I would hope, however, that if there are one or two exceptional senior administrators, some board members are taking them aside and telling them how much they would like for them to be a part of things going forward.
@david81 - totally agree and not surprising as it is similar to the corporate world. One should always update their resumes and always be cautious and always look for opportunities. One has to take care of themselves as the university or company will not do that for you.
Maybe the new person would rather be a builder than an ax-man, so they’re making cuts proactively, paving the way for the new prez to bring in their team. Were these supposed firings the work of the outgoing president or the board? We’ll likely never know, but we might make educated guesses if we knew who was gone.
I think it would be wise to position the President in the most positive way possible. Advancement is very much a board-led issue. If key giving measurables are lacking, they could clear that deck for him. It could start an exodus of that staff and save current year money. Or maybe that is an easy win with the faculty for the new guy.
@david81 Can you shed any light on how this "professional administrator" category arose? It seems to me in the past most administrators were originally from actual academic disciplines, so had the analytic skills that come with the territory (historical/textual studies, comparative politics, economics, chemistry etc) that they could put to work thinking thru first-order data, second-order paradigms, third-order heuristics etc. in accurate & creative governance of their institutions.
Now in US higher ed it seems like there's this professional administrator class occupying the Pres/CFO/COO/VP/Presidents Cabinet type roles who seem not to know any content nor have any disciplinary training nor generate any genuinely new insights, but have only ever been technocrats moving money around (finance) or shuffling around appearances (marketing). In that sense, it is not that surprising they move themselves around a lot too, jumping easily for the next salary bump because they were never really part of any generative longitudinal thinking discipline to begin with.
It's not that I have some rarefied notion of knowledge, as if every leader must be a political philosopher or something. I'm totally fine deferring to the authority and wisdom of a chemist or an engineer or an economic historian, as surely they have been habituated into being answerable to chemical and physical laws, scientific method, mathematical realities, the historical record, etc. It doesn't really matter what discipline it is. But I just want to know that at some point in their intellectual journey they committed themselves to be accountable to *something* other than just managerial bureaucracy itself.
And yet its like higher ed got taken over by this professional administrator class who, despite not having any expertise in any actual content or discipline, somehow get given all the power and money? How did that become okay?
@david81 Can you shed any light on how this "professional administrator" category arose? It seems to me in the past most administrators were originally from actual academic disciplines, so had the analytic skills that come with the territory (historical/textual studies, comparative politics, economics, chemistry etc) that they could put to work thinking thru first-order data, second-order paradigms, third-order heuristics etc. in accurate & creative governance of their institutions.
Now in US higher ed it seems like there's this professional administrator class occupying the Pres/CFO/COO/VP/Presidents Cabinet type roles who seem not to know any content nor have any disciplinary training nor generate any genuinely new insights, but have only ever been technocrats moving money around (finance) or shuffling around appearances (marketing). In that sense, it is not that surprising they move themselves around a lot too, jumping easily for the next salary bump because they were never really part of any generative longitudinal thinking discipline to begin with.
It's not that I have some rarefied notion of knowledge, as if every leader must be a political philosopher or something. I'm totally fine deferring to the authority and wisdom of a chemist or an engineer or an economic historian, as surely they have been habituated into being answerable to chemical and physical laws, scientific method, mathematical realities, the historical record, etc. It doesn't really matter what discipline it is. But I just want to know that at some point in their intellectual journey they committed themselves to be accountable to *something* other than just managerial bureaucracy itself.
And yet its like higher ed got taken over by this professional administrator class who, despite not having any expertise in any actual content or discipline, somehow get given all the power and money? How did that become okay?
@vuindiana I think it more evolved than arose.
For specialized positions, such as development, career advising, student services, financial aid, etc., the growth of administrative positions fueled the growth of a professional administrator cohort. And one kept fueling the other, including budget pressures when a director of X is joined by an associate director of X and later comes along assistant directors of X.
Now if X is, say, a high functioning development and fundraising team, or an incredible student services staff, then the added investment in X is worth it. But if not....it's a waste of money.
And I want to emphasize that I'm not against the creation of these positions. I've seen many high-quality, dedicated professionals in these jobs, and they make a difference. The ones who are top-notch and stay at an institution for a good stretch of time can be invaluable...some become part of the glue that keeps a place humming.
But I've also seen a good share of mediocre professionals in those jobs who tend to hang around and then move on to the next place, where they do the same. And some keep getting promoted upward, way beyond their competence. Peter Principle Plus types, I've called them. LOL.
The senior-level folks in these positions often have more day-to-day access to senior academic leaders, and this plays a role in (1) higher salaries for mid-to-senior admins, sometimes more than full-time tenured faculty; (2) more positions being added.
For academic leadership positions, like president, provost, dean, etc., we've moved away from the now almost trite narrative that occupying one of those positions was part of a career-long commitment to the institution that often included returning to the faculty at some point.
Instead, we've now got a fair share of people who have basically abandoned their faculty careers and instead go from one academic leadership position to another, again in a more nomadic way. These folks control the purse strings (along with their boards) and frequently identify with other academic leaders more than with their faculties. There has been a huge upward push on salaries at that level. In fact it's not unusual when -- even during these tough times -- boards give generous raises to presidents while others are facing a salary freeze and even layoffs.
Personally, I'm OK with paying a university president or a dean megabucks if they're raising megabucks in donations, but oftentimes the high salaries aren't accompanied by fundraising expectations.
@vuindiana, sorry, that was more than you asked, and it didn't even fully answer your question. I guess I felt the need to unburden myself of a few strong opinions, and you unwittingly opened the door. 
