This is a very hard time; we march on. Even in today’s dark and uncertain environment for higher education, colleges and universities are trying to advance strategic priorities, support students, faculty, and staff, and move forward toward a sustainable future. But immediate threats and looming dangers repeatedly flash into life, interconnect, reinforce, and become stressful distractions that steal resources and interrupt or stall progress. 

Today, we can seldom say “the problem is…” because the challenges facing us have become too complex and nuanced for such singular and definitive statements. What we’re encountering over and over again is problems that are not only complex and nuanced, but plurally so; they are also interwoven and interdependent, and likewise plurally so. That describes today’s existential cauldron in higher education.

Change is the partner, or implementation plan, of existential crises. Making sense of complicated, integrated problems in times like these spins us into change, and existential problems upend everything about risk analysis. Changes that may have once been unimaginable become indispensable; we entertain actions that might actually be transformative when serious threats to vitality and viability accelerate and multiply. 

Transformation, of course, means non-trivial, non-incremental, and usually disruptive change. But some varieties of institutional transformation could also occur adaptively, by design, without the heat and pressure of crisis. We might recognize, for example, the interconnected plurality of many problems, and work toward resolving those problems by using an equally interconnected network of changes. In other words, we might think of both problems and solutions as having a kind of web structure, the use of which could enable transformative change without the trauma and shock of disruption.  

Many otherwise ordinary problems conceal such an underlying web structure of interconnected challenges. Start with a common, routine problem—for example, being notified that a key leader within your portfolio plans to vacate their position. Looking further, you note that the position oversees a unit which has had recent staff turnover, so numerous positions will be unfilled. You ponder whether these departures are related, consider the best use of unspent funds, and imagine the type of leader and staff needed for the future. (For purposes of this example, assume any hiring “chill” or freeze does not apply to at least the leadership role.) You recognize that filling the leadership or other vacancies now, even if it is possible, may not resolve underlying, but not yet fully understood, problems. You are therefore cautious about immediately attempting to rehire the leadership position without knowing more about the unit’s recent functioning, current trends in the field, the levels of priority of its services and operations, and why so many staff have departed. Without answers to those questions, you might actually bring in someone who could not succeed in the role. 

As you think through this, perhaps you are reminded of some recent mixed and worrisome feedback from students and staff, as well as an active RFP process the unit is leading to find an external vendor to supplement its services. You are also aware of the unit’s upcoming reaccreditation review and its interrelation with your own efforts to align your portfolio with the institution’s broader strategic planning process, which is currently underway. Oh, and by the way, this soon-to-be vacant leadership position serves as a core member of the university’s behavioral intervention and threat assessment team, through which you are apprised of concerns related to risk management, consistency in process and documentation, and the need for role and scope clarity. 

You will then have discovered the web of interconnected challenges. The right approach may not be “start the search(es).” Instead, think about some important first questions: “Where do I start?” “What are the most critical problems to solve?” “How are these problems related?” and “What don’t I know that I should, and how can I find out?” While the answers may be unsettling, they may also serve as critical catalysts to transformational change. You might decide that a needs assessment—or gap analysis—would lay the best foundation for next steps. The results might point to the need for a culture and climate evaluation, a review of program and service models (including of behavioral intervention and threat assessment), reconsideration of the need for an external vendor, and even a rethinking of the core responsibilities and most important qualifications for the vacant position(s). 

Having taken those steps before launching the search, you can carefully frame the search process in order to find candidates who have the talent, qualifications, and experience needed to succeed in the position—and the conclusions from the assessments and reviews you completed before starting the search might significantly change the organizational structures, program and service models, or staffing plans for the unit. Those adjustments would likely significantly alter the criteria for or process of the search. In the end, a routine problem—what to do with an empty leadership position—created the possibility of transformative change. Change that may have earlier been unimaginable became indispensable. 

-Richard P. Keeling, MD, Chairman and Senior Executive Consultant, Keeling & Associates, LLC

ACE Executive Search Roundtable Member

ACE Focus Area: Institutional Transformation

Keeling & Associates, LLC is a comprehensive higher education executive search and consulting firm specializing in executive search, interim placements, executive coaching, strategic consultation, and assessment and accreditation services.