BY ROBERT A. SCOTT
Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Flickr
The average tenure of college and university presidents has declined from 8.5 years in 2006 to 6.5 years in 2016. The average, of course, masks the longer length of service of those appointed earlier with those appointed more recently, who often face shortened terms. If boards do not manage the transition from one president to the next, turnover, turmoil, and loss of trust can result.
All too often, it seems that successors act as if the history of the organization starts when he or she enters the office. The focus is on “me” not on “us”. Boards can help by underscoring the importance of mission, continuity of purpose, and institutional memory, even as they call for success in the future.
Honoring institutional memory is not about remembering the predecessor; it is not an effort by the predecessor to cling onto the stature of the office; and it is not an effort to stifle new ideas. As discussed in How University Boards Work, leadership requires humility, active listening, speaking well of others, leading from within, and fostering respect for the office as well as for the institution. This includes leading with the team one inherits in order to learn the nuances of organizational culture, understand group and campus dynamics and how units work together, and have the time necessary to assess the talents of the individuals who compose the team. Then the new leader can determine how best to foster cross-functional knowledge and whether adjustments, alignments, or complete change is needed.
The new leader should realize that she or he has much to learn as well as much to bring. Mission must remain the primary focus. Leaders are appointed by the board to multi-year terms of three to five years because it is known that learning takes time. Quick turnover in the team can be disruptive to learning and to relationships on and off campus. These include relationships with alumni at large, who after all, represent the past and the future of the institution. They also include relationships with donors, elected officials, neighbors, and feeder school personnel. Sudden turnover of key staff can diminish the trust that is essential for leaders to foster with the faculty and staff. It also can be costly in terms of recruitment, replacement, and training of new team members.
Institutional, or collective, memory includes past leadership transitions, how former challenges were faced successfully or not, why previous fundraising efforts succeeded or failed, the circumstances of political difficulties related to concerts or zoning, and how previous administrations dealt with audit or accreditation challenges, among others. While most of these experiences are no doubt documented in board minutes or other archives, leadership teams benefit from active participants who know the past either from personal experience or from other direct sources. The board meetings can include discussion of these past transitions when preparing for a new leader.
Generational knowledge not only includes relationships but also systems that are essential to campus operations. Elements of these systems include general information, facts, technology, processes, standards, folklore, and the reasons for them. These are often documented so that those new to the campus can know the details and cultural values that imbue the standards. This does not mean that change is not possible, only that change for change’s sake is generally neither productive nor long-lasting.
Leadership teams can add to institutional or collective memory by utilizing “tabletop” exercises and reflecting on incidents by asking “what can we learn from this?” With tabletop exercises, a team can assess preparedness for security incidents, whether a bomb threat, fire, virus contagion, or other emergencies that can interrupt campus operations and organizational continuity. This is accomplished by taking participants through the process of dealing with a simulated incident and providing hands-on training in order to practice for a real event.
Another method is to convene the senior staff and other specialists to discuss what can be learned from an incident on campus, such a student protest, or on another campus, such as the Penn State scandal. By asking “what can we learn from this?” the team can build its institutional memory for dealing with future events and be in a position to pass on operational knowledge that is not readily replaceable.
Still other opportunities for the board to foster institutional knowledge are in the details of succession plans for the board itself, the president and vice presidents, and other direct reports.
Often, new leaders seem more interested in establishing their mark on the campus before understanding the heritage, assets, opportunities, and challenges of the institution. They seem to have a vision that is not grounded in either the reality of the day or the record of the past, even if worth pursuing over time. At times, they are encouraged by the board to manage rapid change.
A university is a mission-based institution where memory is essential. Unlike a for-profit business focused on the near-term, an institution of higher education is obliged to honor the past as a function of its mission even as it navigates current challenges in pursuit of new initiatives and long-term success. It is up to the board to govern this process.
Guest blogger Robert A. Scott is President Emeritus and University Professor Emeritus, Adelphi University, and President Emeritus and Professor Emeritus, Ramapo College of New Jersey. He also served as Assistant Commissioner, Indiana Commission on Higher Education, and Founding Head, New Jersey Commission on Higher Education.
