Tag: leadership

Posted on

Money, Mission and Culture: Strategic Planning for Colleges Under Pressure

May 11, 2026, By Chet Haskell – Every institution of higher education has some form of strategic plan. Indeed, such plans are usually required by accrediting organizations. These plans are supposed to define organizational goals and provide a clear path towards their achievement. For many institutions, strategic plans are largely aspirational, seeking to give guidance to stakeholders in order to channel their energies and to provide a degree of comfort for stakeholders for the road ahead.

The Plight of the Small Private Colleges

However, there is a class of private, non-profit colleges and universities where strategic plans have an existential dimension. There are close to a thousand small (3000 or fewer. students) colleges and universities that are at financial risk of failure. The elemental question these institutions face is: what must we do to stay alive institutionally? Strategic plans thus take on a special role for these institutions, both in their substance and in terms of their framing of the culture through which substance is manifested. Strategic plans here are central to the future of these schools.

The sources of pressures on these institutions are well known. More than eighty have closed in the past decade and another 30 have merged with other institutions.  The conditions for survival of the rest are not propitious.

Funding is at the root of this situation. The current tuition-based economic model for these schools is inadequate to meet their revenue needs. Yes, there a few wealthy institutions  with huge endowments:  there are 94 private institutions with endowments in excess of $1 billion. But these represent only 6% of such schools. The vast majority have small (or no) endowments and limited opportunities for other revenue sources beyond the tuition that comes with enrollments. There are more than 800 institutions with endowments averaging $30 million, which is almost insignificant in terms of how much supporting revenue can be garnered and directed toward the operational costs of the college. And, strikingly, there are at least 328 institutions with no endowment at all.

Furthermore, there are several other sources of pressure on such institutions. Their basic model is typically a residential undergraduate experience for 18-22 year old students, a demographic that is shrinking. Most of these institutions discount their tuition by 50% or more, meaning their situations are even more dire. Generating net tuition revenue means doubling enrollments. While critics sometimes counsel expanding programs to accommodate older, working students, many institutions are poorly set up to do so. Institutions  also lack significant distance education capacity. They have limited opportunities, experience and capital for expansion of programs. Their tenured faculty often lack experience with older students. And they are competing with a large number of similar institutions trying to do the same thing. And there is recent evidence such enrollments are declining. Finally, there is recent evidence such enrollments may also be declining.

The Purpose of a Strategic Plan

Fundamentally, most strategic plans are future-oriented and seek to show how to balance adequate resources with reasonable expenses. Since these schools are tuition dependent, most plans start with the goal of increasing enrollments and presenting ways to achieve this.  However, this is not merely a matter of growing numbers of students or increasing tuition dollars. Institutions of higher education are seamless webs where activities in one area are connected directly to several other areas. There are crucial additional elements that are not as clear-cut as enrollments or total revenue. Money  is necessary, but not sufficient.

The Role of Institutional Mission

The institution’s mission is key. Clear explication of mission presents a college’s basic purpose: why it exists and what it offers to both the individual student and to society at large. Externally, the mission is a crucial message to its internal community, potential students and families, possible donors and external communities about its purpose. Internally, the mission is a foundational expression of why students, faculty, staff and alumni should care about and support the college.

A strong and clear mission statement can help to focus attention and to attract individuals who might wish to study, teach or work there. It can be a powerful differentiator in a crowded marketplace. It can engender pride, loyalty and commitment, sometimes being credited as a reason one wishes to be part of a college, regardless of challenges, high tuition or low salaries. A strong mission statement can help tie an institution together.

A distinct and unambiguous mission statement is central to any strategic plans for the institution. Strategic plans or strategic initiatives must build on mission to express a realistic and direct blueprint to manifest that mission and promote institutional sustainability.

Unfortunately, many mission statements and strategic plans fail in this regard. Maria Toyoda, president of the WASC Senior College and University Commission, a leading  accreditation body, recently addressed the mission component underlying strategic plans, arguing that many college mission statements try to say everything and end up being meaningless. Meaningless missions lead to meaningless strategic plans. Every institution should be examining and perhaps reimagining its mission, preferably with a team of faculty, students, alumni, administrators and board members. This is a good way to get strategic planning rolling and in front of all, if there is time to do so.

