At four of America’s elite universities—Harvard, Penn, Stanford, and Yale—the top job sits empty even as the schools must confront an unprecedented number of challenges. Three of the vacancies came about rather suddenly as presidents bowed out due to scandal or political pressure.
The leadership churn, also occurring across the wider spectrum of higher education, raises the question of whether Harvard and others should take a new approach to filling its top role. While the job description can seem impossibly broad, and the existing search processes are already extensive, some believe schools could benefit from reimagining who’s actually the best fit to lead a university. Whether that entails tapping leaders from the worlds of government or business, the recent wave of short tenures suggest a fresh approach is overdue.
In the 19th century, college presidents were mostly viewed as faculty members, according to Deloitte research. But fast-forward to today, where leaders face a host of non-academic challenges—from disruptive technology to geopolitics to head-spinning budget processes—and the perception of university presidents has evolved dramatically. And, critics say, so should the process of finding them.
‘Pressure cooker’
“Given the fact that the stakes are so high now in being a university president—such a highly visible position—and then you’re in a hyper-sensitive environment that has simply turned up the pressure cooker, it just requires greater expertise and outside help in the hiring process,” Mark T. Williams, a master lecturer in the finance department at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business, told Fortune.
Williams, a former board of trustees member at Lesley University in Cambridge, Mass., explained that typically, in a presidential search, a subcommittee is appointed within the board and charged with reviewing and interviewing candidates, in addition to making recommendations. It’s a process that could use some updating, he added.
Echoing that sentiment is Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor and senior associate dean at Yale School of Management, who recently penned a related Fortune opinion piece. Sonnenfeld, who served on the National Commission on University Governance Reform of the Association of Government Boards of Colleges and Universities, wrote that Harvard’s search process lacked proper diligence.
“What we see happens too often in the Ivy Leagues: They fall victim to their own network of people that are already a restricted pool of people,” Sonnenfeld told Fortune. “If it’s an insider that’s known for not making waves, not upsetting anybody, they might be great at building peace but not building vision…So they’re basically a successful bureaucrat that thrives in administrative details.”
Sonnenfeld said universities employing external executive search firms could help, but doing so doesn’t guarantee smooth sailing. The process isn’t always unbiased, he added, pointing to “a rapid age bias in the executive search community.”
But current events might change that, he noted: “It looks like we’re going to have two 80-year-olds running for president of the United States, so, suddenly, a candidate who’s in their mid 60s doesn’t look too old for the job as university president.”
Many universities, even after settling on a framework, also are placing a growing emphasis on finding candidates who possess a blend of experience in both academic and non-academic settings, according to Tobin Anselmi, managing partner and talent management practice leader at The Christopher Group.
“Subject matter expertise is pivotal in this recruitment focus, ensuring a deep understanding of academic disciplines, research methodologies, and industry practices relevant to the institution’s mission and goals,” said Anselmi.
Search committees, Anselmi added, also should aim to find individuals who can bring diverse perspectives, innovative approaches, and business acumen. This, once again, points to the need for universities to work with experts beyond their walls to find effective leaders, and this also is where an external firm can help by being less biased or affected by internal politics.
But search firms do have some drawbacks. For starters, some can be quite expensive. Secondly, it may be a tougher sell to alumni and faculty and other key stakeholders. “Some may view it as a departure from tradition or as an indication that the institution lacks confidence in its own ability to identify internal talent,” Anselmi observed.
‘The impossible job’
Even if a university navigates the formidable hiring challenges and finds the perfect candidate, there could be another obstacle: convincing the school’s dream hire to sign on the dotted line.
Typical university presidents have been in their current job for 5.9 years, according to the results of the American Council on Education’s recent survey of the profession, which is down from 6.5 in 2016 and 8.5 in 2006.
“I call it the impossible job,” said Boston University’s Williams, a former Federal Reserve Bank examiner. “That’s why you’re seeing the tenure of the average college president has dropped in the last decade—and continues to drop.”
Williams, who has taught for 22 years and is active in faculty governance, points to his school’s 10th president, Robert A. Brown, who served from 2005 to 2023, as a template for a successful tenure.
“This period was marked by numerous achievements, because a president leading that long has time to set strategic direction, gain buy-in, and execute a plan,” he said. “But if a new president is arriving every four to six years, that’s very disruptive and can be counterproductive to a university’s movement forward.”
With intense pressure, scrutiny, and dealing with the changing demands of donors and stakeholders, who would want to be a university president? Sometimes, Yale’s Sonnenfeld noted, it’s someone who’d be considered a non-traditional hire—like a former CEO.
That contrasts greatly with what Sonnenfeld said is more commonly seen with “nomadic faculty that are moved from school to school that are attractive to trustees and the university boards because this person didn’t seem to leave a trail of disaster anywhere—but also they didn’t create a legacy anywhere.” It’s similar to how other schools often look to hire another school’s No. 2 or No. 3 person who’s looking to climb that next rung on that ladder.
Which among Harvard, Penn, Stanford, and Yale will be the first to find that secret formula to blend tradition with innovation, to please donors but also faculty, to find a world-class leader for a world-class institution? It remains to be seen, but it definitely will be a challenge—perhaps exceeded only by the job itself.
