Tag: Higher education

Posted on

Presidential Tenure and How it Intersects with Philanthropic Success

Judy WierJudyth Wier is a 26-year fundraising professional working with not-for-profits and institutions of higher learning. She is a member of the Edu Alliance Advisory Council.

Presidential tenure must be one of the things that keep any President awake at night. The length of time a person is President of a university is decreasing at an alarming rate.

Let me cite an example of where I graduated, Auburn University. The president was Dr. Harry Philpott who served for 15 years from 1965 until 1980. The President before him for 18 years was Dr. Ralph Draughton. Since 1980, 8 others served as president until the most recent President Dr. Steven Leath selected in 2017. This works out to an average tenure of 4.62 years for each of the presidents from 1980-2017.

While 4.62 years seems like a short time for a President to serve, Louisiana State University from 1980 to 2017 had 13 presidents (including interim’s) for an average of 2.84 years. A significant percentage of presidential tenures nationwide come to an end after three to five years.

The American Council on Education’s (ACE) report, “The American College President 2017,” found that college presidents served an average of 6.5 years in that position compared to a 7-year average in 2011 and 8.5 year average in 2006. According to American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) data covering the past five years, presidential tenure lasted four years or less for 44.9 percent of member institutions. Only 26.9 percentage lasted 10 years or more.

“Fundamentally, the reason why tenures are shorter is because the agenda for leadership is so dynamic and is changing more quickly than it was in the past,” stated Lucy Leske, a senior partner with Witt/Kieffer’s Higher Education Practice. Fundraising and coalition-building have become a significant part of the university president’s job description.

Presidents are being asked to set a vision and motivate a wide variety of constituent groups, some with competing interest, to help in its implementation. The president must gain their trust to impart the whys and end results of implementing his/her vision. These constituent groups include university leadership, board of directors, faculty/staff, alumni, business, and community leaders. Is the average tenure of 6.5 years enough time to assess the culture of the university, develop a vision, gain constituent trust, and implement?

Numerous research articles show that developing a vision and motivating constituents of this vision is a primary responsibility of the president. They also show that successful fundraising is a critical component. Financial strength – endowments and alumni giving – are dependent upon the ability of president to seek and bring in philanthropic dollars.

In the last ten years there has been a growing list of challenges that has changed the job description for a university president. No longer is the domination of academic leadership at the forefront. We now intersect financial stability and growth of the university with staying the course of mission. As there is movement away from seeking out academic leadership in a president to one of vision maker/fundraiser. We are seeing changes to who is applying for these positions and who is being hired.

In the past decade the following have impacted this intersect of vision making and fundraising versus academic leadership at universities:

  • decreased state funding
  • lower enrollment
  • decreasing international enrollment
  • limited access to student loans
  • increased emphasis on transformational leadership
  • cost to attend college vs. increase in median family incomes

Can we realistically ask for success by university presidents with average job tenure of 6.5 years?

Successful fundraising is heart to heart relationship building. A president must spend time with prospects in building a relationship that may lead to a philanthropic impact gift. It starts at the top.

According to the 2013 study by The Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy titled: Million Dollar Ready: Assessing the Institutional Factors That Lead to Transformational Gifts in Higher Education “Longer presidential tenure is associated with higher numbers of million-dollar-plus donations. An institution with a president in office since 2000 tended to receive a higher number of million- dollar donations during the study period of 2000-2012, holding other factors constant.”

For this process to be successful he/she must spend the time. It is not a “one and done”, nor is there a way to rush this process. It is a genuine investment of time. My experience with university and college presidents is that they spend 35% of their time on fundraising. It is a daily activity. Most were on a learning curve, willing but not yet able to lead a fundraising campaign

Dr. Jessica Kozloff, Senior Consultant with Academic Search and President Emerita of Bloomsburg University Pennsylvania, cites change management research which overwhelmingly show that in any organization, five years is the minimum time required for anyone in an executive leadership position to make a positive impact on the organization they are charged with leading.

Short tenures do little to establish a true sense of security within the university. They also leave little time to follow through on the vision established when the president first arrived on campus. For success there must be a process to develop personal relationships, effectively communicate the vision, and establish trust that leads to engaged supporters.

Over the last decade the financial challenges of our public and private universities and colleges have moved the leadership position to be filled with those who can create and articulate a vision, develop trust, engage in the growth of the institution’s endowment, and increase the percentage of alumni giving.

While university presidents have traditionally come from positions within academic fields, this is changing. With University boards increasingly looking for candidates that can fundraise we must ask if presidents are prepared for this task if it has not been a part of their professional experience. I believe fundraising is a hands on experience. It takes experience to know when the time is right for sitting across from a multi-million dollar donor and agreeing to their gift parameters.

Are we in that transitional moment where direct experience as a fundraiser may overtake the past trend of a President coming from the academic administration ranks? We shall soon see with the selection of the next generation of higher education President’s.

Judyth Wier is a 26-year fundraising professional working with not-for-profits and institutions of higher learning. Nineteen of those years were spent in leadership roles that included planned giving, marketing, fundraising, management, external communications, and strategic planning. Her higher education career includes serving as Vice President for Institutional Advancement at Cottey College in Missouri, Chief Fundraising Officer for the University of New Orleans, Louisiana, Executive Director of the Advancement Louisiana State University of Veterinary Medicine, and Associate Vice Chancellor University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

The school is the last expenditure upon which America should be willing to economize. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

Additional Article Sources

American Council on Education. Spring Supplement 2012. “The American College President Study: Key Findings and Takeaways”. Bryan J. Cook.

