GOOD ENOUGH TO LEAD, BUT NOT TO STAY: RETHINKING PRESIDENTIAL PATHWAYS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
BY DR. LAWRENCE M. DRAKE II
I n recent years, colleges and universities have increasingly turned to interim presidents to shepherd institutions through periods of uncertainty, transition, or even crisis. These appointments now happen roughly every seven and a half years at public research institutions, with interims serving an average of eight to nine months, and nearly one-fifth lasting over a year. Institutions spend around 8% of their time under interim leadership, signaling that these are not brief stopgaps but substantive administrative periods. Yet, paradoxically, many interim presidents find themselves sidelined when the search begins for a “permanent” successor. It begs the question: If they are good enough to lead through crisis, why aren’t they considered good enough to stay? The Stigma of the Interim Title
The traditional narrative in higher education leadership suggests
that interim appointments are temporary by design, mere placeholders until a
comprehensive search identifies the “ideal” leader. This mindset is deeply rooted in the academy’s desire for deliberate, committee- driven processes, but it often ignores the reality that effective
interim leaders frequently outperform expectations.
Studies have shown that nearly one-third of interims since 1980 moved into permanent presidencies—including nearly 1 in 5 at the same institution, demonstrating their effectiveness and long-term suitability. Moreover, interim leadership phases are critical. A multi-case analysis indicates that well- chosen interims are instrumental in addressing strategic priorities and setting the stage for future success (Inside Higher Ed, 2023).
1 6 | HBCU TIMES FALL ISSUE 2025
Powered by FlippingBook