Presidential Succession Planning

Defining Succession Planning

One of the first writers to acknowledge succession planning was Henri Fayol (1841-1925). Fayol indicated that it is a responsibility of the organization to create stability and, if that responsibility was not acted on, individuals lacking the essential characteristics and skills would be placed in critical roles (as cited in Rothwell, 2010). Charan, Drotter, and Noel (2001) defined succession planning as “perpetuating the enterprise by filling the pipeline with high-performing people to assure that every leadership level has an abundance of these performers to draw from, both now and in the future” (p. 167). Axelrod (2002) further defines succession planning in the following way:

Succession planning is an ongoing, systematic process that boards, with the help of their chief executives, can use to create an environment for chief executives to succeed from the very beginning of their terms until the cycle is repeated with their successors. (p. 2)

The process of succession planning ensures a smooth continuation of business (Negrea, 2008). The goal is to identify and prepare suitable individuals to fill key positions when people retire, transfer, or find new opportunities outside of an organization. An important point brought forth by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is that succession planning is about preparation and not preselection. SHRM has defined the business case for engaging in succession planning to address the following: (a) adapt to demographic changes and talent scarcity, (b) identify skill gaps and training needs, (c) retain institutional knowledge in a knowledge economy, (d) boost morale and retention by investing in employees, and (e) replace unique or highly specialized competencies (“Engaging in Succession Planning,” 2009).

It should be noted that succession planning is also about understanding that individuals will not be with an organization forever. Biggs (2004) indicates loyalty toward an organization is the “exception rather than the rule” (p. 105). Succession planning is both a strategic planning tool to address the issues created by individuals’ departure as well as to bridge the knowledge gap created by a departure.

Succession Planning in Universities and Colleges

According to Lapovsky (2006), formal documentation of presidential succession planning is nonexistent in most colleges and universities. To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore succession planning in private colleges and universities. However, a few studies have focused on succession planning in community college settings. One study suggests 79% of 2-year college presidents will retire by 2012 (Negrea, 2008). Two main reasons are cited for the loss of leadership within community colleges: baby boomer president’s retirement and those second in command, the vice presidents, leaving the workplace (Negrea, 2008). Lapovsky (2006) indicates institutions frequently have a strong internal candidate, but because of a lengthy presidential tenure, the candidate often leaves the institution. She also indicates that due to a lack of financial resources, it is difficult to keep potentials (Lapovsky, 2006). Fulton-Calkins and Milling’s (2005) study is the most widely cited and is focused on the “mass exodus of community-college leadership” (p. 233). They identify several key components for the success of filling senior leadership roles within community colleges. They include the following: (a) awareness of the issue, (b) understanding the institutions’ needs, (c) consideration of talent outside the “normal” profile, and (d) consistent opportunities for development for both faculty and administrators (Fulton-Calkins & Milling, 2005).

Existing literature related to college presidencies indicate challenges ahead. Song and Hartley (2012) indicate a 7-year average tenure among Presidents. That translates to 600 new presidents for the 4,200 accredited, degree-granting institutions each year (Andringa & Splete, 2005). To compound matters, approximately half of all presidencies end within 5 years (Andringa & Splete, 2005). Furthermore, Hartley and Godin (2009) report less than one fourth of sitting chief academic officers of CIC colleges and universities plan to seek the presidency. The challenge is further exacerbated by the lack of necessary competencies of the talent pool to fill the position (Barden, 2010). An advanced degree to hold a presidential appointment is favored among institutions of higher education. In 2012, more than three quarters (80%) of private college presidents possessed either a PhD or an EdD (Song & Hartley, 2012). Beyond advanced degrees, lengthy experience is also valued. The American Council on Education (ACE; 2007) found sitting presidents averaged 22 years of experience, either in current or prior positions. In addition, they also had an average of 8 years experience as full-time faculty members (ACE, 2007). ACE (2007) suggests the current path to the presidency is no longer working given it takes too long for junior faculty to rise through the ranks. According to Song and Hartley (2012), the average age of a first-time sitting president has climbed to 60 years. Additionally, Song and Hartley (2012) note only one quarter (25%) of CIC presidents are women. The authors also note that the percentage of women presidents has not changed since 2006.