Talia Argondezzi, writing in McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, goes further. In a recent piece entitledIntroducing Our Lord and Savior, the College’s New Strategic Initiative, she

satirizes the very concept of strategic plans and initiatives by praising such efforts in quasi-religious terms as promising all things to all people. Good satires are based in fact and Argondezzi is grounded in hers as the director of the writing and speaking program at Ursinus College. (Ursinus has an endowment of approximately $164 million, which places it above the 800 or so institutions most relevant for this essay, but still an institution facing the same risks.)

Strategic Plans are Often Unrealistic

The reality is that many mission statements and strategic plans are in fact often little more than aspirational window dressing. Institutions need a clear sense of where they are, where they are heading and how they intend to get there. Not only do they need to do this for external bodies such as accreditors and for a hope of attracting necessary enrollments and resources, but they also need to so it for all of the internal and external stakeholders.

Time is also relevant. Many strategic plans are constructed as five-year initiatives. This is too short a time frame for the future. Plans should either be shorter in term or, even annually reviewed and updated. Time is no one’s friend.

Unlike for-profit enterprises, the primary goal of private colleges is not simply to make money. A clear mission statement underscores this. And at the same time, it is important to remember that a college, like most organizations, is a collection of individuals working together for a common purpose. In other words, the human elements are central.

Indeed, the matter of culture permeates every college. Personnel decisions – especially presidential searches and other top appointments – often turn not on qualifications or experience, but on subjective judgments on how the individual will fit in. In other words, how will the new leader fit into the existing culture? Search committees always ask this question.

Culture has a significant role in appointments. For example, boards and search committees are asked by executive search firms to define the type of individual being sought for a position and do so in largely subjective terms. Search firms then often fall into a trap of only proposing candidates they interpret as fitting a narrow profile defined by the institution.

Thus, the institutional culture has a defining effect on what a new president or other senior leader should be. Hollis Robbins has described how college leaders generally are part of a nomenklatura, where being seen as appropriate for a leading role typically requires having demonstrated capacity in lower-level roles. The notion of who might be a good leader is often straitened by such expectations, excluding candidates who do not match a preconceived profile and who “might not fit.” This sort of isomorphic behavior has a direct impact not only on who is appointed to various posts, but also on the entire strategic planning process. Getting the right people with a shared culture can enhance the process. Getting this wrong will upset the process and likely lead to suboptimal, undesirable outcomes

What makes a good strategic plan?

Effective institutions employ mission statements and the development of strategic plans as elements of building a common institutional culture, a shared purpose. Mission statements are regularly reviewed with the institution and sometimes modified. Strategic plans often are developed through lengthy and inclusive processes. The concerns of the various constituents or stakeholders are recognized and addressed in some fashion. Accreditors encourage such processes. Good leaders understand and encourage such engagement. Getting people involved is a common means of engendering support for a plan, especially when a plan involves changes.

Of course, this approach may mean a set of compromises where everyone gets something. (Setting the ground for wild satires like Argondazzi’s.) Well-managed plans are more focused and take less of a something for everyone approach. Inputs are taken from all points, but decisions are made about priorities. Realities are made clear, and choices are defined. 

The most important elements of an effective plan are the presentation of how the institution will fulfill its mission. Specific, practical goals and timelines are put forth. Crucially, an effective strategic plan is not only clear and pragmatic, but it is central to the institution’s credibility and the credibility of its leaders. Confidence and trust in leaders are invaluable commodities, and both are built on credibility.

Institutional Culture in Alternative Structures

Not only does institutional culture impact the formation and implementation of a strategic plan. Culture plays a central role in a college’s strategy that looks beyond a plan for success as an independent institution. For another reality today is that many institutions must consider possible partnerships, mergers, or other arrangements if their path to healthy independence is not viable. Just as the news is full of college closures, it is also replete with examples of institutions coming together.

