ACTA's Advice to Furman on How to Find a New President
Trustees must lead the way, commit to a transparent process, and purposefully engage the campus community.
Today, we’re pleased to bring you a post from our friends at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), one of the most well-respected organizations advocating for academic excellence, accountability, and free intellectual inquiry in American higher education. They also have decades of experience helping universities navigate presidential searches, and they bring that wisdom to bear on Furman’s behalf in this piece. We hope you enjoy!
It has never been harder to be a college president. Between the fallout of the pandemic, declining consumer confidence, partisan polarization, the impending demographic cliff, and technological challenges from distance learning and AI, it’s no wonder that the average tenure of a college president has fallen by 30% since 2006 to just under six years. This combination of increased scrutiny and uncertainty in the marketplace has made it harder for boards to fill vacancies, as savvy candidates are now more likely to demand transparency about an institution’s finances before signing on. In addition, more presidential searches now end in outright failure. These trends are unlikely to change, as the coming years will see institutions forced to compete over an ever-dwindling supply of traditional college-age students.
Furman University has had the good fortune to weather the past decade under a single leader, an accomplishment that has become rare indeed. As the board begins the process of finding its next president, one thing is certain: Preparation is key. As lay volunteers, members of college and university governing boards rarely have direct experience leading an institution. Instead, they tend to be community members, alumni, philanthropists, or business leaders. Though it may seem odd to have laymen serve as a college’s ultimate governing authority, this is a feature, not a bug. A board serves the institution’s mission by representing the college as a whole rather than any individual constituency. As they receive no pay or services from the institution, trustees alone can act as impartial fiduciaries, and by originating from outside the college, they can act as mediators between the needs of the institution and those it was formed to serve.
It was with this in mind that my organization, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), partnered with Robert C. Dickeson to produce a guide on presidential searches to assist trustees with what is likely to be the most consequential decision they make during their tenure. Drawing heavily on the indispensable framework laid out by Dr. Dickeson, here are a few things Furman’s board should keep in mind as they identify and secure their next executive.
The Board Cannot Delegate Its Choice
The most critical principle of any presidential search is that the board of trustees—and the board alone—has the authority and responsibility to select the next president. This reality confronts two prevailing truths: Trustees tend to have careers outside managing their institution, which place great demands on their time, and there are many qualified, well-meaning administrators who would be happy to do the board’s job for them. It is easy to see why boards may be tempted to defer to their skilled colleagues during this process. To illustrate this tendency, consider the rise of the executive search firm. In 1975, only 2%–3% of presidential vacancies were filled with the help of search firms, compared to nearly 100% today. Though these organizations can be invaluable parts of the search process, and have certainly helped to professionalize how candidates are selected, they often narrow the scope of potential candidates to those with a traditional background in academia. External firms can assist the board with logistics, but it remains the board’s responsibility to clearly define its priorities and push back when consultants deviate. Boards are central to defining their institution’s core values, which the future president will be expected to uphold and promote, whether they include a commitment to open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, a tradition of liberal arts general education, or other fundamental principles. While there are many reasons for presidential turnover outside the board’s control, a rushed process that ends with a candidate who does not fit trustees’ expectations is a recipe for a short and contentious presidency.
Balance Confidentiality with Transparency
There is perhaps no better way to handicap an incoming president than by conducting a closed-door process that leaves the campus community blindsided by the board’s selection. At the same time, many of the best candidates for this role are sitting presidents or senior executives at other institutions whose participation requires strict confidentiality to protect their current livelihoods. The task of balancing responsiveness to the community with competitiveness in the marketplace is a frequent stumbling block for boards, but one that can be overcome through deliberative action. Trustees should aim to establish a transparent process by publicly communicating their timeline, criteria, and the composition of the search committee. Moreover, strict adherence to institutional bylaws, state sunshine laws, and internal norms is nonnegotiable. Deviating from established protocols invites scandal or litigation, either of which can be a black mark on any leadership transition. As the search progresses, boards should plan to make public the names of the final three to five candidates. These finalists should be expected to make on-campus visits that include public forums for students, administrations, alumni, and faculty to provide feedback on their plans for the institution.
Boards Must Lead, but Shouldn’t Go It Alone
A successful college presidency begins with securing institutional buy-in. If a board’s selection has to deal with a vote of no confidence from the faculty and a series of scathing op-eds in the student newspaper during their first week, they’ll rarely be able to hunker down and focus on strategic planning. Thus, boards should aim to foster constructive engagement from campus constituents early on. An example is how they form the search committee. The board should appoint a trustee to chair this body and then select representatives of the major groups that the institution serves, including faculty, staff, students, and alumni. Colleges should also consider inviting community and business leaders relevant to their mission. Each of these groups can provide a vital perspective that the board may not encounter on a day-to-day basis. Faculty can help steer the committee toward candidates capable of fostering genuine intellectual growth. Students can provide an unfiltered view of the services the institution provides.
Alumni are perhaps the most underutilized stakeholders in this process.
Too often, colleges view their alumni purely as philanthropic resources to be engaged only when capital campaigns are launched, rather than as stakeholders with a vested, lifelong interest in the reputation, financial health, and success of their alma maters. Alumni who have achieved success in sectors relevant to the institution’s mission can assess a candidate’s skills and mission alignment in a way that external consultants may miss. Furthermore, engaged alumni can leverage their professional networks to help the institution look beyond traditional academic or administrative backgrounds, potentially identifying dynamic leaders who possess the unique skills necessary to run a modern college or university.
Conclusion
It bears repeating that the task of selecting a college president is often the defining decision of a board of trustees. The costs of a failed tenure are measured not just in wasted capital from severance packages and search firm fees, but in lost momentum and eroded public trust. By taking a leading role, committing to a transparent process, and purposefully engaging the diverse strengths of the campus community, boards can dramatically improve their odds of success. The past decade has been challenging for higher education, and colleges should not assume this to be an aberration. Modern higher education governance requires the partnership of an informed, engaged board and a dynamic president. This collaboration begins by setting the tone during the search process.