A study conducted on behalf of the CIC cited the following about presidential career paths: (a) 29% of CIC first-time presidents had served as chief academic officer (CAO) or provost, (b) approximately one in five either served as academic officers beyond that of CAO (11%) or other senior executives on campus (15%), and (c) 15% came from outside higher education (Song & Hartley, 2012).

Presidents have been found to leave institutions for a variety of reasons. A 2001 study, conducted by Alton and Dean, reports less than half (40%) retire, almost a third (32%) resign to take a position other than a presidency, a quarter (25%) accept another university presidency, and the remainder die (as cited in Andringa & Splete, 2005).

Bornstein (2010) maintains three major problems exist for higher education presidency: (a) current presidents are aging and this will result in significant turnover in the next few years, (b) the current pipeline for these leadership positions is limited, and (c) there will be significant competition for superior candidates. Rothwell (2010), in his book Effective Succession Planning, predicts it will be increasingly difficult for academic institutions to attract talent because of greater rewards in private sector business and asserts institutions must find more effective ways to recruit, retain, and cultivate talent.

Benefits and Barriers in Academic Succession Planning

Succession planning has long been a part of the corporate world (Rothwell, 2010; Spanier, 2010), yet historically, there has been little attention within academic settings. Various and multiple reasons have been cited as to why academic institutions have not adopted succession planning. Lapovsky (2006) indicates institutions tend to rely on national searches to identify potential presidential candidates. Second, qualified internal candidates leave when a president has been in their role a long time (Lapovsky, 2006). Finally, due to the amount of stakeholders to satisfy, succession planning is often not seen as an effective option (Lapovsky, 2006).

Attention toward succession planning among institutional governing boards has slightly increased in recent years (Spanier, 2010). Andringa and Splete (2005) assert that boards of directors need to take responsibility, create environments that encourage leadership development, and ensure that institutional confidence remains intact. Boards must continually revisit their mission statement, understand the opportunities that are present, and thoroughly understand how effective their institution is satisfying key stakeholders (Kaufman, 2003). To be effective, they need to focus on developing the assets they already have within their institutions (Association of Governing Boards [AGB], 2006). The AGB also asserts boards should expect presidents to develop and annually review leadership development plans for their own position (AGB, 2006). One public university has included the topic of presidential succession as part of their president’s evaluation (AGB, 2006).

Barden (2010) has identified three key components of successful succession plans within academic institutions: professional development, leadership transition, and “once on board.” Barden’s (2010) first component is professional development. Every institution must identify potential leaders, train them, and supply them with real-world experience. Institutions (and especially their governing boards) must also recognize that internal programs will prepare leaders who will find opportunities elsewhere. The second component is leadership transition. Protocols must be in place in anticipation of vacancies (whether planned and orderly or unplanned and urgent). Protocols may or may not include a traditional open search. The last critical component, “once on board,” suggests that an institution must take steps to ensure that the new leader gets off to a positive, productive start (Barden, 2010).

Sample

The setting for the current study was private higher education institutions in Wisconsin. During the time of the study, there were 20 private higher education institutions within the state. The target sample included informants who could speak to succession planning within those 20 institutions. Therefore, there were three targeted populations of interest: presidents, board chairs from the board of trustees, and search firms. The strategy undertaken was a nonprobability purposive sample. An invitation to participate in the study was sent to the 20 presidents and two national search firms that provide services to secure candidates for presidential positions in higher education. Requests were made to the presidents for access to either their board chair or trustee to also participate in the study. Letters were distributed via mail. A follow-up call to secure an appointment with potential participants was made 5 days after the letter was sent. Each individual who agreed to participate in the study received an informed consent prior to the interview.

