Tackling Higher Education’s Leadership Scarcity

Tackling Higher Education’s Leadership Scarcity

By David Mead-Fox, Ph.D.

In the world of higher education, there is a palpable sense that the pool of qualified and interested leadership candidates is shrinking.

To compete for the best talent, institutions must rethink and refocus their executive recruitment and leadership development efforts.

H

igher education leadership search committees are faced with an uncomfortable reality – it is increasingly difficult to find superior candidates. In addition, once a position is filled,

another pain point often emerges – the average number of years that a leader stays in a particular position continues to decline. What was once considered questionable or marginal tenure in a role is becoming increasingly common and accepted. It is no less concerning, however – three years, for example, remains a very short time to demonstrate substantive leadership impact.

This smaller pool of qualified candidates – some of whom then go on to have relatively short tenures after assuming their positions – impacts colleges and universities in two direct, significant ways. First, the process of conducting searches needs to be more strategic and rigorous, and second, institutions must learn how to grow leadership talent with more purpose and care.

Where Are the Leaders?

A confluence of mutually reinforcing factors is responsible for the shortage of higher education leadership talent being felt today.

One factor is basic demographics – the experienced leaders who are stepping down or retiring are not being replenished by a new generation

of individuals ready to take their place. While the current economic downturn will briefly relieve this problem through retirement deferral, it will only provide a temporary respite. Korn/Ferry’s own anecdotal evidence suggests that for every two leaders who retire, there is at best one who is ready to step in.

Another reason is the significant cultural shift in how many individuals view their careers. The trend is towards greater attention to family considerations and/or areas that are outside of the world of paid work. This change in attitude has been driven in part by the fact that a majority of leaders have spouses or partners who also work outside of the home, and many are faced with the dual (and sometimes dueling) responsibilities of caring for both children and aging parents. Additionally, more individuals are finding meaning and fulfillment in community or group activities and affiliations that, while unpaid, can be time-consuming nonetheless. Thus, what can certainly be seen as positive social evolution reduces the number of qualified individuals who are interested in leadership positions.

Still another factor contributing to higher education’s current leadership scarcity is the reality that these jobs are ever more difficult to perform and succeed at, leading many who might otherwise aspire to such positions to shy away. During the past two decades, college and university leaders have felt increasing pressure to devote time and energy to matters more and more removed from the core educational and research enterprise, such as: n Fundraising. We are in the midst of a competitively fueled fundraising “arms race,” manifested by the seemingly insatiable need for new academic buildings, endowed chairs, student centers, student housing, technology, research facilities and recreational facilities. n Outside constituencies. These have grown in number but not necessarily in importance or size, leading to more time for leaders on smaller “stages.” This drains away time and focus without the desired institutional or societal impact. n Legal and regulatory considerations. The combination of highly laudable and well-crafted laws and policies, and poorly conceived and ill-advised legal and regulatory restrictions and dictates add complexity to the leader’s job – regardless of importance and utility. n Global orientation. Institutions are increasingly operating on a global level as they seek to promote diversity and participate in today’s interconnected world. While entirely commendable and necessary, this too pulls leaders away from the core of institutional operations.

2

The Korn/Ferry Institute

These new responsibilities are being loaded onto already overflowing plates, and contribute to less of an educational and more of a managerial focus. Even with a highly effective team, higher education leaders are responsible for running a vastly more complex organization – more positions, offices, units, etc. – than has ever been the case. Ironically, these demands mean that leaders are spending less time on one external area that is critical for maximizing the impact of higher education – speaking clearly and persuasively to society at large about higher education’s value in enhancing quality of life, promoting justice and equality of opportunity, and supporting general prosperity, to name a few. Despite the increased external focus of leaders, the “bully pulpit” remains largely vacant.

For the reasons cited above, the odds of failure or early departure are higher than ever before. But these daunting challenges do not mean that positions cannot be successfully filled. There is a small cadre of strong and increasingly diverse leaders on the way up. And the silver lining in the economy’s storm clouds is that deferred retirements will give new leaders more time to hone their skills and capacities. Also, the compensation, stature and potential for impact associated with these positions continue to be a draw.

Searching for a New Leader

The challenge of conducting a search for a senior higher education leader stems from a series of essentially unavoidable tensions that are often both vexing and contradictory. These tensions are an inherent source of both danger and opportunity in every search. If they are not recognized, recognized but handled poorly, or seen as contradictions that must be resolved, the risk of failure will inevitably rise. It is essential to view these tensions as normal, appropriate and even useful.

There are two essential sources of these tensions or contradictions.

First, there is much that is contradictory in the nature of higher education leadership itself and more broadly, in the higher education sector and organizations as a whole. Second, there is also much that is contradictory in candidates and more fundamentally, in human nature itself. Thus, ignoring or wishing away such “complications” is about as possible as wishing away what makes us creative, innovative and interesting (and yes, frustrating and complicated) individuals and organizations.

