Dig.ni.fy Winter Issue - January 2024 | Page 62

found “the population of current college and university presidents is still mostly older, male, and White.”

There is some evidence this might change, key findings of the 2023 ACE study:

Of the 55 percent who say they plan to step down from their current position in the next five

years, 25 percent say they’ll leave within the

next year or two, and 30 percent in the next three to five years. Among those presidents, over one in four plan to retire without seeking another position.

More than half (54 percent) of presidents

arrived to the presidency through the

“traditional” faculty/academic pathway, and White women and women of color were more likely than White men and men of color to have arrived via this pathway to the presidency.

On average, presidents first aspired to the role by the time they were 45 years old, applied when they were almost 50, and were appointed to their first presidency at close to 52—women aspired to the presidency an average of 3.3 years later than men.

Overall, the average time between first aspiration to the presidency and a first presidential appointment was 6.8 years.47

So, the opportunity for change will be forthcoming simply because of attrition – though pathways into the presidency remain standard. The choice of what to do, however, remains unclear. It is not, for example, simply a matter of hitting the numbers. There is also figuring out the right path to joining progress

with preparation. And this challenge extends to the members of a college board, who play a critical role in selecting the president.

For example, there have been attempts at changing this climate – particularly, in cases

where boards have turned to those outside academia – namely, lawyers, business leaders, etc. Though oftentimes these positions represent “one of their own,” boards quickly

find themselves with presidents who don’t understand faculty, much less students, and have little clue as to the differences between

running a successful business and balancing a budget outside of academia. They quickly become frustrated at the hours they must devote to the job, the “answering” to many constituencies, and the scrutiny of their salary and benefits – which is many times much lower

than the salaries they have come to expect in their business careers.

Add to these issues, college presidents inherit large boards and cumbersome leadership teams. Thinking that members bring fundraising opportunities and others business acumen or alumni constituent representation, boards have oftentimes grown from a dozen to more than 50 members. They are difficult to manage, and everyone has an agenda, requires time and attention from the President, and their own view as to priorities.

Equally, colleges also used to have a small, relatively nimble college leadership team to chart the ongoing administrative functions of the institution in concert with the trustees:  President, Treasurer, Dean of Faculty/Provost, and sometimes a Dean of Students.  Today, the President’s Cabinet has grown to include all

those people, but now includes a General Counsel, Chief Development Officer, Chief Communications Officer, Chief Technology

Relying on professors who have no experience in industry and are not aware of the workforce training needs related to jobs in the future, may not be best practice.

62