Data Collection

Twenty-five in-person and telephone interviews were completed, depending on the participant’s availability, preference, and geographical location. In-person interviews were conducted in the participants’ offices. All interviews ranged between 30 minutes and 1 hour. Following an approach outlined by Creswell (2009), data collection included in-depth, digitally recorded, semistructured interviews. The interviews consisted of a series of questions derived to better understand how succession planning is currently viewed and practiced in private higher education. Ten questions were asked of participants, which focused on the understanding of what succession planning is, how and if it is currently being practiced, what challenges exist to implementation, and role of each of the players within the process. The questions asked of each constituency were the same with one exception. Search firm questions were not specific to an institution but generalized to their overall experience.

Data Analysis

Basic qualitative analysis techniques, as defined by Creswell (2009), were employed. Interviews were transcribed and prepared for analysis. Data included coding and theme generation. Hand coding was conducted using open and axial coding methods, as directed by Corbin and Strauss (2007). Both researchers independently worked to code the data. Using an inductive process, generated codes were used to produce major themes.

How Succession Planning Is Being Addressed

Study participants described how succession planning is being addressed for the presidency with four prevailing themes: (a) it is not being addressed well, (b) addressed at an interim level, (c) mentoring and development of senior administrators, and (d) the reliance on a national search. Nineteen of the 25 participants indicated that succession planning is not being addressed well for the presidency. Participants also indicated that it does happen in some instances at the vice president and dean level but not at the president level. One president noted, “Succession planning in higher education is basically an oxymoron” (President P). Others suggested that it is being done, but not formally, noting conversations have occurred on an unofficial level. Another president commented,

I hadn’t thought about it too much until a couple of years ago when one of our board members, who is an executive with a large corporation, made a statement that really jarred me, he said “succession planning is viewed as our most important responsibility,” that really got us moving on it. (President G)

Additionally, a long-term president indicated, “There are a whole lot of us that are sixty and older, about half of us, that means there’s going to be a big turnover and schools better start to wake up” (President H).

Sixty-four percent of study participants indicated succession planning was discussed but only to the extent of the “interim”-level. Most indicated their institutional by-laws required their institutions have a plan for the unanticipated loss of the president. Naming an interim was typically described as the academic vice president or one of the other senior-level administrators stepping in until a new president could be named.

Additionally, presidents indicated the mentoring and development of their senior administrators. In this realm, a focus was on “continuously growing people into areas of greater capability so that they can assess themselves, be assessed, and gauge their professional development to take on other things, positions further north from where they currently reside” (President I). Participants also indicated that increasingly more organizations, such as the CIC, are providing professional programs for the development of individuals with an interest to progress through an institution of higher education. Taking care of the next generation, providing encouragement, and preparing for the greater good of the community were also indicated as important functions.

Finally, it was suggested that a national search was a “given” and part of the culture of higher education; therefore, succession planning was not a consideration. A board chair indicated, “What makes God laugh, is watching people plan, so this whole planning process has to be filtered through what is going to be inevitably a national search” (Board Chair B). Similarly, another president suggested, “In our business it seems the old prophet is not welcome in his own hometown, you think you have to go fishing far away” (President N).

To be noted, both search firm participants indicated that the institutions of private higher education they have worked with are not preparing. “Nobody puts it into their budget and then they are shocked by what it will cost to replace the president” (Search Firm B). Also suggested by the search firms was the perception that many trustees do not want to think beyond the current president.

Challenges and Barriers

Only two themes emerged when the study participants discussed the challenges and barriers to succession planning. Shared governance and the loss of leadership momentum were the predominant themes expressed by the constituencies. The general consensus (72%) was succession planning goes against the beliefs and traditions of the academy. The whole community at an institution is involved in choosing a new leader and succession planning as they understand it to be would not work. One search firm representative described it as “going against the grain of higher education” (Search Firm B). Another participant asserted, “We live in a bubble, but we can’t really afford to be in a bubble, so we need to poke through the bubble” (President P). This cultural barrier was further defined by one president as shared governance. There are multiple constituencies within the academy and each one of those constituencies has a voice. Consultation and collaboration are a part of the culture. This president went on to say, “The fundamental challenge for nonprofit higher education succession planning is shared governance” (President D).