As with single institution strategic plans, money is usually the key element in any discussion of partners. Institutions with sustainable independent budgets usually don’t think much about partnerships. The default position of most private higher education institutions does not involve collaboration.

Forward thinking colleges sometimes address the question: What do we do if our plans fall short? Such an approach will often lead to at least the exploration of possible partnerships or mergers. A school may have programs that could grow, but lack the resources and time it takes to accomplish this. Is there a way a potential partner might be a source for such investments? Real estate sometimes plays a central role as an asset that is not accessible for budget purposes. Is there a way to monetize this asset in collaboration? Can the school be stronger and more sustainable within a partnership structure?

Therefore, a proper plan must not only put forth paths to independent sustainability and success, but it should also at least explore alternatives. This is tricky. While everyone knows colleges are under stress and that many are merging or closing, no one wants their own institution to close. And alternatives like mergers or partnerships are often viewed with trepidation, even if seen as necessary. It may be difficult or even impossible to broach the likely outcomes should plans not bear fruit, especially in plans that are made public. There is always the danger of creating a self-fulfilling partnership. Institutional leaders must be keenly aware of possibilities and sensitive to communication implications.

The Keys to a Successful Partnership

Much has been written about partnerships and mergers as being essential to provide institutional scale and to promote continuing existence. The specifics of any such arrangement are unique to the institutions involved. However, there are three principal elements of any successful deal. First and foremost, the finances must work. The proposed financial arrangements must be realistic and workable for the schools involved. Otherwise, there can be no deal. Both sides need to do their own analysis and reach roughly the same conclusions.

However, a second key is cultural alignment or fit. The cultures of two separate institutions must be melded if the combined entity is to be a success. Cultural fit is essential for two human organizations attempting to become partners. If the cultures cannot come together, it will be nearly impossible to fulfill the third basic requirement: implementation of an agreement.

A merger or partnership is much more than the signing of a formal agreement. That is just the beginning. There are accreditor and regulatory hurdles to be faced. The specifics of program changes, new initiatives, shared services agreements and much more must be addressed. Accomplishing this means people in both institutions must find ways to work together for common purpose. This may be difficult. A collaboration may mean some jobs will be abolished or changed. Or, there are many examples of agreements that have faltered because it became clear that working together might be too stressful or difficult.

The reality is that agreements of this type are complex and take time. Further, it is not the presidents or senior leaders that have to make this work, but faculty and staff at all levels and often alumni must be able to come together. Individuals in a new structure have to develop credibility and trust among each other. People must come together.

Dollars and culture are essential

Colleges facing today’s daunting challenges must be coldly realistic in assessing their situations and exploring options for addressing those challenges, especially financial challenges. It has been said that “no mission, no margin,” meaning that if an institution is unclear about its purpose, it is difficult to attract sufficient resources to implement it. And if the resources cannot be found, the institution must fail and its mission will be unrealized.

Thus, the saying “no margin, no mission” is also true. Private institutions that cannot generate enough money to balance a budget and have at least a little surplus cannot survive for long in their current forms. Boards and leaders must face such realities squarely. And their strategic plan is the crucial place to do so. Failure in this risks adding their institutions to the lengthening list of closures.

Should some form of partnership be an outcome, the same dual requirements of finances and  cultures will form the core of a new plan for the new structure.  In this case, the partnership is the beginning of new chapters, not an end in itself.

Finances and human, cultural matters are inextricably linked in both single institutions and those entering a partnership arrangement. Money and people must go together make for success.

