Creating and Sustaining the University Leadership Pipeline
Leadership education, recruitment, and development are essential to the university’s short- and long-term viability and success.
How does a university and those responsible for guiding it, ensure its continuing growth and development? In what ways does the institution consciously enhance its future through the shaping of processes and persons each ready and able to contribute to institutional relevance, vitality, and success?
How do a newly selected president and the Board that appoints him/her clearly delineate the importance of this leadership development role, not only for current management/staff but for those early in their careers? How is intentionality regarding leadership development established and then clearly communicated and demonstrated to the various campus constituencies? How will we know when this commitment to growing leadership achieves sufficient acceptance that it becomes a recognized tenet of institutional culture?
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions required for the establishment and the growth of the leadership talent “pipeline”? What values should guide current leadership in this process? What of the use of role models within and outside the institution? How does leadership pipeline development become a university priority, one that transcends the service of a particular president and other senior leaders and managers?
Growing university leadership talent must be intentional. Institutional success is dependent in large measure on the quality and depth of its leadership pool. As it is true for society, so it is for the institution that “human talent is the only true sustainable resource.” The consistent cultivating of individual talent to assume various leadership roles throughout the institution is a primary responsibility of the president and senior leadership. Key principles, practices, and attitudes must be inextricably interwoven to create a culture supportive of this essential developmental process. Building a viable, collaborative, successful team requires vision and patience, an acute sense of the individual and collective talents that comprise an effective team, and an active recognition that leadership teams are not simply a cluster of personal agendas and aspirations linked by an interest only in personal success. Walter Issacson, CEO of the Aspen Institute, concludes in The Innovators “creating a team of competence is harder than creating the idea or product.”
Principles
One of the keys to successful team building and, importantly, to extending that priority throughout the university and into the future, is the common commitment to a shared vision, mission, and values. Beyond the daily demands and expected academic processes, the president and the institution must create a bond, a firm connection among leaders and managers at each level within the institution. An articulated sense of purpose, enunciated infrequently and confined to a few senior leaders, will not effectively transmit the unifying sense of purpose across the institution. Further, the institutional imperative to create and sustain the generation of fresh leadership talent over time will fail if not embraced by the current leadership team. It is not easy to identify and adhere to a goal whose actual accomplishment is to be achieved in the future. But, if the goal is, in fact, realized, then the university benefits are substantive and culture-shaping.
The vision should capture the essence of the university’s identity in a dynamic manner and be an expression of genuine institutional values. It should ground the institution in the place and people it serves. The team, faculty, and staff will accept and embrace that vision if it is a consistent, and sometimes inspirational, expression of the rationale for pursuing this work. Kouzes and Posner always include the ability to “inspire a shared vision” in their several works on leadership and credibility. The vision can galvanize the varied university constituencies around the objectives, and keep their “eye on the prize,” if the publicly articulated vision also finds resonance in the individual’s personal values. The university vision becomes the professional and personal raison d’etre for the campus community expressed in a most compelling and transparent manner.
This shared perspective is essential as institutions and their leaders continually adjust to the relentless, unforgiving challenge of change. The breadth and depth of disruptive intrusion permeates our world, our lives, and our institutions from every imaginable direction. Thomas Friedman has been chronicling this pattern of growth and change now at an accelerated pace unimagined just a few years ago when he wrote The World Is Flat. He notes that Facebook, Twitter, and Skype have all emerged as global phenomena transforming human connection in the last 7 years. Further, he speaks of a revolutionary threshold occurring in the next 5 years when “every person on the planet, if they have the motivation, will be on the network via a smart device.”These devices are found in every country and in the hands of young and old alike, from Chicago to Chengdu, from Gaza to Gambia.
The guideposts for stability (and sanity) amid this protracted turbulence lie, at least in part, in the quality of leadership and the enthusiasm for the shared purpose. If we don’t understand “what we are doing here,” it will be almost impossible for universities and colleges to survive change relevant, and intact. The vision is set onto the foundation of institutional values and guides the successive leadership teams through the inevitable and necessary, multiple mid-course corrections. Thus, in the organization, there is an inextricable interconnection between mission, vision and values, and the presidents and senior university leaders’ patterns of effective messaging.
Many team members will remain at the institution, and continue to learn, mature, and contribute to the university’s vitality if they feel valued. Investment in a succession of key mid-level leaders and rising stars is fundamental to long-term institutional dynamism and stability. Encouragement is one of several potent tools perceptive leaders employ to consistently message that the individual is central to actualizing the university mission via its strategic plan and deep-seeded, community-wide collaboration. Tangible evidence of his/her value is the institution’s consistent willingness to invest in his/her professional growth and development. This affirmation can assume many forms, from focused educational opportunities, including support for pursuing advanced/specialized degrees, focused training, unique short-term assignments, to representing the university in a variety of public forums, service on local and state boards of community partners, among others.
