Coaching Leaders in Higher Education: Myths Versus Reality

Abstract

It is easier to change the course of history than change a history course! This is a myth offering an insight into a belief about the inertia of the higher education (HE) sector. In reality, universities and colleges are dynamic institutions. Research breakthroughs, innovative thinking and education of our youth and workforce are fast-moving, intellectual pursuits that demand risk-taking, courage and a growth mindset. Drawing on extensive practice insights and deep knowledge of the HE sector, we explore a series of myths and how they show up in session so that coaches might strengthen their practice impact in working with HE clients.

Introduction

Higher education is a complex ecosystem comprising students and alumni, faculty, professional staff, senior leaders and board members (Martin, 2019). It is an academic and operational enterprise with numerous key players. Faculty range from tenured professors with near-lifetime job security to adjunct lecturers with little stability. They teach, conduct research, undertake service responsibilities, such as committee work and community outreach, bring in funding from research and philanthropic sources, and contribute to a university's reputation and societal impact. Professional staff work across a broad range of areas including administration, enrolment, financial aid, marketing, fundraising, facilities and institutional planning. Their roles span both day-to-day operations and longer-term initiatives that support the university's goals and overall mission. Middle and senior leaders may come from the academic side, such as deans and provosts, or the staff side, such as finance officers and estates directors. Board members, often drawn from government, business, the professions or alumni networks, provide strategic oversight and typically are the collective supervisor of the university's president or chancellor (Bevins et al., 2020).

While faculty self-identify with their discipline and fields of study and research, rather than their host institution per se, staff are typically quite ‘corporate’ in their outlook, that is, they self-identify with the institution as an organization (Veles et al., 2023). Both faculty and staff would view themselves as mission-driven and focused on student success and institutional goals. Faculty enjoy rights of academic freedom (Rabban, 2024) to pursue their own interests and speak freely on all matters, rights that do not extend to professional staff. Within the professoriate, there is what might be viewed as a hierarchy of those who are tenured versus those who are not, as well as those who focus on research versus those who prioritize teaching (Wapman et al., 2022). Complications are exacerbated by the concept of shared governance (Blackman & Kennedy, 2009), where faculty yield power over the educational character and mission, while senior administrators are responsible to their boards for the organization's mission. Given all this complexity, it is little wonder that higher education leaders can benefit from the insights and support of professional coaches in navigating this space. Especially now, in times of intense volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA), where the value of higher education itself is under scrutiny, as are the boundaries of what researchers may study or teachers may ask in class (CampusWorks, n.d.). Those seeking coaching often do so to navigate a system in flux and a workplace under pressure.

Those coaching, or planning to coach, leaders in higher education may encounter behaviours that distract from the core issues. Of particular relevance to coaches skilled in dealing with clients in the corporate sector, are the individual and contextual factors that affect coaching effectiveness in higher education. The following myths are those we consider to be especially important, and we offer insights that can help coaches in their work to help move a client forward.

Methodology

This manuscript arose through a series of discussions initiated at the Institute of Coaching, Coaching in Higher Education Group (Institute of Coaching, n.d.) chaired by one of the co-authors (RK) and attended by all the co-authors. During this time, the group explored the various megatrends affecting the higher education sector in the USA – particularly those accompanying the new federal administrative landscape. A small group (the co-authors) then created a Working Group to promote the benefits of coaching to those in higher education, in terms of articulating the value proposition (Bharathan et al., 2025). Given the current and anticipated extent of the turmoil across global higher education in general, and the USA in particular, the group held the view that more coaches would be called to work in the sector. Many of these would have experience working with clients in the corporate sector and may have little understanding of organizational culture and governance matters in higher education. In discussions, it was clear that there are many myths relating to the sector itself and preconceived notions about those who choose to work in academia. These myths could impede coaching effectiveness in higher education.

Over a series of discussions, the co-authors drew on their combined extensive experience of coaching as a practice, including coaching those in the higher education sector, alongside their deep knowledge of higher education leadership, management, and governance. The co-authors are a current professor chair and university president emerita [WP], senior strategic adviser to a university cabinet [RK], former professor and leadership programme creator [JA], former director of university business development [MK], and current director in a business school [AB]); all are currently active in coaching. What emerged was a curated suite of myths about working with those in higher education. These have been set against reality to offer practice insights on how these might show up in sessions, together with advice on how a coach can best leverage their skills and resources to work effectively with those in the sector.

Findings

Figure 1 summarizes the myths alongside the reality of coaching leaders in higher education that can be useful to both the coach and client alike.

Figure 1.

Myths versus reality of coaching leaders in higher education.

MYTH 1: Arrogant Versus Fragile

Many higher education clients come with impressive letters after their name, representing multiple degrees from prestigious institutions and professional associations. They may also have C-suite titles or equivalent, and most have national or even global reputations for excellence in their chosen field. They are often admired; sought after for keynotes, consulting, and advisory roles and may present with confidence or even arrogance. Yet, beneath this exterior often lies a fragility or deep vulnerability. Many senior leaders emerge from the professoriate, a career that relies on the judgement of others – including tenure appointments (voted on by one's peers), applications for research grants (that are scored and ranked, with some funded and most not), competitive conference selections, and routine teaching evaluations (not to mention students scoring their professors on rating websites). Papers and articles submitted for publication are subject to peer review, demanding revisions before going to press or rejected outright. Conference programmes include those invited by the organizers to be keynote speakers, expert panellists, and rapporteurs, while others apply to be included with their proposal accepted, waitlisted, offered a poster, or tossed. This ongoing scrutiny, often from peers, can fuel Imposter Syndrome (Corkindale, 2008; Molinsky, 2016) and create a defensive posture that may look like resistance to change, but is rooted in fragility.