References:

Maria Toyoda, Many college mission statements say everything – and nothing at all.  Chronicle of Higher Education, April 22, 2026

Talia Argondezzi, Introducing Our Lord and Savior, the College’s New Strategic Initiative, McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, February 6, 2026

Hollis Robbins, The Higher Ed Nomenklatura, Inside Higher Ed, May 12, 2025

Dr. Chet Haskell serves as Co-Head for the College Partnerships and Alliances for the Edu Alliance Group. Chet is a higher education leader with extensive experience in academic administration, institutional strategy, and governance. He recently completed six and a half years as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and University Provost at Antioch University, where he played a central role in creating the Coalition for the Common Good with Otterbein University. Earlier in his career, he spent 13 years at Harvard University in senior academic positions, including Executive Director of the Center for International Affairs and Associate Dean of the Kennedy School of Government. He later served as Dean of the College at Simmons College and as President of both the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cogswell Polytechnical College, successfully guiding both institutions through mergers.

An experienced consultant, Dr. Haskell has advised universities and ministries of education in the United States, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East on issues of finance, strategy, and accreditation. His teaching and research have focused on leadership and nonprofit governance, with a particular emphasis on helping smaller institutions adapt to financial and structural challenges. He earned DPA and MPA degrees from the University of Southern California, an MA from the University of Virginia, and an AB cum laude from Harvard University.

Posted on

Increasing Institutional Diversity in the Quest for Sustainability

March 23, 2026, By Chet Haskell – Higher education in the United States has long boasted of its institutional diversity. From mega state universities to local community colleges, from elite private research universities to tiny specialized schools, this eco-system provides multiple options and avenues for anyone seeking education. At the same time, this same diversity is fluid and fragile, as demonstrated by the steady stream of closures and the prediction of many more to come.

One subset of this ecosystem – the traditional undergraduate residential liberal arts college – has faced particular challenges of late. While there numerous variations on this model, the general category can be defined through use of National Center for Educational Statistics. NCES counts a total of 1568 private non-profit colleges and universities in the United States of which 1179 are four-year institutions with 3000 or fewer total enrollments.

According to the latest NACUBO/Commonfund survey, of the 1179, there are only 80 with endowments in excess of $200 million and another 34 with endowments between $200 million and $100 million. The basic size of an endowment is of limited explanatory value, since most endowments are composed of multiple endowment with restrictions as to use.

Instead, endowment per student is often a more helpful metric. Among the 80 institutions in the NAUBO/Commonfund survey with endowment in excess of $200 million, a handful (Amherst, Williams or Pomona) have endowments valued at more than $1.8 million per student. Size matters in this case. To put this into perspective, these per student endowments are greater than the per student endowments of most of the larger institutions, except Princeton, Harvard, Yale and MIT. At the lower end of this subset, Whitworth College’s endowment is equivalent to $86,000 per student.

There is also a range of per student endowments the group between $200 million and $100 million. For example, Cottey College’s endowment value is $444,000 per students, but it has only 260 students. The other hand Elizabethtown’s endowment is equivalent to only $54,000 per student.

Even with such resources, most of these institutions are still enrollment dependent, just not entirely so. And one must remember that institutions with more than $100 million endowment represent less than ten percent of all the smaller private institutions. The remainder face much starker resource and revenue challenges and are thus indeed totally tuition dependent and facing the well-reported demographic decline in the number of high school graduates, a decline that will continue for the next decade.

Setting aside the small group with endowments over $200 million, all of the other smaller institutions under discussion must face this decline in their primary revenue source in what has become an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Not only are they similar in approach to higher education, but they face similar challenges and, strikingly, employ similar strategies in their quests for sustainability.

These conditions describe what organizational theorists Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio called “institutional isomorphism and collective rationality” in a seminal piece in 1983. They argued that institutions in the same field become more homogeneous over time without becoming more efficient. They identified three basic reasons for such changes:

Coercive isomorphism – similarities imposed externally by government policies and funding sources, as well as accreditation practices are good examples.

Mimetic isomorphism – similarities that arise from standard  responses to uncertainty such as common approaches to enrollment management and marketing.

Normative isomorphism – similarities that come under the title of “professionalism” such as standard practices for academic/faculty structures, “best practices” in student support and what has been described recently by Hollis Robbins as the “nomenklatura” process or list through which one becomes an institutional leader — most presidential searches end up looking for (and hiring) individuals with similar qualifications and experiences.

