PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION AS A GOVERNANCE STRESS TEST
Presidential succession exposes governance strengths and weaknesses more clearly than almost any other moment in the board-president relationship.
Planning gaps remain widespread. Despite the certainty that every president will eventually transition (whether through planned retirement, unexpected departure, or institutional change), many boards do not maintain a formal, ongoing succession process. In practice, succession is often handled reactively, triggered by a departure rather than guided by a long- term plan. This absence is notable given the increasing frequency of leadership transitions and their far-reaching consequences. Interim leadership is becoming more strategic. Interim presidents are no longer simply placeholders. Boards increasingly rely on them to stabilize institutions, maintain momentum, and buy time for more deliberate decision‑making. In some cases, boards are beginning to consider how to identify or cultivate a bench of potential interim leaders in advance, treating interim leadership as part of risk management rather than contingency. Internal vs. external selection remains unsettled. Boards do not approach succession with a single model. Some prioritize internal candidates, such as provosts or senior leaders, to ensure continuity and reduce culture and integration risk. Others default to external searches, often based on the assumption that the most suitable candidate will come from outside the institution. These differing approaches frequently reflect underlying, and sometimes unexamined, assumptions about whether institutions need continuity or reset.
Transitions require high‑touch engagement. The board’s role does not end with the selection of a president. Effective transitions tend to be highly structured and more hands‑on than anticipated. This can include defined overlap periods between outgoing and incoming leaders, increased frequency of interaction, and an active role for the board chair in onboarding. In some cases, the chair serves as a direct mentor during the early period of a presidency. Sustaining the presidency is becoming a governance concern. Beyond succession itself, boards are beginning to consider how to support sitting presidents in an environment of sustained pressure and shortened tenures. This includes attention to workload, expectations, and, in some cases, structured opportunities for renewal, such as sabbaticals or planned breaks. While not yet widespread, this reflects a broader shift: leadership continuity is increasingly viewed not only as a transition issue, but as an ongoing governance responsibility. Combined, these patterns suggest that succession is no longer an episodic governance activity. It is a continuous governance responsibility, one that requires planning, clarity, and a more deliberate approach to leadership stability over time.
15 | Boards of Trustees in Higher Education
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator