Leading Through Change: The Evolving Landscape of College and University Presidents

College and university presidents bear the responsibility of charting the course for their institutions, administering academic programs, managing financial resources, fundraising, and nurturing relationships with a multitude of stakeholders (Rudolph, 2021). Furthermore, they act as the public embodiment of their institutions, advocating for and representing the institution in diverse settings, including interactions with government officials, industry leaders, and the media.

Historically, school presidents were predominantly perceived as academic leaders and scholars entrusted with the stewardship of their institutions' educational missions (Bowen & Shapiro, 2021). There, however, has been a shift in the presidential role, expanding to incorporate a variety of additional responsibilities while simultaneously contending with intensified competition between institutions and addressing the burgeoning importance of external stakeholders (Bowen & Shapiro, 2021). This metamorphosis in the role of presidents highlights the dynamic character of contemporary higher education leadership and the escalating intricacy of their obligations.

Duties and Responsibilities

A study conducted by the American Council on Education (2017) collected responses from 1,546 presidents, chancellors, and chief executives of public, private, not-for-profit, and for-profit institutions. Presidents reported allocating a significant portion of their time to various areas of responsibility. A majority (65%) identified budget and financial management as the primary area that consumed most of their time, followed by fundraising (50.1%), enrollment management (41.7%), ensuring diversity and equity (33.6%), and addressing academic concerns (29.3%).? Additionally, presidents identified several key challenges that help explain how they spend their time. Presidents overwhelmingly agreed that their biggest frustration was never having enough money (61%), which was 16 percentage points higher than their second largest frustration, faculty resistance to change. Perhaps relatedly, 27% of presidents identified campus politics as an area of frustration (ACE, 2017).

Recent Presidential Surveys

In recent years, extensive surveys have been conducted to gain insights into the perspectives and experiences of college and university presidents. One of the larger studies, carried out by the American Council on Education (ACE) in 2023, received responses from over 1,000 presidents. This large-scale survey aimed to better understand the complexities of the presidential role, as well as the challenges and opportunities faced by higher education institutions. Another recent survey conducted by Inside Higher Ed (2023), included responses from 442 presidents representing public, private nonprofit, and for-profit colleges. This study provided valuable insights into the challenges and priorities faced by these higher education leaders.

In 2016, Gallup conducted a survey with 663 college and university presidents to evaluate the success of a college president. Other presidential studies and surveys have also been informative, including Aspen Institute's 2017 report and the Chronicle of Higher Education's various surveys and studies of presidents. While these comprehensive studies may not encompass a vast number of interviews, they nonetheless have contributed to a deeper understanding of the evolving landscape of higher education presidents and the complexity of their roles.

Path to Presidency

The ACE (2023) survey inquired about the immediate past positions of presidents before assuming their presidential roles. Among the respondents, 61% previously served at a different higher education institution, 30% at the same institution they were leading at the time of the survey, and 9% held a position outside of higher education. Presidents chose the career path that best represented their experience: 54% identified as faculty or academic, while 28% identified as a career administrative leader (e.g., student affairs officer, auxiliary services, finance). Presidents, on average, aspired to their roles at age 44, applied at just under 50, and were appointed to their first presidency at just shy of 52.? Their highest degree earned was predominantly a doctorate (84%), master's degree (6%), and a juris doctorate (6%). Most presidents had backgrounds in education, social sciences, humanities, and fine arts, with some specializing in law, business, or biological sciences (ACE, 2023). In 2022, the average tenure for a president was 5.9 years, 2.6 years less than in 2006. Male presidents typically held their positions for about a year longer than presidents of color or female presidents (ACE, 2023).

On average, female presidents aspired, applied, and were appointed to their positions later in life than men. Women, however, experienced shorter time frames between aspiration and application, as well as between application and appointment, compared to men.

Perceptions of the Future

According to the Inside Higher Ed (2023) survey, most presidents expressed confidence in their institution's financial stability over the next 5 to 10 years. Over three-quarters "somewhat agreed" or "strongly agreed" that they were confident in their institution's financial stability over the next five (83%) and ten (78%) years. More than half of the presidents believed their institution was more financially stable at the time of the survey than it was in 2019. Furthermore, most campus leaders expected their institution to be better off in 12 months, with 58% agreeing (20% strongly) that their institution would be more financially stable in the future (Inside Higher Ed, 2023).

The survey also revealed that most presidents reported their institutions had not had serious discussions about merging with another college or university in the past year. Additionally, 71% of presidents indicated their institution had not discussed consolidating some of their operations (shared services) with another college or university. Presidents were twice as likely (18% to 9%) to say they were at least "somewhat" likely to acquire another institution in the next five years than to say they would be acquired or merge into another college. Interestingly, over a quarter of presidents (27%) believed their institution should consider merging with another college or university in the next five years (Inside Higher Ed, 2023).

Perceptions of Challenges

According to Inside Higher Ed (2023), over 36% of presidents reported being "very" or "extremely worried" about the turnover rate of faculty and staff at their institution. A vast majority of presidents believed that a significant cause of turnover at their institution was competitive offers from other employers. More than half of the presidents indicated natural career progression (55%) and burnout (52%) were major causes of turnover. Slightly over half of the respondents (52%) indicated that their institution had modified employment policies in ways that allowed employees more latitude to work remotely after the COVID-19 pandemic ended.??

Fewer than half of the presidents revealed that digital transformation was at least a "high priority" for leaders at their institution. Most presidents, however, indicated that digital transformation efforts at their institution, as it related to data/student success (83%) and leveraging student data for better learning and retention insights (82%), were of "high priority" or "essential” (Inside Higher Ed, 2023). Only 10% of presidents reported their institutions would be going "back to normal" after the COVID-19 pandemic and that their schools would resume operating as they had in the past (Inside Higher Ed, 2023). Two in five presidents revealed their institution had utilized the COVID-19 pandemic period to make challenging but transformative changes in their core structure and operations to better position themselves for long-term security.?

