In higher education, a persistent paradox continues: interim presidents are often trusted to guide institutions through moments of instability and crisis—yet they are rarely considered for permanent roles. This contradiction signals something more profound than tradition; it reveals entrenched assumptions about who is allowed to lead, and for how long.

The standard pathway to a presidency—faculty to chair to dean to provost to president—reinforces a narrow definition of readiness. Leaders who excel outside this model, particularly those with backgrounds in operational management, innovation, or crisis navigation, are often excluded from serious consideration. This model can also disadvantage women and leaders of color, who are frequently called upon as interim “fixers” but not seen as long-term visionaries. In effect, the interim role becomes a glass ceiling.

Leadership is frequently conflated with longevity. Yet in reality, it’s demonstrated in moments of complexity, challenge, and change. Institutions often promote based on academic lineage rather than lived leadership. But outcomes, not tenure, should be the metric that matters.

Other sectors—business, technology, nonprofit—do this better. Interim CEOs, COOs, and executive directors who prove themselves in action are often appointed permanently. Higher education can learn from this. Especially now, as institutions grapple with declining enrollment, shifting demographics, public distrust, and emerging technologies, the need for adaptive, proven leadership is urgent.

Two recent examples illustrate the case for change. In 2024, Roz Brewer, former CEO of Walgreens Boots Alliance and COO of Starbucks, was named interim president of Spelman College. Though she lacked a traditional academic background, her strategic acumen and steady hand have earned broad support. Similarly, Pat Pitney, a former Olympic athlete and state budget director, served as interim president of the University of Alaska System beginning in 2020.

These leaders did not follow the traditional academic path. But they delivered where it mattered most—on outcomes, vision, and community trust.

So the question is not whether someone has served as provost. The better question is: Can this leader unify people, respond to complexity, and drive results with integrity?

This question becomes even more critical when we consider how today’s students and families choose institutions. The traditional methods of evaluating colleges—rankings, brochures, and legacy media—are rapidly giving way to a new reality: one shaped by social media platforms, peer influence, and digital impressions.

TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn now play an outsized role in shaping institutional reputation. What prospective students see on their feeds often influences where they apply more than official marketing materials. In this digital-first world, students are looking for leaders who are authentic, visible, and responsive—not just credentialed. This new era demands presidential leadership that can thrive across platforms, engage diverse communities, and reflect the values today’s learners care about.

There’s a growing disconnect: while presidential searches still prioritize institutional pedigree, prospective students are basing decisions on digital transparency, peer relatability, and social proof. As a result, institutions risk alienating their audiences if they fail to adapt both leadership models and communication strategies to this reality.

Just as prospective students are influenced by what they see on social platforms, so too are boards of trustees and presidential search committees. Public perception, viral content, and online visibility can shape how candidates are vetted, supported, or sidelined. In many cases, nontraditional or interim leaders may be penalized not because of performance—but because their media footprint doesn’t fit preconceived narratives of presidential stature.

Higher education must expand its definition of presidential leadership. Interim leaders bring firsthand knowledge of institutional culture and the flexibility to think beyond the status quo. Those who succeed in transition should be seriously considered for permanence—especially when they demonstrate vision, accountability, and the capacity to lead through change.

Being “good enough to lead” in the storm must also mean being good enough to stay and help shape the horizon—for both the institution and the audiences it serves in a media-saturated age.

Dr. Lawrence M. Drake II is the 2026 President of Division 46, a global executive leader, media psychologist, academic scholar, and transformational strategist. He has held senior executive roles in two Fortune 500 companies and led two universities as president and served as academic dean and faculty member. With over 40 years of experience across corporate, academic, and entrepreneurial sectors, Dr. Drake is a thought leader on leadership, media literacy, institutional transformation, and inclusive excellence.