Book review: Presidencies Derailed

3UHVLGHQFLHV'HUDLOHG:K\8QLYHUVLW\/HDGHUV)DLO DQG+RZWR3UHYHQW,WE\6WHSKHQ-RHO7UDFKWHQEHUJ *HUDOG%.DXYDU DPS(*UDG\%RJXHUHYLHZ .LP1HKOV

The Review of Higher Education, Volume 38, Number 3, Spring 2015, pp. 476-478 (Review) 3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV DOI: 10.1353/rhe.2015.0019

For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhe/summary/v038/38.3.nehls.html

Access provided by University Of Nevada @ Las Vegas (7 Apr 2015 23:03 GMT)

476

The Review of Higher Education

unclear what is driving the use of the post-it notes and lists. Robison does not provide an adequate reference to research or best practices in that section of the book. Certainly the use of such devices makes concepts and tasks much more tangible for any faculty member facing the stress of sorting and delineating for survival. Robison is a popular and successful consultant who helps faculty in higher education organize their worlds, and the text is a good example of how to do that. However, some faculty members may not care for the approach of using notes and lists to such a degree. I recommend this book, especially for newer faculty members who can benefit from clear direction on how to organize their lives. While graduate school often helps students develop their own short-term survival skills for “getting through” a year, it may not provide the longer-term skills newer faculty members will need to learn in order to shape and guide a career. The book might also be very beneficial for persons coming to a faculty position from a different angle, such as counseling or commerce, who need to learn quickly how to take on the varied roles of a college professor. Persons new to higher education might need help understanding the culture and the demands of suddenly becoming a professor. They will need to learn how to juggle the three areas of responsibility (plus family, advocacy, hobby, secondary jobs if any). While newer faculty may appreciate the straightforward tone and hands-on approach used by the author, more experienced faculty members may not embrace the book.

Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, Gerald B. Kauvar, & E. Grady Bogue. Presidencies Derailed: Why University Leaders Fail and How to Prevent It. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013. 184 pp. Hardcover: $34.95. ISBN-10: 1421410249. Reviewed by Kim Nehls, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Psychology and Higher Education, University of Nevada—Las Vegas and executive director of the Association for the Study of Higher Education As I type this book review, reports about the forced resignation of University of Texas’s president are dominating my daily news feed. Headlines include “UT President Proposes Graceful Exit,” “UT’s Powers Refusing Ultimatum to Resign,” “Supporters Rally behind UT Austin President,” “Will University of Texas President Get the Ax?” and so on. As the role of the college president becomes more complex, so do the stories behind their transitions. In just two years, more than 50 college, university, and system presidents resigned, retired prematurely, or were fired, and therein was the focus of Presidencies Derailed.

Spring 2015

Trachtenberg, Kauvar, and Bogue emphasized unsuccessful presidencies at several colleges and universities across the United States. Derailment is defined as “when a president is terminated or forced to resign prior to the end of the term of the first contract—an involuntary departure” (p. 1). The authors have identified six main reasons for derailment: (1) ethical lapses, (2) poor interpersonal skills, (3) inability to lead key constituencies, (4) difficulty adapting to institutional culture, (5) failure to meet business goals, and (6) board shortcomings. The book develops each of these reasons with examples. Presidencies Derailed is divided into two parts. The first part, comprising Chapters 2–6, highlights derailments at different types of institutions: private liberal arts institutions in Chapter 2, public master’s level institutions in Chapter 3, public research universities in Chapter 4, and community colleges in Chapter 5. These examples demonstrate that no type of institution is immune from controversy among its leaders. However, it was unclear how these institutions were selected for inclusion as case studies in the book. In fact, additional cases from minority-serving institutions, women’s colleges, and for-profit universities would have been a welcome addition since these types of institutions seem to consistently find their leaders in the spotlight. A current example is Alabama State University, a historically Black university, whose legal counsel just penned an op-ed that denounced the current president: I want to publicly apologize to the entire Alabama State University family. I made a serious error in judgment when I nominated Dr. Gwendolyn E. Boyd and asked the board of trustees to elect her as president of ASU. At the time, I sincerely believed that Dr. Boyd was qualified for the position. I have since learned that her prior executive experience was greatly exaggerated and that her administrative skills are sorely lacking for what is required to be an effective president. (Watkins, 2014, p. 1) Egregious examples like this one highlight the need for a book on presidential derailments that includes a broader selection of institutional types. Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, Gerald B. Kauvar, and E. Grady Bogue act as editors for Part 1, contributed by four authors. It ends with insightful, firsthand experiences from two derailed presidents and, in my opinion, constitutes the best part of the text. First, William Frawley, President of University of Mary Washington, 2006–2007, provided a narrative about his termination from his position after a publicized arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. The second experience was provided by Michael Garrison, President of West Virginia Uni-

