CHE: Why is it so difficult to hire vice presidents and provosts? (https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-is-it-so-difficult-to-hire-vice-presidents-and-provosts?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_1590043_nl_Academe-Today_date_20201007&cid=at&source=ams&sourceId=2422481)
I would add - no natural career path.
They are hired from people who intended an academic path and were successful in it - achieving PhD's and tenure. They have completely different skills and personalities from running a large institution.
Or, they hire careerists who get MBA's and EdDs and parachute in without the requisite knowledge of the norms, dispositions, and cultures of an academic environment.
It isn't hard. We've hired 7 provosts and 3 presidents in my 17 years at FishProf U.
Oh, did you mean hiring GOOD ones?
That's very different.
Quote from: FishProf on October 07, 2020, 12:26:17 PM
It isn't hard. We've hired 7 provosts and 3 presidents in my 17 years at FishProf U.
Oh, did you mean hiring GOOD ones?
That's very different.
Yes. For me it's been 4 provosts and 3 presidents in 12 years.
Part of the problem is the practice of putting morons on the search committee.
I think it's more a case of the people who would make good provosts not wanting the job.
Quote from: spork on October 07, 2020, 12:39:11 PM
Quote from: FishProf on October 07, 2020, 12:26:17 PM
It isn't hard. We've hired 7 provosts and 3 presidents in my 17 years at FishProf U.
Oh, did you mean hiring GOOD ones?
That's very different.
Yes. For me it's been 4 provosts and 3 presidents in 12 years.
Part of the problem is the practice of putting morons on the search committee.
I know Spork and I work at similar institutions but this comment makes me think I am Spork. I fit the description to a T: 12 years, 3 presidents, 4 provosts, and I too think morons are moths to search committees.
Remind me how one gets appointed to a presidential/ provost search committee at the average uni today? And does the board of trustees routinely just rubber stamp the committee's choice?
Quote from: fourhats on October 07, 2020, 03:13:45 PM
I think it's more a case of the people who would make good provosts not wanting the job.
Similar to my feeling about POTUS, that is one of my primary qualifications.
In my opinion, one of the greatest challenges with hiring senior leaders within Higher Education is the increasing amount of external political interference being applied in selecting finalists.
It used to be rare to hire a college president that didn't possess the basic qualifications to understand the job and perform it adequately. But nowadays, the right social connections and an endorsement from the governor can get just about anyone through the door.
QuoteBut nowadays, the right social connections and an endorsement from the governor can get just about anyone through the door.
That might be true at a public, but not so much at a private. I speak as someone who's been on a couple of presidential and dean searches.
Quote from: fourhats on October 08, 2020, 06:37:06 AM
QuoteBut nowadays, the right social connections and an endorsement from the governor can get just about anyone through the door.
That might be true at a public, but not so much at a private. I speak as someone who's been on a couple of presidential and dean searches.
Yes, I agree with that also. Private universities, for all of their frustrating idiosyncrasies in other things, are large private businesses. Political interference, *if* it happens, mostly just goes in the *other* direction, ha ha.
Quote from: Aster on October 08, 2020, 07:47:18 AM
Quote from: fourhats on October 08, 2020, 06:37:06 AM
QuoteBut nowadays, the right social connections and an endorsement from the governor can get just about anyone through the door.
That might be true at a public, but not so much at a private. I speak as someone who's been on a couple of presidential and dean searches.
Yes, I agree with that also. Private universities, for all of their frustrating idiosyncrasies in other things, are large private businesses. Political interference, *if* it happens, mostly just goes in the *other* direction, ha ha.
I have a hunch that a lot of the moves to hire people from outside academia have to do with a failure of previous administrators to deal with fundamental "business" issues of the institution, such as budget deficits, declining enrollment, etc. Getting all misty eyed about mission and the place of education in society don't cut it if the operations aren't sustainable.
Actually, most of the people I've seen in searches (and those they've tried to recruit) have been accomplished academics with extensive budget and administrative experience. It's probably different at large publics, where the trustees and governors sometimes go for business types.
The Big Public Universities suffer so much more political interference because the failure of most states to appropriately fund Higher Education has made it into a giant political issue.
If you can't fix a problem for something that's important in the Public's Eye, it's common in politics to designate a Yes Man who will put on the Show of attempting to fix the problem.
Also, being appointed to a leadership position at a major university is now viewed more and more as a political reward to campaign donors and former legislators. A lot of ladder-climbers and retirees are now jockeying for favored positions to land senior management positions at universities. It's increasingly common in my part of the U.S. for senior university leaders to not even be screened by a qualified search committee anymore. Instead, a small group of outsiders who were also politically appointed are taking over.
It's a revival of the "Good 'Ol Boy" system.
