This commentary is by William Prado, who was dean of graduate and online programs at Green Mountain College and worked there for 15 years. Currently he lives in Colchester and is dean of graduate and online programs and sustainable management faculty at Prescott College, which was selected by Green Mountain College as the preferred teachout partner for students to complete their studies following closure.
I write in response to Bob Allen’s Jan. 14 commentary “Actions to restructure Vermont State Colleges.”
Mr. Allen makes recommendations to solve Vermont State Colleges problems, informed by his experience as president of Green Mountain College. Having worked at Green Mountain College for nearly 15 years, I write to contribute to a discussion that supports Vermont State Colleges success by sharing another perspective of Green Mountain College’s trajectory.
A fundamental challenge for many colleges is to select college presidents who bring a vision for the college that achieves a sustainable niche in a crowded market — or who are able to lead development of a vision that leads to economic sustainability. Equally important, the challenge is to select presidents able to lead the structural and cultural changes within the organization to make the vision a reality. For many reasons, including those discussed below, that’s tough indeed.
Mr. Allen’s recommendations are actually outcomes that flow from developing and implementing effective strategic solutions to establish economic sustainability. They are not the solutions themselves.
Absent from Green Mountain College in its final years were “decisive and aggressive actions” (that Mr. Allen calls for from Vermont State Colleges) — at least not until the very end. Mr. Allen writes that upon arrival he pursued merger and restructuring options in earnest. There wasn’t evidence of it or other transformative approaches until the four months prior to the announcement of closure. To the contrary, Mr. Allen’s leadership could be described as feckless.
Mr. Allen indicates he was fatalistic about Green Mountain College from the start. Yet he spoke a different story with faculty, staff, students and employees joining at that time. What should they and other stakeholders conclude?
This became part of a narrative that Mr. Allen began shortly after the announcement of the college’s closure: The closure was entirely driven by inherited conditions and no action as president over three years could have altered outcomes.
A different perspective is that Green Mountain College’s experience exemplifies challenges many colleges face in securing leaders able to take bold, calculated risks necessary to carve out survival. Many colleges have leaders who are risk-averse and resist fundamental change. That worked for much of Green Mountain College’s past but less so when nimbleness was needed. One result was a bias toward small savings and measures that favored slow death over bold — but riskier — action to develop a sustainable niche.
If there’s aversion to change in the leadership team, there’s more reliance on the president to identify — and own — necessary organizational restructuring. Unfortunately, at Green Mountain College, the presidential search process all but guaranteed that such a transformational leader would be weeded out.
For example, Green Mountain College resources were disproportionately routed to failing residential programs far too long. This bias reduced resources for in-demand, innovative — and profitable — online graduate programs rooted in the college’s core competencies. As a result, despite being the early entrant with several innovative programs, later entrants became dominant players. Mr. Allen was not the only president to go along with this approach, but he continued it.
The hiring of an effective president is possibly the most important job of the board of trustees. Based on the selection of the last three presidents, there appeared to be hesitation to break with practices that had dominated for decades. Whether it was trustees’ understandable reluctance to hire folks who did not fit a historically-defined college president profile, administrator and faculty participation in the hiring process that supported status quo candidates, or other, the process followed a well-worn path that replicated the hiring of the same type of individual.
Green Mountain College’s last three presidents had much in common: They had already concluded long careers in another industry or organization and the college presidency was more or less a valedictory lap; they seemed financially comfortable with little skin in the game from a career development perspective — and all were older white guys.
It may have been better to make a riskier hire, such as an accomplished midlevel, up-and-coming ambitious administrator for whom turning around a small, financially weak college in the middle of rural Vermont could serve as a stepping stone to a loftier next post.
The search process gave false reassurance that there was a diversity of inputs: A big search committee; multiple discussions at faculty and staff meetings; town hall meetings; etc. It falsely conveyed thoroughness yet virtually guaranteed that the same types of candidates would progress.
Green Mountain College is a cautionary tale for reasons not cited by Mr. Allen. Closure wasn’t inevitable. The threats were known for over a decade. It took several presidents — including Mr. Allen — to focus on slowing death versus on the less comfortable and riskier endeavor of changing the model, and then leading organizational structure and organizational culture change to make the chosen strategy work.
Green Mountain College’s characteristics are likely shared with many at-risk colleges that struggle with (1) resistant-to-change organizational cultures; (2) shortage of internally developed effective leaders; and (3) presidential search processes that favor “a safe pair of hands” over nimble leaders able to adapt organizations quickly in response to rapid change.
It would be helpful for Vermont State Colleges to learn about successes from leaders who, when confronted by our tough industry challenges, were able to restructure a college as necessary to survive. Regardless of intention, Mr. Allen’s letter comes across as a self-serving narrative peddled since the closure announcement: The leader as victim of circumstance and witness only — versus the organizational leader of Green Mountain College’s direction for its last three years, and whose tenure resulted in the closure of a 175-year-old institution.
Like many in our country these days, I’ve grown impatient with leaders who accept the title and prestige of leadership but are less willing to take responsibility for outcomes.
