Beyond the Tenure Track: How Generative Mentoring of Adjunct Faculty and Department Chairs Enhances Institutional Quality and Student Success

gregpillar on March 1, 2025

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

In higher education, mentorship is often regarded as a fundamental component of faculty development. However, traditional mentorship models tend to prioritize tenure-track faculty while neglecting adjunct instructors and department chairs. These two groups play crucial roles in institutional success but often lack the structural support necessary for professional growth.

Furthermore, traditional mentor-mentee models are often inconsistent and may not include structured check-ins or points of reflection on how well the relationship is progressing. Many of these mentoring arrangements, while well-intentioned, tend to fizzle out over time without a sustained framework to ensure longevity and effectiveness. This is not to say that successful mentorships do not exist—many flourish—but the inconsistency in traditional models presents a challenge that institutions must address.

Drawing on concepts from Hope Circuits (Riddell, 2024), this article explores how mentorship can be reframed as generativity, focusing on sustaining faculty development through systemic mentorship structures. By incorporating mentorship constellations (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023) and reverse mentoring (O’Connor et al., 2025), institutions can create faculty support systems that enhance professional resilience, institutional belonging, and student success. These models provide a structured framework that ensures persistent and consistent mentoring relationships, preventing mentorships from fading over time due to lack of structure or engagement.

The Institutional Gaps in Faculty Mentorship

The Problem with Faculty Development Models

Faculty development programs often cater primarily to tenure-track faculty, with adjunct instructors and department chairs receiving little to no structured support (Pillar, 2025; Faculty Focus, 2024; Pearson & Kirby, 2018). Without dedicated mentorship, these groups struggle to navigate institutional expectations, contributing to burnout and disengagement (Cain et al., 2024; Zarrow, 2013).

At smaller institutions, department chairs juggle administrative, instructional, and leadership responsibilities, yet many receive no formal training in mentorship or institutional leadership (Pillar, 2025). Similarly, adjunct faculty, despite comprising nearly 50% of the academic workforce (AFT, 2022), often find themselves excluded from professional development initiatives (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019). Addressing these disparities is critical for fostering institutional effectiveness and faculty retention.

Moreover, many traditional mentorship programs lack formal structures for ongoing evaluation and reflection, leading to relationships that gradually diminish in effectiveness. Without regular touchpoints, mentor-mentee relationships can drift apart, leaving mentees without continued guidance and mentors disengaged. Reverse mentoring and mentoring constellations provide structured avenues to embed accountability and sustained engagement into mentorship programs. By fostering mentorship as a continuous cycle of learning and growth, these models help maintain active and meaningful relationships rather than allowing them to fade over time.

The Overlooked Needs of Adjunct Faculty

Adjunct instructors play a significant role in student learning but often lack job security, access to resources, and inclusion in governance structures (Pillar, 2025). Studies show that institutions that integrate adjuncts into structured mentorship networks report improved faculty engagement, instructional effectiveness, and student outcomes (Pillar, 2025).

One approach to addressing these issues is mentorship constellations, in which adjuncts have access to multiple mentors who provide guidance in teaching, career advancement, and institutional navigation (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). Such models foster a sense of belonging and professional identity, countering the isolation many adjuncts experience. Additionally, research highlights the need for institutions to systematically integrate adjunct faculty into institutional governance and leadership pathways (Pillar, 2025). Ensuring that adjuncts have access to career progression through mentorship programs enhances their engagement and retention (Defining Mentoring, Elon University, 2024).

For adjuncts teaching online—particularly those who are fully remote and physically distant from their institution—mentorship becomes even more critical. Studies indicate that online adjunct faculty often feel isolated and disconnected from institutional culture, which impacts their effectiveness and retention (Pearson & Kirby, 2018; Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). Strong mentoring programs tailored for online adjuncts, such as virtual mentoring models and structured peer networks, provide a way to mitigate this isolation while enhancing teaching quality (Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). Programs that include ongoing, interactive professional development and structured mentorship relationships have demonstrated success in retaining online adjuncts and improving student outcomes (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a).

Riddell’s Hope Circuits (2024) provides a framework for enhancing adjunct mentoring by emphasizing systemic support structures that foster continuous engagement, professional identity formation, and institutional belonging. By integrating trauma-informed mentoring practices and emphasizing long-term faculty resilience, institutions can create sustainable, meaningful mentorship experiences for adjunct faculty regardless of their instructional modality.

The Hidden Labor of Department Chairs

Department chairs often serve as institutional linchpins, balancing faculty needs, administrative directives, and student concerns. Yet, their role is frequently under-supported, and, due to lack of guidance, mentoring, and/or training, a significant period of time may pass where chairs find themselves working harder, not smarter. Many chairs do not immediately recognize the operational efficiencies and collaboration opportunities available to them, which could streamline their workload and enhance their effectiveness (Pillar, 2025). Without clear mentorship structures, new chairs may struggle with unnecessary burdens, leading to stress and inefficiency.

Institutions must rethink how they support department chairs as both mentees and mentors. Reverse mentoring—where chairs learn from adjuncts and early-career faculty—can foster a collaborative culture and ensure chairs remain attuned to faculty and student needs (O’Connor et al., 2025; Cain et al., 2024). Reverse mentoring has also been shown to break down traditional hierarchies in academia and foster institutional learning at multiple levels (Seeing Behind the Curtain, Cain et al., 2024). Additionally, mentorship constellations can be particularly effective in providing guidance for chairs, especially in institutions where experienced faculty members have successfully navigated the role before (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). By establishing structured mentoring networks where former chairs provide insights into administrative efficiencies and leadership strategies, institutions can better equip new department heads for success.

Riddell’s Hope Circuits (2024) offers a model for fostering resilient leadership through structured mentorship. By integrating systems of peer learning, guided reflection, and institutional knowledge-sharing, department chairs can transition more smoothly into leadership roles while maintaining their effectiveness as both administrators and mentors to faculty. Institutions that intentionally cultivate mentorship ecosystems for department chairs will ultimately strengthen faculty governance, improve leadership sustainability, and create a culture of collaborative support.

Mentorship as Generativity – A New Approach

What is Generative Mentorship?

Generative mentorship moves beyond the traditional, hierarchical mentor-mentee relationship and shifts toward a reciprocal, growth-oriented model (Riddell, 2024). This approach fosters mentorship as a dynamic, evolving process, rather than a static, one-directional transfer of knowledge. Generativity in mentorship ensures that mentorship relationships remain sustained, meaningful, and adaptable, addressing the ever-changing needs of faculty members at various career stages.

By embedding mentorship in institutional structures, generative mentorship builds long-term resilience and faculty well-being (Riddell, 2024). Instead of relying on sporadic or informal interactions, a generative approach cultivates mentorship ecosystems where faculty members engage in ongoing reflection, knowledge exchange, and professional growth. This model also reinforces the value of mentorship across faculty ranks, ensuring that adjunct faculty, department chairs, and early-career academics receive equitable support in their professional journeys.

Rethinking Mentorship through Constellation and Reverse Models

Mentorship Constellations

Mentorship constellations emphasize that no single mentor can meet all of a faculty member’s professional and personal development needs. Instead of a one-to-one model, mentorship constellations create a network of mentors that faculty can rely on for different areas of growth (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). This approach is particularly beneficial for adjunct faculty, who often lack a clear institutional support system, and for department chairs, who face multifaceted leadership challenges.

By leveraging multiple mentors with diverse expertise, faculty members gain access to specialized knowledge, institutional insights, and cross-disciplinary perspectives (Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts, 2024). These networks also provide social and emotional support, fostering a sense of belonging that is often lacking in academia. For adjunct faculty, this model helps bridge the disconnect they may feel from full-time faculty and institutional culture (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).

Studies have shown that institutions implementing mentorship constellations report higher faculty retention rates, improved teaching outcomes, and stronger interdisciplinary collaboration (Research Overview, 2024). Faculty who engage in mentorship networks also experience greater job satisfaction and professional fulfillment, as they are less isolated and better equipped to navigate institutional complexities (Defining Mentoring, Elon University, 2024).

Reverse Mentoring

Reverse mentoring flips the traditional mentorship model by positioning early-career faculty or adjunct instructors as mentors to senior faculty or department chairs. This model facilitates intergenerational learning, ensuring that faculty at all levels stay informed about evolving student needs, technological advancements, and inclusive teaching strategies (O’Connor et al., 2025).

For department chairs, reverse mentoring can be transformational, as it provides fresh insights into faculty experiences, student engagement strategies, and institutional blind spots (Seeing Behind the Curtain, Cain et al., 2024). This model also fosters equitable knowledge exchange, challenging traditional hierarchies in academia and creating space for diverse voices in institutional decision-making.

Institutions that integrate reverse mentoring programs have observed improvements in faculty collaboration, leadership adaptability, and institutional responsiveness to emerging challenges (O’Conner et al., 2025; How Reverse Mentoring Helps Co-Create Institutional Knowledge, 2024). Reverse mentoring also contributes to higher faculty engagement and morale, as it validates the expertise of early-career faculty while encouraging senior faculty to remain adaptive and open to change (Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts, 2024).

Institutional and Personal Impact

The impact of structured mentorship models extends beyond institutional outcomes to personal and professional faculty growth. At an institutional level, mentorship constellations and reverse mentoring contribute to:

  • Higher faculty retention by creating structured, sustained mentorship relationships that foster belonging and engagement (Pillar, 2025; Pearson & Kirby, 2018a).
  • Enhanced teaching and learning by facilitating cross-generational knowledge exchange and instructional innovation (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019).
  • Stronger leadership pipelines by equipping department chairs and adjunct faculty with the guidance and skills they need to navigate their roles successfully (Riddell, 2024).
  • Increased faculty collaboration by fostering networks of shared expertise and interdisciplinary connections (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a).

On a personal level, mentorship fosters professional confidence, leadership growth, and career satisfaction. Faculty members who participate in mentorship constellations experience:

  • Greater career clarity as they receive diverse perspectives and tailored professional guidance (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).
  • Reduced feelings of isolation, particularly for adjunct faculty and online educators who may otherwise feel disconnected from their institutions (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a: Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005).
  • Higher resilience and adaptability as mentorship relationships offer strategies for navigating career challenges and institutional demands (Riddell, 2024).
  • Stronger work-life balance, as faculty who have robust mentorship support report lower stress levels and greater career satisfaction (Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts, 2024).

By integrating mentorship constellations and reverse mentoring models, institutions can ensure that faculty members not only thrive in their roles but also contribute meaningfully to institutional transformation and student success. The personal and institutional benefits of structured, generative mentorship models make a compelling case for higher education institutions to prioritize mentorship as a central pillar of faculty development.

Practical Strategies for Institutions

For mentorship programs to be effective, institutions must move beyond informal or ad-hoc approaches and develop structured, intentional mentorship frameworks. A well-designed mentorship program should be embedded within faculty development initiatives and aligned with institutional goals for faculty success, retention, and leadership development (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023).

A key component of intentional mentorship structures is ensuring broad participation across faculty ranks, including adjuncts, department chairs, and early-career faculty. Institutions that implement structured mentorship initiatives—such as faculty mentoring circles, formal mentor-mentee pairings, and ongoing professional development programs—see higher engagement and faculty satisfaction (Research Overview, 2024). Furthermore, institutions must provide administrative support and resources to sustain these mentorship programs, including incentives, mentorship training, and time allocation for faculty mentors (Pillar, 2025).

Incentivizing Mentorship Participation

Encouraging faculty to participate in mentorship requires institutions to recognize and reward mentorship contributions. Many faculty members, particularly adjuncts and department chairs, already manage heavy workloads, and adding mentorship responsibilities can seem burdensome without appropriate incentives (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019).

Institutions can promote mentorship participation by offering course releases, stipends, or recognition in promotion and tenure processes (Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). Additionally, mentorship engagement should be formally acknowledged in annual faculty evaluations, awards, and institutional leadership programs (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a). Structured mentorship pathways that offer clear career benefits, such as professional development funding or administrative leadership training, further enhance faculty engagement (Hope Circuits, Riddell, 2024).

Integrating Mentorship into Faculty Onboarding

Mentorship should be embedded into faculty onboarding processes to ensure new faculty—especially adjuncts and department chairs—receive structured guidance from the outset. Institutions that pair new faculty members with mentors early in their careers see higher retention rates and stronger professional engagement (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b). However, effective onboarding should not be a one-time event but rather a continuous developmental process throughout the academic year. New faculty need sustained support to adapt to institutional expectations, instructional challenges, and evolving student needs.

A comprehensive onboarding mentorship program includes orientation sessions, peer mentoring, and structured faculty development plans. While an initial orientation is valuable for introducing faculty to institutional policies and expectations, ongoing mentorship ensures that faculty continue to receive guidance as they encounter real-world challenges in their roles. Regular follow-up meetings, structured check-ins, and opportunities for professional development allow faculty to build confidence, refine their teaching and leadership skills, and integrate fully into the academic community.

Reverse mentoring can also play a key role in onboarding, allowing early-career faculty and adjuncts to share student-centered perspectives and emerging pedagogical innovations with senior faculty and administrators (O’Connor et al., 2025). Additionally, mentoring constellations provide multiple points of support for new faculty, ensuring they have access to a network of experienced colleagues who can offer diverse perspectives and expertise (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). By designing onboarding programs that extend beyond the first semester and into the full academic year, institutions foster an environment where new faculty feel supported, engaged, and prepared to succeed.

Expanding Professional Development for Adjuncts

Adjunct faculty often lack access to institutional resources and professional development opportunities, making targeted mentorship programs essential for their career success and institutional integration (Defining Mentoring, Elon University, 2024). Strong mentorship initiatives help adjuncts develop effective teaching practices, engage in institutional governance, and explore career advancement opportunities (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).

Online adjuncts, in particular, face unique challenges related to institutional isolation and lack of engagement with full-time faculty. Virtual mentorship models, such as online mentoring communities, structured peer support, and interactive professional development workshops, have proven effective in improving online adjunct retention and engagement (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a; Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). By offering dedicated mentoring programs for online faculty, institutions ensure equitable professional development opportunities for all faculty members, regardless of instructional modality (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).

Building Sustainable Leadership Development for Chairs

Department chairs play a critical role in faculty leadership and institutional governance, yet many receive little formal preparation for their responsibilities. Structured mentorship programs for department chairs help them develop strategic leadership skills, operational efficiencies, and faculty support strategies (Pillar, 2025).

Mentorship constellations provide peer networks for department chairs, allowing them to learn from experienced leaders and gain insights into effective administrative practices (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). Reverse mentoring also plays a role in leadership development, as chairs benefit from early-career faculty perspectives on student engagement, emerging pedagogies, and institutional challenges (Seeing Behind the Curtain, Cain et al., 2024).

By incorporating mentorship into department chair training and leadership development programs, institutions strengthen faculty leadership pipelines and promote long-term institutional stability (Hope Circuits, Riddell, 2024).

Final Thoughts

Structured, generative mentorship is essential for faculty development, retention, and leadership sustainability. By embracing mentorship constellations and reverse mentoring, institutions can build dynamic faculty support networks that foster continuous learning, collaboration, and professional growth.

Mentorship programs should be intentional, incentivized, and embedded in faculty development initiatives, ensuring that adjuncts, department chairs, and early-career faculty receive the support and guidance necessary for long-term success (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023).

By prioritizing mentorship as a core institutional value, higher education institutions can create inclusive, engaged faculty communities that drive academic excellence and student success. The principles outlined in Hope Circuits (Riddell, 2024) underscore the need for systemic mentorship ecosystems that cultivate resilience, adaptability, and institutional belonging—ensuring that faculty at all levels thrive in an evolving academic landscape.

References

AFT. (2022). State of adjunct faculty in higher education. American Federation of Teachers.

Cain, L., Goldring, J., & Westall, A. (2024). Seeing behind the curtain: Reverse mentoring within the higher education landscape. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(5), 1267-1282. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2129963

Defining Mentoring. (2024). Mentoring in meaningful relationships. Elon University. https://www.elon.edu/u/mentoring-relationships/ace-report/defining-mentoring/

Faculty Focus. (2024). An online mentoring model that works. Faculty Focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/an-online-mentoring-model-that-works/

Gibson, A., & O’Keefe, P. (2019). Faculty development and adjunct faculty success. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(3), 233-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1569234

How Reverse Mentoring Helps Co-Create Institutional Knowledge. (2024). THE Campus: Learn, Share, Connect. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/how-reverse-mentoring-helps-cocreate-institutional-knowledge

Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts. (2024). Center for Engaged Learning. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/mentoring-constellations-in-global-contexts/

O’Connor, R., Barraclough, L., Gleadall, S., & Walker, L. (2025). Institutional reverse mentoring: Bridging the student/leadership gap. British Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 344-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2025.009475

OpenAI’s DALL-E. (2025). Conceptual illustration of Beyond the Tenure Track: How Generative Mentoring of Adjunct Faculty and Department Chairs Enhances Institutional Quality and Student Success [AI-generated image]. Retrieved from https://labs.openai.com

Pearson, M. J., & Kirby, E. G. (2018a). An online mentoring model that works. Faculty Focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/an-online-mentoring-model-that-works/

Pearson, M. J., & Kirby, E. G. (2018b). Best practices for training and retaining online adjunct faculty. Magna Publications.  https:// www.facultyfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Best-Practices-for-Training-and-Retaining-Online-Adjunct-Faculty.pdf

Pillar, G. (2025). From margins to mainstream: Elevating adjunct faculty for academic excellence. Innovative Higher Education Professional.

Pillar, G. (2025). The unsung leaders: Navigating department chair responsibilities at smaller private institutions. Innovative Higher Education Professional.

Puzziferro-Schnitzer, M., & Kissinger, J. (2005). Supporting online adjunct faculty: A virtual mentoring program. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(2), 39-42. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v9i2.1785

Research Overview. (2024). Center for Engaged Learning. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/mentoring-matters/research-overview/

Riddell, J. (2024). Hope circuits: Rewiring academia for resilience and transformation. University Press.

Seeing Behind the Curtain. (2024). Reverse mentoring within the higher education landscape. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2129963

Vandermaas-Peeler, M., & Moore, J. L. (2023). Mentoring constellations in global contexts: A new framework for faculty development. Center for Engaged Learning.

Zarrow, S. E. (2018, August 23). How tenured and tenure-track faculty can support adjuncts (opinion). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

The Unsung Leaders: Navigating Department Chair Responsibilities at Smaller Private Institutions

gregpillar on February 7, 2025

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

I always appreciate reading pieces in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed about leadership and administration in higher education. However, one must always consider the institutional context of the author. Is the author writing from a large public research institution, a for-profit online university, a small private religious college, or an elite liberal arts institution? The institution can heavily influence the applicability and relevance of the points made in the article. However, these articles often reflect perspectives from institutions that differ significantly from those where I have worked. Kevin Dettmar’s recent Chronicle column, The Job Keeps Changing and I Can’t Keep Up, caught my attention because it addresses an issue that resonates with many department chairs: the increasing administrative burden of the role. While there are valuable insights in his piece, I found much of his experience did not align with my own or with what I have observed at my institutions. Some of his concerns about the growing administrative burden on chairs are well-founded, but the reality for smaller private institutions with modest budgets and endowments requires a more nuanced discussion. The challenges we face—limited staff support, resource constraints, and a need for chairs to take on multiple roles—differ significantly from those at wealthier institutions with greater financial flexibility.

To contextualize my perspective, I have served as a department chair for six years, a program director for two years (Honors Program), and an assistant/associate provost for eight years at two small private universities. Both institutions, with enrollments ranging from 1,700 to 3,200 students, are NCAA Division I schools with modest endowments. Unlike at Pomona College—where Dettmar works, and where the institution enjoys a $2.8 billion endowment—the financial and administrative structures of smaller private universities present different constraints and opportunities.

This article is not about institutional differences but rather about expanding the conversation on the role of department chairs and program directors in higher education. Specifically, I want to highlight the leadership strategies that can help chairs navigate their roles more effectively, drawing from my own experiences, existing literature, and new perspectives on leadership (Dettmar, 2025).

Department Chairs as Middle Managers and Leaders

Dettmar and others characterize the department chair as a middle management position, and I agree—but this is not a recent development. For at least the last two decades, chairs have operated as intermediaries between faculty and administration, tasked with leading their departments while also managing increasing administrative responsibilities (Dettmar, 2025). These responsibilities include:

  • Faculty Supervision and Development – Chairs oversee faculty recruitment, hiring of full-time and adjunct faculty, mentorship, evaluations, and professional development. They ensure faculty receive the necessary support while also upholding institutional and accreditation expectations. Additionally, chairs help faculty navigate promotion and tenure processes, guide new faculty members, and facilitate professional growth opportunities through workshops and conferences.
  • Assessment and Accreditation – One of the most time-consuming tasks, assessment requires chairs to ensure that faculty develop measurable learning outcomes, conduct assessments, and document results for accreditation bodies. This includes working with institutional research offices, maintaining updated documentation, and coordinating faculty to ensure compliance with regional accreditation standards.
  • Retention and Student Success Efforts – Chairs play a significant role in student retention by fostering strong advising structures and ensuring curricular alignment with students’ academic and career goals. Chairs also often handle student complaints, mentor struggling students, and work with student affairs to ensure students receive the support they need.
  • Curriculum Management and Innovation – Beyond maintaining course schedules, chairs must ensure that their department’s curriculum remains relevant, rigorous, and aligned with institutional priorities. This involves overseeing curriculum revisions, integrating new pedagogical methods, and working with industry experts to maintain up-to-date academic programs.
  • Recruitment and Enrollment Management – Many chairs now engage in outreach efforts to prospective students, participating in open houses, responding to inquiries, and working with admissions offices to promote their programs. Enrollment declines have made this task even more critical, requiring chairs to develop strategic recruitment plans and build partnerships with high schools and community colleges.
  • Budget Management – The extent of budget responsibilities varies widely by department. Some chairs oversee substantial budgets that require careful oversight of operational expenses, faculty salaries, lab materials, and department-specific initiatives. Others manage smaller budgets with limited discretionary funds, making financial planning even more critical. Regardless of the budget size, chairs must ensure that resources are allocated strategically to support student success and program sustainability. In today’s financial climate, where institutions are facing tightening budgets, every dollar must be used effectively. Chairs must make difficult decisions regarding which programs, events, and initiatives to fund—often prioritizing those that benefit the greatest number of students or have the highest impact on student learning outcomes. Additionally, chairs should engage in long-term financial planning, seeking alternative funding sources such as grants, external partnerships, or alumni contributions to supplement departmental needs. Effective budget management requires a combination of fiscal discipline, strategic investment, and advocacy for resources that align with both departmental and institutional priorities.
  • Unique Departmental/Disciplinary Demands – Some departments have specialized needs beyond standard academic management. Chairs in nursing and health sciences may oversee clinical placements, while STEM chairs must manage lab safety and equipment. Fine arts chairs may coordinate galleries and studio spaces. Each discipline carries its own set of logistical challenges requiring dedicated leadership and administrative oversight. Some chairs manage significant budgets that require careful financial oversight, while others oversee smaller budgets with limited discretionary funds. Chairs must navigate fiscal constraints, prioritize spending, and ensure that departmental resources align with institutional goals. They must navigate funding limitations while ensuring that their departments have adequate faculty, technology, and materials.

These are not extraneous tasks; they are core functions of a department chair. While administrative support varies by institution, many of these responsibilities fall squarely on the chair, making time management and delegation essential.

The Importance of Delegation: Empowering Faculty and Building Capacity

One key issue that often goes unaddressed is the underutilization of delegation. Many department chairs believe that effective leadership means taking on every task themselves. However, research and leadership studies suggest that the opposite is true—effective leaders know how to delegate strategically, empowering others while maintaining oversight (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). Delegation is not simply about offloading work but about developing faculty leadership capacity, distributing responsibilities equitably, and ensuring the long-term stability of the department (Pillar, 2024a). While some chairs believe they must handle every responsibility themselves, many of these tasks can—and should—be distributed across the department. Faculty observations, assessment activities, recruitment initiatives, and mentoring should not rest solely on the chair’s shoulders (Pillar, 2024a).

At both institutions where I worked, I observed that chairs who effectively delegated responsibilities were not only less overwhelmed but also cultivated stronger, more engaged departments. Garcia and Fisher (2023) emphasize that leadership in modern organizations, including higher education, must be collaborative rather than hierarchical. Delegation fosters an environment where faculty members feel ownership over department initiatives, creating a culture of shared responsibility and innovation. By involving faculty in key departmental functions, chairs can create a leadership pipeline, preparing faculty members for future administrative roles while strengthening institutional governance (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). For instance, having senior faculty conduct peer observations fosters a culture of continuous improvement and collegiality. Assigning faculty members to lead assessment efforts allows for more meaningful engagement in curricular decisions. When departments share recruitment responsibilities, it fosters a collective investment in student success.

The key is to establish clear expectations within the department and work with the Dean or Provost’s office to formalize these roles where necessary, whether through load releases, service expectations, or structured faculty development plans (Pillar, 2024b). Moreover, effective delegation does not mean relinquishing responsibility; it means creating structured processes where accountability remains intact. Leaders must ensure that those taking on delegated responsibilities have the resources, training, and support to succeed (Chu, 2023).

Another critical factor in successful delegation is recognizing the strengths and expertise of faculty members. Chairs should be intentional about assigning roles that align with faculty members’ skills and professional development goals. For instance, faculty with experience in accreditation processes may be well-suited to lead assessment initiatives, while those with strong community ties could contribute significantly to recruitment and outreach efforts (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Finally, Garcia and Fisher (2023) argue that in today’s evolving leadership landscape, chairs must move beyond transactional delegation—simply assigning tasks—and embrace transformational delegation. This approach involves mentoring faculty, fostering leadership development, and creating an adaptable departmental culture where faculty feel valued and invested in the long-term success of the institution. By implementing strategic delegation, chairs not only reduce their workload but also build stronger, more resilient departments prepared for the challenges of the future.

The New Leadership Model: Moving Beyond Best Practices

Garcia and Fisher’s The End of Leadership as We Know It (2023) challenges traditional leadership models, arguing that best practices are often outdated, too rigid, or unsuitable for evolving organizational landscapes. Their key argument—that successful leadership today requires adaptability, collaboration, and purpose-driven vision—directly applies to the challenges faced by department chairs (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

  1. Adapting to Change Rather Than Relying on “Best Practices”

Higher education is inherently complex, and what works for one institution may not work for another. Instead of following prescribed best practices, chairs should embrace a more agile leadership style that allows them to adjust strategies based on real-time feedback and shifting priorities (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Chairs must be able to navigate institutional changes, including fluctuating enrollment trends, shifting budgetary constraints, and evolving accreditation standards. Agility in leadership means anticipating challenges rather than reacting to them. Leaders in higher education must develop a mindset of continuous learning, seeking feedback from faculty, students, and stakeholders to refine departmental strategies. According to Garcia and Fisher (2023), leaders who embrace change effectively tend to foster stronger organizational resilience and improve team cohesion during times of uncertainty.

  1. Leading with Purpose and Vision

A strong sense of purpose helps leaders navigate uncertainty. Chairs must align their leadership with both institutional missions and departmental goals, fostering faculty buy-in and student success (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Purpose-driven leadership is particularly important in the academic environment, where faculty and staff are deeply invested in the success of students and the intellectual rigor of their disciplines. Department chairs must articulate a compelling vision for their programs that resonates with both faculty and students. According to Garcia and Fisher (2023), effective leaders understand how to connect day-to-day responsibilities to a broader institutional purpose, which in turn strengthens morale and commitment within a department. Chairs should emphasize the long-term impact of their department’s work, ensuring that faculty see themselves as part of a mission-driven academic community rather than just a collection of individual contributors.

  1. Collaborative Leadership and Shared Responsibility

Chairs should work to flatten traditional hierarchies by empowering faculty to take ownership of key departmental initiatives. Encouraging collaboration strengthens institutional buy-in and enhances overall effectiveness (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Shared governance is a hallmark of higher education, yet many department chairs still operate within outdated leadership models that centralize decision-making authority. The modern chair must facilitate an environment where faculty feel empowered to contribute to the strategic direction of the department. This requires creating opportunities for faculty to take on leadership roles within committees, research initiatives, and student mentorship programs. Garcia and Fisher (2023) argue that by distributing responsibility and fostering a collaborative culture, leaders create more innovative and adaptable organizations. Chairs who engage faculty in problem-solving and strategic planning cultivate stronger teams and ensure the long-term success of their departments.

  1. Leading in the Digital Age

Technology is playing an increasingly central role in higher education, requiring chairs to develop digital literacy and lead in a tech-enhanced academic landscape (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). From online course development to data-driven decision-making, department chairs must ensure that faculty are equipped with the necessary tools and training to excel in a digital learning environment.

According to Garcia and Fisher (2023), successful leaders in the digital era prioritize technological integration and ensure that their teams are comfortable navigating digital platforms for instruction, assessment, and student engagement. Chairs should foster a culture of technological adaptability, providing professional development opportunities and encouraging faculty to experiment with new digital teaching tools.

  1. Emotional Intelligence and Leadership in a Post-Pandemic Era

Garcia and Fisher (2023) emphasize that emotional intelligence is a critical skill for modern leaders, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher education has undergone significant disruptions, and department chairs must navigate faculty burnout, student mental health concerns, and shifting work expectations.

Chairs must develop strong interpersonal skills to support faculty through these transitions. This includes active listening, demonstrating empathy, and fostering an inclusive departmental culture. Leaders who recognize the emotional and psychological needs of their teams are better equipped to maintain morale and engagement during challenging times.

Final Thoughts: Rethinking Leadership Without Resistance

I deeply respect the significant time and effort required to develop and deliver excellent teaching, as well as the time needed for scholarship and service activities—including administrative tasks that faculty members take on as part of their broader professional responsibilities. Faculty time is the most valuable resource, and I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that faculty have the space and support necessary to focus on their core academic pursuits. However, taking an adversarial approach to addressing administrative burdens is not the most effective way forward.

This is something I’ve seen reflected in how institutions have evolved in their expectations of scholarship. Many institutions now recognize and accept the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) alongside traditional disciplinary research when evaluating faculty for tenure and promotion. This shift illustrates that institutions are capable of integrating responsibilities in a way that does not require faculty to find the nonexistent 25th and 26th hour of the day. Similarly, we must approach administrative and leadership responsibilities with a mindset of collaboration and efficiency, rather than resistance, to maximize time and resources.

Dettmar (2025) concludes his piece with a call for the “Rise of the Resistance”, arguing that department chairs must push back against increasing administrative burdens to reclaim their time for teaching and research. While I understand the frustration that leads to this sentiment, I strongly disagree that resistance is the best—or only—solution. Instead of resorting to adversarial approaches, we should focus on strategic adaptation, collaboration, and problem-solving to drive meaningful change.

The reality is that higher education is not a static entity; it is a constantly evolving landscape where institutions must balance financial constraints, accreditation requirements, and shifting student expectations. The role of department chairs is undeniably demanding, but solutions exist that do not require an us-versus-them mentality.

  1. Exploring Untested and Underutilized Solutions Rather than engaging in resistance for resistance’s sake, department chairs can explore proactive strategies to alleviate administrative burdens. This might include:
  • Advocating for better workflow management tools or more efficient administrative processes.
  • Strengthening faculty governance structures to distribute responsibilities more equitably.
  • Working with administration to develop clear expectations for chairs, ensuring they are not simply absorbing new responsibilities without appropriate compensation or support.
  1. Leadership Through Partnership, Not Opposition Instead of positioning administration as an adversary, chairs should seek to engage deans, provosts, and institutional leadership as partners in problem-solving. Change within academia rarely comes through outright resistance, but rather through incremental improvements and strategic negotiations (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). Chairs should approach leadership discussions with data-driven arguments that illustrate how their time is being consumed and offer collaborative solutions for improvement.
  2. The Power of a Forward-Thinking Leadership Mindset The perspectives shared in The End of Leadership as We Know It (Garcia & Fisher, 2023) emphasize the importance of agility, innovation, and emotional intelligence in leadership. If chairs embrace these qualities, they can push for institutional changes without resorting to combative measures. Instead of resisting, they can adapt, strategize, and lead from within—reshaping their roles and influencing institutional policies in a way that benefits faculty, students, and the institution alike.

Empowering Chairs for Institutional Change

Don Chu (2023) argues that department chairs hold the key to real institutional transformation but are often underprepared and under-empowered. He highlights that the traditional bureaucratic model in higher education often separates policy creation at the administrative level from the faculty who must implement it. As a result, chairs become messengers rather than leaders, lacking the training, resources, and authority needed to drive meaningful change (Chu, 2023).

To professionalize and empower department chairs, Chu suggests:

  • Providing structured leadership training to ensure chairs are prepared for the multifaceted demands of their roles.
  • Granting greater decision-making authority to chairs in budget allocation, hiring, and curriculum development.
  • Offering longer-term leadership continuity so that chairs can lead sustained departmental progress.

By rethinking how institutions position their chairs, colleges can transform them from temporary placeholders to true academic leaders who bridge the gap between administration and faculty (Chu, 2023).

References

Chu, D. (2023). Chairs hold the key to higher ed’s success. Inside Higher Ed.

Dettmar, K. (2025). The job keeps changing and I can’t keep up. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Garcia, S., & Fisher, D. (2023). The end of leadership as we know it: What it takes to lead in today’s volatile and complex world. Wiley.

OpenAI’s DALL-E. (2025). Conceptual illustration of The Unsung Leaders: Navigating Department Chair Responsibilities at Smaller Private Institutions [AI-generated image]. Retrieved from https://labs.openai.com

Pillar, G. (2024a). Leading from the heart of higher education: Empowering mid-level leaders to drive transformation and student success.

Pillar, G. (2024b).Breaking Through the Middle Manager Paradox: Practical Approaches to Middle Leadership in Higher Education.

Beyond the Critique: A Nuanced Approach to Higher Education Reform for the Modern Learner

gregpillar on October 19, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

After reading F. Andrew Wolf Jr’s article, “Universities Are Doing Education Badly,” it’s clear that although some of the criticisms he raises hit the mark, there are others I do not fully agree with—whether it’s the foundation of the criticism itself or what specifically needs to be fixed. However, I do believe the solutions to all of them are far more nuanced than what is laid out in his article or what many may think. Having worked in higher education for over two decades, with more than 10 years in various administrative roles, I’ve seen firsthand the complexities universities face. While I agree with his call for better faculty preparation and the need for a curriculum revamp, there are key areas where my perspective diverges. This piece offers a more balanced take, focusing on the need to improve faculty training, emphasize lifelong learning, and make higher education more accessible to everyone.

Faculty Development and Training: Beyond Disciplinary Expertise

“College undergraduates spend time and money taking “general-education courses” under the guise that these will make their education, and therefore them, more “well-rounded.” Yet these courses offer only a superficial treatment of subjects that should have been mastered in high school. Given the testing results and dismal college-completion rate cited above, the only things that truly get “well-rounded” are the coffers into which student tuition money flows, amount to thousands of dollars’ worth of wasted time and effort” — Wolf (2024)

There is no doubt that teaching requires a distinct skill set that goes beyond disciplinary expertise. While universities often place a higher value on research, this leaves many faculty members unprepared to meet the diverse needs of their modern learners. The assumption that deep subject knowledge automatically translates to effective teaching is flawed (Berrett, 2012). Research and teaching demand different skill sets, and expertise in one doesn’t guarantee success in the other.

Recent data reveals that only one in five high school graduates is ready for college-level work (Manno, 2024). This underscores the critical need for faculty to be equipped with tools that support diverse modern learners with varying levels of academic readiness. Faculty need to adapt to the range of skills and preparedness that modern learners bring into the classroom, particularly as they face unique challenges.

Doctoral and master’s programs should focus on equipping future faculty with both research and teaching skills. Yet a study in agricultural disciplines found that 45% of graduate instructors had no formal teaching training, and only 23% received any training before they started teaching (Pillar, Karnok, & Thien, 2008). Faculty need structured pathways to develop these skills, but institutions must also provide ongoing professional development. It’s not enough to expect faculty to figure out how to teach while managing their research and service responsibilities.

The complexity of teaching is heightened by the increasing mental health challenges faced by today’s modern learners. Professors, particularly those on the tenure track, report feeling overwhelmed by the pressure to balance teaching, research, and service (Berrett, 2012). Universities must provide resources to support faculty in navigating these pressures. Addressing these needs means offering training in trauma-informed teaching and making mental health services for modern learners more accessible. Without better support for both faculty and modern learners, burnout and dropout rates will continue to rise.

Furthermore, Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) offer valuable resources for improving pedagogy but are often underutilized. These programs should be mandatory, tied to measurable outcomes like modern learner success and retention, and linked to faculty evaluations (Pillar et al., 2008). This shift would not only improve teaching but also reduce faculty burnout, creating a better learning environment for modern learners.

Re-envisioning the Curriculum: Lifelong Learning and Cultivating Curiosity as the New Educational Paradigm

“College is where students should start to specialize in a course of study, having already acquired general knowledge in K-12… General course requirements that essentially reiterate high-school learning.” — Wolf (2024)

While the call to reduce general education requirements might appeal to some, it oversimplifies the true value of general education. General education isn’t just about rehashing high school content. This point made by Wolf is one where I completely disagree. Although there may be some overlap, the depth of exploration and critical thinking required in college-level general education is far greater. More importantly, general education is about developing durable skills—problem-solving, collaboration, and adaptability—that are essential for lifelong learning.

The modern learner is likely to change jobs—and even careers—multiple times. Higher education should not only produce experts in a discipline but also foster intellectual curiosity and the capacity for continuous learning. General education builds the flexibility and problem-solving skills necessary to navigate a rapidly changing workforce. The current job market demands more than just expertise in a single field; it requires individuals who can adapt to various roles and challenges. This is why it’s concerning that so many students enter college without the necessary workplace skills such as communication, organization, and professionalism. This gap in preparation, largely a result of an education system too focused on standardized testing and theory, only adds to the need for universities to address these deficits in their curriculum (Greene, 2024).

Job tenures have shortened, with fewer people staying in the same role for decades. In fact, individuals are now more likely to switch jobs frequently, further emphasizing the need for higher education to cultivate agility and transferable skills (Fox, 2022). A well-rounded education that focuses on both specialization and broad, interdisciplinary knowledge is critical to preparing modern learners for these shifts.

Moreover, while some modern learners may see general education as redundant, it offers opportunities to deepen critical thinking and engage with new ideas beyond their chosen field. General education provides room for modern learners to explore subjects that may lead to interdisciplinary connections or even career shifts. This broader intellectual foundation is crucial in a world that demands versatility. However, it’s important to recognize that many students arrive at college underprepared for this level of academic engagement. The deficiencies in K-12 education, exacerbated by an overreliance on standardized testing, leave many students lacking the critical thinking and autonomy needed for higher education success. Addressing these gaps requires universities to be intentional in how they design and deliver general education (Greene, 2024).

However, as general education models evolve—focusing more on interdisciplinary learning, experiential learning, and using learning communities—transferability becomes a challenge. Many modern learners transfer between institutions or take breaks from their education, and when general education requirements aren’t aligned, it complicates their journey. This is why creating opportunities for credit for prior learning and competency-based education is essential. Flexible pathways that allow modern learners to earn micro-credentials, certificates, or badges as they progress toward a degree can help them stay engaged and prevent them from stopping out altogether.

The current system still heavily favors those who enter college straight from high school. While improvements have been made for non-traditional learners, the 40 million-plus individuals in the U.S. who have some college education but no degree remain at a significant disadvantage. If universities want to serve the modern learner, they must adapt by creating more flexible, learner-centered systems.

In considering the influence of education reformers like John Dewey, it’s worth reflecting on how progressive education movements have shaped general education. Dewey’s focus on experiential learning and the holistic development of modern learners has had a lasting impact on how we approach curriculum design (Lynd, 1953). This remains relevant today as we seek to create learning experiences that go beyond rote memorization and foster critical thinking and curiosity in the modern learner.

The Heart and Head of Education: A Holistic Approach

“When a society associates education almost solely with fact-based knowledge, methods, standards, grades, diplomas, and degrees, it runs the risk of producing what C.S. Lewis called ‘men without chests.’ Without a belief in, and the teaching of, universal moral laws, we fail to educate the heart and are left with ‘educated’ (not enlightened) people who behave instinctually in their own self-interest.” — Wolf (2024)

While it’s true that higher education shouldn’t focus only on data and facts, it’s a stretch to say that intellectual development and emotional growth can’t or don’t coexist. The idea that universities are producing well-informed but emotionally detached individuals doesn’t reflect the evolving reality of today’s campuses. In fact, many institutions are making concerted efforts to blend both intellectual and emotional education, aiming to develop well-rounded modern learners who not only think critically but also lead with empathy.

For example, universities are increasingly integrating emotional intelligence, leadership, and ethical reasoning into their curriculums. These initiatives address the reality that modern learners need more than just academic knowledge to succeed in a world where empathy and emotional intelligence are essential skills. Leadership development programs, conflict resolution courses, and mentorship initiatives are becoming more common, offering structured opportunities for students to develop these “soft skills.”

Experiential learning and co-curricular programs play a big role in ensuring that modern learners grow both intellectually and emotionally. Programs like internships, community service, and study abroad offer learners the chance to apply their academic knowledge to real-world scenarios, encouraging them to think critically about their values and ethical choices. These experiences cultivate a deeper sense of social responsibility and empathy, qualities that are increasingly valued in both personal and professional contexts (Berrett, 2012).

In addition to these initiatives, trauma-informed leadership and trauma-informed pedagogies are becoming vital in supporting modern learners. These practices ensure that education addresses not only intellectual development but also the emotional and psychological well-being of students. Trauma-informed leadership acknowledges the prevalence of trauma and stress in academic environments and fosters a culture where students feel safe, supported, and empowered to succeed. By emphasizing empathy, emotional safety, and resilience, these leadership practices directly contribute to the emotional development of modern learners, complementing their academic growth (Pillar et al., 2023).

Trauma can have lasting impacts on the modern learner’s ability to engage with their learning environments. Trauma-informed practices are essential for creating supportive educational experiences that recognize and mitigate these impacts. When leaders and educators are equipped with these practices, they help cultivate resilient, emotionally intelligent individuals who are better prepared to thrive both in and out of the classroom (Pillar, 2024).

Research backs up this shift. Studies show that students who participate in programs aimed at developing emotional intelligence—such as peer mentoring or service-learning projects—not only feel more satisfied with their college experience but also perform better academically. Emotional intelligence has been shown to improve resilience, relationships, and academic success. For example, emotional intelligence is strongly linked to self-efficacy, motivation, and resilience, which mediate the positive effects on both psychological well-being and academic performance (Shengyao et al., 2024). This suggests that by supporting both the intellectual and emotional sides of education, universities are actually preparing students for a more successful life after graduation.

Instead of seeing intellectual and emotional education as opposing forces, the goal should be to create a balanced approach that fosters both. By combining rigorous academic learning with emotional and ethical growth, we can ensure that modern learners graduate not only well-educated but also equipped with the empathy and ethical grounding to lead meaningful lives. This holistic model of education is critical for preparing students to thrive in today’s complex and interconnected world.

Improving Accessibility and Affordability: More than Just Financial Aid

“Given the testing results and dismal college-completion rate cited above, the only things that truly get ‘well-rounded’ are the coffers into which student tuition money flows, amounting to thousands of dollars’ worth of wasted time and effort.” — Wolf (2024)

Affordability remains one of the most significant barriers to higher education, especially for low-income modern learners. Pell Grant recipients, a proxy for low-income modern learners, often face graduation rates below 40% at many institutions, underscoring the inadequacy of support systems designed to help these modern learners persist and graduate (Kotlikoff, 2022). As Gary Stocker, host of the College Viability podcast and creator of the College Viability app pointedly described, institutions with graduation rates below 50% often function more like “tuition collection agencies” than true educational institutions, emphasizing the systemic failure to support modern learner success (Costa, 2022).