3

The Korn/Ferry Institute

Following are some of the critical tensions involved in searching for a new leader: 1. Democracy vs. hierarchy. The structural and cultural democracy of higher education clashes with the hierarchical executive and governance decision-making and related dynamics that are also part of higher education. The best leaders need to be authentic partners with faculty and staff (listening and staying open-minded), while at the same time being proactive about making decisions and moving forward. Thus, evaluating a prospective leader involves looking for characteristics that are sometimes diametrically opposed.

2. Flexibility vs. structure. In evaluating candidates, it is important to be “loose” and receptive in one’s views and thinking, but also to be concrete and evidence- and logic-seeking. The tension between these two states of mind can result in the temptation to overweight or reject one or the other. To do so is an apparent resolution to this tension that is both dangerous and misleading.

3. Listening vs. talking. A related but different contradiction is between listening and receiving input versus talking and posing questions or issues to candidates. These are both very important and again, a desire for clarity or simplicity should be resisted. This can be done either by intentionally moving back and forth between the two modes or, more fruitfully, attending to what our minds do whether we like it or not – listen and prepare queries nearly simultaneously.

4. Charisma vs. fit. “Presence” or charisma is rightly seen as being a powerful leadership characteristic. But it does not always lead to a successful leader/organization match. Charisma takes many forms, and clearly discerning what is a given individual’s particular “brand” of charisma and if it will fit with an organization’s needs and culture can be difficult. What is one person’s charisma can be another’s passivity or arrogance. This is where the search committee’s value comes in – a thoughtful and honest discussion of the nature and probable impact of each candidate’s brand of charisma is a useful way to work towards insight-based consensus.

5. “Gut” vs. rationality. First impressions and “gut” reactions are often accurate and highly predictive, but they can also be misleading or just plain wrong. It is important to accept this and to not overweight or underweight such subjective impressions. The best approach is to keep them in mind as highly important but conditional data points. Then, use the conditionality to allow in other types of information. Again, well-considered discussion among committee members is an important test of these first impressions, as well as a way to keep the appropriate balance.

4

The Korn/Ferry Institute

6. Evaluation vs. recruitment. Search committees must recognize

the apparent contradiction between evaluating a candidate on the one hand, and recruiting them on the other. Candidates should be asked probing questions about institutional challenges in an honest and straightforward manner. Yet, due to the shortage of strong candidates outlined above, most good and nearly all excellent candidates have other opportunities and thus need to be attracted and “sold” on a particular position. Striking a thoughtful balance is a way through this dilemma. It is better to ask challenging questions in a civil and professional way as opposed to an inquisition that “grills” the candidate. Recruiting a candidate does not involve withholding information or issues – the challenge is balancing the conversation between the institution’s difficulties and weaknesses, and its positive aspects and aspirations. And, it should be kept in mind that superior leaders want to have a personal impact on improving or moving an institution to the next level – in other words, they want to have problems to solve.

7. Planning vs. chance. By design, a leadership search process is one of structure, discipline and reasoned steps from start to finish.

However, it is important to remember that as with life in general, it is advisable to expect surprises and to respect the power and inevitability of timing and chance. Further, while adding complication to the process, unexpected contacts, events, etc. can actually be opportunities to capitalize on – as opposed to an irritant to avoid.

For example, being flexible regarding a candidate’s lack of availability for a meeting sends a positive recruiting message to that candidate, and can be a crucial advantage over other institutions that may take a more rigid approach. Or, while having a strong candidate withdraw from a search process is disappointing, it may ultimately lead to a better candidate as a result.

8. Professional vs. personal. While the primary goal of a search is to identify and select a candidate for an open position, the reality goes well beyond this. Each candidate has a personal life that is in many cases unrelated to their suitability for and/or interest in a position, but that may have a determining impact on their availability. The personal issues we see arise most often involve location preference (i.e., climate, region), aging parents, children in school, and the professional position of a spouse or partner. Although, by nature, these are personal matters, they are clearly crucial in determining a candidate’s interest. Such matters, if identified and addressed legally and appropriately, can lead to a discussion of ways to resolve or mitigate them.

5

The Korn/Ferry Institute

Navigating the Search Process

It is critical to construct and implement a structured and disciplined approach to a search. Following are recommended guidelines – organized into three basic stages – for search committees and search consultants to keep in mind throughout the search process.