The subset of small residential undergraduate institutions based on a liberal arts curriculum would seem to represent clear examples of such institutional isomorphism. This essay will discuss why this is the case and will present a potential path out of the “iron cage” in which they are trapped.

First, the challenges facing these institutions are not new. While current policies of the Trump Administration exacerbate the difficulties that are faced, the basic challenges will remain after the current government is history. Academic institutions must take the long view and be planning today for where they want to be in five or ten years or more. A key element of any strategic plan is looking beyond the immediate and acquiring the resources needed to invest in the future.

Second, the fundamental challenge is financial in nature. As noted, most of these institutions lack significant endowments and other financial resources and are almost completely dependent on tuition from enrollments. Yet, expenses constantly rise and alternate sources of revenue are limited. At the same time, competition for enrollments has led to almost universal discounting of tuition as a pricing strategy, typically by 50% or more. Furthermore, such colleges must also confront rising employee costs, increased insurance bills and the maintenance of aging facilities. They also lack opportunities for economies of scale.

The applicability of Powell and DiMaggio’s construct is clear. Institutions have become more alike because of all three of the scholars’ isomorphic pressures. These institutions are equally dependent on Federal student financial aid and access to such aid is conditioned on accreditation by one of a set of authorized and quite similar accreditors. The quest for enrollments supports an industry of outside consultants for marketing and enrollment management, none of which are clearly distinctive in approach or results. College websites all look as if they came from t same source, with seemingly standard formats and the common photos of diverse, happy groups of students.

Professional norms and expectations for leadership positions are also of a piece. A casual review of position listings in the standard set of industry publications will demonstrate this reality, as are the similar credentials and career paths of most leaders.

It all amounts to a form of commodification. These institutions all look pretty much the same to outside observers – including large numbers of potential students and parents.

For most institutions, assured sustainability requires either steady and growing enrollments or healthy endowments and related support. The alternative is fragility and exposure to the next external crisis such as the financial collapse of 2008-09, the COVID pandemic, or, today, a national government determined to reduce support for higher education through less financial aid, loosened accreditation requirements that will increase lower quality competition, inhibit international student enrollments or undercut accessibility initiatives that encourage diversity and inclusion.

Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that academic institutions have been failing in increasing numbers, sometime through forms of mergers and acquisitions with other institutions and other times through complete closure. While a merger might retain some elements of the merged institution, the losses both economic and psychic are extensive. In the case of a bankruptcy or closure, the effects are often felt more widely, particularly in small towns where a college is a form of institutional anchor.

Is it possible to break out of the pack? Can an institution gain the financial stability necessary for long term survival and prosperity through doing something different? Many institutions have sought a degree of security through consortia arrangements which typically try to lower expenses though sharing of services and which attempt to increase enrollments through providing greater options to students. Regardless of the success of such efforts, the fact is that consortia, while helpful in reducing costs and attracting incremental students, are still basically marginal in impact. The member institutions remain separate in terms of accreditation, institutional governance, budgets and leadership. Collaboration can help institutions well-placed to take advantage of consortia, particularly those within a limited geographic region. But consortium success presumes a certain degree of financial stability of the member institutions.

The Coalition for the Common Good, a new arrangement designed to engage multiple institutions with similar missions that can take advantage of the different strengths of members, began in 2023 with two founding institutions, Antioch University and Otterbein University. Basically designed as a middle ground between consortia and mergers, this initiative aspires to chart a new cooperative path among its members where institutional sustainability is nourished through collective enrollment growth. However, the Coalition is still in its infancy and can only work for certain institutions. Additional models must be developed.

Some institutions are well -placed for the exploration of partnership arrangements. They still have time and room to maneuver before facing more drastic choices. Yet, understanding and implementing the multiple details of any such arrangement is difficult and beyond the capacity of most boards and presidents. Every arrangement is different. Identifying appropriate partners is time-consuming and difficult. Actually putting together a deal and obtaining all the necessary state, Federal and accreditor approvals takes time and expertise. The costs, especially legal, are significant. An even greater expense are the opportunity costs imposed on the leadership teams which not only have to continue to manage their institutions, but also become constrained in what else they can consider. Bandwidth becomes a very real problem.

