathways, key success factors and common characteristics found in the current and potential pipeline of candidates for the presidency at small private colleges and universities. Page5
OnAugust8,2013apanelofleadinghighereducationprofessionalsofferedinsightsintothis
pipelineleadershipchallenge.Therediscussionincludedthoughtsonstrategiesforidentifying,
recruitingandsupportingthenextgenerationofpresidentsatsmall,privatecollegesand
universities.Theyalsosuggestedwaysinwhichvariousstakeholderscansupportpresidentsin
meetingthediversechallengesofhighereducationleadership.
PANEL DESIGN AND ORGANIZATION Thomas R. Horgan, a doctoral candidate at New England College in Henniker, NH coordinated a panel discussion of leading higher education experts as part of Horgan’s Comprehensive Project requirement. The panel discussion was held on August 8, 2013 at 3:00 PM and adjourned at 4:30 PM. An audience of colleague doctoral students, New England College faculty members, and invited guests attended the session. The audience was welcomed by the Director of the Doctorate of Education Program, Dr. Gavin Henning. Dr. Wayne Lesperance, a faculty member and Chair of the Center for Civic Engagement at New England College provided opening comments. Dr. Lesperance also serves as the Chair of Mr. Horgan’s Doctoral Committee. Panel members included: Jim Murtha, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board of Trustees at New England College in Henniker, NH and is Chairman and CEO of Maguire Associates, a research‐based consulting firm serving educational institutions and located in Concord, MA. Dr. Murtha has held senior roles in both public and private institutions of higher learning for over thirty years, with extensive experience in finance, budgeting, enrollment management and human resources. Beginning in 1998 he served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of The New School in New York’s Greenwich Village. At the end of his New School tenure, Jim served as special advisor to the President, focusing on construction and real estate matters. In 1995, he joined Baruch College as Vice President for Administration, where he managed several rounds of New York State imposed budget reductions, modernized technology, and collaborated with the provost to expand the College’s summer offerings. He guided the launch of a 450,000 square foot vertical campus construction project, which now provides Baruch’s students and faculty a state‐of‐the art educational, recreational, and performing arts facility. Jim has served as an adjunct faculty member at Columbia University, Queens College (CUNY), St. John’s University, and Baruch. In fall 2011, he rejoined the Baruch faculty to teach The Finance of Higher Education course in the College’s master’s program in the Higher Education Administration program. He also serves as a member of the advisory board of the Institute for Irish American Studies at the City University of New York. Page6
Father Jonathan DeFelice, O.S.B., served as president of Saint Anselm College for 24 years, retiring in July of 2013. A member of the Benedictine community that founded the college, Father Jonathan is also a graduate of the college's Class of 1969. Before becoming president of Saint Anselm College he served his alma mater as a faculty member and in a number of important administrative roles, including Vice President of Student Affairs. Under his leadership, the college has embarked on ambitious planning and development programs to strengthen its highly‐regarded liberal arts reputation as New England's third oldest Catholic college. Father Jonathan is a passionate advocate for Saint Anselm's mission that seeks to balance the academic, spiritual, and extracurricular lives of its students, while graduating men and women who go on to lead creative and generous lives. He was instrumental in the founding of The New Hampshire institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, a “must stop” destination for any national candidate running for president. Father Jonathan is the co‐founder of the nationwide Association of Benedictine Colleges and Universities is a member of the Board of Trustees of Rivier University, St. John’s International University (Torino), and the American University of Madaba (Jordan). He has served on several other national Boards. Katherine Haley, Ph.D., is an executive search consultant within Witt/Kieffer’s higher education and not‐for‐profit national practice. Dr. Haley conducts senior leadership searches, particularly at the presidential level, on behalf of colleges and universities across the country. She brings a wealth of personal experience and first‐hand knowledge of today’s higher education landscape to her executive search practice. Prior to joining Witt/Kieffer, Kate served as the first woman president of Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA. She has also held the positions of president of Whittier College, Whittier, CA; provost and professor of English at Kenyon College in Gambier, OH; and dean of graduate study and director of general education at Augustana College in Sioux Falls, SD. Active in a number of associations that seek to improve the state of higher education, she has served as chair of the Annapolis Group, the professional organization of the presidents of the nation’s leading liberal arts colleges, and as the co‐chair of the Pennsylvania Lincoln Bi‐
Centennial Commission. Kate has also served on the boards of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), the Council of Independent Colleges (CIC), the Eisenhower Public Policy Institute, the Lincoln Prize Board, the Gettysburg Foundation and many other regional and national non‐profit boards. Michele Perkins, Ed.D., brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to her position as the 15th president of New England College, with a record of stellar higher education leadership and transformation. Since her appointment as president in 2007, her tenure has been marked by renewed strategic and campus planning, curriculum innovation, compensation review, financial well‐being, and enhanced external support. Thanks to her implementation of an integrated process of optimal enrollment planning, New England College has grown to more than 2,000 students — the highest enrollment in the College’s history. New England College is now also Page7
