| mySPIN |
 Academic Arrogance or Essential Element?
by Tom Campbell
March 1, 2007
What criteria should be used in selecting a community college president or university chancellor? When Cape Fear Community College started looking for a new leader the search committee stipulated the new president must have a Ph.D. with Community College experience, leading many to question why the academic credential is so essential.
If similar criteria had been applied, neither Martin Lancaster nor Bob Scott would have been selected to head the 58-campus statewide Community College System. Erskine Bowles, Dick Spangler and Bill Friday would never have been chosen president of the UNC System.
Does a doctorate qualify one to lead an educational institution? How essential was UNC’s James Moeser’s Ph.D. in Organ? NC State’s James Oblinger’s doctorate was in Food Technology, UNC-Wilmington’s Rosemary DePaolo earned her advanced degree in 18th Century English Literature. Appalachian State’s Ken Peacock has a Ph.D. in Accounting, while NCCU’s James Ammons earned his in Government. All are outstanding educational leaders, and we are fortunate to have them, but what got them their job was administrative experience and proven leadership skills. The advanced degree was an advantage, not the essential element.
In too many instances the criteria are drawn so as to preclude many who might be excellent leaders but do not have the academic credentials. At Cape Fear Community College, Harry Payne, a Wilmington native, heard about the opening and applied for the job. In addition to being a lawyer, Harry served six terms in the legislature, was elected twice statewide as Commissioner of Labor, and currently serves as Chairman of the statewide Employment Security Commission. Payne has clearly demonstrated outstanding leadership qualities, but won’t even be considered because he doesn’t have the letters “Ph.D.” dangling behind his name.
Why has the search process evolved into such narrow parameters? Sometimes committees are intimidated by faculty who insist on credentials, but credit much of it to the growing dependence on “head-hunter” firms who promise to conduct nationwide talent searches. These firms must justify their exorbitant fees. The narrower the search criteria, the easier it is for them to justify. In most every instance the successful candidate won’t come from within the organization or even from within the state. Head hunters earn their stripes by ferreting out the provost of Timbuktu University.
Search committees need to answer one fundamental question. What do you want and need in a new leader? Is it primarily academic credentials or a leader who can unite, inspire, and direct the institution? Even more importantly, since the ultimate role of most heads of educational institutions today is networking and fundraising, who knows the most people and can be most effective bringing in the bucks? James Oblinger, Ken Peacock, Martin Lancaster, and Erskine Bowles offer conclusive proof that the best leadership is located here, often within the same organization searching for a new leader. It is time to focus on who will be the best leaders, not who has the highest academic credentials. To do otherwise is arrogance and fails to serve the public and the institution.
|
|
