Leadership = an argument with tradition?

The Inside Higher Education essay by Matt Reed, Leadership and Social Defense, triggered a number of memories about attempts to lead during my higher education career. Reflecting on the dilemma of "stuck" organizations that seem to not be able to adapt to challenging circumstances, Reed drew from Gianpiero Petriglieri's Harvard Business Review article which described the struggle a change agent faces as "an argument with tradition." Having attempted to bring about change in numerous situations, the idea that a leader is literally challenging tradition and breaking up the family is particularly compelling. The point is that the root of familiar (the way we've always done it) is 'family' and in order for leadership to be successful, one has to convince the family that you're one of them.

The challenges faced by leaders and managers in U.S. higher education are numerous, perhaps no greater than in other eras, but substantial. Declining public confidence in higher education is part of the complex picture of enrollment projections. Add to that evidence that standards have been declining and a general malaise among the faculty. The exploitation of workers by not compensating for overtime and challenging conditions has been present in U.S. institutions for a very long time, a condition that could change if a Biden administration proposal is enacted. Challenges higher education is facing, coupled with the loss of employment or redirection of careers, involves a grieving process that is often unrecognized.

Leadership is a complicated by the need to bolster confidence in education and the institutions that advance it while simultaneously confronting the hard truths that result in vulnerabilities for the same institutions. As the "face" of the campus to all types of constituents, presidents are under a magnifying glass, with the balance between asserting direction and bullying being particularly difficult line to manage. The decline of public confidence in leadership of U.S. higher education is pronounced and includes a belief that protection of reputation eclipses the focus on student learning. Macalester College's former President questioned if colleges can effectively adapt to the challenges they face. He asserted that maintaining institutional reputations was one of the primary things standing in the path of change and included disciplinary loyalty, majors centered around the interests of faculty, shared governance, and prioritizing faculty as the #1 stakeholder as accompanying impediments.

Considered de facto leaders, the abrupt resignations of university presidents indicates the vulnerability of the modern college presidency. Controversy was the impetus for resignation in some cases but others were a mystery. The unexplained non-renewal of the Rutgers Chancellor resulted in wide-spread shock and condemnation and a loss of confidence in the President while the La Siera President's resignation came after months of faculty concern. The President of Nichols College resigned after reports surfaced about being involved in a sexual assault scandal in previous employment. For other presidents such as UCLA's Gene Block, 17 years was a long time but his resignation will leave a gap that will be difficulty to fill. The case of Texas A&M is particularly interesting as an example of arguing with tradition because it involves two years of growing dissatisfaction capped off by a more public controversy. The controversy that ended Kathy Banks' Texas A&M presidency involved a Black scholar who the university hoped would head its renewed journalism department during a period when state lawmakers launched a crack down on DEI practices. Banks claimed to be uninvolved but records later revealed her full knowledge and participation and a $1 million payout to the scholar, Kathleen McElroy. As Texas A&M strives to recover from Banks' Presidency, input from over 100 meetings across campus set the stage for reversal of many of her "Path Forward" initiatives.

After serving as president of Ohio State University and twice at West Virginia University, protestors called for the salary of Gordon Gee to be reduced or for him to resign as a result of enrollment declines that have led to a 10% reduction in programs and faculty. Gee's WVU debacle is perhaps a harbinger of what higher education has become - a commodity rather than a pathway to improve the human condition. Perhaps as an example, the "no-confidence" petition alleging that Gee mismanaged WVU's finances was overwhelming approved by faculty. The mismanagement accusation has stuck in contrast to previous circumstances that reflected "institutional awe" of administrative decision making. Gee was noted for flamboyant bowties and outspoken assertions, some of which contradict his more recent actions. Protests over Gee's presidency, and support from the WVU Board, continued until the last moment before cuts were enacted. Now that termination notices are out to professors sacrificed in the WVU cuts, the provost offered to hear them out but few have much hope that anything will change.

Gee is one of the most obvious examples of what a British research study found is problematic about some higher education leaders - narcissism. Even though the methodology of the study might suggest caution in generalizing it, it isn't difficult to discern the impact when a narcissist is hired. In a hyper-competitive university environment, the constant need to claim excellence and superiority may end up causing leaders to advance themselves as much as their institution. Humility is a core value that leaders should cultivate and demonstrate by expressing curiosity and asking lots of questions. Scott Green, former President of the University of Idaho, published a book on handling crises on campus that included urging institutional leaders to demonstrate empathy in their responses, which is a type of humility that may be particularly important in times of crisis.

