Higher education has a quiet but costly assumption built into how it develops leaders: that expertise in a discipline or functional area translates into the capacity to lead not only that area but many others. A brilliant English professor with acclaimed publications and exceptional teaching evaluations is encouraged to apply for the position of assistant dean. A skilled director of campus conduct with a strong track record is tapped for an AVP role. The expertise that made them exceptional becomes the credential that moves them into leadership.
And then everything changes.
The assistant dean is no longer primarily teaching. She is navigating faculty committees on accreditation, non-tenure contracts, and a new civic engagement center, work that has almost nothing to do with the scholarly expertise that earned her the role. The new AVP now oversees campus conduct, a behavior intervention team, campus recreation, health promotions, and a counseling center, while also leading an assessment committee, developing new work-from-home policies, and overseeing the new civic engagement center. The functional expertise that defined his success is now largely beside the point.
Higher education has three paradoxes that undermine excellent higher education leadership. The Promotion Paradox: the capacities that earned the promotion are not the capacities the new role requires. The Expertise Paradox: the deep knowledge and excellence that made leaders exceptional in the past can become an obstacle to leading well now. The Learning Paradox: higher education exists to develop people, yet rarely takes the same approach with its own leaders. These three paradoxes are connected, and each deserves its own examination. This piece focuses on the second.
This is the Expertise Paradox. The expertise they have spent their entire careers developing, and their excellence at it, has gotten them noticed and elevated; no longer is the expertise they need. Leading across complex, competing domains requires a fundamentally different set of capacities, navigating competing interests: making inclusive and efficient decisions, exercising influence without authority, driving strategic alignment, and leading change. These are not skills that develop automatically. They are not inherited from functional expertise. And in higher education, they are almost never formally or informally developed before or after the promotion happens.
The consequences are real and measurable. Staff turnover in higher education ranges from 12 to 16 percent annually. Decisions stall or land without clarity. Initiatives lose momentum. The leaders themselves often feel the gap. Their insecurity sets in, and their inner critic takes over. They have a quiet sense that they are underprepared for what the role actually requires. Unfortunately, the leaders they report to rarely provide them with the language for this and are themselves too busy and overwhelmed with their own similar experiences to offer the mentorship, development, or support these new leaders need to succeed in the role.
This is one of the gaps Evolve was designed to address. Senior leaders are not underperforming because they lack intelligence or dedication. They are navigating a level of complexity they were never specifically developed for, and the expertise they spent their careers developing is not only not serving them, but it might also be getting in the way. In our coaching journeys, we work with AVPs, Deans, Directors, and VPs to build the leadership capacity the role actually requires, not the expertise that got them there. If that tension feels familiar, I would be glad to have a conversation.