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 07, 2020, 08:38:42 PM
Remind me how one gets appointed to a presidential/ provost search committee at the average uni today? And does the board of trustees routinely just rubber stamp the committee's choice?
1) Being appointed to the search committee depends on a lot of factors. Sometimes, it's a matter of not being fast enough to say, 'not it!' Sometimes, it's being unable to dodge a limited time, high importance service expectation as someone who is known to be diligent. Sometimes, it's just your turn to be a token representative in a farce of shared governance to make the casual observer think that shared governance has happened.
2) It depends on how the committee selection went and whether the committee gets the right answer. If shared governance is really a thing, then the committee's choice likely will be approved. If the committee was supposed to pick a leader to make hard choices during a hard time and the committee picks someone who won't rock the boat, then the trustees likely will reject the choice. That's where the idiot accusation comes in because the committee didn't pick what's right for the institution.
In my four years at Super Dinky, we hired one president and three provosts. Soon after I left, Super Dinky got another president and another provost.
Quote from: polly_mer on October 08, 2020, 03:49:57 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 07, 2020, 08:38:42 PM
Remind me how one gets appointed to a presidential/ provost search committee at the average uni today? And does the board of trustees routinely just rubber stamp the committee's choice?
1) Being appointed to the search committee depends on a lot of factors. Sometimes, it's a matter of not being fast enough to say, 'not it!' Sometimes, it's being unable to dodge a limited time, high importance service expectation as someone who is known to be diligent. Sometimes, it's just your turn to be a token representative in a farce of shared governance to make the casual observer think that shared governance has happened.
2) It depends on how the committee selection went and whether the committee gets the right answer. If shared governance is really a thing, then the committee's choice likely will be approved. If the committee was supposed to pick a leader to make hard choices during a hard time and the committee picks someone who won't rock the boat, then the trustees likely will reject the choice. That's where the idiot accusation comes in because the committee didn't pick what's right for the institution.
In my four years at Super Dinky, we hired one president and three provosts. Soon after I left, Super Dinky got another president and another provost.
I have not served on such a committee, but those who have served tell me that their committee had ultimately very little input to the selection. Put that in the category of a farce of shared governance (though perhaps that's too strong). We use search firms who do most of the work, then show the committee a few choices.
Four provosts and two presidents in five years? How come so many? Were the choices incompetent, or something more sinister (?). This sorrtta reminds me of comments I have heard from school headmasters over the years to the effect of their having great difficulty in finding competent Latin teachers, when the job is continually readvertised year after year. Any hiring officer can make a bad choice once, maybe twice, but when it happens consistently, methinks the problem rather resides with the competence of the hiring man, as opposed to the hirees.
Something we see at my university (which hasn't had NEAR that level of turnover) is that, as a middling university, it's a stepping stone. If we hire anybody who's good, we're lucky to get five years. If we hire someone who isn't any good, we can't seem to get rid of them.
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 08, 2020, 07:02:41 PM
Four provosts and two presidents in five years? How come so many? Were the choices incompetent, or something more sinister (?). This sorrtta reminds me of comments I have heard from school headmasters over the years to the effect of their having great difficulty in finding competent Latin teachers, when the job is continually readvertised year after year. Any hiring officer can make a bad choice once, maybe twice, but when it happens consistently, methinks the problem rather resides with the competence of the hiring man, as opposed to the hirees.
Super Dinky is now closed for a reason. Presidents and provosts have a front row seat to the true financial, enrollment, and other problems.
Hiring a competent person means that person figures out pretty quickly how dire the situation is and finds another place to be. The trustees refused to believe how dire the situation was and kept advertising for a strong leader ready to roll up their sleeves and help instead of someone who was ready to do a hail Mary with the full support of the trustees.
I got to meet with one president/provost team to lay out our best shots based on the research of the region. The trustees said no to every one, even with repeated pointing out that there was no way to be open in five years without trying one of these options and we only had resources to try one.
All three of us (president, provost, me) were gone by our own choice before the end of that year. Super Dinky didn't make it the full five years before closing.
Quote from: pgher on October 08, 2020, 08:12:55 PM
Something we see at my university (which hasn't had NEAR that level of turnover) is that, as a middling university, it's a stepping stone. If we hire anybody who's good, we're lucky to get five years. If we hire someone who isn't any good, we can't seem to get rid of them.
This is pretty much a summary of
The Peter Principle.
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 08, 2020, 07:02:41 PM
Four provosts and two presidents in five years? How come so many? Were the choices incompetent, or something more sinister (?). This sorrtta reminds me of comments I have heard from school headmasters over the years to the effect of their having great difficulty in finding competent Latin teachers, when the job is continually readvertised year after year. Any hiring officer can make a bad choice once, maybe twice, but when it happens consistently, methinks the problem rather resides with the competence of the hiring man, as opposed to the hirees.