Referring to a loss of leadership momentum, one search firm noted, “Once the president makes their announcement you hear a pretty loud quacking sound” (Search Firm A). Few presidents want to announce the date they are departing the institution. Several felt the announcement created unhealthy behaviors within the academic community and suggested that once the announcement was complete, maintaining leadership momentum was difficult.

Although only two major themes were presented, there were several other comments worth noting because of their contrary nature. One president stated that there is no need for succession planning, hence there are no challenges. Another felt that there are no barriers and that those who believe there are barriers are being “short-sighted.” Other challenges of succession planning included a lack of funds to effectively put a program in place and private institutions being too small to have the depth of talent necessary for succession planning. Furthermore, participants noted there are more pressing issues for the campus to spend time working on.

Board of Trustees Role

Four themes emerged during the discussion of the role of the board of trustees in succession planning and was equally distributed among the three participant constituencies: (a) boards should prepare and know the needs of the institution, (b) the board’s most important job is to hire the president, (c) boards show little interest in dealing with the topic now, and (d) there is a desire to do more about succession planning.

Participants felt there is a need for the board of trustees to prepare for the loss of a president and to set up an effective process to deal with that event. It was also noted that although some felt a plan was necessary, it should not be a strict plan. Related to their most important role, one president described the board’s role as follows: “To know what gifts are needed in the CEO. Their role is defining and understanding the skill sets needed and shaping the profile” (President D). Another participant, who spoke to preparation, stated that “the board must be prepared at any given moment to face the issue of succession planning” (President J).

Although it was remarked that the most important role of the board of trustees is to hire the president, it was equally stated that the board of trustees does not wish to deal with the issue. It was noted to be an uncomfortable topic. In one instance, it was stated by a board member that it does not need to consider the next president as their current president is fit and young. Along the same lines, sometimes board members “glaze over” when the topic of succession planning is presented. It is seen in some instances as an unnecessary time-consuming exercise. One president mentioned that whenever the topic is presented to his board, their comments are, “Why are we talking about this? Are you going somewhere?” (President N).

As much as the topic was remarked to create discomfort, the theme of wanting to do more around succession planning emerged. Several board chairs indicated the study interview questions presented to them prompted them to “put succession planning on the to-do list.” It was felt across the interviewed constituencies that the board of trustees must take the lead in succession planning and become more engaged in its development.

President’s Role

The key themes related to the president’s role in succession planning were defined as communication, the hiring of strong senior positions, professional development opportunities, and not being directly involved. By far the most prevalent idea presented from the interviewees was the importance of communication of the president to the key players within the succession process. More specifically, this was presented as having adequate, ongoing communication with the board chair. Further defined, this was characterized as a dialogue with the president to the board chair without giving directives. It was stated by several participants that the president’s critical role should not recommend an individual for their replacement, but offer insight and keep the board informed on the institutions needs. One president asserted, “I can help to define the needs of the institution so that there would be a profile established, and the Board can make the selection, but I think that is as far as a president should go” (President G).

The aspect of hiring strong senior positions was also highly noted among participants. It was suggested that one of the president’s most important roles is to ensure a strong foundation of senior team members who support them. This was proposed to be the best way to ensure that an institution is left in a healthy place. Vice presidents must be ready in the case of unexpected circumstances. One President stated, “If I drop dead tomorrow, then I’ve got good people doing good things, the new President could come in and begin right away” (President R).

Seventeen of the 25 participants indicated the significance of creating an environment for professional development opportunities. Mentoring, nurturing, and providing opportunities to understand the entire operation are just some of the ways presidents described this idea. One participant noted,

It is imperative that I make sure that we have an institutional culture that values the cultivation and development of top management. They may go on and they may come back but the point is to breed talent. At the end of the day, I think the institution is about creating an environment where you are getting the most of the talent, helping them be the best they can be. (President P)

Additionally, many participants felt that the development of those senior leaders is a positive for the greater good of the academic community, as opportunities for advancement may exist outside of their own institution.

