CHE Article: Difficulty in hiring Provosts

[kaysixteen]

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.

[pgher]

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.

[polly_mer]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[apl68]

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.

[Aster]

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?

[marshwiggle]

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?

[fourhats]

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.

[FishProf]

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.

[spork]

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?

[. . .]

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.

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.

[polly_mer]

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.

[fourhats]

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.

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.

[polly_mer]

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.

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?

[Aster]

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.