Presidential Evolution to the Steady-state
Presidential evolution is part of the history of US higher education. The college presidency in the United States has a history of evolutionary breakthroughs, steady-states, and has always had potential to further evolve due to forceful sustained trends, issues, and challenges. In response to these forces, there have been no less than three significant breakthroughs in the evolution of the college presidency; from mastering to presiding, from presiding to championing, and from championing to developing and administering. A century-long steady-state followed those three in the evolution, regardless of the forces.
Presently, based upon two decades of consuming and analyzing higher education media and presidential position descriptions, ten sustained forces are upon the presidency; forces beyond the anticipated influence of new approaches to leadership and change (Demers, 2007; Burke, 2017; Northouse, 2021), financial strategies and challenges (Goldstein, 2012), emerging policy and technology, etc. These ten sustained forces upon the presidency are the brand, media, entrepreneurship, crises, enrollment, politics, identity, mental and public health, and organizational transitions. Each or the combination of these ten forces has the potential to change or evolve the presidency for long into the future. However, there is a countervailing presidential pattern of response.
The historical and conceptual scholarship underlying the considerations below were also heuristically informed. I acknowledge my studies of the history of higher education-and the formative scholarly mentorship of Roger L. Geiger. Also, my thoughts were framed by my course design and teaching of the history, governance, organization, and administration of higher education focused on leadership. The presidents beside whom I served and those I mentored, and my engagement in presidential searches and service as provost, senior vice president, and president also contributed.
Perhaps, the history and concepts underlying this text will open minds to two ends. Consideration of the past and present evolution of the college presidency and appropriate ways to better shape further evolution of the college presidency.
Aspects of the steady-state have proven effective and efficient in many ways. However, to invest in and achieve the best future for U.S. higher education, is the evolution of the presidency best if it stops at this century-long steady-state? No. It must evolve.
While reviewing this account of the presidency’s past and present, consider U.S. higher education’s best future presidents. What next evolution of the presidency will be best in regard to building upon previous breakthroughs and improving present patterns of presiding over an institution, impacting society, identifying with faculty, and organizational development and administration? What next evolution of the presidency, in normal and intense circumstances, will better balance the current presidential focus on the executive, external, and extenuating? What next evolution of the presidency will move U.S. higher education institutions and those who hold us accountable to select, empower, and follow presidents who excel beyond efficiency and effectiveness to offer profound innovation and inspiration?
Three Significant Breakthroughs
While others may be of greater significance in the history of U.S. higher education, there have been no less than three significant breakthroughs in the evolution of the college presidency. In the nearly 400-year historical context of U.S. higher education, an evolutionary “breakthrough” is a relatively sudden shift, often within a decade or two, in the typical pattern of philosophy, priority, process, etc. A breakthrough is a dramatic shift away from a “steady-state”. A steady-state being a condition negligibly different or entirely without change over time even in the face of significant forces. Leading historians of U.S. higher education have marked breakthroughs and steady states in terms of “generations” (Geiger, 1992) and focal points of historiographic approaches (Goodchild & Huk, 1990). Consider the evolution from mastery to presiding, from presiding to championing, and from championing to developing and administering.