nationally recognized for its programs in civic engagement and experiential learning, just recently announcing plans for a twelve month campus experience. A co‐founder of the National Association of Graduate Admissions Professionals (NAGAP; formerly NEAGAP), Dr. Perkins serves on a number of boards and advisory groups in higher education. She is the chair of the New Hampshire College & University Council and of Campus Compact for New Hampshire; the treasurer of the New Hampshire Commission for Higher Education; and a board member of the Council for Independent Colleges, the NCAA Division III Financial Aid Committee, and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities Business Education Task Force. PROCEEDINGS Tom Horgan opened the session by asking the panelists to offer comments on the following question: What Do You Perceive to Be the Major Challenges Confronting Small, Private Colleges in Identifying and Selecting Candidates to Serve as Presidents at Small, Private Higher Education Institutions, and What Advice Would You Offer to Institutions in Supporting These New Presidents Once They Are Appointed? Panelists offered an array of comments in response, including: Jim Murtha stated that many factors intersect to pose major challenges to small, private colleges as they try to identify and select future leaders. The demographics of presidential retirements set the frame for these challenges, leading us to wonder if there will be enough willing and talented people to adequately fill an inevitably growing number of vacancies. Michele Perkins commented that the combination of fewer people who are qualified to serve as presidents, and those willing to take on the challenges of the presidency, are declining. There is an increased need for presidents who can work outside the box. And, the very nature of searches – often being so public – has had a definite impact on who is willing to be a candidate. Kate Haley suggested that Board members at any college or university need to recognize that their most important job is the appointment of the president. This means Boards must be clear about the high expectations they have for presidents and recognize that they often expect the president to have “all the answers” even though this is simply not possible. This desire for the impossible increasingly leads Boards to seek candidates who think outside the box, while still having a “calling” to the presidency. Fr. Jonathan focused on the need for presidential candidates to understand the unique mission of a college and the importance of expectations between the Board and the president to be aligned. He went on to discuss the need for the “right fit” for the institution. He offered as an example that if a Page8
candidate does not want to live in New England, then an institution located in New England will never be the “right institution”. Other themes included, “letting the president lead, make presidential transitions as joyful as possible, and respect for the president’s time.” The panel went on to discuss how presidential candidates are recruited and how Boards assess candidates. Kate Haley suggested that increasingly Boards are utilizing assessment tools in presidential searches to determine if a candidate has the right motives, personality, values and skills. The panel agreed that there is general awareness of the impending talent shortage, while at the same time Boards appear to be spending more time on developing succession plans. Jim Murtha commented that the New England College Board has discussed the eventual succession decision that will someday need to be implemented, while at the same time hoping that President Perkin’s will stay for a very long time. It was suggested that this is not always a smooth process, as higher education is famous for not being well prepared for successions. The demands on the presidency were discussed, with Fr. Jonathan commenting on how different the job is today, compared to when he began, almost a quarter of a century earlier. He proposed that technology, unquestionably, has been the most dramatic change. Yet, the complexity of the job has also grown. Kate Haley cited the need for presidents to be increasingly knowledgeable of business and finance issues, as never before, to have experience in enrollment management, and of course, lots of experience and a personal interest in fundraising. After an hour and fifteen minutes of moderated questions, Tom Horgan opened the session up for audience questions. Audience members sought first to clarify the question of “fit”. Fr. Jonathan mentioned that while a candidate may look terrific on paper, the reality is that once they come to campus it becomes clearer, very quickly, if the candidate will work well with the institution, the community and within institutional expectations. While fit is elusive, it is critically important. Kate Haley commented that each institution has its own unique characteristics and the truth is you “know a good fit when you see it”. Michele Perkins offered that the right fit is important for the trustees as well. A president must have a strong relationship, not only with the campus community but with the trustees. In response to a question on “presidential illusions” panelists responded that “power is more of an illusion than a reality” for many presidents. And, for a president to move an institution forward, and not tear it apart in the process, it takes leadership that has the right skill set at the right time. It was suggested that in fact, “not everyone can be a president”. Michele Perkins offered thoughts regarding the special skill set requirements for a president, including those good presidents must be knowledgeable of every aspect of the core business of the organization. Page9
While no one can know everything, the reality is you can learn enough to be effective and it’s important to “know what you are selling”. On the subject of what is there to “love” about being president, there was agreement among the panelists that a president can implement important and positive change on an institution; can be an effective change agent; and actually gets to occasionally say “Yes”. A question was raised on how presidents protect themselves professionally? There was consensus among the panel that a president needs to use their power very carefully, not reacting emotionally and building their political capitol over time – and then ultimately spending it very wisely. In response to a question on leadership at religious institutions, Fr. Jonathan commented on the special needs of religious colleges and universities and their increasing reliance on lay leaders. He offered that while this is a definite change, it can in fact be very positive. Following this vigorous and engaging discussion, Tom Horgan announced that the allotted time for the panel session had ended, but suggested that audience members were welcome to ask follow‐up questions directly to the panelists immediately following the close. The panel members were thanked for their time, their