|
Changes in duties and an emphasis on financial responsibilities are only some of the changes that have occurred in the office of the president. College presidents are also getting older and are in no hurry to retire and pass the torch to a new generation of leaders.
The American College President report by the American Council on Education (ACE) was first released in 1987. In 2007, ACE released its 20th-anniversary edition, which included information from 2,148 presidents of public and private colleges and universities – the largest such survey conducted in the report’s history. The 20-year comparison available from these reports shows a steady increase in the ages of college presidents from an average of 52.3 years in 1986 to 59.9 years in 2006. Their average time in office rose from 6.3 years to 8.5 years. The proportion of presidents 61 or older grew from 14 percent in 1986 to 49 percent in 2006.
You might think that most presidents are people with prior presidential experience at the college or university level, but according to a Chronicle of Higher Education presidential survey, little more than one-fifth of current presidents fit that category.
Less emphasis on academic strength has opened the door to all kinds of applicants for presidencies in higher education. Since there is no academic degree that serves as a prerequisite for the position, presidents come from many fields, including captains of industry, professional fundraisers, attorneys and members of the clergy.
Proponents of presidential candidates with academic bona fides take comfort in the fact that more than 30 percent of presidential hirees are former provosts or chief academic officers (CAOs), according to the same Chronicle survey. But this may be trending downward. According to a recent ACE survey, 70 percent of today’s CAOs are perfectly content to remain in their positions and are no longer aspiring to be president. And 63 percent of current CAOs and provosts say they are “very satisfied” with their jobs, with 33 percent saying they are “somewhat satisfied.”
CAOs and provosts who have held their positions the longest have the greatest job satisfaction. In that group, 83 percent report that they are “very satisfied” with their job.
It should be noted that the ACE survey demographics of CAOs and provosts break down this way: 85 percent are White, 6 percent are Black, 4 percent are Hispanic, 2 percent are Asian-American, and about 1 percent are American Indian. Women hold 40 percent of these positions – 50 percent in community colleges and 32 percent in doctoral universities.
Why has this pool of potential college and university CEOs suddenly dried up? ACE reports that the changing role of presidents is a real turn-off for these higher education professionals. The statistics from the ACE survey show just how distasteful the role of president as fundraiser in chief is to CAOs and provosts who spend their days working on curriculum, planning and supervising personnel. This insular academic world is more attractive to them than taking on the president’s responsibilities, which often include stepping off campus to raise funds, lobby legislators and be the face of the school in public relations pushes. That’s why 66 percent of CAOs and provosts surveyed say the role of president isn’t on their radar.
Other reasons stated are that they don’t want to live “in a fishbowl,” think the position will be too demanding, or are ready to retire.
More specifically, when allowed to choose two areas of concentration, here is what CAOs and provosts say are the most important aspects of their jobs, according to ACE: promoting academic quality was cited by 56 percent of respondents; setting academic vision, by 46 percent; leading and fostering innovation was selected by 31 percent; and ensuring student success was chosen by 27 percent of respondents.
Comparing these areas of concentration with those cited by presidents in The American College President 2007 survey by ACE provides a stark contrast to the current division of labor in higher education. Primary uses of the presidents’ time include fundraising, cited by 37.7 percent of respondents; budget/financial management, 34.8 percent; and community relations, 20.9 percent. More than 51 percent of private college presidents say that fundraising is the primary use of their time. More than 35 percent of public college presidents contend that the primary use of their time is budget/financial management.
Since some presidential successors are promoted from within an institution, those potential candidates see firsthand what presidents told the Chronicle in its 2005 presidential survey. Fifty-three percent say they raise funds every day. And more than 90 percent say they raise funds at least every week. The fundraising activities of the president can often resemble a never-ending political campaign – exhausting and unrelenting.
In June 2008, The Chronicle Executive Leadership Forum hosted many panels, including one on how leaders can be more effective fundraisers. One of the suggestions was to make sure that more provosts get training in the art of fundraising.
And it would seem that college and university presidents need all the help they can get when it comes to financial matters. In the 2005 Chronicle survey of presidents, one of the most sobering conclusions was the lack of preparedness felt by many presidents to deal with these problems. Presidents who said they were least prepared for fundraising numbered 18 percent, with budgetary issues 11 percent and lobbying 11 percent. In the four years that have followed, presidents have tried to get up to speed and learn on the job. Many organizations and universities had been lending a hand even before the economic tsunami hit last fall.
Harvard holds the Harvard Seminar for New Presidents each year, and ACE has many services for presidents, including workshops and support for aspirants who are women and persons of color.
Some college leaders, however, see the problem as not about percentages of time allotted to tasks (as most surveys will pose their questions), but the inability of presidents to integrate their tasks as their liability. Surveys like those of ACE and The Chronicle could reinforce compartmentalized thinking on the part of chief executives.
The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, in a 2006 report, floated the new concept of “integral leadership,” which they described as “fulfilling the multiple, disparate strands of executive responsibility” and thinking of these tasks as “parts of a coherent whole.” What this means for a president is that an alumni reunion can be a chance to recruit support for pending legislation that will bring dollars into the institution, and a well-planned open house can include a special donor luncheon. Any presidential task can be leveraged to be multipurpose.
Other voices decry a presidential selection process used by diverse boards as so political it resembles the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. Jay Mathews sounded the alarm in 2002 with his Washington Post column, “It’s Lowly at the Top: What Became of the Great College Presidents?” He bemoaned the erosion of the “thinker in chief,” noting that the modern college and university president dare not leave an intellectual “paper trail” that can be scrutinized by the watchdogs for special interest groups as he or she runs the gauntlet of large and numerous screening committees. More often than not, he noted, candidates aspire to emerge as the “compromise candidate” who offends no one, and consequently lack any discernible positions on key education issues.
There may be merit today to that argument, but the overriding reality for today’s presidents is that having a “blank slate” leader who can charm and not offend is an asset to a cash-starved institution. Often this leader is all alone on the front line of fundraising.
While presidents struggle to save a “nickel and still be able to light the pipe,” as George Bailey lamented while trying to save the family’s building and loan business in It’s a Wonderful Life, the most revealing number in the ACE 2008 CAO survey is the importance or lack of importance CAOs and provosts place on fixing financial problems and spending money wisely. Only 4 percent of those surveyed viewed that as most important about their jobs. Yet 48 percent of these same respondents say the most frustrating thing about their job is that there’s “never enough money.”
Since this survey was completed by ACE just before last year’s economic collapse, these same provosts and CAOs may have been now forced to take off their blinders and come down from their academic ivory towers and make money matters more of a priority in how they do their jobs. That might not signal the end of the fundraiser in chief, but it could spread the burden, if CAOs, provosts and even deans pitch in and help.