Measuring Presidential Success

Presidential job performance is primarily evaluated by an institution’s governing board.? Such boards are typically responsible for evaluating presidential performance through regular assessments that cover various aspects of a president's role (ACTA, 2003).? According to the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, presidential performance evaluations should focus on various aspects, including vision, mission, and strategies; the accomplishment of board objectives; academic leadership and management; administrative management and leadership; budget and finance; fundraising; relations with the board; external relations; and personal and leadership qualities. By assessing these areas, the board can gain a comprehensive understanding of the president's performance, identify strengths and weaknesses, and develop strategies for improvement.?

Gallup (2016) conducted a survey of 663 college and university presidents that identified factors for evaluating the success of a college president. According to the respondents, key indicators included student enrollment (68%), ensuring graduates have the skills necessary to find jobs in their field (66%), and student retention rates (63%) as "extremely important" factors in measuring success. Smaller majorities considered graduation rates (55%) and student engagement (52%) extremely important. All presidents reported that they annually monitored and discussed student enrollment, and nearly all tracked persistence (97%), which was central to the retention evaluation factor that presidents felt was extremely important to their success. Almost as many reported that they obtained information on whether graduates had found employment and whether their employment was in a? graduate's chosen field (89% and 86%, respectively).

Shared Governance

The history of shared governance in higher education dates to medieval European universities, which were often organized as self-governing communities of scholars. In the United States, shared governance emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as institutions expanded and became more complex organizations. The American Association of University Professors played a significant role in advocating for shared governance, particularly in response to academic freedom concerns in the early 1900s (Pierce, 2014).

Over the years, shared governance has evolved in response to various factors, such as the increasing complexity of higher education institutions, changing expectations of stakeholders, and shifts in funding and regulatory environments. In contemporary settings, shared governance is a collaborative decision-making model in higher education institutions that involves various stakeholders such as faculty, administrators, staff, and sometimes students (Shapiro, 2021). This model allows these stakeholders to participate in the development and implementation of policies, procedures, and strategies that shape an institution's direction and operations. Shared governance promotes transparency, accountability, and engagement among different members of the campus community, fostering a sense of ownership and commitment to the institution's goals and objectives (Pierce, 2014).?

According to Shapiro (2016), shared governance has created certain challenges, such as inefficiency, ambiguity in roles, power struggles, resistance to change, lack of accountability, limited representation, and external pressures. Decision-making can be slow due to the involvement of multiple stakeholders, and unclear responsibilities can create confusion and conflict (Pierce, 2014). Power struggles may arise between various groups, and resistance to change can hinder innovation. Furthermore, shared governance may suffer from inadequate accountability and underrepresentation of diverse perspectives. Lastly, external factors can impact the functioning of shared governance, leading to top-down decision-making that undermines its core principles (Aspen Institute, 2017). Despite these issues, shared governance remains a vital aspect of higher education that requires continuous reflection and adaptation. Pierce (2014) argues the traditional concept of shared governance, as it has been generally understood and practiced since 1966, is now under threat on many campuses. Some believe that the very notion of shared governance is no longer viable. Many presidents share this view and are making decisions, including those affecting academic programs, more quickly than was traditionally the case. At times, presidents have done so without full or even any consultation with other stakeholders. As a result, faculty and others have expressed they feel they no longer have a say in academic matters or matters of institutional significance and, at times, have publicly protested presidential and even governing board decisions.?

In Conclusion

The role of institutional presidents has undergone significant transformation over time, expanding to include a diverse array of responsibilities that extend beyond the traditional academic focus. In the current higher education landscape, university presidents must skillfully manage finances, engage in fundraising efforts, promote diversity, and maintain academic quality. Recent surveys and data reveal the numerous challenges faced by university presidents, including financial stability, competitive pressures, and achieving work-life balance. Measuring the success of a postsecondary president is a complex task, requiring regular evaluations by the board of trustees to gauge their performance and identify areas for improvement. As the higher education environment continues to evolve, it is crucial for postsecondary presidents to adapt their leadership approaches and respond to shared governance mandates and strategies to address the increasing demands and expectations placed on them.

Abstract

Abstract The purpose of the study was to explore Rural-Serving Institutions (RSI) presidents' perceptions regarding the threats and potential solutions that can keep their institutions viable over the next decade. The study focused on presidents representing small, private, not-for-profit, four-year post-secondary institutions that had an enrollment of fewer than 2,000 students, endowments with values of less than $250 million as of 2020 and were classified as "rural-serving" as defined by the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges (ARRC, 2022). A written online survey was sent to the presidents of all 170 institutions, of which 70 presidents responded and 35 also participated in follow-up one-on-one interviews of approximately one hour. The research questions guiding the study were focused on identifying the greatest external threats to RSIs, the most significant internal challenges facing these institutions, and the most effective strategies for addressing these challenges. To address the limitations of prior research in this area, the study relied on surveys, interviews, and publicly available data to identify and rank the most significant threats to RSIs as perceived by their leaders. The study employed Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four leadership frames as a theoretical framework to understand how RSI presidents perceive internal and external challenges to their institutions' viability and to identify strategies for addressing these challenges. The research provides practical recommendations that can help these historic institutions remain viable in the face of the challenges they face. The importance of RSIs in rural communities and the impact of RSI closures on local economies and employment are highlighted in the study. This is one of the larger research studies on rural institutions from the perspective of their presidents, and it contributes to the body of knowledge on RSIs by providing actionable insights that can inform decision-making in these institutions.