True accessibility, however, involves more than just lowering tuition costs—it means creating more flexible pathways that accommodate the needs of modern learners. Online education, which has often been viewed as inferior to in-person learning, can offer the flexibility that many modern learners—especially those balancing work, family obligations, or financial constraints—need. But simply offering online courses is not enough. Universities must ensure their online programs are rigorous, engaging, and designed to prepare modern learners for success in both academic and professional environments. This is crucial because when done poorly, online education can reinforce existing disparities rather than mitigate them (Wolf, 2024).

Additionally, universities must better prepare modern learners for the realities of online learning, offering training in time management, self-discipline, and digital literacy. For low-income and underrepresented modern learners, who may already face numerous barriers, online education can serve as a lifeline—providing access to education that may not otherwise be feasible. However, this option is only viable if institutions invest in ensuring the quality and accessibility of these programs. The Colleges Where Low-Income Students Get the Highest ROI report also stresses that while some private nonprofit institutions, such as Georgetown and Stanford, offer a high return on investment (ROI) for low-income modern learners, these institutions enroll relatively few Pell Grant recipients, limiting access for the broader low-income population (Carnevale, Cheah, & Van Der Werf, 2022). It is surprising the number of institutions whose student body are comprised of 20, 30 or even 40% Pell-Grant eligible students and their graduation rates are below 40%.  This disparity highlights that the institutions most capable of providing significant economic mobility are often the least accessible to the populations that could benefit most.

Furthermore, the decline in educational outcomes in K-12 systems, as evidenced by the historic lows in national math and reading scores, raises significant concerns about how prepared modern learners are for college (Sparks, 2022). These failures in K-12 education call for stronger interventions in higher education, particularly regarding accessibility and modern learner support for those already at a disadvantage when entering college. Higher education institutions must play an active role in bridging these gaps, offering stronger pathways for college readiness through dual enrollment, bridge programs, and intentional collaborations with K-12 systems.

Strengthening Student Support Systems: Preventing Costly Failures

“The United States has a daunting 39-percent college dropout rate. Under-preparedness is surely to blame in large part.” — Wolf (2024)

To address the high dropout rates in higher education, strengthening support systems for modern learners must be a top priority. While modern learners may not always be academically unprepared, they often lack the financial or personal resources to persist. For example, a recent survey found that 58% of stopped-out modern learners cited financial struggles as their primary reason for not returning to school, even though 90% felt confident in their academic skills, such as math and critical thinking (Spitalniak, 2024). This statistic demonstrates that financial challenges, rather than just academic unpreparedness, are a significant barrier to modern learner persistence and success.

Beyond addressing financial challenges, universities need to recognize that a key factor in improving retention is fostering a strong sense of belonging for modern learners. Research shows that modern learners who feel a genuine sense of belonging on campus are more likely to persist and complete their degrees. As Doyle (2023) highlights, providing non-academic support—such as a modern learner’s sense of belonging, feeling that at least one faculty or staff member cares about them, and a representation of their culture or identity on campus—significantly enhances retention. When these factors are taken into account, predictive models for modern learner retention improve, highlighting the importance of the social and emotional dimensions of modern learner success. Therefore, retention strategies must go beyond academic interventions to include efforts to build connections and a supportive campus culture for modern learners.

Universities must also offer wraparound services that address not only academic needs but also financial, personal, and mental health challenges. Comprehensive modern learner support systems—including academic coaching, career advising, mental health services, and peer mentoring—are critical in helping modern learners navigate the complexities of higher education. These services ensure that modern learners can manage the multitude of challenges they face, increasing their chances of staying enrolled and graduating.

Creating more flexible pathways for modern learners who may not succeed immediately is a powerful strategy to address high dropout and stop-out rates. By making it easier for modern learners to re-engage with their education, institutions can help foster a lifelong appreciation for learning. Providing opportunities for modern learners to earn micro-credentials, stackable credits, or pursue competency-based education that contributes directly to their degree offers them tangible milestones. These smaller achievements can keep modern learners motivated, even if they face challenges along the way.

For low-income modern learners, who are disproportionately affected by financial pressures and more likely to stop out, these flexible pathways are especially crucial. Rather than viewing their education as an all-or-nothing proposition, modern learners can build their progress incrementally. This approach helps maintain momentum, empowering them to continue working toward their degree while managing personal, financial, or academic hurdles.

Additionally, by offering re-entry programs without penalizing modern learners for past academic difficulties, institutions can eliminate the stigma often associated with returning to college after stopping out or even not going straight into college out of high school. This welcoming and normalized approach creates a more inclusive educational environment, encouraging modern learners to see their educational journey as flexible and adaptive, rather than rigid and unforgiving. In doing so, universities can promote a culture of lifelong learning, where modern learners are supported in returning to their studies, regardless of how long they’ve been away (or how long they delayed starting).

By fostering an environment where modern learners are met where they are—both academically and personally —universities can better serve modern learners, particularly those from marginalized or underrepresented backgrounds. Faculty must also adapt to this changing landscape, using teaching methods and course designs that acknowledge the diversity of experiences and academic readiness that modern learners bring to the classroom. In doing so, institutions will not only improve graduation rates but also ensure that modern learners leave with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in an increasingly competitive and unpredictable world.

Final Thoughts: A Call for a Balanced Reform

The challenges facing higher education today are significant and demand thoughtful, well-rounded solutions. While many of Wolf’s critiques hold weight, the issue(s) at hand and solutions require a more nuanced, multifaceted, and comprehensive understanding and approach. This certainly doesn’t mean that potential solutions have to be complex and in fact, I would argue they need to be as practical and straightforward as possible to navigate the change management needed for all involved. Universities must do a better job of preparing faculty to teach, re-envision their curricula to emphasize lifelong learning and curiosity, improve accessibility, and strengthen support systems for modern learners. These reforms are not quick fixes, but they are necessary if we are to truly serve the needs of modern learners and ensure their success in an ever-changing world.

Faculty development cannot remain solely focused on disciplinary expertise. It must also foster effective teaching skills and equip educators to meet the diverse needs of modern learners. Curricula need to evolve beyond a narrow focus on major-specific courses to emphasize the development of durable, transferable skills that promote intellectual curiosity and adaptability—traits essential for lifelong learning. Faculty at all levels of experience and expertise should make a serious commitment to developing their teaching skills throughout their careers, not just during the tenure-track period. As the needs, abilities, skills, and challenges of the modern learner evolve, so too must faculty adapt their teaching practices. Universities must put greater emphasis and resources into developing faculty teaching skills, while faculty themselves must take this responsibility seriously to ensure they are meeting the needs of the modern learner and creating more effective learning environments.

In addition to improving teaching and curriculum, universities must prioritize accessibility by creating more flexible pathways that meet modern learners where they are. Offering micro-credentials, stackable credits, and competency-based education can provide modern learners with the tools to progress at their own pace while recognizing and rewarding their achievements along the way. These strategies will be particularly impactful for low-income and non-traditional modern learners, for whom financial barriers and personal obligations often create challenges to degree completion.

Equally important is the need to strengthen modern learner support systems. A sense of belonging, as Jeff Doyle points out, is crucial for retention and modern learner success. Universities must address both academic and non-academic challenges by providing wraparound services that encompass mental health, career advising, financial counseling, and peer mentoring. Only by addressing the full spectrum of modern learner needs can we hope to reduce dropout rates and ensure that more modern learners succeed.

Ultimately, higher education must adapt to the realities of the modern world, balancing the need for academic rigor with the flexibility and support necessary to guide modern learners toward success. By implementing these reforms, universities can foster an environment where modern learners are not only prepared for their immediate futures but are equipped with the curiosity, resilience, and lifelong learning skills needed to thrive in an ever-changing global landscape.

References

Berrett, D. (2012, October 24). Today’s faculty: Stressed and focused on teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/todays-faculty-stressed-focused-on-teaching-and-undeterred-by-long-odds/

Carnevale, A. P., Cheah, B., & Van Der Werf, M. (2022). The Colleges Where Low-Income Students Get the Highest ROI. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/lowincome/ 

Costa, N. (2022). The deadweight loss of college general education requirements. Michigan Journal of Economics. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/04/19/the-deadweight-loss-of-college-general-education-requirements/ 

Doyle, J. (2023, November 28). The billion-dollar result from seeing student success in a new way. Deep Thoughts on Higher Ed. https://deepthoughtshed.com/2023/11/28/the-billion-dollar-result-from-seeing-student-success-in-a-new-way/

Fox, J. (2022, October 17). Haven’t worked at the same place for 10 years? Join the club. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-10-17/haven-t-worked-at-the-same-place-for-10-years-join-the-club?srnd=phx-economics-v2 

Greene, P. (2024). Neither College Nor Career Ready. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2024/10/02/neither-college-nor-career-ready/

Kotlikoff, L. J. (2022). ‘Don’t borrow for college,’ warns Harvard economist. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/dont-borrow-for-college-warns-harvard-trained-economist-why-he-says-its-a-waste-of-money.html

Ladany, N. (2024, September 24). Behind the curtain of higher education: Faculty aren’t trained. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasladany/2024/09/24/behind-the-curtain-of-higher-education-faculty-arent-trained/

Lynd, A. (1953). Who wants progressive education? The influence of John Dewey on the public schools. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1953/04/who-wants-progressive-education-the-influence-of-john-dewey-on-the-public-schools/640458/

Magnet, P. (2022). Western education has collapsed, and no one wants to admit it. Medium. https://medium.com/illumination/western-education-has-collapsed-and-no-one-wants-to-admit-it-f192e740a8bb

Manno, B. V. (2024). Are high school graduates ready for college? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brunomanno/2024/05/28/are-high-school-graduates-ready-for-college/

Pillar, G. D. (2024). Building Resilient Leadership in Higher Education: Merging Trauma-Informed Practices with Key Presidential Competencies. https://gregpillar.com/building-resilient-leadership-in-higher-education-merging-trauma-informed-practices-with-key-presidential-competencies/

Pillar, G. D., Karnok, K. J., & Thien, S. J. (2008). Perceptions, utilization, and training of graduate student teaching assistants in introductory soil science courses: Survey results. NACTA Journal, 52(3), 24-32.

Pillar, G., Rutstein-Riley, A., Meriwether, J., Lawler-Sagarin, K., Ayabe, J., Nimmo, S., Fallon, A. M., Hoover, C., & Boules, R. (2023). Trauma-informed leadership: From awareness to action. AALI Senior Leadership Academy.

Sayers, D. L. (2024). The lost tools of learning. Association of Classical Christian Schools. https://classicalchristian.org/the-lost-tools-of-learning-dorothy-sayers/

Shengyao, Y., Xuefen, L., Jenatabadi, H. S., Samsudin, N., & Ishak, Z. (2024). Emotional intelligence impact on academic achievement and psychological well-being among university students: The mediating role of positive psychological characteristics. BMC Psychology, 12(389). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01886-4

Sparks, S. D. (2022). Two decades of progress, nearly gone: National math, reading scores hit historic lows. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/two-decades-of-progress-nearly-gone-national-math-reading-scores-hit-historic-lows/2022/10

Spitalniak, L. (2024, October 16). Stopped-out students are confident in their academic skills—but financial concerns remain. Higher Ed Dive. https://www.highereddive.com/news/stopped-out-students-confident-academic-skills-financial-concerns-survey/653066/

Wolf, G. (2024). Universities are doing education badly. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2024/10/universities-are-doing-education-badly/

Ideas for Future Discussions and Writings

As I continue to explore the evolving landscape of higher education, several key areas deserve deeper attention. Below are a few ideas for future discussions and potential articles that build on the themes touched upon in this piece. If any of these resonate with you, or if you’d be interested in discussing or collaborating on an article, I’d love to hear from you.

  1. The Future of Faculty Development: Training Educators for a New Era This piece could delve into what a modernized faculty development program looks like in practice. How can universities better prepare educators to teach diverse, multi-generational, and often underprepared learners? What role should technology play in teacher training? The discussion could explore mandatory pedagogical development, the role of Centers for Teaching and Learning, and the importance of trauma-informed teaching practices.
  2. Beyond Major-Specific Learning: Building a Curriculum for Lifelong Adaptability Expanding on the idea of lifelong learning, this article could explore how universities can create curricula that balance deep disciplinary knowledge with broad, adaptable skills like problem-solving, communication, and digital literacy. It could examine real-world examples of institutions that have successfully integrated interdisciplinary studies and experiential learning into their programs and look at the long-term benefits for graduates.
  3. Addressing the Financial Barriers in Higher Education: Flexible Pathways and Micro-Credentials This discussion could take a deeper look into how financial barriers disproportionately affect low-income students and non-traditional learners. It would expand on the idea of creating flexible educational pathways, exploring case studies of institutions that have successfully implemented micro-credentials, competency-based education, and stackable credits to keep students engaged and help them return to education after stopping out.
  4. The Role of Belonging in Student Success: Moving Beyond Academic Metrics Building on Jeff Doyle’s insights into the importance of non-academic factors like belonging, this article could dive deeper into how universities can cultivate a sense of belonging to improve retention and graduation rates. It could explore the specific initiatives schools have implemented to enhance student engagement outside the classroom and how these contribute to measurable success outcomes.
  5. Improving Retention and Graduation Rates for Low-Income and Underrepresented Students This piece could focus on the systemic challenges that low-income and underrepresented students face in completing their degrees. It would explore the key interventions needed to address the financial, social, and academic barriers preventing these students from succeeding. Strategies like enhanced financial aid advising, mentorship programs, expanded support services, and initiatives that foster a sense of belonging could be examined in depth. The article could also highlight successful models from institutions that have significantly improved retention and graduation rates among these student populations.
  6. Reimagining the General Education Model: Preparing Modern Learners for a Dynamic Workforce This idea would explore the tension between traditional general education models and the needs of modern learners. Should general education be replaced with more career-focused, skills-based learning? How can universities maintain the value of a broad education while ensuring it’s relevant and practical for today’s rapidly changing job market? The article could provide examples of innovative general education programs that prepare students for real-world challenges.
  7. Bridging the Gap Between K-12 and Higher Education: Building Partnerships for Better College Preparedness An in-depth look at the critical role of K-12 partnerships in improving college readiness. This article could explore how dual enrollment, bridge programs, and collaborative efforts between universities and high schools can better prepare students for the academic rigor of higher education, especially for underserved and underrepresented populations. It could highlight successful programs that have made measurable impacts on college persistence and completion rates.

These topics not only build upon the current discussion but also open the door for fresh perspectives on how we can shape higher education to better meet the needs of all learners. I look forward to exploring these ideas further and encourage any collaborations that could bring these concepts to life.