The final theme, suggested by 9 of the 25 participants, was that a president should not be directly involved with the succession process. The president was viewed as a resource only, it cannot name their successor. Multiple times it was stated, by each constituency, emphatically that “the president needs to stay out of the way.”

Key Qualifications

The dominant themes related to the key qualifications for an individual to be a president of a private higher education institution identified in this study were the following: (a) fundraising, (b) strong communication skills, (c) an understanding of higher education, (d) academic credentials, and (e) a belief in the organization’s mission. Seventeen of the 25 participants identified fundraising as a critical qualification to be successful in today’s highly competitive environment. One President noted, “You have to love fundraising. That is over half my job, and if you don’t like raising money, don’t even think about it” (President A). Participants also indicated that it is not just the ability to raise funds but there must be an eagerness and passion for it.

While raising money was the most prevalent theme, the ability to communicate effectively, with both internal and external constituencies, was mentioned by 13 of the 25 participants. The ability to unite people within the community and drive positive public relations and group dynamics was identified to be a key qualification. Effective communication builds the trust that is necessary to communicate a compelling vision for the university or college. Specifically, “The president needs to be the keeper of the tale, the one who tells the story and can effectively communicate the mission and vision to both the internal and external groups” (President G).

Another important qualification described by the study participants was the ability to “understand” the world of higher education. This was further defined as the need to have respect, appreciation, and value toward the academy. An element of this was the ability to work with various constituencies and to truly understand the culture of academic life. A president noted this as “the ability to understand the institutional process, understand both structure and politics and symbolic leadership enough to be able to help to put the institution in a position to succeed” (President I).

Finally, it should be noted that although academic understanding was described as being essential, academic credentials as a key qualification for the presidency was only mentioned by 6 of the 25 participants, and all 6 of those participants were presidents. It should also be noted that those 6 were adamant about the need for a terminal degree, describing it as “critical” and a “must have.”

Communicating the mission and vision are critical; however, also identified is the importance of the president’s belief in that mission and the ability to live it. Devotion, passion, dedication, and the courage to live the mission were all ways in which this qualification was described. Other key qualifications suggested by the study participants included ethics, a sense of humor, energy, a strong financial background, and courage. A search firm representative stated, “It is a complex mixture of things and talents and abilities that make for a successful college and university president. It is increasingly hard, I think, to find people who will fill this role” (Search Firm A).

Hiring From Within

Three themes emerged when participants were asked if institutions had a culture that would support hiring a president from within: (a) yes, with some caution; (b) known challenges; and (c) not accepting. A majority of the participants felt that their institutions would be accepting of an internal candidate, but with some caveats. First, the internal candidate would need to compete with the other potential candidates through a national search. Second, it was stated that it would truly depend on the specific circumstances of the institution at that particular point in time.

The second theme suggested by the contributors to this study identified that although there may be a culture to support an internal candidate, internal candidates have a very difficult time going through the process for several reasons. Participants noted internal candidates’ weaknesses are already known: they have baggage, and because of this, oftentimes the bar is set higher for that candidate. External candidates are seen as having new energy and charisma. They are perceived to be “wonderful” even before anything is known about them. One board chair stated, “I could see the sparkly eyed reactions to some of the external candidates” (Board Chair C).

Last, 7 of the 25 participants stated their institution would not have a culture conducive to hiring from within. This was suggested to be “rare” and “unusual.” Primarily this was attributed to the individual being a known quantity with baggage.

Hiring From the Business Community

Four themes emerged related to the acceptance of a president from the external business community: (a) acceptance except for the faculty, (b) doable with hurdles, (c) not possible, and (d) yes, the skill set is needed. Eleven of the 25 study participants indicated that the faculty would not be accepting of a president who did not come from the academy. Some indicated that the word “business” in higher education is a four-letter word. It was also indicated that faculty would be both suspicious and reluctant to consider such a candidate.

