Higher Education Governance Tips and Strategies

Few decisions a governing board makes matter more than choosing the institution's president. A well-run presidential search can set a college or university up for a decade of stable, effective leadership; a botched one can cost years of momentum and enormous sums in severance and lost confidence. Yet many boards approach the search only once every several years and lack a settled method. This article offers practical strategies for conducting a strong search and, just as important, for planning succession so the institution is never caught unprepared.

Want expert help putting this into practice? Higher Education Governance can guide you through it.

Treat succession as continuous, not episodic

The first strategic shift is to stop thinking of leadership transition as an event that begins when a president resigns. Effective boards treat succession planning as an ongoing responsibility. This means maintaining an up-to-date emergency succession plan—who leads if the president is suddenly incapacitated—and giving thought to the institution's longer-term leadership pipeline well before a vacancy looms.

An emergency succession plan need not be elaborate: it names an interim leader, defines their authority, and specifies how the board activates the plan. Having it in place converts a potential crisis into a managed transition. Boards that lack one discover, at the worst possible moment, that no one is clearly in charge.

Begin with the institution, not the candidates

Related: Higher Education Governance - Essential Steps for Institutional Success.

When a search does begin, the most common mistake is to jump to candidates before defining what the institution needs. The strongest searches start with a leadership profile grounded in the institution's current reality and near-future challenges. What are the defining opportunities and threats of the next five to seven years? What must the next president accomplish, and therefore what experience and capabilities are essential?

A worked approach: the board, informed by consultation with faculty, staff, and other stakeholders, drafts a position and leadership statement that names the three or four challenges the next president must be equipped to tackle. This statement becomes the yardstick against which every candidate is measured, keeping the search anchored to institutional need rather than to whoever interviews most impressively.

Structure the search committee and the process

A presidential search committee should be large enough to carry legitimacy across constituencies but small enough to work efficiently—commonly with board members, faculty, and other stakeholder representatives, chaired by a trustee. Its authority must be clear: in most models the committee screens and recommends finalists, while the full board makes the final appointment, since hiring the president is a core board responsibility that cannot be delegated away.

Decide early on the key process questions: whether the search will be confidential or open, how a search firm will be used, the timeline, and how stakeholders will engage with finalists. Each choice involves trade-offs—confidential searches attract sitting leaders who cannot risk exposure, while open searches offer more campus buy-in. What matters is deciding deliberately and communicating the process clearly.

Evaluate candidates rigorously and fairly

See also: Higher Education Governance - Best Practices for Effective Leadership.

Rigor in evaluation separates strong searches from lucky ones. Assess every candidate against the same criteria drawn from the leadership profile, using structured interviews rather than free-form conversations that favor the charismatic. Conduct thorough reference and background checking—including references beyond those the candidate supplies—and probe not just accomplishments but how the candidate handled failure, conflict, and financial pressure.

A common error is falling for the "halo" candidate who performs brilliantly in interviews but whose record does not withstand scrutiny. The antidote is disciplined due diligence: verify claims, speak to people who reported to the candidate as well as those they reported to, and weigh evidence of results over polish. Fit with the institution's culture and mission deserves as much attention as résumé strength.

Diversity in the candidate pool is a strategic matter, not merely an aspiration. A search that draws finalists from a narrow band of backgrounds and career paths tends to reproduce the institution's existing assumptions at precisely the moment when fresh thinking may be needed. Casting a wide net early—through the search firm's outreach, the committee's own networks, and a leadership profile written to attract rather than deter non-traditional candidates—expands the range of strengths the board can choose from. The goal is not to lower the bar but to ensure the board is genuinely choosing the best leader for the institution's future rather than the most familiar one.

Manage the transition and the first year

The board's work does not end at the appointment. A strong transition includes a clear, competitive but responsible compensation and contract framework, a thoughtful onboarding plan, and agreed first-year priorities. The board chair should establish a regular working relationship with the new president immediately, and the board should agree on how it will support and evaluate the new leader through the crucial early period.

Onboarding a president is often neglected on the assumption that senior leaders need no help; in fact, the first year sets the trajectory. Introducing the new president to key stakeholders, being candid about the institution's real challenges, and setting realistic early expectations all improve the odds of a successful tenure.

A particularly delicate situation arises when an outgoing president has served long and left a strong imprint, or when the transition is unplanned and abrupt. In the first case, the board should guard against holding the new leader to the predecessor's style rather than to the agreed goals; in the second, an interim leader with clear authority buys the time needed to run a proper search rather than rushing to a permanent appointment under pressure. Naming an interim who has explicitly agreed not to be a candidate can keep the process clean and the interim focused on stability rather than self-advancement.

Learn from each transition

Finally, treat every search as an opportunity to strengthen the institution's capacity for the next one. Debrief the process honestly: what worked, what took too long, where the profile proved accurate or off. Update the emergency succession plan in light of what was learned, and capture the institutional knowledge so the next board is not starting from scratch.

Handled with discipline, presidential search and succession become a durable strength rather than a recurring scramble, and the tips and strategies above reflect the broader discipline of Higher Education Governance applied to the most consequential appointment a board ever makes. This article provides general educational guidance and is not legal advice; boards should consult qualified counsel on employment, contractual, and confidentiality matters specific to their search.