The Enduring Strengths and Challenges of Centennial Institutions: Balancing Legacy, Change, and Innovation

gregpillar on October 12, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

In a world that increasingly prioritizes speed and short-term results, centennial institutions—those that have sustained their missions and operations for over a hundred years—stand as rare examples of resilience and longevity. These organizations, including many universities, are often lauded for their ability to remain steadfast through generations, adapting just enough to stay relevant while preserving their core values. However, as highlighted in a recent discussion with Alex Hill on the EdUp Provost podcast (Thuswaldner, 2024) and in his book Centennials: The 12 Habits of Great Enduring Organizations (Hill, 2023), these very qualities that contribute to their endurance can also act as barriers to necessary change. Insights from Whatever It Is, I’m Against It: Resistance to Change show how deeply entrenched traditions can both sustain and inhibit institutions (Rosenberg, 2021). Similarly, perspectives from Matt Alex’s commentary on Higher Education Nostalgia illuminate the challenge of clinging to the past while trying to innovate for the future (Alex, 2024a, 2024b, 2024c). As I discussed in my own article, Tradition to Transformation (Pillar, 2024a), and Bryan Alexander’s Academia Next (2020), offers a forward-looking perspective on how these institutions can navigate the challenges of the future, highlighting the importance of adaptability in a rapidly changing educational landscape.

My motivation for writing this article came from the combination of hearing the EdUp Provost podcast episode featuring Alex Hill, author of Centennials: The 12 Habits of Great Enduring Organizations, and his insights on centennial organizations, along with Matt Alex’s recent Higher Education Nostalgia series, which questions the future role of higher education in the age of AI, and the various recent discussions (in part from podcasts) and readings that led me to write my first article on this topic From Tradition to Transformation (Pillar, 2024). This comprehensive and broader discourse around change in higher education has inspired deeper reflection on how institutions can adapt (and perhaps how I can contribute) to remain relevant. Conversations and resources around the necessity of transformation in higher ed, from books to articles and podcasts, continue to captivate and inspire me to explore these ideas more fully in my writing.

Now, I have a bit of a habit—or perhaps you could call it a quirk—of reading multiple books at once. Yes, it’s a bit chaotic, but it often leads to interesting connections between ideas. As I dove into the books noted here (no, I haven’t finished all of them yet), I couldn’t help but notice a common thread: what has allowed institutions to thrive and survive for over a hundred years is often the very thing that makes it difficult for them to adapt in time to survive another century. It’s a bit like the old boiling frog story—though there’s a twist here.

For those unfamiliar with the analogy, the boiling frog story suggests that if a frog is placed in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately jump out. However, if the frog is placed in cool water that is gradually heated, it won’t perceive the danger and will remain in the pot until it’s too late, eventually boiling to death. The metaphor is often used to describe situations where slow, incremental changes go unnoticed until they culminate in disaster.  For example, Al Gore famously used this analogy when discussing our response to Climate Change’s effects in his well-known documentary, An Inconvenient Truth in 2006.

In the case of higher education, some dangers are indeed slow and subtle, quietly wearing away at institutions over time, like changes in student demographics or financial pressures that aren’t immediately apparent. Yet, unlike the frog in the story, not all risks in higher education are imperceptible. Some are glaringly obvious, such as technological advancements or shifting market demands. Still, even when leaders recognize the need for transformation, the tank-like structures and cultures these institutions have developed can make calculated risks and swift action nearly impossible.

The Paradox of Stability and Adaptation

Centennial institutions face a fundamental paradox: the very stability that has ensured their endurance can become a barrier to adapting in a world that demands constant change. This tension between preserving a long-standing mission and adapting to new realities is not unique to higher education but is especially pronounced within it (Hill, 2023; Rosenberg, 2021). Stability provides a sense of identity and continuity, which can be reassuring to students, alumni, and donors. However, this same focus on continuity can make it challenging for institutions to pivot when new educational models, technologies, or demographic shifts demand rapid adaptation.

Matt Alex (2024a, 2024b, 2024c) emphasizes that the accessibility of knowledge has shifted dramatically in recent years, with the advent of AI-powered tools like GPTs enabling students and professionals alike to access a wide array of information without the need for a traditional university setting. In his Higher Education Nostalgia series, Alex argues that this shift forces institutions to reconsider their role—not as the gatekeepers of knowledge, but as spaces that foster critical thinking, adaptability, and meaningful learning experiences. He notes, “The question is: If knowledge can be accessed at your fingertips via the internet and new AI-powered GPTs, what role does higher education play today?” This shift aligns with the challenge many centennial institutions face, where stability and tradition can hinder their ability to evolve in the face of technological advances.

George Leef’s analysis adds another layer to this discussion. He emphasizes that reforming colleges is a struggle precisely because they are designed to maintain their status quo (Leef, 2017). Leef points out that many college leaders are preoccupied with maintaining prestige and operational stability, focusing more on fundraising and external relationships than on academic reform. This focus on external appearances often overshadows the internal need for change, resulting in a system that is resistant to adapting its academic practices and structures (Leef, 2017; Alex, 2024b). Such inertia can be particularly detrimental when rapid changes are needed to address new challenges.

As Alex Hill (2023) notes, centennial institutions often have a deeply embedded sense of purpose—a “North Star” that guides their decisions. While this clarity of mission has been a strength, it can also foster an aversion to risk, making it difficult for these institutions to experiment with new approaches. Rosenberg (2021) similarly emphasizes that resistance to change within these organizations is not merely a structural issue but a cultural one, where tradition and historical practices are closely guarded. This cultural resistance can lead to a sense of complacency, where the success of past strategies blinds institutions to the need for innovation.

The Strength of Long-Term Vision and Stability

A key characteristic of centennial institutions is their commitment to a long-term purpose, or “North Star” (Hill, 2023). This approach allows them to stay anchored in their original mission, fostering deep-rooted stability and cultivating a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness. Such stability provides direction during uncertain times, but it can also result in a culture that resists change, where even beneficial adjustments are met with skepticism because they challenge established norms (Rosenberg, 2021).

This resistance is compounded by a tendency to cling to an idealized version of the past. Many within higher education view their institutions as fundamentally different from other organizations, leading to reluctance in adopting more efficient, business-like practices. This mindset creates a disconnect between the self-perception of higher education as unique and the realities of its operational needs (Alex, 2024a). Acknowledging the need to operate more like other industries, though difficult, is crucial for maintaining relevance. The urgency for such shifts is something I have highlighted in Tradition to Transformation, where I argued that many institutions are “over-built for stability rather than adaptability,” making it challenging to pivot in response to new demands (Pillar, 2024a).

Bryan Alexander adds that higher education must develop a forward-thinking mindset, not just responding to immediate changes but also anticipating future trends in technology, demographics, and pedagogy (Alexander, 2020). Without this kind of strategic foresight, institutions risk being unprepared for the disruptive changes reshaping education today. His work serves as a reminder that centennial institutions can leverage their traditions while staying adaptable to emerging trends.

The Hidden Challenges: Resistance to Change and the "Cult" of Tradition.

Despite the examples of innovative institutions, many centennial organizations struggle to adapt quickly to external pressures. They may excel at maintaining their identity, but this often comes at the cost of flexibility (Hill, 2023). While businesses tend to embrace short-term changes, often sacrificing long-term stability, centennial institutions risk stagnation when they resist change for too long.

The challenge is not just structural but also cultural. Resistance to change is often deeply rooted in a fear of losing the qualities that have sustained institutions for generations (Rosenberg, 2021). Often, faculty are resistant to change due to how it impacts them personally. Even if the change is better for students, the college, or the institution, they will resist it—especially when tenure is involved—if it threatens their position, authority, or perceived prestige. Institutions are wary of abandoning practices that have served them well in the past, even when these practices no longer align with current needs. This resistance becomes even more problematic when traditional notions of academic rigor are treated as the ultimate measure of preparedness, despite a growing disconnect between classroom challenges and real-world skills (Alex, 2024b).

The challenges facing many small colleges are particularly acute. John Drea (2024) outlines how these institutions struggle with demographic shifts, declining enrollment, and financial constraints, making their resistance to change even more precarious. Many of these schools find themselves “stuck” in old models that no longer serve current student needs, highlighting the urgent need for a reimagined approach to leadership and strategy.

Ricardo Azziz (2024) adds to this discussion by pointing out the structural fragility of the higher education sector, particularly in the U.S. He argues that the sector’s vulnerability is tied to a combination of high operational costs, reliance on tuition revenue, and resistance to rethinking long-standing traditions. This analysis reinforces the broader theme that stability, while beneficial, can also become a burden if it prevents necessary innovation.

Alan Mallach (2024) echoes these concerns, emphasizing that higher education is at a critical inflection point where traditional models are being challenged by financial pressures and changing student expectations. He suggests that institutions must adopt a mindset similar to that of challenger brands if they hope to survive in the increasingly competitive landscape (Fuster, 2024).

In my own experiences, I have observed how rigid structures can hinder the ability to respond to external pressures such as changing student demographics and financial challenges. Many campuses are built for stability rather than agility, making even small strategic adjustments feel monumental (Pillar, 2024a). Bryan Alexander underscores this point by advocating for adaptive structures that allow institutions to remain responsive to shifts in technology and student needs, fostering a culture that welcomes innovation rather than shying away from it (Alexander, 2020).

The Role of Disruption and Incremental Innovation

While centennial institutions are often slow to change, some have found ways to balance tradition with innovation. Institutions like the Royal College of Art have embraced community-based innovation, experimenting with small-scale changes and gradually integrating successful initiatives (Hill, 2023). This method aligns with the idea of making “incremental improvements” over time, which allows institutions to manage risks without drastic overhauls (Thuswaldner, 2024a). Incremental innovation provides a safer path for change, allowing institutions to adapt without fundamentally disrupting their core operations or values.

However, when is incremental change not enough? At what point must institutions recognize that more significant, transformative action is required? While incremental improvements have their place, there are moments when deeper shifts are necessary to ensure long-term sustainability and relevance. How can institutions identify these moments, and what strategies can they employ to overcome the resistance that so often limits change to small, gradual steps?

Yet, even small changes can face resistance. The fear of making the wrong decision can lead to “perpetual deliberation,” where institutions get stuck in discussions without concrete action (Rosenberg, 2021). This hesitation is often rooted in a culture that is slow to adapt, preferring the safety of gradual adjustments over the uncertainty of more radical change. This is further compounded by a reluctance to acknowledge the similarities between higher education and other industries, such as the use of data-driven strategies to attract students and improve services (Alex, 2024a). Despite these challenges, there is significant potential for institutions to learn from the successes of more innovative counterparts, such as newer models that embrace more aggressive innovation.

Unity Environmental University, under the leadership of Dr. Melik Peter Khoury, provides a notable example of an institution willing to embrace disruption while preserving its core mission. In my article Leading Change in Higher Education (Pillar, 2024b), I highlighted how Unity transitioned from a traditional residential model to a flexible hybrid approach, integrating distance learning without sacrificing its commitment to environmental sustainability. This case underscores the importance of balancing tradition with innovation—something centennial institutions must navigate to remain competitive.

In the same vein, my co-hosted podcast interview with President Stratsi Kulinski of NewU University also explored how newer institutions can leverage their clean slate to implement bold, innovative strategies without being bogged down by legacy structures (Sallustio & Pillar, 2024). Both Unity Environmental and NewU offer models for centennial institutions to study as they seek to innovate within their own unique constraints.

However, over-relying on incremental change as the sole strategy can pose significant risks to long-term viability. Incremental adjustments may help institutions stay afloat, but they often lack the transformative impact needed to address the deeper structural issues facing higher education today. As George Leef (2017) points out, many institutions have become adept at making surface-level adjustments without tackling the fundamental problems that limit their ability to adapt. Such strategies can result in stagnation rather than real progress, offering only temporary solutions to systemic challenges like declining enrollments and outdated pedagogical models. While incremental change is more palatable to risk-averse leadership, it may not provide the agility needed for transformative growth.

One practical approach to foster more impactful innovation while mitigating resistance is the creation of a dedicated division or branch for “Research & Development” or “Innovation.” This unit acts as a “sandbox” where new projects, programs, and ideas can be explored without the constraints of traditional institutional red tape. It allows centennial institutions to test new initiatives—whether related to curriculum, student services, or technological advancements—in a more flexible environment. Successful innovations can then be scaled up with greater ease, having already proven their value in a less restrictive setting (Pillar, 2024a). By adopting this structure, institutions can cultivate a “start-up” mentality that encourages creativity, quick iterations, and adaptability, all while preserving their core mission.  In order for this approach to actually work it makes a lot of assumptions and already I can think of a number of flaws with this approach.  However, you have to start somewhere!

This approach is supported by insights from Sara Schapiro, Executive Director of the Alliance for Learning & Innovation (Ally). In a recent EdUp Experience podcast episode, Schapiro highlighted the potential benefits of a more robust R&D infrastructure in education, drawing parallels to other sectors like agriculture and defense that have long embraced R&D investments to drive innovation. Schapiro emphasized that “creating a dedicated space for research and innovation, like a National Center for the Advanced Development in Education (NCAID), could catalyze the kinds of transformative changes that higher education so desperately needs” (Sallustio, 2024). This national-level vision mirrors what individual institutions could achieve by investing in their own R&D or innovation units, allowing them to pilot initiatives without the traditional barriers that often slow down progress.

By providing such a space, centennial institutions can better navigate the complexities of change, blending their historical strengths with a forward-thinking approach. This model ensures that innovation is not stifled by the weight of tradition, offering a pathway to meaningful transformation that respects the institution’s core values.

Bryan Alexander explores how institutions can leverage emerging technologies like artificial intelligence to create new models of education. This forward-thinking approach encourages higher education to use new tools not just for operational efficiency but as opportunities to reimagine how learning occurs (Alexander, 2020). True transformation requires a willingness to pilot bold ideas that may initially seem risky but have the potential to redefine the learning experience. As I’ve argued in Tradition to Transformation, adopting a “startup mentality” can be crucial for piloting new ideas and remaining relevant in a rapidly changing world (Pillar, 2024a).

While incremental improvements are valuable for maintaining stability and ensuring gradual progress, they must be balanced with opportunities for larger-scale innovation. Institutions that fail to push beyond incrementalism risk being left behind in a competitive landscape. By creating environments where both small-scale experiments and transformative projects can coexist, centennial institutions can better navigate the complexities of change, ensuring that they are not only sustainable but also positioned for meaningful growth and impact (Alex, 2024b). Alexander’s emphasis on strategic foresight serves as a reminder that preparing for changes before they become crises is essential for longevity in the higher education sector (Alexander, 2020).

Final Thoughts: The Path Forward for Centennial (and All) Institutions

Centennial institutions possess the qualities of resilience, tradition, and a deep-rooted mission that can serve as powerful anchors in times of change. However, as the higher education landscape evolves, these institutions must recognize that the very qualities that have sustained them through decades may now be slowing their progress. While the past century has been marked by stability, the next century demands adaptability and a willingness to experiment.

It’s clear that both centennial and newer institutions must address similar challenges: adapting to technological advancements, meeting the evolving needs of students, and sustaining financial viability. While newer institutions like NewU University have the advantage of starting from a clean slate—able to innovate without the weight of historical precedent—centennial institutions must find ways to integrate innovation without losing sight of their core values. As Bryan Alexander (2020) suggests, the future of higher education will require a proactive embrace of technological and pedagogical trends, with institutions needing to anticipate changes rather than simply react to them.

