For Colleges, Prioritization Must Be Priority #1

College presidents and their cabinets are overwhelmed. They face an unending onslaught of needs and demands – both acute and longer-term. Reaching this point of overwhelming has built steadily for several years while the pandemic and other recent events have quite suddenly made it a dire situation. It’s becoming clear that U.S. colleges and universities are entering a new era of ‘everything is important and nothing can wait.’ And it very well may break higher education if prioritization doesn’t become priority number one.

It may sound overly simplistic to suggest that something such as prioritization is the key to colleges and universities surviving and thriving. It’s not. Prioritization may be one of the most complex and important leadership practices of our time. And it’s especially true for higher education institutions that – because of their mission and DNA – care deeply about many issues, are pulled in many different directions by many constituencies and are facing a number of real existential threats. Being a college president is quickly becoming an impossible job – and we’re seeing evidence of this in the form of the highest turnover and retirement rates in history.

On top of already challenging priorities balancing the needs of students and faculty and focusing on academic excellence, colleges have been hit by a wave of external and internal pressures. Desires and demands to embrace environmental and sustainability goals and to establish commitments to diversity and equity have led to the creation of entirely new offices, budgets and cross-functional initiatives on many campuses. The rather sudden political polarization around higher education (evidence suggests this began around 2015) is now creating incredibly challenging dynamics between Governors, state legislators and university leaders – especially in republican-controlled states where concerns about free speech and a liberal bias across higher education are being addressed through various policy mandates.  

Amidst a now 12-consecutive-year slide in college enrollments – and with a traditional age student population demographic drop on the immediate horizon – there has been unprecedented pressure to meet tuition-driven revenue targets. Significant doubts about the work-readiness of graduates mixed with a steady rise in tuition has put a major focus on the return on investment (ROI) for college; and many students and families are simply choosing to opt out.

And then came the pandemic. An unprecedented 100-year event that has now lasted two calendar years and across three academic years. Amidst it also came a massively renewed visibility of painful and lasting racial and socioeconomic disparities and injustices. All of this – taken together – has created a perfect and devastating storm for colleges and universities. One particularly concerning (and likely lasting) outcome of this storm has been a dramatic rise in student and staff mental health issues – including burn-out and fatigue.  

And, now, put yourself in the shoes of a college president and his or her senior leadership team. Which of these challenges and priorities do you focus on more or less? Which of the myriad constituencies (students, faculty, parents, employers, state legislators, alumni, donors, etc.) do you pay more or less attention? The pressure to address ALL of these issues and the very real sense that ALL of them matter and NONE of them can wait has led to a breaking point. Leaders I’ve spoken to about this have said things such as “everything is on the front burner…there’s nothing I can put on the back burner.” The reality, of course, is that colleges and universities can’t possibly address all these challenges equally.             

Prioritization will become the defining leadership challenge of this decade for college presidents and their teams. Such a practice and discipline won’t come naturally to leaders who have largely built their success through consensus building and thoughtful dialogue. It won’t come naturally for mission-driven institutions that care deeply about many issues. And even as leaders do prioritize, they’ll most certainly be faced with consistent criticism from any number of their internal and external constituencies. Nothing about this will be easy. But it must be done.

Making prioritization the number one priority will require developing the institutional equivalent of new neural networks and muscles. Establishing criteria for determining priorities, ramping up communication tools and strategies for articulating and reinforcing these choices, and becoming ever-more efficient with human and financial resources will be paramount to success. Carefully monitoring ‘mission creep’ vs. ‘mission clarity’ will also serve as a critical and ongoing guidepost. Prioritization will be a hard job, but it will also be the right job because it may very well save the precious institution of higher education.