insights and their frank discussion of the topic. SUMMARY On a beautiful summer day (August 8, 2013) on the campus of New England College in Henniker, NH, a group of leading higher education professionals gathered to discuss their unique perspectives and impressions on the pipeline challenge in identifying, recruiting and supporting new presidents at small, private colleges and universities. The audience members were from three cohorts of students enrolled in the Doctorate of Education program at New England College attending the 2013 August Residency. Other faculty members and guests were also in attendance. The panel members addressed the critical question of the projected shortage in the presidential pipeline that will arguably confront American higher education over the next several years, perhaps at a level and pace never before experienced by the postsecondary community. The questions presented during this session, and the answers provided, offered a unique and insightful glimpse into the various challenges, opportunities and strategies likely to emerge during this historic period. While interest by traditional candidates in becoming a college or university president is reportedly waning, and with Board interest in candidates who “think outside the box” on the rise, the consensus seemed to be that the skills needed to lead a higher education institution is perhaps more difficult to secure than ever before. Being a leader who can “do it all” appears to mean that a successful Page10
president must not only be the “right fit” for the institution, but must be a talented generalist who can address all the various needs of the institution, be a genuine change agent, a skilled financial manager, and a talented and successful fund raiser. With all this on the “must have” list for presidential candidates is it any wonder that many chief academic officers have simply concluded that the job is increasingly less attractive? However, if the number of applications submitted by candidates seeking a presidency is any indication, there appears to be no real shortage of willing candidates who think they would make a good president. Interestingly, these candidates are coming increasingly from the development offices on campuses, or from outside of higher education. Will this trend continue as a large number of sitting presidents prepare to retire, or will candidates come from ever more widely diverse backgrounds and even from outside the academy? While the panel did not have time to address this question, they did highlight several important factors in both identifying and supporting presidents at small, private colleges and universities. The idea of finding candidates with the right “fit” was among the most significant questions raised, for without the right fit there was general agreement that little else is likely to matter. Additionally, the need for “joyful” presidential transitions was raised as an issue that receives too little attention in the discussion of presidential transitions. Finally, the need for Boards and the entire campus community to be prepared for presidential succession was also addressed. The panel discussion offered an opportunity to hear from a group consisting of a college board chair, a sitting president, an executive search consultant and a recently retired and long sitting small, private college president. These experts offered comments based on a combined one hundred years plus of experience in leadership of small private colleges. The panel findings offered guidance and advise worthy of consideration from any higher education institution concerned with presidential leadership, transitions and success. In addition to this panel finding’s report, this session was videotaped and will be available on social media sites for review. Page11
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS Special thanks are offered to each of the panelists who took their personal time to participate in this comprehensive project program. Their individual and collective comments and insights provided immeasurably to the quality and depth of the discussion. Jim Murtha offered unique perspectives as both a higher education professional and as the current chair of a small, private college board. Fr. Jonathan DeFelice took time away from his vacation to participate and his perspective as a college president for over twenty‐four years was both enlightening and engaging. Kate Haley, with insights offered as a former college president and as a current senior executive search consultant, added insights from two very distinct and important higher education professional viewpoints. Michele Perkins, the only panelist currently serving as a college president, was particularly generous in hosting the panel on her campus, in offering her own perceptions on the challenges and opportunities confronting presidents and the challenges and opportunities emerging for small, private colleges in our nation. Committee Chair, Wayne Lesperance, offered critical guidance, support and encouragement throughout the development and execution of this comprehensive project. He was instrumental in ensuring the success of the presentation, down to the smallest of details. Gavin Henning, Director of the New England College Doctorate of Education Program, was also very helpful in securing the panel location and assisting in logistics. Thanks also to Jim Walsh and George Hagerty for their support as members of my Dissertation Committee. Page12
REFERENCES American Council for Education. (2012). The American college president: 2011 edition (10th ed.). Washington, DC. Astin, A. W. (2004, February 20). “Tying tuition to the CPI: Why it doesn't add up.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, B20. Birnbaum, R., & Umbach, P. D. (2001, Spring). Scholar, steward, spanner, stranger: The four career paths of college presidents. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 203‐217. Bornstein, R. (2003). Legitimacy in the academic presidency. Westport: Praeger Publishers. Chronicle of Higher Education (2005, November 4). What presidents think about higher education, their jobs, and their lives, A25‐A39. Hartley, H., Godin, E. (2009). A study of career patterns of the president of independent colleges and universities. Washington, D.C. Council of Independent Colleges Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge workbook. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. Padilla, A. (2004). Passing the baton: Leadership transitions and the tenure of presidents Selingo, J. (2013, March 4). As colleges evolve, so must their presidents. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/As‐Colleges‐Evolve‐So‐Must/137635/ Page13