• September 4, 2015

It's Hard to Say Goodbye

Climbing Ladder Illustration Careers

Brian Taylor

Enlarge Image
close Climbing Ladder Illustration Careers

Brian Taylor

Why do presidents stay too long in a job? Why do they risk their accomplishments—and thus, their legacy—by overstaying their welcome? Is it hubris? Self-deception? Duty? Confusion about what to do next? Fear of mortality? Cluelessness?

Happily, as search consultants, my colleagues and I are not charged with figuring out the whys and wherefores of that all-too-familiar syndrome. But we do find ourselves charged with helping institutions figure out solutions to the leadership dilemma it creates.

Don't misunderstand me: I am a big fan of college and university presidents. Virtually all the ones I know are mission driven, intent upon doing the right thing, and more than adequately self-aware. At least, they are when I meet them, which is, more often than not, when they are hired in the first place. They take office in a flush of excitement, and pour enormous amounts of energy, intellect, and personal capital into what needs to be done for the future of their institutions.

But many don't finish that way.

In the past couple of years, I have had two search assignments that derived from presidents staying too long. In both cases, the incumbents had been viewed as terrifically successful, especially early in their tenures. They had led their institutions—of different types and in different parts of the country—from difficult, even dangerous, circumstances to positions of relative stability, even health. They were celebrated for those accomplishments and destined for honored places in the leadership pantheons of their institutions.

Then they ran out of gas. They stopped going the extra mile to be personally engaged in campus life. They spent more time with family and friends and less at campus events. Rather than sacrifice their personal lives, they spent less time on the road raising money and making friends for their institutions.

Perhaps most problematically, their circle of advisers became narrower and narrower until key decisions seemed to be coming from only an inner circle of close confidants, or worse, from their own imaginations.

The rest is a familiar story. Key constituents lost track of their relationships with the presidents. Preternatural academic politics began to take the place of open discourse. Conspiracy theories abounded, in some cases urged on by the presidents' detractors. The trustees supported the presidents for a while—perhaps too long—justly grateful for services rendered in earlier times. Eventually, however, a combination of turnover on the governing board and a growing volume of campus dissatisfaction eroded trustee confidence and led to departures that were far less gracious than the presidents' overall performance merited.

Certainly, the job itself is no picnic. How many years of 24/7/365 in the fishbowl can one take? How many opportunities does one have to catalyze transformational change? How many times can one make a passionate, compelling case for financial support? How often can one say no? How many family nights, weekends, and vacations can one sacrifice for the sake of the institution? How many miles can one travel? The very responsibilities and environment of the job would seem to give it a built-in obsolescence that is eminently predictable.

Then why do people hang on past their expiration dates?

I can see various reasons, but they all seem to stem from an eroding sense of self-awareness. Presidents—the vast majority of them, anyway—work like mad to position their institutions for greater success. But that work tends to isolate leaders from key constituencies, particularly internal ones.

Presidents are primarily external agents—raising money, working with board leadership, keeping the public profile of the institution high, and so on—and, thus, can become less and less of a presence on their own campuses. They are regularly feted by admiring audiences, and their involvement is sought by other organizations, including in the commercial sector, for their wisdom and judgment. They also tend to have staff members who protect their time and their psyche. Presidents seldom become more accessible as their tenure lengthens. All those factors interfere with a clear-headed sense of the institution and of the self that guided the president at the outset.

How, then, are presidents to maintain—or regain—the sense of perspective that made them so very qualified for the job in the first place?

Presidents need some sort of unfettered, unbiased system of feedback, someone to whisper in their ears, "Remember, thou art mortal." The obvious source would seem to be the governing board, and especially its chair. After all, the board is the president's boss, providing formal and informal advice and charged not with the well-being of the president but with that of the institution. In the optimal scenario, then, the board chair would have the sort of hierarchical and interpersonal relationship with the president that would allow for candid exchange.

In reality, though, boards work that way all too infrequently. Some are highly politicized, with factions taking sides for or against the institution's leadership. Some are absentee, taking the president's word for conditions on the ground at the institution. Some are micromanaging, far too deep in the weeds to observe the entire gestalt and therefore unable to assess the viability of leadership. A great many possess that most attractive human combination of empathy and gratitude that nonetheless leads all too often to tolerance—and inaction.

While it is far from perfect, the presidential-search process may provide some food for thought about presidential performance and efficacy. A standard search is dominated by trustees but involves key groups—faculty members, students, staff members, local leaders, alumni, and so on. Those people not only represent constituencies but are also charged with using their best judgment for the benefit of whole institution. They seek out public opinion, speak candidly about their findings, and come to understand and eventually to prioritize the institution's assets and liabilities in ways that inform the choice of its next leader. Sometimes, search committees hire outside experts to provide impartial guidance and balance out the oft-competing interests of the various constituencies.

Might those same techniques be used to advise a president that it may be time to move on?