Here's one thing I wonder, not to challenge you. When the faculty are always complaining about the provost, does that necessarily mean he's not a good one? Who really expects the the faculty to be happy with him? Isn't it his job to tell everyone there isn't enough money for what they want to do.
Quote from: pgher on October 08, 2020, 08:12:55 PM
Something we see at my university (which hasn't had NEAR that level of turnover) is that, as a middling university, it's a stepping stone.
That was my thought about kay's question. Alma Mater once went through three Spanish teachers in as many years. Sometimes you just hit a streak of people who aren't good fits, especially at a smaller school. They solved the problem by hiring a high school Spanish teacher (my mother) who already had one MA, was willing to work to further improve her credentials, and already lived nearby and had no plans to move.
Now a high rate of turnover in senior leadership positions? That sounds like a bad sign no matter what the explanation. As polly noted, there's certainly reason in some cases to suspect a budget situation that has grown too dire to handle.
In my professional opinion, provosts and presidents should not be external hires anymore than other academic administrator positions should be external hires.
Sure, if no one on the inside applies for the job, or your institution is just so terrible that you need to bring in fresh blood, then an external search is maybe a good idea. Maybe.
Otherwise, administrative positions are best filled by filling them with the best people that are already at your institution. They have the experience. They know how the institution works. They have the social networks and connections already made. And they usually already have a great deal of internal support from the employees of the university.
Nearly every senior administrator that I have worked with in a positive way and that I also respect have been excellent candidates that were promoted from within. I believe that my sentiments are reflected with most other faculty in being much more satisfied with promoting our own people rather than bringing in an outsider. Outside administrative hires can be completely unnecessary and too risky. Outside hires are almost always going to be highly inefficient during their settling in period. And right or wrong, too many employees view outside hires negatively just for being outsiders. That social stigma can be very difficult to overcome.
How do you folks feel about your provosts and presidents being promoted from within your own faculty and staff? What are your own experiences with this?
Quote from: Aster on October 09, 2020, 07:39:39 AM
How do you folks feel about your provosts and presidents being promoted from within your own faculty and staff? What are your own experiences with this?
One point you haven't addressed is what happens when the administrator's term is over. When an outsider is hired, when their term is done, if they're not renewed they tend to move on. If you promote internally, how easy will it be for a former Supreme Grand Poobah(TM) to go back to being run-of-the-mill-faculty-member?
This is a really broad statement. I know a number of external dean hires who later went into the faculty quite happily, despite being recruited elsewhere. There's a lot to be said for bringing in new blood, especially if they can share the department's/institution's vision. Sometimes an external hire brings a broader perspective and experience of higher education that internal candidates do not, without the baggage of being on the inside of the institution. I've also known internal promotions to administrative positions who were a disaster. So it really depends on the candidate.
At my school, if faculty move to admin, they lose faculty status after 6 years.
The best Provost we hired left after 1 year. There faculty who were the most vocal and antagonistic are now the ones who lament the "one who got away".
Our current Provost has Presidential aspirations, but we haven't managed to foist them on anyone else yet.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 09, 2020, 08:33:30 AM
Quote from: Aster on October 09, 2020, 07:39:39 AM
How do you folks feel about your provosts and presidents being promoted from within your own faculty and staff? What are your own experiences with this?
One point you haven't addressed is what happens when the administrator's term is over. When an outsider is hired, when their term is done, if they're not renewed they tend to move on. If you promote internally, how easy will it be for a former Supreme Grand Poobah(TM) to go back to being run-of-the-mill-faculty-member?
Quote from: fourhats on October 09, 2020, 08:42:44 AM
[. . .]
I know a number of external dean hires who later went into the faculty quite happily, despite being recruited elsewhere.
It depends on whether the administrative position came with status as a tenured faculty member. Hiring with tenure means someone who is an incompetent administrator for a few years then becomes an incompetent, unneeded faculty member for the next decade or two or three.
Quote
There's a lot to be said for bringing in new blood, especially if they can share the department's/institution's vision. Sometimes an external hire brings a broader perspective and experience of higher education that internal candidates do not, without the baggage of being on the inside of the institution. I've also known internal promotions to administrative positions who were a disaster. So it really depends on the candidate.
I'd say it depends on the institution's size, location, and culture. Small colleges, especially rural or semi-rural ones, often employ people who are the spouses of other employees, the parents of former students, and alumni. These are people who started working at the college twenty-five years ago, have had a half dozen different titles during that time, have never been qualified for or excelled at any of their duties, but have managed to avoid accountability and prevent needed change. I can point to one such institution down the road where half the full-time faculty in the business department are its own alumni. Putting one of those people in a position like provost would simply shorten the time before the college becomes insolvent.