1. PREPARATION Careful preparation is the foundation of any successful search process. This involves: n

n

n

n

n

Selecting and chartering the search committee to be broadly representative, varied and composed of individuals who are dedicated and positive in their outlook Establishing a clear timeline for the search with specific dates identified for key steps in the process Conducting an organizational assessment, which involves analyzing available written material and scheduling one-on-one conversations with key institutional leaders Having the search committee and search consultant come to a mutual agreement about institutional challenges and aspirations, and the education and training, skills, and professional and personal characteristics being sought Identifying prospective candidates using clear parameters; receiving suggestions and nominations from the institution and search committee; and advertising

2. MARKETPLACE

3. EVALUATION &

ACTIVITY

The result of the first stage is an initial list of prospects. Marketplace activity begins after that step is complete. This involves: n

n

n n

Contacting the list of prospects and proceeding through a preliminary determination of interest and appropriateness Conducting detailed assessments and evaluations by the search consultant Presenting cover letters and CVs to the search committee Discussing with the search committee who to invite to meet with them on a confidential basis

RECRUITMENT

The final step is evaluation and recruitment. This involves: n

n n n n n n

Arranging confidential meetings between candidates and search committees Inviting candidates to be finalists Conducting formal and informal reference checks Conducting background checks Organizing finalist campus visits and feedback Arranging finalist one-on-one meeting with decision-maker(s) Negotiating and confirming compensation, start date, etc.

(Note that throughout the rest of the search, it is advisable for the search to stay “open” – the search consultant should continue to actively speak with additional prospective candidates.)

Developing Leaders from the Inside

Along with the search process (see side bar, “Navigating the Search Process”), another rich source of candidates comes via internal promotion. Unfortunately, most higher education institutions fall woefully short at developing leadership talent from within. Given the issues already outlined, it is not only advisable but arguably necessary to change this. Logically, there are only two ways to fill leadership positions, externally or internally. Given the importance of 6

leadership and the dearth of strong leaders, no institution can afford to ignore the development of leadership from within. The basic proof of the inadequacy of internal leadership development can be seen through the reality that most searches at best have two to three internal candidates, and the odds can at times be stacked against them. Sadly, many individuals who aspire to be leaders discover that the best way to gain the appropriate skills is to leave their current institution.

Virtually all innovation in the leadership development arena has come from outside of the realm of higher education. This is an unfortunate irony since higher education is a place of learning, innovation and discovery, as well as the home of Colleges of Education (many of which offer degrees in educational administration and leadership) and business schools (virtually all of which include a focus on leadership and management).

Whether through adapting models from the corporate world or applying knowledge already resident in their institutions, higher education has the skills to provide leadership development and mentoring programs for talented and interested faculty and staff.

The positions already exist to build such programs around – e.g., Department Chair, Program Director, Dean, Provost, Vice President, President – and there are, of course, also the intermediate positions, such as Associate or Assistant. Institutions could offer training and mentoring at all of these levels, combining programs open to anyone who might have an interest with more selective programs requiring application and pre-requisites.

Conclusion

Successfully filling a leadership position, whether via internal or external methods, delivers value that is hard to overstate. It is quite literally worth its weight in gold for an institution to become known for: n Conducting professional, organized, confidential (where appropriate in the process) and thoughtful searches for candidates; and n Implementing and nurturing state-of-the-art and demonstrably effective leadership development programs.

There is immense power in combining these methods. Institutions that do so will become broadly known and respected as well-run and forward-thinking organizations. The outcome of a traditional search will be enhanced when an institution is known for running excellent searches with superior results. And, searches are further enhanced through the involvement of those who have participated in internal leadership development programs. A sign of this synergistic 7

relationship becoming well established would be to see more high-quality internal candidates, and perhaps half of all searches concluding with internal candidates in the position being filled.

Such a reputation attracts and brings in stellar leadership. And, it is a wonderful way to enhance morale generally and a powerful tool in the recruitment of junior faculty and staff who will see that the institution is people-oriented and invests in professional leadership development in a meaningful way. Despite the difficulty of finding and keeping superior leaders, there is no doubt that this is a challenge that can be met.

David Mead-Fox, Ph.D., is a Senior Client Partner in Korn/Ferry International’s Education Practice, based in Boston.

About The Korn/Ferry Institute

The Korn/Ferry Institute was founded to serve as a premier global voice on a range of talent management and leadership issues. The Institute commissions, originates and publishes groundbreaking research utilizing Korn/Ferry’s unparalleled expertise in executive recruitment and talent development combined with its preeminent behavioral research library. The Institute is dedicated to improving the state of global human capital for businesses of all sizes around the world.

About Korn/Ferry International

Korn/Ferry International, with more than 90 offices in 40 countries, is a premier global provider of talent management solutions. Based in Los Angeles, the firm delivers an array of solutions that help clients to identify, deploy, develop, retain and reward their talent.

For more information on the Korn/Ferry International family of companies, visit www.kornferry.com.

8

© Copyright 2009 The Korn/Ferry Institute