Everyone would seem to gain from such an approach. The institution has much greater odds of maintaining and even enhancing the momentum built by a successful and energized president. That president has the opportunity to "re-pot" him or herself before unwittingly breezing past the point of diminishing returns.

Yes, saying goodbye to a cherished leader can be a bittersweet experience. Unfortunately, waiting too long to say it often allows the sweetness to fade.

Dennis M. Barden is a senior vice president and director of the higher-education practice at Witt/Kieffer, an executive-search firm that specializes in searches for academic and administrative leaders in academe, health care, and nonprofit organizations.


1. dmathews - April 26, 2010 at 08:34 am

Having served as a teaching faculty member, a research faculty member, a dean, vice president, and now as president, it is obvious to me that the premise (as well as entire introductory paragraph) could be easily extended to each of these categories.

2. tfiggatt - April 26, 2010 at 09:47 am

Forgive - despite the interesting, and possibly even useful set of observations here - the author writes with an overwhelming conflict of interest. Academic search consultants get paid to hire new Presidents - not to tune up the old ones. So anything that increases turnover in the Presidential suite redounds to their benefit. The author may offer insight, be he sure ain't a neutral.

3. optimysticynic - April 26, 2010 at 10:29 am

Disagree with dmathews that these comments are equally true of the additional categories he mentions. The more an individual controls and affects the entire community, the more important it is to review performance MORE, rather than less, critically. Presidents' terms should not be renewable, for the sake of the entire community. Fish, house guests and top administrators...

4. rbirnbau - April 26, 2010 at 11:10 am

Interested readers can find data and analyses from a five-year, longitudinal study of 32 institutions leading to (somewhat) comparable conclusions, at least for some presidents, in HOW ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP WORKS,Jossey-Bass, 1992.

5. 11119787 - April 26, 2010 at 11:13 am

Indeed, we are all mortal. I, for one, plan to quit while I'm ahead.

6. callmemiss - April 26, 2010 at 11:15 am

Optimysticynic (3) just proved the truth of dmathews' (1) observation.

7. davi2665 - April 26, 2010 at 12:59 pm

Some observations from one who has held many leadership positions and seen first hand what happens to presidents. They do indeed start out with a rush of enthusiasm and energy, and then fall prey to the various self-serving factions of the board that want to model the university after themselves, or for the enrichment of their pet businesses or projects. It is a can't win situation- akin to trying to please greedy venture capitalists with a long-range plan. And then the faculty step in. It is almost a tautology that faculty are disgruntled. A list of 10 or 12 key points of criticism and dissatisfaction that virtually all faculty have with anyone in authority leads to various degrees of vicious attacks, snide commentary, relentless undermining, end runs to the board and the press, and vocal complaints if the president makes more salary than a parking lot attendant. And the worst part is that the president of a university cannot take the same tact as the CEO of a corporation, and have the bottom line of shareholder value lead the way in job performance evaluation. The president cannot even get rid of the totally unproductive deadwood and troublemakers- rather, the president is expected to "embrace" their divergent opinions. Unfortunately, there are myriads of political criteria driven by the egos of the evaluators that go into actual evaluations of presidents. If a president ever does take a strong stand to clean up the messes at his/her university, the assault and criticism come even earlier and are even more vitriolic. Perhaps a term limit is a good idea for a president, if only for the preservation of some degree of sanity.

8. l_rau - April 26, 2010 at 02:14 pm

I must agree with dmathews, these arguments are sound but apply to any positions of longstanding power or prestige. Even with such greats as professional athletes who stay beyond their prime years. Everyone should simply learn and agree that no one is exempt from quitting while ahead of the game.

9. cutright - April 26, 2010 at 04:40 pm

Does the fact that Mr. Barden's financial well being depends in large part on presidents being pushed out the door, whether the "right" time has come or not, and his advocacy for picking up the pace bother anyone?

The firms such as he represents are, I suggest, a major, driving factor in the stunning escalation of presidential salaries in recent years. The compensation of such companies is based in very large part on a percentage of the negotiated salary. So, you have a firm that does this 12 or 15 times a year, up against a board that does it once every 5 or 7 years or so. Who is likely to drive the market?

10. whitep - April 27, 2010 at 05:46 pm

I am sure some presidents stay too long. Others hop too soon. What is missing in this piece is any criteria that would help anyone -- Board, president, others -- determine which is the case, to understand when it is time to leave. The risks are great in too long a presidency, but I have seen more trouble caused by rapid turnover and drift in many leadership positions.

11. honore - April 28, 2010 at 12:11 am

it's called milking the golden cow before it drops dead during an external audit.

12. 22276478 - April 28, 2010 at 08:07 pm

Is it fair or realistic to expect people run like mad on one treadmill only to jump to another? It chews up people, to say the least. Perhaps we need another perspective.

I don't mean not work hard, but the frenzied pace is not sustainable, whether on one treadmill or the next.

Add Your Comment

Commenting is closed.

  • 1255 Twenty-Third St., N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037
subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.