When I joined Greenwood Asher & Associates, executive search felt like it had a well-established playbook. When a university needed a leader, we’d find qualified candidates with impressive CVs, and everyone would move forward with their traditional five- to 10-year appointments.
How things have changed.
The perfect storm
Let me paint you a picture of what we’re dealing with right now. Leadership turnover has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels—20% between 2022 and 2024.
One in five senior leaders leaves every couple of years. The average tenure of university presidents has plummeted from 8.5 years in 2006 to just 5.9 years in 2022.
Here’s the kicker: more than half of today’s presidents expect to step down in the next five years—and most of their institutions aren’t prepared with a succession plan.
What’s driving this exodus? Since the pandemic, universities have been getting pummeled from every direction.
Enrollment is declining due to the demographic cliff. Financial constraints are tighter than I’ve ever seen. And the regulatory environment changes with every news cycle.
This perfect storm has fundamentally changed not just who we’re looking for, but how institutions think about leadership itself.
From seat-warmers to strategic surgeons
Here’s something that might surprise you: 10 years ago, when we placed an interim leader, the job description was essentially “don’t break anything.” Those days are long gone.
Today’s interim leaders aren’t caretakers, they’re strategic surgeons. They’re expected to diagnose complex problems, implement solutions and position institutions for long-term sustainability in impossibly compressed timeframes.
I’ve seen interims completely restructure academic programs and launch new revenue streams—all while technically being “temporary.”
They’re walking into financial crises requiring millions in cuts, political tightropes with lawmakers, and market innovation opportunities like the nearly 10% growth in graduate certificate enrollments we saw in spring 2024.
New kid on the block: Fractional leadership
Just when I thought I’d seen every variation of leadership arrangements, along comes “fractional leadership,” a model that has been revolutionizing the corporate world and is now knocking on higher education’s door.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Isn’t that just another name for interim leadership?” Not quite.
Traditional interim leaders commit full-time to one institution temporarily, focusing on maintaining operations during transitions. Fractional leaders engage part-time across multiple organizations through ongoing relationships that scale with institutional needs, bringing specialized expertise for specific challenges.
The trend is significant. Analysts predicted that by the end of 2025, 40% of C-suite roles will be fractional, driven by organizations’ desperate need for agility, access to diverse expertise and reduced long-term commitments.
What we’re really looking for now
As leadership structures have changed, our assessment process has transformed. We used to focus on traditional academic credentials and administrative experience. While that focus remains, we are also seeking more.
Crisis management isn’t theoretical anymore. Every leader we place walks into an environment where each news cycle could bring a new challenge.
Data-driven decision-making has become critical; institutions that thrive are led by people who quickly interpret enrollment trends and market positioning, then translate insights into action.
Digital transformation leadership—AI integration, cybersecurity oversight and digital learning platforms—isn’t an IT issue anymore. It’s a strategic leadership imperative.
Where this is all heading
The biggest shift I’m seeing is in career models themselves. More executives are choosing freelance or contract roles, seeking greater flexibility.
The pandemic proved that some leadership roles don’t require physical presence to be effective. Remote work has gone from emergency response to a permanent competitive advantage, expanding the talent pool available to institutions.
Perhaps most importantly, outcomes need to matter more now. Rather than hiring traditional positions defined by organizational charts, institutions increasingly engage leaders for specific outcomes—achieving accreditation, launching programs, managing financial recovery or navigating regulatory challenges.
My top 3 recommendations
Based on everything I’ve seen and read, here’s what I tell institutions:
- Think portfolio, not hierarchy. Consider which leadership functions need full-time attention, and which require specialized expertise for a specific period of time.
- Invest in succession planning. With 59% of presidents not actively preparing successors, you must develop internal leadership pipelines AND ties to external expertise.
- Prioritize outcomes. Design roles and functions around strategic goals rather than traditional organizational charts. Roles do not have to last forever.
Combining multiple approaches
The higher education leadership challenge isn’t about finding warm bodies to fill positions—it’s about fundamentally rethinking how we access and deploy talent. The institutions that will thrive are those adaptable enough to create sophisticated leadership ecosystems combining multiple approaches.
Our students deserve nothing less.