Practical Steps for the Path Forward

  • Create Dedicated Innovation Units: Establish separate units or divisions focused on innovation and research & development (R&D). These “sandbox” environments allow for experimentation with new ideas, whether they involve curriculum design, student services, or cutting-edge technology. By freeing these units from traditional bureaucratic processes, institutions can pilot programs more rapidly and with less risk. These innovation units should regularly collaborate with departments across the university, ensuring that the most successful initiatives are shared and scaled campus-wide. Such efforts mirror successful models in other sectors like tech or defense, where R&D departments drive continuous improvement (Sallustio & Schapiro, 2024).
  • Foster a Culture of Psychological Safety: Encourage open dialogue where faculty, staff, and students can voice ideas, concerns, and critiques without fear of retribution or judgment. Creating a culture of psychological safety is essential for fostering innovation, as people are more likely to propose bold or unconventional ideas in an environment where they feel supported. Leaders must actively solicit feedback and model transparency, providing avenues for experimentation, even when failure is a possibility. This culture will not only nurture innovation but also help retain and engage talent that seeks a dynamic, responsive work and learning environment.
  • Leverage Data-Driven Decision-Making: Utilize data analytics to inform every aspect of decision-making, from student recruitment and retention strategies to curriculum development and operational efficiencies. Data can highlight patterns and opportunities that might not be immediately visible, enabling institutions to make more informed choices about resource allocation, program growth, or downsizing. However, the use of data must go beyond simply tracking metrics; it should involve actionable insights that directly impact institutional strategy. By embedding data into the decision-making process, colleges and universities can stay agile and responsive to both internal and external pressures.
  • Implement Incremental Changes: Focus on small, manageable improvements that can be scaled over time, reducing resistance to change while building a track record of success. Incremental changes, such as revising curricula to reflect emerging trends or adopting new technologies in stages, can serve as proof-of-concept for larger transformations. This approach can help leadership and stakeholders build confidence in the change process, making it easier to implement more ambitious reforms down the line. For instance, rather than overhauling a degree program all at once, institutions could pilot new courses or modules and gradually expand successful initiatives.
  • Engage in Cross-Institutional Partnerships: Collaborate with both challenger brands and established institutions to share best practices, pool resources, and explore innovative models of education. Cross-institutional partnerships offer an opportunity to experiment with new ideas while benefiting from shared expertise and reduced costs. Such collaborations can also extend to international institutions, bringing in diverse perspectives and broadening the scope of innovation. In an era where the landscape of higher education is changing rapidly, these partnerships can be crucial for institutions looking to remain competitive and forward-thinking (Fuster, 2024).
  • Empower Change Agents: Identify and support individuals within the institution who are willing to champion new ideas and lead change efforts. These change agents should be given the authority and resources necessary to effect meaningful reform, acting as liaisons between departments and the leadership team. By fostering a network of empowered change agents, institutions can create a groundswell of support for transformation, ensuring that innovative ideas come from all levels of the organization. Leadership should recognize and reward these individuals, creating a ripple effect that inspires others to step forward as drivers of change.
  • Adopt a Flexible Strategic Framework: Develop strategic plans that allow for adaptability, revisiting and revising them regularly to ensure they remain relevant in a constantly shifting landscape. Flexibility in strategic planning is key to staying responsive to changing technologies, student needs, and market forces. Institutions should create mechanisms for periodically reviewing and adjusting their long-term goals, incorporating feedback from internal and external stakeholders. This practice not only keeps institutions aligned with current realities but also positions them to pivot quickly in the face of unexpected challenges.

As Matt Alex (2024c) eloquently states, “The challenge for higher education now is to evolve.” Colleges and universities must transition from being mere distributors of knowledge to becoming places that foster competency, experiences, and connections that cannot be easily replicated by online resources or AI tools. His insight—that higher education should focus on mentorship, real-world debates, and the sense of community formed through shared learning—aligns closely with my own views. I fully agree that if institutions remain nostalgic about what they were, they will miss the opportunity to reimagine what they could become.

Institutions must acknowledge that while knowledge is now a widely shared resource, the unique value of higher education lies in its ability to help students apply that knowledge, think critically, and engage in transformative experiences. The mentorship from experienced faculty, the debates in classrooms, and the late-night study sessions that build a sense of community are irreplaceable aspects of the college experience. As we move forward, it is crucial for colleges and universities to redefine their value in ways that go beyond merely dispensing information.

Echoing Matt Alex’s sentiments, higher education must shift its focus from guarding traditional models to fostering spaces for curiosity, adaptability, and meaningful engagement. For centennial institutions, the path ahead will require a delicate balance between preserving their core values and embracing the changes needed to remain relevant. Those that can successfully navigate this evolution will not only survive but thrive in a future where the only constant is change (Alex, 2024c; Pillar, 2024a).

Ideas for Future Discussion and Writings

While this article has explored the balance between tradition and innovation within centennial institutions, there are several related topics that, although relevant, were not fully addressed. These areas present opportunities for future exploration, either through my own work or in collaboration with others interested in diving deeper into the challenges and opportunities facing higher education. Here are a few ideas for future discussion and writing:

  1. The Role of AI and Automation in Higher Education
    This article touched on the potential of emerging technologies but did not fully explore how artificial intelligence (AI) and automation could transform various aspects of higher education, from administrative processes to curriculum design. A deeper dive could investigate how AI can be utilized in R&D units, personalizing student experiences, streamlining operations, or even developing predictive analytics for student success. Such analysis would address how centennial institutions can leverage these technologies without losing sight of their core missions.
  2. Balancing Tradition with Innovation: A ‘Heritage and Horizon’ Approach
    A key theme in this article is the tension between tradition and the need for innovation. However, a future piece could more specifically address strategies for balancing these elements—what I’d call a “heritage and horizon” model. This approach involves preserving the valuable traditions that define institutional identity while integrating forward-looking practices that respond to the needs of modern learners. Exploring case studies of institutions that have successfully navigated this balance could provide actionable insights for others.
  3. The Role of Leadership in Fostering Innovation and R&D
    Leadership plays a critical role in shaping institutional culture and facilitating change. While this article highlighted some leadership strategies, a more detailed exploration could delve into the specific ways leaders can create environments that support R&D efforts and innovation. This could include practical strategies for budget allocation, empowering change agents, and fostering a culture where risk-taking is encouraged. Examining successful leadership models from both higher education and other sectors could offer valuable lessons.
  4. Building Cross-Institutional Partnerships for Innovation
    The potential for collaboration between centennial institutions and challenger brands was briefly discussed, but the idea of building cross-institutional partnerships deserves further attention. How can established universities and newer, more agile institutions work together to tackle common challenges? Future writing could explore the benefits of such partnerships, such as sharing best practices, pooling resources for R&D projects, or co-developing programs that address emerging workforce needs. This topic could also consider international collaborations as a way to bring diverse perspectives into innovation efforts.
  5. The Policy Landscape and Its Impact on Higher Education Innovation
    Current policy and funding trends significantly shape the opportunities and limitations for institutional change. This article did not deeply explore how federal and state policies, accreditation standards, or shifts in research funding impact the ability of institutions to invest in R&D and innovate effectively. A future discussion could analyze the barriers and enablers that exist within the policy landscape and propose recommendations for policymakers, institutions, and advocacy groups to better support transformative change in higher education.
  6. A Blueprint for Establishing R&D Units in Higher Education
    While the concept of dedicated R&D units was discussed as a potential solution for fostering innovation, a more practical guide or “blueprint” could be developed in future writings. This blueprint could outline key steps such as identifying focus areas, building cross-functional teams, setting up pilot projects, and scaling successful initiatives. Including metrics for evaluating the success of R&D projects would provide institutions with a clear roadmap for how to structure these efforts and measure their impact.

These topics represent avenues for further exploration that could extend the ideas discussed here and provide new insights into how higher education can adapt to the challenges and opportunities of the future. I look forward to diving into these areas myself or collaborating with others who are passionate about driving meaningful change in higher education.

References

Alex, M. (2024a, October 7). Higher Ed Nostalgia | We are not Industry! (Part 1). LinkedIn.

Alex, M. (2024b, October 10). Higher Ed Nostalgia | Rigor! (Part 2). LinkedIn.

Alex, M. (2024c, October 12). Higher Ed Nostalgia | Knowledge (Part 3). LinkedIn.

Alexander, B. (2020). Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Azziz, R. (2024). Why is the higher education sector so fragile in the U.S.? Higher Ed Dive. [source link].

Drea, J. (2024). Many Small Colleges Are Struggling. Here’s What Leaders Need to Do. Harvard Business Publishing Education. [https://www.highereddive.com/news/merger-watch-us-fragile-higher-education/724471/].

Fuster, B. (2024, September 25). Had enough with the status quo? Heed the challenger brands. University Business. https://universitybusiness.com/had-enough-with-the-status-quo-heed-the-challenger-brands/

Hill, A. (2023). Centennials: The 12 habits of great enduring organizations. Penguin Press.

Leef, G. (2017, October 25). Why is it such a struggle to reform our colleges? The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/10/struggle-reform-colleges/

Mallach, A. (2024). Higher Education on the Edge. U.S. News Opinion. [https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-29/higher-education-on-the-edge].

Pillar, G. (2024a). Tradition to Transformation: The Need and Urgency in Navigating Change in Higher Education Institutions. Retrieved from https://gregpillar.com/tradition-to-transformation-the-need-and-urgency-in-navigating-change-in-higher-education-institutions/

Pillar, G. (2024b). Leading Change in Higher Education: A Case Study on Unity Environmental University’s Bold Approach to Modern Learning. [https://gregpillar.com/leading-change-in-higher-education-a-case-study-on-unity-environmental-universitys-bold-approach-to-modern-learning/].

Rosenberg, B. (2021). Whatever it is, I’m against it: Resistance to change. Princeton University Press.

Sallustio, J. (Host). (2024, September 17). Conversation with Sara Schapiro, Executive Director, Alliance for Learning & Innovation [Audio podcast]. EdUp Experience. Available at https://www.edupexperience.com

Sallustio, J., & Pillar, G. (Hosts). (2024, October 1). Conversation with Stratsi Kulinski, President, NewU University [Audio podcast]. EdUp Experience. Available at https://www.edupexperience.com

Thuswaldner, G. (Host). (2024, October 1). Habits of Centennial Organizations: A Conversation with Alex Hill [Audio podcast]. EdUp Experience. Available at https://www.edupexperience.com/p/edupprovost/.

Unity Environmental University. (2024). Testimonials: Graduates & Alumni Working in the Field. Retrieved from Unity Environmental University website.

Building Resilient Leadership in Higher Education: Merging Trauma-Informed Practices with Key Presidential Competencies

gregpillar on September 21, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Higher education leadership has grown increasingly complex, with university and college presidents facing a range of multifaceted challenges. These include political pressures, declining enrollments, questions around the return on investment (ROI) of a college education, and growing scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. In addition, the already demanding role of college presidents is made more difficult by a notable trend: the average tenure of a college president has steadily decreased. According to recent research, the average tenure of a college president was 5.9 years in 2022, down from 6.5 years in 2016 and 8.5 years in 2008 (Sandler, 2024). Furthermore, more than 55% of current presidents plan to step down within the next five years, underscoring the pressure-filled nature of the job (Sandler, 2024).

This growing complexity was captured in a national study on presidential leadership, led by Jorge Burmicky and Kevin McClure, in partnership with Academic Search, the American Academic Leadership Institute (AALI), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), and the Council of Independent Colleges (CIC). The study surveyed over 700 sitting college and university presidents and conducted focus groups with 14 current presidents to identify the key competencies necessary for success in today’s higher education landscape (Burmicky, McClure, & Ryu, 2024). Seven core competencies emerged from the research: trust-building, resilience, communication, crafting and leading a competent team, emotional intelligence, courage, and data acumen. The study highlighted that trust-building was deemed “very relevant” by 96% of survey respondents, while resilience and communication were rated as crucial by 92% and 90%, respectively. These competencies empower leaders to guide their institutions through challenges and change, making them well-suited to navigate both the immediate demands and long-term strategic goals of modern higher education. Trauma-informed leadership offers a complementary framework that intersects with these core competencies, enhancing their impact and ensuring leaders can address both the structural and emotional needs of their institutions.

The increasing complexity of the presidency has made it essential for senior leaders to model these competencies effectively, as their behaviors directly shape the attitudes and actions of their teams and influence the broader institutional culture. Good and bad habits/behaviors alike are projected throughout a division and campus, heavily impacting the campus climate. Leadership decisions, particularly those that are politically sensitive or unpopular, can often lead to early departures, as reflected in the shortening tenures of presidents. Yet, leaders who prioritize building trust and resilience and who communicate with empathy are better equipped to navigate the turbulent landscape of higher education today.

Overview of Core Leadership Competencies in Higher Education

The seven key competencies for university presidents are essential not only for presidents but also for leaders across all institutional levels. These competencies form the foundation of leadership, regardless of the specific position held. By embodying these behaviors, leaders set a powerful example that permeates throughout the institution, influencing the actions and attitudes of other leaders, staff, and faculty. This, in turn, impacts the student experience and their success, either directly or indirectly.

As McClure noted during a recent webinar sharing their findings, “What does it look like to be an effective college president? What are the skills and abilities that we ought to be looking for or trying to develop in emerging leaders?” (Academic Search, 2024). This insight highlights the need for a holistic and inclusive leadership development approach that integrates empathy, resilience, and mindfulness of the emotional and psychological needs of team members.

Given the wide range of challenges higher education institutions face, from political pressures to enrollment declines, integrating these competencies across leadership roles can enhance the institution’s ability to navigate change effectively while preparing leaders for the future. However, as leadership evolves to meet these challenges, another critical approach is emerging: trauma-informed leadership. This approach connects seamlessly with the seven core competencies, as trauma-informed practices amplify their effectiveness, particularly during times of institutional transition.

Connecting Trauma-Informed Leadership to Core Competencies

Trauma-informed leadership focuses on recognizing the emotional and psychological impacts of trauma and stress on individuals within an organization. The stress and trauma may be from work-related or personal experiences. By fostering emotional safety and emphasizing empathy, trauma-informed leadership enhances each of the core leadership competencies, particularly in times of change or stress. As the demands on higher education leaders grow more complex, understanding how trauma-informed practices can amplify key competencies will be essential for building resilient, compassionate, and effective leadership.

Moreover, leaders who embody trauma-informed practices not only enhance their own effectiveness but also influence the broader organizational culture. Their behaviors can encourage or discourage similar practices among others, thereby shaping the institution’s collective approach to challenges.

