Presidential searches in higher education have always required thoughtful management from Boards of Trustees and Search Committees to ensure the right leader is selected for their institution. In today’s environment, the presidential search process warrants even greater clarity, transparency, and internal alignment. The higher education landscape has shifted politically, financially, legally, and culturally, and Trustees and hiring authorities must navigate these changes with diligence and intention.
AGB Search has conducted close to 400 presidential searches at public and private institutions of all sizes in our 15-year history. Recently, we have seen several notable shifts in how presidential searches are being conducted and how Trustees can best position their institutions for success.
Many Boards of Trustees are experiencing increasing intrusion into the search for and hiring of their institution’s president, which can lead to costly failed searches or shortened presidential tenures. A substantial number of Presidents are also bearing the brunt of external pressures on their operations and hiring decisions. We hear from institutional leaders regularly that political interference is a primary concern for their Search Committees.
The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) has developed an excellent resource on board independence, “How to Govern for Institutional Autonomy,” which includes tools and resources to maintain independence and academic freedom.
The average tenure of higher education presidents has been trending downward for several years, and that trend accelerated last year. According to academicjobs.com, presidential turnover in 2025 increased by 20-30% compared to prior years, affecting more than 100 institutions. For example, eight of the 18 Big Ten presidents stepped down last year.
Suffice it to say, colleges and universities should anticipate and be prepared for a presidential departure, and it can happen without the typical lead time that was common for presidential turnovers in the past.
We find now that more institutions are requesting custom search services, such as providing assistance specifically with building a candidate pool, or stepping in after an internally managed search fails to produce a viable candidate. Institutions are turning to executive search firms that can be flexible and work in partnership with their internal hiring team.
While a full search remains a best practice in achieving a successful outcome, the reality of the current market demonstrates a need for adaptability and true collaboration among Board leaders, hiring authorities, Search Committees, and executive search consultants. Assisting clients in reaching an optimal outcome for their searches needs to be front and center in the current environment.
One notable shift we are seeing is an increased demand for the formal vetting of internal candidates. Boards are increasingly requesting that search firms apply the same rigorous standards to internal or interim leaders before making a permanent appointment.
This process may include building a Search Committee, conducting listening sessions, developing a position profile, and performing comprehensive due diligence. Doing so allows the Board to maintain transparency and ensures that if they choose to appoint an internal candidate, the decision is backed by data and stakeholder buy-in rather than just convenience.
Converging trends show that the tenure of college and university presidents has significantly declined, while there has been an upswing in interim presidents being appointed for longer contract terms. Appointing the interim president to a permanent role may seem like a logical decision, but Boards understand that initiating a more structured process will typically provide greater credibility for the new leader.
Most presidential searches still utilize a full search process, and the good news is that candidate pools for presidential searches continue to be very robust. Accomplished leaders are still committed to taking the helm of higher education institutions and guiding them through these turbulent times. Many candidates indicate to us that the presidency is an important professional and personal goal, and it is common to hear them describe their desire as a “calling” to leadership.
In fact, the AGB Institute for Leadership & Governance in Higher Education, which prepares leaders who aspire to serve as college and university presidents, received a record number of applications during its recruitment cycle for the 2026-2027 cohort. This increased interest signals that with the right support and training, the presidency is still a highly desired role, even despite its challenges.
While the landscape has changed, executive search best practices remain the best foundation for a fair and inclusive presidential search.
A presidential search is most often managed by a Search Committee composed of representatives of key stakeholder groups, including the Board of Trustees, faculty, staff, students, and possibly alumni and/or external constituents. The committee’s role is to oversee the search, solicit input from interested parties, develop a compelling position profile that reflects the institution’s needs, assess applicants, and make a recommendation of several finalists to the Board. In this high-stakes endeavor, neither the committee nor the institution can afford a lack of internal alignment, particularly around the characteristics and expertise needed in a new leader. Internal misalignment can result in less than optimal outcomes, including candidates declining an offer because they perceive the lack of clarity within the institution.
It is never wise to conduct a presidential search in a vacuum, but it may be tempting in today’s environment to limit the number of voices in the process. For example, some institutions have opted to appoint their interim president to the permanent role without executing any search process. This may lead stakeholders to believe their input does not matter and diminish their support for the new leader. More than ever, securing candid feedback from a broad stakeholder group (and carefully considering that feedback when making a hiring decision) will help to safeguard a new president’s transition and minimize early criticism.
Presidential candidates are becoming more selective, often focusing on specific regions/states or institutional missions that align with their personal and professional expectations and values.
To attract top-tier talent, Boards must lead with transparency, from the impact of the political climate on the institution to financial challenges the institution may be facing. A position profile that glosses over enrollment declines, litigation, or accreditation hurdles will be viewed with skepticism by well-informed candidates. When challenges are brought to light, those who do choose to move forward in the search process are often best equipped to handle them.
The first twelve months of a presidency are integral to success and longevity, and it is incumbent on the Board and campus leadership to fully support the incoming leader’s integration. Institutions are best served by developing a presidential transition plan before the current president leaves. The plan’s focus is to ensure the successful onboarding of the new president into the campus community, as well as to facilitate a successful partnership between the new leader and the Board of Trustees, and particularly with the Board Chair.
AGB Search offers up to one year of strategic transition and integration support to help prepare the appointee to assume office and to succeed in the critical early months of the presidency. This support may include meeting regularly with the new president and the Board Chair to assist them in building a successful partnership.
AGB’s Institute for Board Chairs and Presidents of Independent Colleges and Universities allows chair-president teams to develop robust partnerships and create a focused agenda that moves both the board and the institution forward. AGB also conducts the Institute for Foundation Board Leaders and Chief Executives to facilitate strategic alignment between the foundation chief executive, the board chair or chair-elect, and the institution president
When time and resources are in limited supply, institutions may be tempted to conduct a leadership search on their own. The perceived savings of self-conducted searches are often offset by the hidden costs:
Executive search firms bring a wealth of experience to the search process, significantly increasing the probability of success. Benefits of engaging with a search firm for the presidential search process – even for internal candidates – include enhanced stakeholder engagement, broader candidate pools, increased credibility, and greater assurance of confidentiality.
The environment facing higher education is complex and evolving, yet presidential searches are still happening successfully across the country. Strong candidate pools remain. Institutions continue to attract talented leaders.
When Boards are transparent about institutional realities, aligned internally, inclusive in gathering input, and disciplined in process, they position their institutions—and their next president—for enduring success at a time when inspired and skilled leadership is more essential than ever.