In this way, the president demonstrably messages confidence in current senior team members’ commitment and competence, and, significantly, in others with currently more limited responsibilities. Such attention can result in sustained loyalty and connection to the institution and its mission when alternative opportunities appear for some as “shiny objects” on the horizon. From experience, it is clear that the university community is aware of these actions, which reinforce the salience of the vision. The stability of the mission and the message is recognized as an assurance of continuing opportunity for those who may desire to enter the university leadership preparation pipeline.
The president and senior leadership must “model the way” (Kouzes & Posner, 2012; The Leadership Challenge) on collaborative practices. A president’s intentions and actions are writ large across the university community landscape, and those so disposed will be monitoring for any gaps between those intentions and actions. If such occur, and they can even with the best of intentions, then a “coterie of the watchful” will be looking to determine whether the actions were an aberration from the stated path or perhaps a confirmation of their unspoken suspicions. Consistency and openness can be effective in dissipating any doubts of the leadership’s true intentions.
Collaborative leadership, inspired and anchored squarely at the top levels of organizational management, is one of the transformational characteristics of institutions deliberately building its future. David Brooks (New York Times, December 17, 2014), who regularly offers insight on the broad range of political and social issues, depicts collaboration as an art far too scarce among leaders, from global to local. “You can spot the collaborative leader because he’s rejected the heroic, solitary model of leadership. He doesn’t try to dominate his organization as its all-seeing visionary, leading idea generator and controlling intelligence. Instead, he sees himself as a stage-setter, a person who makes it possible for the creativity in his organization to play itself out. The collaborative leader lessens the power distance between himself and everybody else.”
The collaborative leader sets broad goals based on institutional values and skillful discernment of the current milieu and where and whom the university serves. He/she proceeds in concert with others whose experience, expertise, insight, and instincts he/she values. Such value has either been demonstrated over time, or is evidenced in the promise a particular team member demonstrates. He/she might not be the most seasoned member of the team, but he/she demonstrates the proclivity toward understanding the issues confronting the institution, and he/she contributes to the interactive deliberations in fresh and clarifying ways. He/she is not an echo of a colleague’s comments, attempting to gain attention by speaking out often, but rather listens in an absorptive manner and then offers new ideas and useful context.
Practices
Effectively recruiting for the institution’s leadership team and pipeline is one of the president’s salient and continuing responsibilities. He/she shares this duty for leadership vitality and continuity with selected members of the current leadership team.
The intention must be clear and transparent. It should be understood as an institutional priority that transcends the tenure of the president. Therefore, the president must position this obligation deep within the institution, consistently and over time, so that it earns an accepted place in the shared values and objectives of the university. Through continuing interaction with the Cabinet and senior leadership, supported by the president’s public statements, this organizational practice can earn a place in the institution’s culture.
This investment in the university’s leadership pipeline is reinforced by an equal enthusiasm for the growth of the senior team members. Beyond personal encouragement, the president actively sponsors mid-level and senior leaders to advance their knowledge and skills via conference and programs in which they actively participate and return with the harvest of information and insight to be shared formally and informally, with colleagues. The president leads by example by relating the substance and insights gleaned from meetings and conferences. Other team members will benefit from this example, and they can be tasked to connect with both peers and their own team members, and therefore amplify the impact of the invested resources by sharing what they learned. This strategy can become a study in efficiency and effectiveness.
A pivotal dimension of a successful strategy is nurturing an environment conducive to trust and support among the president’s team members. Integrity and clarity are critical ingredients in creating and sustaining the team and its members. President and General Dwight D. Eisenhower counseled “The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible.” For trust, or lack of it, will be one of the consequences of the group’s dynamic connection, and those intertwined relationships, whether observed from a distance, or up close and daily, can directly influence those who may decide to seek entry into the university’s leadership pipeline.
The quality of the senior team’s relationships, namely, their support for one another, in public or private, can also determine their collective success.
The evidence of such mutually supportive relationships is not lost on the university community. Many on campus search for the fissures among those in management/leadership positions either to exploit the disequilibrium for private gain, or as affirmation that they need not heed the strategy and planning promoted by the senior team. One could easily overhear comments to the effect that “If they do not support one another, why should we embrace the ‘plan du jour’?” A divided “leadership” team can render institutional aspirations DOA.