To the same degree as the perception of faculty uneasiness, it was noted that the idea is doable with some hurdles. Some felt that it is becoming more common and indicated that, in the coming years, it will need to be a consideration. Others felt that things are changing slowly, but it was certainly not something that fell into the tradition of the academy. The hurdles, in large part, relate back to pleasing all the various constituencies. Furthermore, it was suggested that if an institution does consider such an individual, it must be done very carefully.

Some participants indicated that it would not be considered at all by their institutions. The overwhelming majority of these individuals indicated that an incoming president must thoroughly understand the academy and all of its nuances. It was cited to be a “tough sell” at a number of institutions. A search firm study participant indicated that institutions “are not willing to go with someone who has not been in the trenches” (Search Firm A). Furthermore, a president indicated, “At the end of the day, given their druthers, most of them will still default to a traditional looking person” (President P).

A final theme presented, although not cited by an overwhelming majority of study participants, was cited by half of the board chairs. Each indicated fully that there was a “need” for presidential candidates from the external business community. They felt that their skill set is critical to the future success of universities. The skill set required today for a CEO of an institution of private higher education is much more business focused than in the past. A final comment from a president indicated, “I do not think higher education has woken up to the fact that these jobs are now so complicated, it will be a slow change” (President R).

Limitations

There are limitations to this study that require consideration. First, this study was limited to the 20 private higher education institutions within the Wisconsin system at the time of study. Therefore, generalizations beyond Wisconsin private higher education institutions are not possible. Second, the study only included current presidents. The study could have been expanded to speak with former presidents. Perspectives from nonsitting presidents would have potentially demonstrated more open, candid responses. Also, a larger cross-section of search firms may have provided more diverse insights not just limited to the Midwest. Third, there is the potential unwillingness on the part of the participants to share specific information about their institution or experiences. A lack of openness has the potential to create an unreliable study. Additionally, faculty and staff were beyond the scope of this study. Inclusion of faculty and staff may have offered an additional perspective. Finally, although most interviews were conducted in person, some were conducted via telephone. Phone interviews can be impersonal and may have yielded a less open discussion of the topic.

Future Research

This study offers several opportunities for future research. This study focused within the private institutions of higher education in Wisconsin. Future research should explore perceptions throughout private institutions across the United States to identify if the same themes would be presented. Also, expanding the research to include additional search firms may lead to a more diverse discussion. Furthermore, it would be of value to attain the perspectives of past presidents versus sitting presidents as there may be differing perceptions about the value of succession planning and its challenges. Additionally, studies focused on faculty and staff members are imperative, particularly given faculty were mentioned as one of the hindrances to succession planning in higher education. It has been noted that faculty and administrators display a hesitancy to take on leadership roles within their institutions. Identifying and understanding the obstacles or barriers that exist may help create a greater willingness for those constituencies to assume leadership roles within the organization. In addition, there is an opportunity to assess the professional development programs that currently exist in institutions of higher education. Identifying what opportunities are available for both faculty and administrators would lead to better insight of how prepared an institution is for the future. This study identified that there is a need for institutions to consider candidates from outside the academic community. Assessing the interest level of leadership outside of academia for a role within institutions of higher education would also be of value. Finally, the board of trustees has been identified as the key group that should be addressing succession planning within these academic institutions. It would be valuable to garner greater comprehension of their perceptions and identify why little has been done to put succession plans in place. Further study, both quantitatively and qualitatively, needs to be initiated to understand how private institutions can protect themselves from leadership disruptions in the future.

As previously stated, little empirical work on the topic of succession planning in private higher education has occurred. More important, no prior studies have focused on the presidency in private higher education. Therefore, this study has contributed significantly to the body of knowledge. The study has demonstrated that there is confusion about succession planning and, in many cases, an unwillingness to alter the “status quo.” This study’s delineation of the status and barriers to succession planning in private higher education will assist the cultivation of a sustainable future in private higher education.