Being good at one type of job is no guarantee of being good at a different type of job. One huge problem with insisting on hiring from within is you can make bad administrators out of good faculty.
Another problem with knowing exactly how here works often comes at the expense of broad experience in what can be done. For example, long-time faculty at Super Dinky would pooh-pooh money problems because SD had had money problems for decades. The fact that this time was different cut no ice. Wanting someone to tinker at the edges because things are basically fine as they are only works if things are basically fine.
If things really are basically fine, then bringing in an outsider who takes a couple years to come up to speed is fine. If you need changes right now, bringing in someone tasked to make the changes is more likely to work than promoting someone who only knows how things currently work.
QuoteIf things really are basically fine, then bringing in an outsider who takes a couple years to come up to speed is fine. If you need changes right now, bringing in someone tasked to make the changes is more likely to work than promoting someone who only knows how things currently work.
I completely agree with this. At my institution, many (but not all) deans are external hires. They come with tenured, full professorships, based on their work as scholars, but also come with a lot of administrative experience. Some insiders are surprised to learn that they way they have always done things isn't universal, and that there may be a better way. A pair of fresh eyes can be an eye-opener. That said, we also have internal promotions who are great at what they do. But almost always, they've had experience elsewhere as well.
Quote from: fourhats on October 09, 2020, 10:11:29 AM
QuoteIf things really are basically fine, then bringing in an outsider who takes a couple years to come up to speed is fine. If you need changes right now, bringing in someone tasked to make the changes is more likely to work than promoting someone who only knows how things currently work.
I completely agree with this. At my institution, many (but not all) deans are external hires. They come with tenured, full professorships, based on their work as scholars, but also come with a lot of administrative experience. Some insiders are surprised to learn that they way they have always done things isn't universal, and that there may be a better way. A pair of fresh eyes can be an eye-opener. That said, we also have internal promotions who are great at what they do. But almost always, they've had experience elsewhere as well.
Years ago, I read an article about a handful of college presidents who were very young (under 35) when they became president as external hires. What most of them had in common was an eye-opening experience early on along the lines of:
you at the college were desperate enough to hire me for new ideas. Isn't it time to actually try some of the new ideas before we have to close instead of just doing the same thing that doesn't work?
For me at the universities where I've worked, externally hired senior administrators make for the worst hires.
Our incompetent hires are always the external hires. Every. Single. Time. I place part of the fault here with the process of selecting the final candidate. If you have a crap process, expect a lot of shiny crap to not get filtered out.
Our unqualified hires are *usually* the external hires. Every once in a while somebody gets promoted beyond their britches because the search committee is optimistic about him/her, but it's pretty rare.
The people that take the job and then quit early --> yup, usually the external hires. Whereas our internally promoted people usually are here for the long-haul. The local folks are far more reliable and steady.
I'm not saying that external hiring is a crap process in Higher Ed. What I am saying is that I haven't seen it work any better than following the traditional process, and in my experience our institution has functioned a heck of a lot better with experienced local talent than with New Guy #3.
We have had some atrocious internal hires of Dean, Provost, and President. We have also had some good to excellent internal hires of Provost and President, with one promising looking internal Dean hire having started this past summer.
We have had atrocious external hires of Dean and President. We have an incredibly promising external hire of Provost who started last year.
Mixed bag. When I think about the worst hires at those three levels in my 20 years here: internal President but a close race with an external President, internal Provost wins worst by a mile, external Dean whose damage is still felt daily three years after their promotion out of my college.
Good fit is an interesting question. There are many reasons why someone may not be a 'good fit', one of which is certainly that the boss is incompetent, or the boss has vastly unrealistic expectations about what the job he's hiring should be (think: Latin teacher).
Quote from: Aster on October 09, 2020, 01:20:14 PM
For me at the universities where I've worked, externally hired senior administrators make for the worst hires.
Our incompetent hires are always the external hires. Every. Single. Time. I place part of the fault here with the process of selecting the final candidate. If you have a crap process, expect a lot of shiny crap to not get filtered out.
Our unqualified hires are *usually* the external hires. Every once in a while somebody gets promoted beyond their britches because the search committee is optimistic about him/her, but it's pretty rare.
The people that take the job and then quit early --> yup, usually the external hires. Whereas our internally promoted people usually are here for the long-haul. The local folks are far more reliable and steady.
I'm not saying that external hiring is a crap process in Higher Ed. What I am saying is that I haven't seen it work any better than following the traditional process, and in my experience our institution has functioned a heck of a lot better with experienced local talent than with New Guy #3.
How many places have you been?
Your current employer as you've described it hasn't been a fabulous example that all institutions should emulate. Instead, it sounds a lot like it's seriously broken and outsiders would not be supported in trying to make the necessary big changes.