Ideas Are Easy. Execution Is Hard.

I've been thinking a lot lately about what separates the higher education leaders who change their institutions from those who simply talk about change. Every president, provost, and dean I've ever worked with and for was able to articulate a compelling vision of their unit or the university. And I think this is the easiest part of leadership because the language of transformation isn't hard to craft and employ. What's harder (and increasingly more rare) is the higher ed leader with the acumen and capabilities to turn that language into action.

I've long been drawn to colleagues and peers who share the traits of actionable leadership. They always specific and have low tolerance for ambiguity. They take ownership of priorities have owners, establish realistic timelines, and measure, measure again, and measure some more to ensure that efforts are tracking successfully. They're coalition builders and respectful of shared governance and the expertise of faculty, but they understand that not all decisions can or should be made in committee. This is where they demonstrate the most important traits of balance, prioritization and managed risk. They listen widely, decide, and adjust as they learn. They hold humility and resolve at the same time, which I think is one of the hardest things to do for any leader.

My worry is that we just don't have nearly enough of these leaders at a time when they are needed most. Evaporating enrollments, ballooning deficits, eroding public trust, AI, unrecoverable research funding... These are exactly the existential crises that call for leaders who can move quickly and confidently from idea to impact. If we can't or won't value the traits of action among our leaders to best navigate and survive the next 10 years, our institutions will rapidly drift into obsolesce and failure. 

Leadership Training Circa 1981

If you've spent more than a minute working in higher ed, you know that we're never at a loss for "leadership development" opportunities. Some are internal to our institutions (HR-type workshops) but most of it comes in the form of workshops, seminars and short programs offered by an array of consultants, professional associations, think tanks, and accrediting agencies. 

My sense is that this method of leadership development has far exceeded it's usefulness and applicability. Training current or emerging higher leaders how to "understand your own reaction and response to outside environmental factors," or how to "explore your impact on your team and learn ways to positively leverage your influence to increase trust and encourage action" isn't going to equip leaders with the tools to successfully navigate the existential crises battering higher ed. Learning how to "influence institutional initiatives by embodying core skills of collaboration, innovation, and exploration" isn't going to help the senior leader looking wide-eyed at evaporating traditional enrollments, rapidly eroding public trust in higher education, and an industry being reshaped by AI.

The best universities that are equipped culturally and operationally for rapid response have trained differently. They've run the enrollment and budget crisis simulations. They've trained their senior leaders with actual financial fluency so they can look beyond the digits on a balance sheet and make informed decisions about closing programs, merging units, and cutting costs. As I've suggested before, the foundation of this type of leadership is action and courage. That leadership seminar offered by that consulting firm isn't going to prepare or empower your leadership team to make the hard decisions that place survival before the mission. What we've lacked for years and desperately need at this moment is the training and preparation that equips our capable and competent leaders with the confidence and tools to act decisively under pressure.

The Failure of Operational Leadership

I'm a "leadership" junkie. Increasingly, I'm drawn to books, articles, posts and commentary relating to what higher ed needs in its leaders at this moment of reflection and inflection. Not surprising, much of the conversation is focused on presidents and provosts. And while this is a necessary and important focus, it's missing the operational leader tier of individuals tasked with turning strategy into outcomes. My experience and sense is that there are a lot of individuals in these mid-tier operational roles who are immobilized by the existential crises battering higher ed and struggling to reconcile their roles and authority with their leadership capabilities (or lack thereof). 

The retort, "That decision is above my pay grade" has always frustrated me when working with operational-level leaders. It's almost always a skittish reflex to elicit a chuckle, but to me it exposes the frailty of individuals placed in roles where mistakes and failures are highly visible. When afforded the opportunity and responsibility, I've worked hard to move these individuals forward by equipping them with the training, preparedness and support that frames decisive leadership. Of all leaders within higher ed, these are the individuals who need to do what has to be done, when it has to be done, as well it can be done. And then do it that way all the time. (Yes, that's an old Bobby Knight quip about discipline, but I've long found it applicable beyond the hardwoods.)

Real leadership from operational staff takes courage. Not reckless, willy-nilly decision making. Just the belief in yourself and a willingness to make a decision with a clear scope, rationale thinking, and positive or negative results you can stand behind. The best operational leaders I've known are capable of doing this because they can quickly and confidently determine which decisions don't require permission from someone in the provost's office to enact.

The challenge, of course, is that higher ed is a weird place with plenty of pockets of make-believe. The entire system is full of silos, egos and unqualified senior leaders who routinely answer the wrong questions and make inexplicably poor decisions only to look downstream at the operational level with that "Well, we're waiting," expression on their faces. At institutions where this is the accepted form of senior leadership, operational leaders need to be capable and comfortable with carrying "corrective but aligned" strategies down to their teams. Then they need to be courageous enough to carry the ground-level reality back up to senior leadership. That is the core competency of a highly effective operational leader.

Train, prepare and empower your operational leaders, because this is the leadership tier where real institutional resilience is created.