Defining Trauma-Informed Leadership

Trauma-informed leadership acknowledges the prevalence of trauma and stress within academic institutions and seeks to create environments where individuals—students, faculty, and staff—feel safe, supported, and empowered to succeed. As noted by Jason Lynch (2022), trauma-informed leaders actively foster emotional safety and recognize how unaddressed trauma can hinder engagement, performance, and resilience. This leadership style encourages an empathetic approach to management, particularly when addressing organizational changes or challenges.

Trauma-informed leadership goes beyond merely recognizing trauma; it involves proactive measures to support healing and growth. This may include providing resources for mental health, fostering a culture of open communication, and ensuring that institutional policies reflect a commitment to emotional well-being. In this way, trauma-informed leadership not only addresses the immediate effects of trauma but also builds long-term institutional resilience by promoting a culture of care.

The Intersection of Trauma-Informed Leadership with Key Competencies

Trauma-informed leadership recognizes the presence and impact of trauma in individuals’ lives and integrates this understanding into organizational practices, policies, and culture. By emphasizing empathy, safety, and support, this leadership style enhances each of the seven key competencies identified by Burmicky and McClure, amplifying their effectiveness and fostering an environment where all members can thrive.

  • Trust-Building:Trauma-informed leaders prioritize creating a safe and transparent environment. They understand that past traumas can affect how individuals perceive authority and trust. By promoting emotional and psychological safety through consistent communication, reliability, and respect for confidentiality, leaders foster a sense of security. This approach encourages open dialogue and reduces fear of judgment or retribution, thereby strengthening trust within the organization.
  • Resilience: Recognizing the impact of stress and trauma on well-being, trauma-informed leaders actively promote resilience by supporting self-care and offering resources for mental and physical health. They encourage autonomy and empower employees by involving them in decision-making processes. By acknowledging and addressing signs of burnout or stress, leaders help their teams adapt to challenges more effectively, balancing institutional needs with the well-being of team members.
  • Communication: Trauma-informed leaders communicate with empathy and cultural sensitivity, tailoring their messages to consider the emotional and psychological states of their audience. They ensure that communication is inclusive and respects diverse backgrounds and experiences. By fostering psychological safety, leaders encourage open and honest conversations, which enhances understanding and collaboration across the institution.
  • Crafting and Leading a Competent Team:  Emphasizing empowerment and choice, trauma-informed leaders build teams that are both competent and collaborative. They promote peer support and mentorship, fostering an environment where team members feel valued and supported. By implementing inclusive practices and acknowledging diverse experiences, leaders cultivate creativity and innovation within their teams. This approach leads to more resilient teams capable of addressing complex challenges.
  • Emotional Intelligence: Trauma-informed leadership inherently involves a high level of emotional intelligence. Leaders are attuned to the emotional and psychological needs of others, recognizing signs of trauma or stress. This awareness allows them to respond appropriately, offering support and resources when needed. By modeling empathy and understanding, leaders create a culture that values emotional well-being, strengthening interpersonal relationships and team cohesion.
  • Courage: Addressing systemic inequities and fostering an inclusive environment requires courageous leadership. Trauma-informed leaders are willing to confront injustice and make difficult decisions that prioritize the well-being and safety of all individuals. They understand the potential personal and professional risks involved, such as facing backlash or jeopardizing their positions. Nevertheless, they act with integrity and empathy, promoting ethical standards and supporting those who have experienced trauma or discrimination.
  • Data Acumen:  While data-driven decision-making is essential, trauma-informed leaders interpret data through the lens of human experience. They recognize that performance metrics may be influenced by factors such as stress, trauma, or mental health challenges. By contextualizing data with an understanding of these factors, leaders make more compassionate and informed decisions. This approach ensures that policies and strategies address not just numerical outcomes but also the underlying human elements that affect those outcomes.

By integrating trauma-informed practices into each of these competencies, leaders enhance their ability to support their teams effectively. This holistic approach leads to a more inclusive, empathetic, and resilient organizational culture, where individuals are empowered, and the institution is better equipped to navigate challenges and change.

Trust-Building in Challenging Situations

Trust is foundational to effective leadership at all levels. The study revealed that 96% of respondents emphasized trust-building as essential for leadership (Burmicky, McClure, & Ryu, 2024). Trust is built through transparency, predictability, and consistent communication. Leaders must cultivate environments where individuals feel safe to express concerns, share ideas, and take risks without fear of negative repercussions.

McClure explained that trust is established by “avoiding those moments of surprise… and being transparent and bringing information forward in meaningful ways” (Academic Search, 2024). This openness fosters confidence and collaboration, essential in challenging situations.

However, maintaining transparency is not always feasible, especially when legal, ethical, or confidential matters are involved. These constraints can undermine trust, requiring leaders to be intentional and strategic in how they communicate such limitations. Even when full disclosure isn’t possible, honesty about why transparency cannot be achieved helps mitigate the risk of damaging trust.

Leaders play a critical role in modeling trust-building behaviors. Their approach to transparency and communication sets the tone for the entire institution. If they handle constraints with honesty and integrity, it encourages a culture where trust is maintained even under challenging circumstances. Conversely, if they handle these situations poorly, it can lead to a culture of mistrust.

Resilience: Leading Through Challenges and Change

Resilience is critical for leadership, especially as higher education faces continual disruption and challenges. As I discussed in my article “Tradition to Transformation: The Need and Urgency in Navigating Change in Higher Education Institutions,” change is inevitable but often met with resistance (Pillar, 2024b). Resilient leaders adapt quickly, manage resistance, and maintain a forward-focused trajectory even through adversity.

To foster resilience, leaders must sometimes “ease on the gas” and balance urgency with strategic patience. Leading through challenges and change doesn’t mean always pushing forward at full speed. Instead, resilience often involves taking time to ensure the well-being and care of your team, recognizing that an overemphasis on urgency can lead to burnout.

When leaders demonstrate this balance, they set a precedent that supports a healthier work environment. This behavior influences others to adopt similar practices, promoting a culture that values both performance and well-being.

However, it’s important to recognize that making necessary but unpopular decisions can carry personal risks for leaders, including the possibility of early departure from their roles. This reality can make it more difficult for leaders to act courageously, but it also underscores the importance of resilience—not just in enduring challenges but in being willing to face potential personal costs for the greater good of the institution.

Effective Communication: Tailoring Messages with Empathy

Effective communication is critical for leadership, especially during times of challenge or change. The ability to deliver clear, actionable messages while considering the emotional and psychological state of the audience ensures that information resonates and builds trust. As McClure noted, “Leaders must tailor their messages for different audiences and use data to tell compelling stories” (Academic Search, 2024).

However, leaders must also be careful that their communication, while empathetic, is not perceived as condescending. As Sage Godrei points out, empathy can sometimes unintentionally come across as patronizing if not expressed thoughtfully. For example, offering unsolicited advice or presuming to understand someone’s feelings without fully engaging with their perspective can create a sense of superiority, making the recipient feel unheard or invalidated (Godrei, 2023). This underscores the importance of active listening and asking questions to clarify the emotional state of team members rather than assuming how they feel.

Trauma-informed leaders understand that communication must be both clear and empathetic, avoiding any tones that might be perceived as dismissive or patronizing. When dealing with stress or challenges, team members may require more personalized communication that takes into account their emotional state. Additionally, respecting the views and insights of others, even if outside your immediate office or division, is vital for meeting key outcomes. Dismissing someone’s perspective simply because they do not report directly to you can deteriorate collaboration and damage workplace and campus climate.

Godrei emphasizes that empathy should focus on understanding, not judgment. Leaders should avoid positioning themselves as the sole authority on how others should feel or respond. Instead, they should foster an environment where feedback and emotional expressions are welcomed and validated (Godrei, 2023). This approach not only fosters a more supportive and understanding organizational climate but also builds stronger relationships among colleagues, ultimately leading to more effective teamwork and a more cohesive institution.

Being mindful of one’s own behaviors and communication practices is essential in avoiding condescension. By leading with genuine curiosity, asking questions, and showing respect for the experiences of others, leaders can avoid potential pitfalls and create a space where communication flows freely and respectfully.

Diverse Leadership Styles Based on Identity

A significant finding in the study was how leadership styles differ based on identity. Women and people of color often emphasize emotional intelligence, equity, and collaborative leadership, bringing new dimensions to decision-making and problem-solving (Burmicky, McClure, & Ryu, 2024). These diverse perspectives are invaluable in today’s complex educational environment.

Trauma-informed leadership recognizes the value of diverse leadership styles, using them to build more inclusive, emotionally intelligent environments. Institutions benefit when their leaders leverage different perspectives to foster collaboration and make innovative decisions.

Campus leaders who embrace and model appreciation for diverse leadership styles encourage a culture that values inclusivity and equity. This modeling can help spread positive behaviors throughout the institution, impacting campus culture and climate positively.

Crafting and Leading a Competent, Collaborative Team

Leadership success is inherently linked to the ability to build and sustain competent, collaborative teams. For college presidents and senior leaders, assembling empowered teams that can execute institutional strategy is critical. In “Leading from the Heart of Higher Education,” I emphasized how collaboration and breaking down silos drive institutional progress (Pillar, 2024a). Middle leaders, such as associate provosts, deans, and directors, play a crucial role in translating high-level strategic vision into actionable plans (Pillar, 2024a). These leaders serve as the bridge between senior leadership and the day-to-day operations that ensure institutional success.

Building and sustaining teams requires both top-down and bottom-up efforts. Trust and open communication set the tone for collaboration, empowering team members to take ownership of institutional goals. Positive leadership behaviors, particularly those that foster transparency and collaboration, can cascade through departments, influencing the entire institution. Conversely, negative behaviors can disrupt institutional culture, leading to disengagement and inefficiency.

Building and Empowering Collaborative Cabinets

The study by Burmicky, McClure, & Ryu (2024) highlighted the importance of assembling diverse and collaborative cabinets at the presidential level. College presidents must draw from a variety of perspectives and experiences to ensure that leadership teams are well-rounded and capable of addressing challenges from multiple angles. This diversity within the cabinet creates an adaptable and innovative leadership environment, where different viewpoints contribute to stronger decision-making processes. However, this collaborative approach should extend beyond the senior cabinet. It’s equally important that collaboration permeates throughout the institution, fostering a culture where leaders and teams at all levels work together toward common goals.

By empowering collaborative cabinets and encouraging diverse input from across the organization, leaders can more effectively manage the complexities of higher education. This inclusive approach ensures that multiple perspectives are considered, leading to more robust solutions and a more cohesive strategy for institutional success.

Empowering Teams at All Leadership Levels

Empowering diverse teams across all leadership levels—including vice presidents, deans, directors, and mid-level managers—creates a ripple effect of accountability, innovation, and inclusivity. When senior leaders embrace collaboration, they set the tone for others across the institution. Their behaviors, whether positive or negative, can significantly impact the campus culture. Good habits like inclusivity and empowerment foster a more engaged and effective workforce, while negative behaviors can lead to a detrimental atmosphere.

Trauma-Informed Team Building

Trauma-informed leadership enhances team-building by acknowledging the emotional and psychological experiences of team members. Leaders who recognize these needs foster environments where team members feel valued, safe, and heard. This approach not only strengthens teams but also encourages innovation and creativity. In “Tradition to Transformation,” I explored how resistance to change often stems from fear and emotional reactions (Pillar, 2024b). Leaders who adopt trauma-informed practices help alleviate these barriers, promoting open communication and a culture of trust that fosters collaboration.

Clear communication and emotional intelligence, as explored in “Data-Informed Leadership in Higher Education,” are essential for ensuring that decisions—especially those driven by data—are implemented smoothly across departments (Pillar, 2024a). When leaders provide clarity and foster a supportive environment, they enable cross-functional collaboration and reduce friction that often arises during institutional change.

In times of disruption, whether due to financial pressures or declining enrollments, maintaining team cohesion becomes even more important. Trauma-informed leadership helps sustain teams by providing emotional support and fostering resilience. Leaders who understand the emotional landscape of their teams can better guide them through periods of uncertainty, encouraging adaptability and long-term collaboration. As I noted in “Tradition to Transformation,” balancing the urgency of institutional change with strategic patience is vital (Pillar, 2024b). This balance helps maintain team morale while ensuring that change initiatives are effective and sustainable.

In politically sensitive situations, leadership decisions can be particularly challenging. These moments often require courage, as decisions may be unpopular or involve significant risk. Leaders who are willing to make difficult but necessary decisions provide a powerful example for others, reinforcing a culture of integrity and collaboration. This demonstration of courage inspires teams to stay committed to institutional goals, even in the face of adversity (Pillar, 2024b).

Ultimately, the ability to craft and lead competent, collaborative teams hinges on the environment that leadership creates. By fostering open communication, embracing trauma-informed practices, and navigating change with resilience, leaders can build teams that are not only effective but also engaged and innovative. A collaborative, empowered leadership culture ensures that institutions are better equipped to handle complex challenges and drive long-term success.

Leading with Courage: Confronting Equity and Change

Courageous leadership is essential for navigating institutional change and confronting systemic inequities. Recent political attacks on DEI efforts illustrate the urgent need for leaders to demonstrate bravery by standing up for their institutions’ values. These challenges, particularly those involving diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), highlight the importance of maintaining a principled stance even when faced with external pressures. In “How College Leaders Can Stand Up for DEI Workers and Programs” (McClure & Gannon, 2024), the authors emphasize the challenges DEI professionals encounter, particularly in states where legislation has directly targeted and sought to dismantle DEI initiatives.

Courageous leadership means more than supporting DEI programs privately; it requires public advocacy and action that align with the institution’s mission and values. Leaders must resist the temptation to sideline these initiatives when they become politically charged, as doing so can undermine institutional integrity and alienate marginalized groups. By standing up for DEI programs, leaders set a powerful example for their colleagues, students, and the broader community, signaling that inclusivity and fairness are non-negotiable values.

However, it is also important to acknowledge the reality that standing up for DEI and other equity-driven initiatives can come with significant personal and professional risks. In politically charged environments, leaders who take strong, principled stands may face backlash that could lead to their early departure from leadership positions. This reality makes it more challenging for leaders to make necessary but unpopular decisions, as the fear of losing their position or facing public scrutiny can be a deterrent. Yet, courageous decisions often distinguish transformative leaders from those who merely maintain the status quo (Pillar, 2024b). The willingness to confront these risks is a hallmark of true leadership—leaders who stand firm in their values, despite the potential consequences, ensure that their institutions remain committed to inclusivity, justice, and integrity.

This courage also extends beyond DEI. Institutions face numerous politically sensitive issues, from funding debates to academic freedom challenges, and leaders must be prepared to make decisions that may not always be well-received. Ultimately, courageous leaders create a legacy of resilience and integrity, ensuring that their institutions can navigate turbulent times with their core values intact.

