Do high presidential salaries hurt the academy?

YES 

They undermine governance
Robert Atwell

We’ve been hearing a lot about the escalation of college and university officials’ compensation in a few high-profile situations. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in November that more than 100 public and private university presidents had compensation packages worth over $500,000. It attributes the trend to a very few presidents in a small number of quite visible institutions. Most of them are private universities, but the number of public university presidents being highly compensated is growing.

Since the number of highly compensated individuals is small, and the value of their pay packages pales in comparison with more generous increases in CEO compensation in corporate America, why should anyone be very concerned?

I believe there are several reasons to deplore what is happening to compensation in higher education.

First, when college and university presidents receive compensation far in excess of the senior faculty and staff, it produces a distancing gap between the presidents and the faculty. A business model-size gulf between the presidents and the faculty is divisive and rests upon corporate assumptions in which the CEO has matching authority and responsibility. Historically, college and university presidents have lots of responsibility with limited authority to carry it out. Rather, governance in higher education has generally been characterized by shared governance in which the faculty, the president and the governing board share the responsibility for the welfare of the institution.

While colleges and universities should be managed in a businesslike way, they are not businesses in the usual sense. Most are not-for-profit and the shareholders are the students and the larger society. Decisions are made more as a result of a painstaking consensus process than they are delivered by fiat from on high. Successful presidents need to combine management skills with a deep commitment to the special and sometimes frustrating culture of academe. When the compensation divide between the president and the faculty widens, it becomes more difficult to sustain the kind of collegiality that has long been a goal of most presidents.

Some mistakenly argue that there is a shortage of people willing to take on the demanding role of college or university president. My experience in the search business and in knowing hundreds of presidents and aspiring presidents is quite the reverse. There are many individuals highly qualified for these positions, and compensation is not their primary motivation. In higher education, we need not emulate the excessive greed of corporate America. We should deplore it, while remaining true to the principles of shared governance that have served us well.

Robert Atwell is president emeritus of the American Council on Education and a presidential search consultant.

NO

They ensure capable leaders
Tom Ingram

Notwithstanding the sticker shock of some total compensation packages at the top of the chain, the reality is that higher education is not immune from market forces—especially, the law of supply and demand.  

Leadership in all sectors of our economy is increasingly expensive to find and keep. Executive search firms testify to the fact that the pool of real talent and experience is increasingly difficult to find. Why the paucity of true leaders in the business and academic (and political) worlds is the more relevant and troublesome long-term question.  

The average tenure of presidents and chancellors in higher education continues to be about six or seven years. As in the corporate sector, it is a position with high turnover. Sadly, there is evidence of a precipitous drop in the numbers of chief academic officers (provosts, deans and academic vice presidents) who aspire to the presidency. It is a much beleaguered institution today, especially in the large, complex research and public comprehensive university. 

As the academic presidency continues to change, it is arguably easier to lead a major corporation than a major university. Should we romantics be surprised that the compensation gap has closed a bit between the two worlds?   

What else is driving this upward spiral? Certainly the influence of the for-profit corporate culture is a factor; about 50 percent of trustees and regents come from the corporate world, and they view the university with multimillion- and billion-dollar budgets through the lens of their own experience. Unfortunately at least 80 percent of sitting presidents and chancellors are brought in from other institutions, rather than grown from inside, also driving up compensation. 

Furthermore, trustees see that the general public, the media and even political leaders accept the huge salaries of major sport coaches—currently at least 46 football coaches in the 119 academic institutions in Division I-A are in “the $1 million club.” How can the same public that accepts this fact without complaint have a problem with competitive compensation for college and university presidents whose experience, words and deeds are so much more consequential to the public good?

If we accept the proposition that competition among academic institutions is mostly a healthy thing for the commonweal, we should accept the fact that presidential compensation also must be competitive. Doing a better job of tying presidential performance to compensation within the academy (and within the business world as well) is the real challenge today.

Richard (Tom) Ingram is president emeritus of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), and a writer and consultant on academic trusteeship and board-president relationships.