book reviews versity, 2007–2008, who was embroiled in political controversy from the start and ultimately resigned under board pressure. The costs of a derailment at all institutions were quantifiable in real dollars, such as severance pay, search fees, and loss of donor support, as well as less-quantifiable costs consisting of depressed morale and unfavorable publicity for the institution and its leadership. Thus, the last section of the book, authored by Trachtenberg, Kauvar, and Bogue offered guidelines for avoiding presidential derailments as well as lessons learned from studying these situations. Chapter 7 looked at the academic search process and how much can be gleaned by having more thoughtful and more realistic searches. The authors state, “Members of the search committee need to shed the Panglossian notion that they will find the best of all presidents for their institution, which is undoubtedly described as best in class. Probably they won’t, and probably they aren’t” (p. 110). The authors even referred to the idea of hiring the ideal president as “delusional,” which was disheartening at best, for those of us working in higher education who know of and work for many excellent leaders. Chapter 8 focuses on the role of the board and its relationship with the president. Governing boards, which are sometimes referred to as trustees or regents, play a major role in the success or failure of a president. The board’s involvement begins with the nature and design of the search and continues with the input its members provide their appointee before she or he arrives on campus. The board’s feedback and evaluation provided to sitting presidents is also an imperative component to this relationship so that the leader is not blindsided by a decision or disagreement. In particular, the authors note the importance of the board chairperson: “Presidential success is unlikely without a working collegial partnership with board chairs” (p. 128). The final chapter highlighted common themes and lessons learned from presidential derailments. The authors claimed that one of the reasons why presidents fall into bad situations was because of the extreme pressure and requirements placed upon this position, regardless of institutional type. Notably, in an age of 24/7 technology and media coverage, presidents must be all things at all times to all people—students, faculty, donors, board members, alumni, and other constituents—and most leaders found this relational task very challenging. The best boards and institutions will set realistic expectations and provide feedback for their leaders. In fact, “in the case studies, several of the derailed presidents either did not receive formal performance evaluations or the evaluations were not used as opportunities to address concerns” (p. 123). Certainly this observation suggests room for improvement.

477 As a contemporary book for practitioners, board members, and anyone working on presidential searches, Presidencies Derailed is a useful, practical book with interesting anecdotes about college CEOs. However, as a book claiming to use qualitative research methods in higher education, I found it lacking. The book employs qualitative research, but there is not much depth regarding the methodology; there was no description of how the research was conducted, how the data were analyzed, and who conducted the studies—whether it was the chapter authors or book editors. Each chapter was written in a different voice, which makes me think that the chapter authors conducted the research, but this point was unclear. The surface approach to the research methods may be appropriate for the audience if the editors view its readers as primarily or exclusively practitioners. Regardless of the audience, though, several descriptions of the actual derailments can charitably be described as only lackluster. For instance, speaking of one derailment at a public master’s level institution, the chapter author comments: “It garnered extensive coverage from the local media, causing great consternation and turmoil among board members” (p. 44). What did this “extensive coverage” entail? Was it in print, TV, or social media, or all of the above? Were reporters camped on the university quad and following the president’s every move? Additionally, what kind of “consternation and turmoil” did the board members feel? Was it individual or expressed outwardly? Vague statements like these created more questions than answers in the derailment case studies. Another example of a case study that needed further development was “Richard’s” derailment at Ridge State University (pseudonyms): Richard’s credibility was tarnished quickly. In the early months of his presidency, he spearheaded an unpopular faculty retrenchment. Then, when confronted with opposition, he made an about face and said that the plan had not been his idea. Also within his first year, he was named as a finalist for another college presidency. First, he denied it, and then he provided a flimsy explanation. (p. 39) All of the facts in the above paragraph could have been amplified with additional details. For example, faculty retrenchment typically means the termination of faculty appointments. But such terminations can occur in various forms, such as financial exigency or program eliminations. In what way did Richard exercise faculty retrenchment on his campus? Were only certain levels of faculty (e.g., untenured or adjunct) the target of the terminations? It would have also been helpful