Data Acumen: Leveraging Human Context in Leadership

The ability to gather and use relevant data to inform decisions is critical across all leadership levels. In a data-driven world, leaders must not only rely on numbers but also interpret them with insight and empathy. As McClure noted, “You don’t need to be a numbers person to be a data person, but you must understand how to leverage your team’s skills to support data-driven decision-making” (Academic Search, 2024). Data can provide a roadmap for institutional success, but only when leaders understand how to balance quantitative insights with the complexities of human experiences. In “Data-Informed Leadership in Higher Education,” I emphasized the importance of robust data governance and decision-making processes that integrate both empirical evidence and the lived experiences of students, faculty, and staff (Pillar, 2024c).

Humanizing Data with Trauma-Informed Leadership

Trauma-informed leadership offers a powerful framework for interpreting and using data effectively. Leaders who understand how emotional and psychological stress impacts performance and retention can use this knowledge to interpret data with greater nuance. As Lynch (2022) pointed out, stress, trauma, and mental health challenges significantly affect outcomes in higher education. Retention rates, student performance metrics, and even faculty engagement numbers can be influenced by factors that raw data alone may not capture. By contextualizing data within the human experience, trauma-informed leaders ensure that their decision-making processes reflect a holistic understanding of the institution’s ecosystem.

For example, enrollment and retention data can provide insight into academic trends, but without considering the personal, emotional, or economic stressors impacting students, leaders may miss key opportunities for intervention and support. This is where campus surveys as well as the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) can provide very important context for noted trends and observations in retention, persistence, and graduation rates. However, significant delays or inaction to this data will only provide further negative impacts on clearly manageable challenges.

Leaders who embrace this approach model a compassionate, informed style of decision-making that encourages their teams to do the same. By prioritizing the human context behind the data, they foster a culture of empathy and accountability that drives more effective and sustainable outcomes. This approach not only leads to better decisions but also builds trust within the institution, as students, faculty, and staff feel seen and supported in their experiences.

Incorporating trauma-informed practices into data-driven leadership ensures that numbers are not just analyzed in isolation but are used as a tool for enhancing the overall well-being and success of the institution. Leaders who contextualize data with empathy lead with compassion, making decisions that are not only informed by statistics but also aligned with the lived realities of their institutional community.

Practical Steps for Implementing Trauma-Informed Leadership and Cultivating Key Leadership Competencies

Implementing trauma-informed leadership and cultivating key leadership competencies across all levels requires intentional, structured approaches. Leaders must recognize that creating an environment where individuals can thrive involves more than addressing academic needs—it also demands attention to emotional well-being, psychological safety, and inclusivity. Below are practical steps that can help institutions integrate trauma-informed practices into leadership and foster the necessary competencies for sustained success.

1. Foster Emotional Safety:

Creating a culture of emotional safety is essential for fostering trust and collaboration. This involves regularly assessing the emotional well-being of staff and students through check-ins, surveys, and feedback loops. Leaders should ensure that individuals feel comfortable sharing concerns without fear of retribution. Beyond simply listening, leaders must act on the feedback they receive, demonstrating a commitment to addressing the concerns of their community.

Example: A university president could introduce regular “well-being town halls” where students and staff discuss mental health resources and stress management. This allows leaders to assess the emotional climate and adapt policies to create a more supportive environment.

2. Offer Training and Resources:

Providing ongoing trauma-informed leadership training is critical to help faculty, staff, and administrators recognize signs of stress, trauma, and burnout in others. This training equips leaders with strategies for addressing these issues compassionately and effectively. Training should also be extended to all levels of leadership, not just senior administrators, ensuring that trauma-informed practices permeate the entire organization.

Example: Organize workshops on recognizing burnout in both faculty and students, led by mental health professionals. These workshops can be supplemented with online resources, such as self-assessment tools or guides on fostering resilience in students and teams. Additionally, offering training on how to manage crisis situations with empathy ensures that leaders are prepared to handle sensitive circumstances appropriately.

3. Promote Self-Care and Reflection:

Normalizing self-care and reflection within teams is vital to maintaining resilience in the face of challenges. Leaders should encourage team members to take mental health days, schedule regular breaks, and engage in reflective practices that allow them to process their emotions. By modeling these behaviors themselves, leaders signal that self-care is not just permissible but expected.

Example: A dean could implement “wellness breaks” within department meetings, where team members pause to engage in brief mindfulness exercises or discuss stress-management techniques. Additionally, offering faculty and staff access to workshops on mindfulness, yoga, or meditation can provide practical tools for self-care. Leaders can also foster reflection by incorporating debrief sessions after major projects or stressful periods, allowing teams to evaluate what went well and where improvements can be made.

4. Create Cross-Departmental Collaboration:

Trauma-informed leadership thrives when there is collaboration across various departments, particularly those that offer emotional, psychological, or academic support. Counseling services, academic departments, and diversity offices should work together to address the holistic needs of students and staff. Cross-departmental collaboration ensures that support services are well-integrated, enabling a seamless experience for individuals seeking help.

Example: An institution could create a task force composed of representatives from counseling services, the office of diversity and inclusion, and academic advisors. This group would meet regularly to discuss trends in student well-being and strategize on how to provide integrated support. Collaboration between student services and academic advisors can also ensure that students dealing with trauma or stress have flexible options when it comes to course loads and deadlines, thus promoting a healthier academic experience.

5. Model the Competencies:

Leaders play a pivotal role in modeling trauma-informed practices and key leadership competencies, including trust-building, resilience, effective communication, and emotional intelligence. When leaders actively demonstrate these behaviors, they set an example for mid-level leaders and staff to follow. This ripple effect can dramatically shape campus culture, either for better or worse, depending on the behaviors being modeled.

Example: A provost might host an open forum for faculty and staff where difficult topics, such as mental health challenges or institutional stressors, are openly discussed. By leading these conversations with empathy and transparency, the provost demonstrates trust-building and effective communication. When leaders acknowledge their own struggles or mistakes and share how they’ve overcome challenges, they model resilience and encourage similar behaviors throughout the institution.

6. Monitor and Adjust Strategies:

Monitoring the effectiveness of trauma-informed strategies is critical to ensuring they remain relevant and impactful. Using tools like workplace climate surveys, retention data, and performance metrics can provide insight into whether the implemented practices are yielding positive outcomes. Leaders must be willing to make adjustments based on this data, refining their strategies to meet the evolving needs of their institution.

Example: An institution could conduct an annual climate survey focused on emotional safety, inclusivity, and leadership effectiveness. The results of this survey would guide adjustments in leadership training, resource allocation, or policy changes. Additionally, tracking student retention rates in relation to mental health support initiatives can provide data on the impact of trauma-informed practices.

Additional Considerations:

  • Leaders should ensure that trauma-informed practices and leadership competencies are integrated into recruitment and onboarding processes. New hires should be introduced to these practices early on, setting expectations for a culture of support and collaboration.
  • Institutions can create mentorship programs where experienced trauma-informed leaders coach newer leaders in adopting and practicing these competencies. This builds leadership capacity across all levels of the institution.
  • Recognizing and celebrating team members who embody trauma-informed practices reinforces the importance of these behaviors. Public recognition or awards for individuals who exemplify leadership competencies can motivate others to follow suit.

By taking these concrete steps, institutions can foster an environment where trauma-informed leadership and key leadership competencies are not only embraced but become foundational to the institution’s culture. Leaders who prioritize emotional safety, model compassion, and encourage collaboration are well-positioned to cultivate resilient, engaged teams capable of navigating the complexities of higher education.

Conclusion

The competencies identified in the study—trust-building, resilience, communication, team-building, emotional intelligence, courage, and data acumen—are essential for leaders across all levels in higher education. Integrating trauma-informed leadership into these competencies enhances their effectiveness and relevance in today’s educational environment.

Leaders at all levels play a pivotal role in embodying these competencies. Their behaviors can positively or negatively impact campus culture and climate, influencing how others lead and interact within the institution. While taking courageous stands and making difficult decisions may carry personal risks, including the possibility of early departure, such actions are often necessary for the long-term well-being and integrity of the institution.

By developing and modeling these skills, we can create more resilient, compassionate, and effective institutions. The ripple effect of leadership’s actions underscores the importance of intentional, trauma-informed practices that not only address immediate challenges but also build a stronger, more cohesive organizational culture.

References

Breaking Free from Procrastination – The Power of Doing

gregpillar on September 18, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

In a world filled with endless resources, it’s easy to get trapped in a cycle of consuming information without ever taking action. Adam Grant’s post recently resonated with me, alongside an image by Janis Ozolins that I’m including here as a visual reminder of this important lesson:

“The 8th habit of highly effective people: They don’t spend all their time reading about the 7 habits of highly effective people. Extended reflection without action is a form of procrastination. Doing is a catalyst for thinking and learning.”

This simple but powerful message is a reminder that action is the key to growth. While we can spend countless hours reading, reflecting, and learning, it’s the doing that truly leads to progress.

Two diagrams compare a Feel Good Procrastinator and Someone Moving Forward. Both have tangled lines for learning, thinking, and doing, but only the second has a clear path to doing at the end.
Image by Janis Ozolins

The Trap of Over-Preparation

Many people, myself included, have fallen into the trap of over-preparation. It’s easy to tell ourselves we need just one more article, one more book, or one more podcast before we’re ready to act. I’ve been there. For a long time, I wanted to write more about the topics I care about in higher education. I felt passionate about contributing to conversations on student success, academic innovation, and leadership, but I found myself stuck in a loop of consuming information.

I read articles, books, and listened to podcasts, thinking that once I had enough knowledge, I could start writing. But here’s the thing: the “perfect” moment to start never came. It wasn’t until I realized that all the learning in the world wouldn’t matter if I didn’t take action that I made a shift.

Just Start: My Journey (back) into Writing and Publishing

Even though I’ve learned the valuable lesson in the past that you just have to start somewhere, it’s fascinating how easy it is to still fall into that trap. For a while, I found myself stuck again—focused on absorbing content rather than creating it. But about a month and a half ago, I decided to stop waiting and started writing. I launched my website with a blog to share my thoughts and experiences in the higher education space.

In that short time, I published an article from my blog in a well-known higher ed space and landed my first podcast appearance on the EdUp Experience. These accomplishments didn’t happen because I was sitting back, reading more. They happened because I took action. And in doing so, I realized once again: you don’t need to have all the answers before you start. You learn as you go. Each step builds confidence, and each action brings you closer to your goals.

The Paralyzing Effect of Procrastination

It’s easy to mistake procrastination for preparation. We tell ourselves that we’re being productive by learning more, but in reality, it can be a way of avoiding risk. There’s a certain comfort in reflection—learning feels safe. But the problem is, without action, we never move forward. We get stuck in our thoughts, waiting for the perfect time or enough knowledge to take the next step.

Procrastination is often linked to deeper emotional barriers, such as perfectionism, fear of failure, or anxiety. One common perspective that resonates with me is the idea that procrastination feeds off overthinking, preventing us from stepping out of our comfort zones. It is common to feel that everything must be perfect before starting, but the truth is, confidence grows through action.

Changing how we frame failure is another strategy that can help break free from this cycle. For instance, “Why not try?” as one person shared, is a powerful mantra. When we reframe failure as part of the learning process rather than something to avoid, we open ourselves to growth. You might fail, but even if the new approach doesn’t work, you will still learn something valuable.

Learning by Doing: The Best Teacher

The fear of failure or discomfort with risk can stop us from moving forward, but taking action—especially when the outcome is uncertain—is what leads to growth. There’s no better way to learn than by doing. As many have pointed out in discussions about Grant’s post, getting stuck in the idea phase can prevent progress. One person mentioned how they’ve seen people “over-prepare” for things, leading to analysis paralysis, while another noted that moving from idea to action is one of the hardest steps for most people.

In my own experience, I’ve realized that the best teacher has been the act of simply doing the action itself. Every article I’ve written and every opportunity I’ve pursued has taught me something new. Each experience has shaped my understanding and helped me improve. If I had waited until I felt “ready,” I would still be waiting.

Another great insight that emerged from the discussion is that confidence doesn’t come first—it builds through action. Taking small steps forward, even imperfect ones, can help you gain the clarity and momentum you need to keep moving. As someone pointed out, “you’re not paid to think forever—you’re paid to do the work.” The act of doing itself brings about deeper thinking and learning, something I’ve found to be true in my own writing journey.

Lessons for Higher Education: Overcoming Barriers to Change

In higher education, we often find ourselves caught in similar cycles of over-reflection and under-action when it comes to institutional change. As I’ve written in my previous article, Tradition to Transformation: The Need and Urgency in Navigating Change in Higher Education Institutions, many institutions are overbuilt for stability rather than adaptability, making them resistant to change despite the pressures of shifting demographics, technological advancements, and financial constraints.

Institutions, much like individuals, must break free from the cycle of over-preparation and embrace action. Action is the catalyst for progress, both on a personal level and within institutions that are slow to adapt. As I discussed in my article, overcoming these structural and cultural barriers requires leadership that fosters a mindset of adaptability and experimentation

Just as individuals need to take action to move past procrastination, so too do institutions need to embrace a bias toward action to overcome barriers. Higher education institutions can benefit from adopting the principle of learning by doing—trying new approaches, gathering feedback, and making adjustments as needed. Instead of waiting for the perfect solution, we need to start experimenting with ideas and learn from what works and what doesn’t.

Action Breeds Confidence

The act of doing is not just about achieving success; it’s about building confidence through experience. Every small step forward teaches us something new, and that knowledge helps us refine our approach. The more we act, the more confident we become in our abilities, and that confidence propels us to take on even greater challenges.

In higher education, just as in life, we can get caught in the cycle of over-preparation and under-action. But the most effective leaders, innovators, and change-makers understand that it’s the doing—taking risks, trying new things, and learning from those experiences—that drives true progress.

As highlighted in my previous article, effective change hinges on fostering a culture of adaptive leadership—one that encourages experimentation, learns from failures, and remains open to feedback​. This lesson is just as critical for personal growth as it is for institutions facing structural barriers to change.

Final Thoughts

If you’re stuck in a cycle of learning without action, I encourage you to start. Don’t wait until you feel ready, because the truth is, that moment may never come. Start now, with whatever you have, and trust that the process of doing will teach you what you need to know.

The most valuable insight from these discussions is that action is what turns knowledge into growth. As one commenter mentioned, “Progress doesn’t start until you take action.” This aligns with my own experience—confidence grows when you move beyond contemplation and start doing.

In higher education, this lesson is critical. As we work to overcome the structural and cultural barriers to change, we need to take action, learn from our experiences, and build the confidence needed to drive lasting progress.

So, what’s your next step? Stop overthinking and start doing. The clarity, confidence, and success you’re looking for are on the other side of action.

A yellow outline illustration of a school building with a flag, flanked by trees on both sides, all enclosed within a rectangular border. Some white script text overlays the lower part of the image.

gpillar@gardner-webb.edu

© 2025 All Rights Reserved | Website Design by Matt Gerber Designs