Governing Boards: More About Models of Interim Presidencies

Last week I posted a short article to college and university governing boards about the strategic options at their disposal when considering the appointment of an interim president (see https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/governing-boards-when-considering-interim-presidency-myers-phd/?trackingId=1pQH9IeOSl%2B0QGCKyCjxdA%3D%3D). In summary, boards might consider appointing a "seat warmer," a "clear the decks" change agent, or a "try before you buy" interim who might/could/should be a candidate for the permanent position.

As a followup to those options and how they should be framed and considered by boards, and given their pros and cons, boards might also consider some combination of all three models, a kind of "a little bit of this, a little of that" ... with careful consideration.

A "little bit of this, a little bit of that" approach to appointing an interim president presents both opportunities and challenges. The wisdom of such a mixed strategy often lies in the specifics of the institution’s situation, its culture, and its long-term strategic goals. It also greatly depends upon where the board resides on the "effective governance" continuum of evolution. Here's how I see it:

Advantages:

1. Flexibility: This mixed approach allows a governing board to adapt to emerging challenges and opportunities without being confined to a single modality of leadership.
2. Balance: Combining elements from different approaches could provide a balanced leadership style that addresses both immediate concerns and long-term strategy.
3. Stakeholder Engagement: A multifaceted role could facilitate better relations with various internal and external stakeholders by meeting a broader range of expectations.

Challenges:

1. Role Confusion: The lack of a clear mandate for an interim president can lead to confusion not just for the interim president but also for faculty, staff, and the board itself. This could hinder effective governance and decision-making.
2. Performance Assessment: A mixed approach complicates the metrics for evaluating the interim president's performance, as they may be expected to wear too many hats.
3. Community Perception: A lack of clarity in the interim president's role could be unsettling for the institution's community, leading to speculation, disengagement, or resistance to leadership.

Critical Considerations:

1. Clear Communication: If a mixed approach is chosen, the board must be exceptionally clear in its communication with the interim president and the wider community about what is expected.
2. Periodic Reviews: More frequent performance reviews may be necessary to assess whether the mixed approach is serving its intended purposes and to make course corrections as needed.
3. Stakeholder Buy-in: Achieving broad consensus or at least understanding among key stakeholders for a multifaceted role can alleviate some challenges.

The risk of a mixed approach is that it can dilute focus and generate ambiguity, making it vital to approach it with rigorous strategic planning and continuous assessment. The board’s governance capabilities and maturity would significantly impact the success of such a nuanced approach. This is not an approach for a board whose record is one of dysfunction, meddling, disengagement from the governance playing field, or of "churning presidents." Even for those boards that can rightly claim "maturity" on the evolutionary scale of effective governance, a mixed approach requires exemplary board leadership.

Robert (Skip) Myers, PhD, is Director of Casagrande Consulting's Board Effectiveness Practice and provides advice and counsel to private college and university boards and their presidents to optimize their collective effectiveness.

?