The estimated exodus of 25% within one to two years and 55% of presidents at U.S. colleges and universities within 5 years is sobering. The lack of clarity regarding the role of Boards of trustees is clearly a precipitating factor. Boards at small colleges can be particularly dysfunctional as a result of hubris and over-confidence, the "bright shiny object" syndrome, fond memories of an institution that didn't exist, misplaced accountability, and inadequate data to support decision making. There are some pretty no-nonsense guidelines to cultivate a good relationship with a Board demonstrating that who's in charge and distrust can be avoided. The bottom line is that Presidents and their Boards need to have candid conversations about what they expect each other with a focus on achieving clarity and trust.

Whether championing change based on exigency or innovation, leadership challenges the status quo, or the stability of the 'family.' When coming from someone from the margin, leading may become more challenging but it may also present opportunity. One of the clearest examples of the family bond in a complex organization that I faced was when I moved to Miami University in 1994. I was quickly introduced to the term "The Miami Way," which had no specifics but allowed those who used the term to define for themselves what they presumed the customs of the institution to be. The strategy for anyone who conceived of new possibilities was to convince others that you were family and that you cared as much (or more) about the institution than they did.

Miami University isn't the only place where leadership required an argument with tradition and a struggle to be part of the family. Especially when it comes to faculty who often see themselves as guardians of institutional culture, resolving to engage as lifelong learners with diverse interests might serve their institutions more effectively. Most of the organizations I've served had the "family" tension to greater or lesser degrees. The only places where an argument with tradition is not part of the leadership dilemma is in new organizations but it is fascinating how quickly even new organizations bond and create their own family and traditions as a way of resisting subsequent change.

The problem with family tradition in any organization is the  potential to recognize fundamental changes that could threaten its future. Steve Mintz sorts the various issues down to a two path dichotomy - 1. cheaper paths to marketable credentials or 2. tweak the current 4-year degree model with more focus on career-conscious degree pathways, general education more aligned with majors, integrated and interdisciplinary linkages, and high impact practices. There are numerous educators who offer lists of challenges that must be faced in the years ahead. Three authors including Arthur Levine, Scott Van Pelt, and Denny Meadow offer five Cs to help institutions navigate their way to a reconstructed future. The Cs begin by centering the Customer and the other Cs reflect issues which are of greatest importance to prospective students; cost, convenience, content, and connections. Ryan Craig's "What's Wrong with college" raises a host of issues that higher education needs to address. Lack of workforce alignment, poor completion rates, demographic shifts, threat to non-flagship institutions, and uncertain proof of benefit are on the list.

The idea of leadership arguing with tradition is exacerbated by the fact that higher education can be influenced by trendy educational ideas. When an institution tries something and believes they are successful, there is a rush to tell the story and other institutions can be caught up with the enthusiasm for a new idea. The only problem - some "solutions" were not well formulated and there may not have been an effort to evaluate the innovation.

Leadership can make or break an institution's ability to attract and retain employees, especially when many are looking for opportunities to move. Creating a good campus climate is central and reinforces that leadership isn't a solo act. For those who presume to lead, engaging with others in mutually constructing the future is a tried and true idea advocated in "Servant Leadership." Authenticity in leadership is a transcending factor that requires balancing personal values, positional role, and institutional rules. The generational shifts in leadership understanding, effective pedagogues, and salient issues are all part of the current higher education balancing act.

New presidents and other leaders on campus could benefit from deep listening as they begin their assignments. Using a strategy of a "teach-in" to provide background and context is a way of understanding the traditions and status of an institution on various topics. Whether new or experienced, institutional leaders can benefit from a strategy that has been used for decades, the "town hall." In order to be effective these gatherings should be carefully planned with clear expectations of the meeting and anticipated outcomes. These strategies complement presidential on-boarding advice of completing a diagnostic of the campus environment and identifying the most important influencers.

If leadership is an argument with tradition, starting by understanding your objective is essential. On the flip side, anyone who has been around higher education for a nano-second has probably realized that faculty are uncommonly uninformed about the nature of the institutions they serve and especially to not realize the breadth and uniqueness of American higher education. If faculty understood more about the history, values, and uniqueness of their institutions, they could become much more effective advocates for both sustaining and changing where they work.