Further, such division can become a debilitating deterrent to rising talent. He/she observes this absence of camaraderie, or worse, and concludes not to seek leadership opportunities, or at least not at that institution. Whether these interpersonal interactions among the leadership team members are overt and stark, or subtle and nuanced, they can eventually, and effectively, corrode the cultural basis upon which the mission and vision are founded, and, importantly, the unified sense of purpose that is conducive to producing exceptional outcomes. Why would a fresh talent aspire to join a siloed “team of rivals”? In such a scenario, one outcome is almost inevitable. The leadership pipeline will either be empty, or filled with some aspirants who may regard the “culture of division” as the norm for advancement and perpetuate this corrosive style. Regardless, the reservoir of leadership talent is depleted with palpable and extended institutional consequences.
The president is the guardian of the institution’s vision. There is a direct correlation between his/her authentic advocacy of the goals and the level of enthusiasm and commitment among the university community. Therefore, the communication of the collective sense of the future is fundamental to the institution’s success, the president’s success, and the continuing recruitment of aspiring, developing leaders. The communication must be consistent, multidimensional, and democratic. The message is widely disseminated in various forms. It is not confined to a particular event, time of year, or constituency. The essential elements of the message should be woven into the ubiquitous “elevator” speech, academic community forums, commencement addresses, and donor recognition events. Many rising stars will make a personal connection to the institution and its future based on the quality and consistency of the aspiration as codified in the mission/vision values, and in their trust of the messengers. Future leaders can be attracted to an institution not by rankings or assumed reputations, but by the promise of personal and institutional relevance and fulfillment exemplified by what is said, who says it, and the perceived degree of avid acceptance by university leadership and community alike.
Attitudes
Attitude is a life force in any enterprise, including the university. Positive, collaborative attitudes among the leadership team can transform a challenge into an opportunity. When optimism, rooted in full understanding of the situation, becomes an institution-wide habit, the options for resolving the serious issues proliferate. It is one of the key elements in the institution’s culture, and it is markedly influenced by the president and the senior leadership team. A pervasive, “can-do together” attitude can be a potent antidote for persistent, change-resistant silos and back-bench cynicism. As goals are realized, the sense of optimism is affirmed and becomes attractive to those still reserving judgment about whether to come aboard. When the inevitable difficulties and obstacles arise, attitude is a valued ally in problem-solving and on-campus cohesion. It can assist in aggregating both leadership and faculty and staff to assess and then actively support a pathway to resolving the problem.
But the popular, active adoption of such a supportive and congruent attitude is based in the leadership, in the veracity of the leadership team’s consistent and multifaceted communication, and in their personal, transparent mode of connecting with the university community. Good news or not so good, the leader’s habit of sharing what is happening and the routes to resolution confirms his/her perceived effectiveness and reinforces confidence across the institution’s constituencies as well as community-building, integrative attitudes throughout the institution.
Some lessons learned across an extended career in higher education remain indelible, and perhaps more vital now than when first discovered. For example, local philosopher leaders have inspired those around them by living the values they embraced for a lifetime, and in the process, changed their communities, their institutions as well as individual behaviors. They are the culture shapers and mentors who offer lessons in lives well lived based on mission, vision, and values.
One of these unacknowledged heroes spoke of “leaving the woodpile higher than you found it.” This metaphor produced faint resonance among most urban dwellers. But for those who have spent a winter with wood-fired heating, the message is personal and verifiable.
This declaration is relevant and meaningful especially to university leaders. The university and its focus on student success and serving the community, region, or state as “stewards of place” traverses the tenure of any individual regardless of title or responsibility. College and university leaders have a rooted responsibility to advancing the culture of learning, leading, and serving during their tenure in such servant–leadership roles. The “woodpile” is not confined to the size of the endowment, the number of new buildings, or the prowess of the athletic teams. It is also the firm seeding of leadership talent recruitment and development as a perpetual role and a valued responsibility.
Leaders should begin their service with the clear awareness of this duty that transcends their personal advancement or success. Leaders build the future now in the choices made about values, style, team members, and the shaping of institutional culture.
Central to fulfilling the fullest expression of one’s leadership role is intentionally identifying, recruiting, and cultivating talent for the leadership pipeline. If done effectively, the influence will last well beyond the leader’s term of service. And those who are not currently serving at the institution, and who may never know the leader’s name, will be immeasurably enriched by pathways and styles purposely selected as vital to the institution’s culture. The university’s “woodpile” will be replenished well into the future by a succession of effective leaders who embrace these unique, service-focused roles.
Recommended Readings
Bennis, W., Goleman, D., & O’Toole, J. (2008). Transparency: How Leaders Create a Culture of Cando. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the Line. Boston: Harvard College.
Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B. (2011). Credibility, How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B. (2012). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ron, H. (1994). Leadership With No Easy Answers. Boston:Harvard College.
Shaw, R.B. (1997). Trust in the Balance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Useem, M. (1998). The Leadership Moment. New York City: Three Rivers Press.