BY ROBERT A. SCOTT

Portrait of Robert A. Scott by Philadelphia artist Ellen Cooper.

The length of service for college and university presidents seems to be getting shorter and shorter. Almost weekly, and in some weeks more often, we read about a campus president being fired or put on leave. There are books on failed presidencies and books on leadership. Why are there failures? What are the elements of success?

The failures most often involve differing opinions on institutional direction, a lack of communication with key constituencies, and poor decision-making due to an inadequate understanding of circumstances.

After thirty years as a president of two institutions, I offer the following observations on leadership and team building.

The several dimensions of campus leadership include “listening” with eyes as well as ears; speaking in formal as well as in informal settings and using these occasions to remind others about the institution’s mission; and writing notes of congratulations and condolence as well as essays and speeches. The effective leader also engages in reflection on the purpose of education as well as on “what happened” and what can be learned from an incident or experience. He or she also expresses empathy—that is, attempts to understand the feelings and fears of others and seeks to understand context and the circumstances in which leadership is required. The leader also reads prose and poetry in order to refine the use of language and expand his or her knowledge and appreciation of others.

Let us add some additional texture to the topic.

One of the more insightful comments on the topic of leadership was attributed to Freddie Mercury in the film Bohemian Rhapsody, the story of Freddie and the band Queen. The scene is in their lawyer’s office and Freddie is asking to rejoin the group in order to perform at the Live Aid concert in Wimbledon. One of his bandmates, still stung by Freddie’s departure from the group after being offered a large recording contract, challenged him by saying, “You have your own band now, why do you need us?” Freddie replies, “Yes, I have my own band and more money, but it is not the same. They do everything I tell them, and that is the problem. They do not challenge me to be better, the way you did.”

Whether fact or fiction, the scene demonstrates vividly that leadership requires integrity, humility, and reflection, the recognition that a leader cannot act alone and be most effective. Unfortunately, there are too many examples of those in leadership positions who demand fealty instead of welcoming pushback. An effective team is one in which the total is greater than the sum of the parts.

Such teams require trust, not loyalty oaths and secrets. They know that sharing information builds alliances and that control of data threatens trust.

Another trait of some in leadership positions is to act as if the history of the organization started on the day they took office. To paraphrase an old quote, institutions are the lengthened shadow of past leaders. Institutional history and heritage are essential starting points for continuity and change. The values of the founders should undergird the vision of the future.

A variant of this style is found in leaders who decide that they want “their own” team and either remove or force out members of the inherited senior administration before even knowing the culture of the institution. Not only does this ignore the importance of institutional memory, it can destabilize long-term external as well as internal relationships.

This pattern was more common in corporations than in colleges and universities, but as corporate executives have become more prominent on institutional boards, the practice has grown in higher education. While the board should not prohibit such changes, it should give guidance to the new leader, especially if there was an inside candidate for the post. After all, the board’s role is to protect the institution of the future from the actions of the present.

Another pattern borrowed from business is the “CEO president,” who fulfills the meaning of this title by focusing on scale, delegation, money, and markets while giving only lip service to mission. One consequence of this is that a president can talk about “shared governance” with faculty but treat them as employees rather than as partners in governing the institution. I prefer the CMO (Chief Mission Officer) model of leadership; he or she must mind the money, of course, but also engages in real shared governance.

Recently, I was leading a session with a president and his senior team when the president paused while reflecting on his style, and some problems that had resulted from it. After he said that the troubles would probably keep him from having another presidency, I said, “With your willingness to reflect on what you did and why, and your commitment to changes in your approach, you may have just started your second presidency.”

Listening, reading, speaking, writing, empathy, sensitivity to context or circumstance, and thoughtful reflection are essential dimensions of leadership, and the greatest of these is the self-awareness that comes from reflection.

Guest blogger Robert A. Scott is president emeritus of Adelphi University and Ramapo College of New Jersey and the author of How University Boards Work.