American Association of State College and Universities. 2017 Summer. Public Purpose. “The Erosion of Presidential Tenure”. Karen Doss Bowman

“University Presidents and the Role of Fundraising at Private Liberal Arts Universities.” 2016. Dissertation by Greely Robert Myers, Walden University.

“The Relational Effect University Momentum Has on Philanthropic Support”. May 2016. Dissertation by John D. North. Olivet Nazarene University.

cropped-edu-alliance-logo-square1.jpgEdu Alliance is a higher education consultancy firm with offices in the United States and the United Arab Emirates. The founders and its advisory members have assisted higher education institutions on a variety of projects, and many have held senior positions in higher education in the United States and internationally.

Our specific mission is to assist universities, colleges and educational institutions to develop capacity and enhance their effectiveness.

Posted on

Community Relations in Public Universities

RogerBrown-310Dr. Roger G. Brown is Chancellor Emeritus of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC).  During his 7-year tenure enrollment increased over 20%, and Dr. Brown was integral in fundraising that generated $81.2 million for scholarships, professorships, and academic programs. He was the key ambassador for government and community relations. Dr. Brown, a member of the Edu Alliance Advisory Council is involved in leadership roles at several community nonprofit organizations in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

The importance of positive, productive relations with community leaders, elected officials, business executives, advocacy groups, neighborhood associations, and other stakeholders is an essential factor for success in higher education institutions. An unsystematic survey of university websites demonstrates that many institutions establish offices or entire departments to perform community relations outreach. As Provost and then Chancellor of mid-sized public universities, I used community relations to build support for the institution, to help to identify employer needs and internships, to recruit local students, to expand efforts for inclusiveness on campus and in the community, and to lobby for resources from the state and corporations.

Elements that made up the community relations function at the universities which I served included among others

(1) a Chancellor’s Roundtable for local business leaders, elected officials, hospital administrators, clergy, and staff and faculty from neighboring colleges and universities

(2) a Multicultural Advisory Council for input on the university’s reputation for inclusiveness and attention to broad-based outreach to the community

(3) gatherings of the Student Government Association and other student leaders where I learned ideas about their connections, or lack thereof, to the larger community

(4) college- and department-based advisory councils specifically aimed at stakeholders of the particular work of those departments and colleges

The Roundtable met quarterly for a brief presentation of a university program or area of need; then the members were solicited for input. I learned that it was important to listen carefully to the Roundtable as an advisory committee and then to report back to the members on what actions have been based on the Roundtable discussions. Turnover on the Roundtable occurred naturally and thereby added more opinions and expertise from new members. My staff and selected students also participated in the ongoing issue discussions. This promoted dialogues at the department level for understanding and action on the Roundtable’s identified issues. From time to time, members of the Roundtable made judgments about the efficacy of the Roundtable-university dialogues which led to improved understanding between the members and me.  Chancellor’s Roundtable members regularly were invited to campus events, receptions at the Chancellor’s residence, and concerts and athletic events to promote ongoing dialogue and build camaraderie.

The Multicultural Advisory Council became an important source of feedback on the campus’s reputation for inclusiveness in student and faculty recruitment, on appropriate activities which focused on minority students, and on ways in which the university could improve upon such functions. The Council was made up of minority alumni, clergy, secondary schools’ leaders, employers, and public safety representatives, among other groups. In quarterly meetings the Council participated in lively, free-wheeling dialogues with me, the Student Affairs staff, representatives from campus public safety offices, and campus religious leaders. The members of the Council were encouraged to bring to our attention instances of discrimination of which they were aware, and my staff and I followed up to determine the accuracy of the reports of discrimination and follow-up as appropriate within the procedures of the Student Code of Conduct, state law, and, where necessary, law enforcement agencies.

Gatherings of student leaders and other interested students were particularly helpful to explore the climate of community relations which had touched the students in both negative and positive ways. I found the students to be forthright and thoughtful in their conversations. One campus I led was urban, and the students regularly interacted with merchants, churches, public safety officers, and prospective employers. One example of the students’ influence on community-university relationships had to do with access to reasonable food stores and drug stores. After hearing their complaints, the senior vice chancellor for business worked with local business leaders to encourage them to bring such stores to an under-developed street adjacent to campus. Today, several food stores, drug stores, and affordable clothing shops are available to the students. Both students and the participating merchants have benefited from their collaboration, which is the ideal outcome of positive community relations.

Finally, advisory councils for colleges and departments were effective in building solid community relations to further discussions about student internships, to explore skills and knowledge that the students can learn from companies and agencies, and to foster mutual respect and support for their respective goals. In my experience, student interactions with college or department advisory councils led to richer learning opportunities for both students and members of the advisory councils. The incorporation of art students and faculty into projects of public art and corporate commissions for graphic art was one good example of the connections that advisory councils can promote. Another example was the close collaboration between our school of business with departments like accounting, finance, marketing, and human resources. Discussions about “real world” expectations for graduates in the varying fields of expertise were invaluable to the students and the firms who were eager to hire the best employees.

University-community relations are essential to maximize how both can profit from face-to-face interactions among students, administrators, and community businesses and employers alike. The time spent in building such positive relationships can bring about desirable outcomes for all concerned.

cropped-edu-alliance-logo-square1.jpgEdu Alliance is a higher education consultancy firm with offices in the United States and the United Arab Emirates. The founders and its advisory members have assisted higher education institutions on a variety of projects, and many have held senior positions in higher education in the United States and internationally.

Our specific mission is to assist universities, colleges and educational institutions to develop capacity and enhance their effectiveness.