Officer, Chief Diversity Officer, Chief of Staff, and several Dean’s. Most of these individuals report to the President and each has a
substantial salary and staff and budgets to support their operations. Presidents have little distance between operating heads of large departments and cabinets are too big and have little time to deal with strategic rather than tactical issues.
A cynic might suggest that president’s managing board members and staff is much like herding a bunch of cats: but the issue has only compounded with the advent of social media and increased societal pressures to address global issues. With the advent of social
media where information can be instantly conveyed to large groups of people by one person – a student, faculty, or alumnus, presidents have little time to frame or position an institutional issue or respond to a crisis. Building on this, staking a moral position on an issue for the institution is fraught with issues. Saying nothing is regarded as a sin. Taking a position or attempting to frame an issue in shades of grey is equally suspected today with hypersensitivity by individuals or groups. Votes of “no confidence” by faculty are regular occurrences by frustrated academicians which often sink a president who is attempting to walk a fine line.
Finally, presidents are increasingly constrained by new realities in fundraising. As the top continues to separate from the bottom in society, so goes fund-raising at institutions. Presidents must spend their time with big
donors who have their own ideas as to how funds should be directed. Larger gifts increasingly come with restrictions, which aren’t directed to areas of greatest need or match an institution’s priority. Though some hope was provided in 2021 that this trend might be
reversing, as unrestricted giving — which makes up about seven percent of total giving — rose by 30 percent, the reality was the unprecedented increase was due primarily due
to large, no-strings-attached donations from author and philanthropist MacKenzie Scott and
former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.48 While it is hoped such giving might inspire a trend toward more unrestricted giving, there is no evidence yet to support such.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, a few donors don’t feel “loved” when they make smaller gifts. And these “smaller gifts” can be as high as $500,000 or more, but don’t move the needle in large capital campaigns and/or very expensive buildings which can cost $50 million or more. Development offices are often consumed with finding the one donor whose gift can “put the institution on the map” or save a presidency. Endowment gifts under $1 million are not helpful to colleges who desperately need current operating gifts to survive.
The long and short of it is this: institutional leadership is becoming more and more challenging. Social pressures, staff and board agendas, and financial realities brought about
by decreasing enrollment and more restricted
giving handcuff presidents. By consequence,
the once highly regarded position of president will increasingly be avoided by skilled leaders who can command higher salaries with less headache in other sectors. And as presidential terms diminish (the average presidential term is now 5.9 years, down from 6.5 years in 2016, seven years in 2011, and 8.5 years in 2006),49 turnover in the president’s office – never a good sign for any institution – will become a norm.
Conclusion
Given these findings, the overall concern about institutions closing becomes even more disturbing when a person considers how unprepared colleges and universities are for the world coming at them. College leaders and administrators must confront the realities before them and make some difficult choices, otherwise not only will students suffer but the promise of America will be threatened.
63