Searching Hiring And Searching Again Stakeholder Perceptions In Higher Education Presidential Transition PDF Download

American research universities take considerable effort when selecting a new president. They often hire expensive search firms and form carefully selected committees to ensure they hire the appropriate chief executive. Traditionally, presidents have come from the faculty ranks, having served in administrative roles of increasing responsibility. However, in the past few decades there has been an increase, albeit minor, in the number of research university presidents that have come from other industries, including business, law, and government. The impetus for such hires has often hinged on the need for experts in fields that are aligned with current strategic priorities at the institution, including better fiscal management and increased state appropriations. Higher education stakeholders have had mixed reactions to the hiring of these outsiders. Some, mainly faculty, staff, and students, believe that research universities should be led by individuals who are familiar with higher education's core mission of research, teaching, and service excellence. While others, including taxpayers, parents, and legislators, believe universities are shirking accountability as they raise tuition and increase infrastructure, and believe outsiders would be better suited to improve organizational efficiencies. As the debate continues, there has been little empirical analysis of which type of leader achieves meaningful change in institutional outcomes. This dissertation seeks to fill this gap in the literature to answer the question of whether there are differences in institutional outcomes based on the president's background by performing two studies. To address the reductive characterization of university presidents as academics or outsiders, a four-cell typology was created that groups presidents at Carnegie R1 & R2 institutions based on two dimensions, their experience in the field of higher education and their achievements as research faculty. A multinomial logistic regression tested the validity of the typology as predicted by presidential characteristics. The president types, along with several demographic, educational, and professional variables, were hypothesized to predict differences among outcome variables. Using data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and a manually derived dataset of presidential characteristics, several models were tested in a generalized estimating equations analysis. There were significant differences among president types based on their characteristics and experience, indicating that the typology effectively categorized the presidents. However, the predictive strength of the typology and presidential characteristics on institutional outcomes proved to be insignificant except for measures related to change in research revenue. Selected institutional characteristics appeared to be highly significant in predicting institutional outcomes. This suggested that presidential type and presidential characteristics did not matter, but the nature of the institution did. The results also supported the notion that research universities are large, bureaucratic, slow-moving entities, and their inherent inertia makes it difficult to effect measurable change in institutional outcomes.