This is an opportunity for segments of the philanthropic world to consider possible new initiatives to support the small college elements of the education sector. While there will always be efforts to gain foundation support for individual colleges, there will never be enough money to buttress even a small portion of deserving institutions that face the financial troubles discussed above

Philanthropy should take a sectoral perspective. One key goal should be to find ways to support  smaller institutions in general. Instead of focusing on particular institutions, those interested in supporting higher education should look at the multiple opportunities for forms of collaborative or collective action. Central to this effort should be exploration of ways of supporting diverse collaborative initiatives.

But there is a large middle ground between consortia arrangements and mergers and acquisitions. The Coalition for the Common Good is but one such arrangement and it is still in its early stages. What has been learned from the experience thus far that might be of use to other institutions and groups? How might this middle ground be explored further for the benefit of other institutions?

Philanthropic institutions could support this work in numerous ways, first for specific initiatives and then for the sector, by providing funding and expertise to facilitate new forms of coalitions. These could include:

  • Providing financial support for the collaborative entity. While participating institutions eventually share the costs of creating the new arrangement, modest dedicated support funding could be immensely useful for mitigating the impact of legal expenses, due diligence requirements, initial management of shared efforts and expanded websites.
  • Providing support for expert advice. The leaders of two institutions seeking partnership need objective counsel on matters financial, legal, organizational, accreditation and more. Provision of expertise for distance education models is often a high priority, since many small colleges have limited experience with these.
  • Funding research. There are multiple opportunities for research and its dissemination. What works? What does not? How can lessons learned by disseminated?
  • Supporting communication through publications, workshops, conferences and other venues.
  • Developing training workshops for boards, leadership, staff and faculty in institutions considering collaborations.
  • Crafting a series of institutional incentives through seed grant awards to provide support for institutions just beginning to consider these options.
  • These types of initiatives might be separate, or they might be clustered into a national center to support and promote collaboration.

These and other ideas could be most helpful to many institutions exploring collaboration. Above all, it is important to undertake such explorations before it is too late, before the financial situation becomes so dire that there are few, if any, choices.

This middle ground is not a panacea. Some institutions will fail. The wealthy institutions will survive but they are neither numerous enough nor sufficiently accessible and affordable to compensate for the likely losses in weaker colleges. Public support, both state and Federal is unlikely to increase for the public sector institutions. Loosened accreditation will open up higher education to predators, especially for-profit in nature.

The institutional isomorphism described by Powell and DiMaggio is real in higher education and serves to undercut the strengths of an educational arena that should be characterized by creativity and diversity of approaches. Friends of higher education should be seeking alternative models of structure and organization and the philanthropic sector should have an interest in encouraging and supporting such variety.

Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization Fields” in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio, eds. Pp.63-81, University of Chicago Press 1991

Hollis Robbins, The Higher Ed Nomenklatura, Inside Higher Ed, May 12, 2025

Dr. Chet Haskell serves as Co-Head for the College Partnerships and Alliances for the Edu Alliance Group. Chet is a higher education leader with extensive experience in academic administration, institutional strategy, and governance. He recently completed six and a half years as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and University Provost at Antioch University, where he played a central role in creating the Coalition for the Common Good with Otterbein University. Earlier in his career, he spent 13 years at Harvard University in senior academic positions, including Executive Director of the Center for International Affairs and Associate Dean of the Kennedy School of Government. He later served as Dean of the College at Simmons College and as President of both the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cogswell Polytechnical College, successfully guiding both institutions through mergers.

An experienced consultant, Dr. Haskell has advised universities and ministries of education in the United States, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East on issues of finance, strategy, and accreditation. His teaching and research have focused on leadership and nonprofit governance, with a particular emphasis on helping smaller institutions adapt to financial and structural challenges.
He earned DPA and MPA degrees from the University of Southern California, an MA from the University of Virginia, and an AB cum laude from Harvard University.