478

The Review of Higher Education

to know the “flimsy explanation” he provided after his institution discovered that he was a presidential finalist elsewhere. Who discovered this gaffe and how did the staff and faculty react to the news? Like Richard’s case, many of the examples provided in the book left the reader wanting more details. Even when the authors referred to an important point, they failed to provide further elaboration, as in this sentence: “As a note of background, the university had experienced an excessive number of derailments over a period spanning almost twenty years” (p. 58). What is considered an “excessive number”? Was the cause for all these derailments the same? More information would have been welcomed and encouraged in this case and in many more. Another challenging issue was that the authors did not use higher education research as the foundation of this book. When literature or a particular concept underpinned an idea, it primarily came from newspapers, newsletters, or business journals. Using business research may admittedly have been problematic because businesses are forprofit, whereas most colleges and universities are not, and there are different expectations for these leaders. Additionally, corporate CEOs are primarily groomed from within their company or within their industry, while it is rare to find a new college president appointed from within the institution. Thus, higher education executives are learning a new culture at the same time that they are learning the new job, a point Ryan Smerek (2013) observes. One of the main reasons for a presidential derailment in this book was difficulty adapting to the institutional culture. In the authors’ words, “Some leaders can make the cultural and mission transfer among different organizations, and some cannot. . . . New presidencies require adjustment. Presidents with previous experience are the minority” (p. 13). Presidencies Derailed: Why University Leaders Fail and How to Prevent It is the first book about leadership transitions in nearly a decade. However, previously, Martin and Samels (2004) reported transitions—both good and bad—in their Presidential Transitions in Higher Education: Managing Leadership Change. While much has changed in higher education in the last 10 years, leadership changes are still frequent and mired in challenges.  It was surprising to not find at least one reference to this seminal book on the topic. The authors also failed to reference important scholarship on the presidency by Judith Block McLaughlin Robert Birnbaum, or Estela Bensimon. All of these excellent higher education scholars have provided our field with empirical research on the topic of the college president transition. One final comment concerns the editing. For example, “President Sally” at University of the Southeast was twice referred to as a man (p. 118),

Spring 2015

even though “President Sally” was cited as a female leader in an earlier chapter. Sally was terminated from her presidency for both an alleged affair with a faculty member and an ill-advised reorganization on her campus. It would have been helpful to have additional details here as well. Overall, individuals concerned for the welfare of their institution should have an awareness of change in leadership and its consequences for the university. Presidencies Derailed is a good resource for those serving on search committees, aspiring presidents, and others interested in leadership transitions. This book certainly offered an overview of many timely, practical examples of derailed presidents. Such reasons for failure as ethical lapses, institutional fit, and failure to meet goals are generally recognized. However, the authors taught us that each situation is unique and each president and campus has its own challenges. The best that boards and employees of institutions can aspire to is thoughtful, engaged leadership when they set reasonable expectations. And despite the derailments, All presidents did, in fact, do good things for their institutions. Most participants were quick to point out good qualities, characteristics, and ideas that the presidents implemented while in office. No one said that they were not qualified to be leaders. But, somewhere along the way, they did something to erode campus confidence and could no longer lead the university forward. (p. 49) We can and should work together to improve executive searches, leadership transitions, board practices and behaviors, and presidential towngown relations. Hopefully a greater awareness of and sensitivity to the issues raised by Trachtenberg, Kauvar, and Bogue in this book will minimize derailments in the future. References Martin, J., & Samels, J. E. (2005). Presidential transition in higher education: Managing leadership change. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Smerek, R. E. (2013). Sensemaking and new college presidents: A conceptual study of the transition process. The Review of Higher Education, 36(3), 371–403. Watkins, D. V. (2014, July 28). Why Boyd’s Selection Was a Mistake. Montgomery Advertiser. Retrieved from http://www.montgomeryadvertiser. com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/07/27/ donald-watkins-apologizes-for-pickinggwendolyn-boyd-as-asu-president/13241171/.