Coaches can draw on their Listening (core competency #6; International Coaching Federation [ICF], n.d.) and Cultivating Trust and Safety (ICF #4) skills to partner with the client and go beneath the surface to access deeper insights. Appreciative Inquiry approaches (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2006) can help clients harness their strengths and mitigate reliance on external validation for their sense of self-worth. Coaching conversations might explore:

Inviting clients to reflect on the resources available to them from their distributed networks.

Reflecting on possible outcomes in different scenarios to support self-esteem.

Tapping into their own resourcefulness in managing their emotions and self-talk.

Coaching questions might include:

‘What is the opportunity here?’ (evaluation)

‘What is possible?’ (anticipation)

‘What do you make of it all?’ (history)

MYTH 2: Fixed Versus Growth Mindset

In the competitive and judgement-driven world of higher education, mindset can be binary. The grant got funded, or it did not. Tenure was granted, or it was not. The promotion was approved, or it was not. When the outcome is positive, the client may deem this is just reward. However, when the outcome is negative, it can trigger a spiral of self-doubt and catastrophizing with a tendency to see this ‘failure’ as the first domino to fall in a chain reaction of failures reaching out into the future. Coaches can observe a tendency towards a fixed and inflexible mindset (Dweck, 2007) in the client. This mindset is often reinforced by the structure of academic careers. Temporary administrative roles like department chair rotate every few years, and research projects end. Clients may then fall back on rigid beliefs about what they are good at and their weaknesses, narrowing their sense of agency. In the current higher education landscape, both faculty and administrative leaders are being called upon more than ever to adapt in ways never seen before and to rethink pedagogy, use of technology, and leadership models to name a few. Here, solid expertise forms the foundation of an individual's academic reputation, but openness to continued learning and flexible thinking is a hallmark of a true leader.

Coaches can invite their higher education clients into a more growth-minded perspective by reminding them of the horizon-broadening journey that likely brought them to this moment in their careers, and of the journey of learning they facilitate for their students and mentees. From this foundation of learning and growth, a coach can ask their client about navigating or assessing this journey into new territory as a journey of growth. Coaching questions that can help move the client forward might include:

‘How can you leverage your existing strengths in this new situation?’

‘What new skills or knowledge do you feel you need to tackle this challenge?’

‘What do you want to learn here?’

MYTH 3: Shared Governance Versus Managerial

Shared governance in higher education is in effect participatory decision-making in matters affecting most aspects of the institution (AAUP, n.d.), from defining educational character and mission to determining budgetary issues. While its purpose is to promote collaboration and transparency and ensure that diverse perspectives are considered in moving forward, it can be a source of confusion and even conflict. This is because stakeholders can hold differing mental models of what it means to be consulted – in terms of who, when, and how. Disputes often arise when consultation is perceived as cursory, tokenistic, or undertaken too late in the change process.

A core tension comes when managerial responsibilities, some delegated on behalf of the Board to senior post-holders such as the University President or Chief Financial Officer, are held to be in conflict with shared governance. The often elaborate and time-consuming consultation processes involved in shared governance can be seen as a barrier to timely responses – especially important in the turbulent times unfolding in higher education. Indeed, we have seen an increase in votes of no confidence in institutional leaders (Nierzel, 2023) not because of the outcomes of their decisions but because of disagreements over the process of getting there. In this context, coaching becomes a vital support for institutional leaders who may be feeling constrained and unable to fully execute their responsibilities without risking backlash from the very communities they serve.

Caught between a rock and a hard place, how can coaches help these clients navigate timely decisions while maintaining legitimacy of process and draw upon all relevant stakeholder advice? Encouraging clients to focus on planning, coaching questions might include:

‘What kind of plan do you need to create?’

‘What resources do you need to help you decide?’

But these will not work when a client is caught up in the midst of conflict. Here, a coach can draw on mediation and negotiation frameworks to guide their approach. Inviting clients to examine the substance of the issues:

‘What concerns you most about the situation?’

‘What part is not yet clear?’

MYTH 4: Institution Versus Subject/Field

It has been said that those on the academic side of the higher education enterprise, typically professors and academic leaders, are in an aeroplane flying above and only loosely connected to their institution. They draw their sense of identity, value, and worth from their peer communities based on their subject discipline or professional role, often in vast networks of scholars connected across the globe. In contrast, those in the professional service units of human resources, finance, fundraising, and facilities tend to identify more strongly with the institution itself. This difference in perspective can create significant friction during institutional change efforts. Policies or projects initiated by non-academic leaders may feel irrelevant to faculty until late in the implementation process, at which point some feel blindsided, disrespected, or marginalized. Conversely, academic-led decisions such as changes to classroom layouts, teaching technology, or academic calendars may directly impact professional staff without their input, leaving them feeling ignored and undermined.

In a coaching session, academic clients may need to be encouraged to explore the history of changes, with questions such as:

‘What led up to it?’

‘What support do you need to accomplish it?’

‘What is your desired outcome?’

For professional staff, coaching may begin with clarifying the core challenge:

‘What seems to be the main obstacle?’

‘What's staying with you from this experience?’

MYTH 5: Higher Education Versus Real-World

As the metaphor of the academic Ivory Tower indicates, there is a long-standing myth that higher education is not ‘the real world’, but rather an economic and cultural institution set apart from corporate and market forces. Whether this has ever been the case, especially in public institutions, is a separate discussion, but in the USA as early as the 1970s and increasingly so since the 1990s, academics speak of (and complain about) ‘the neoliberal university’ as shorthand for the ongoing shift away from robust public funding for largely autonomous institutions, to more modest public funding for institutions that face higher reporting and accountability burdens. It is also common to hear academics bemoan the increasing corporatization of the university (Steck, 2003). The shift in funding and regulation of colleges and universities has, as a rule, brought with it additional layers of institutional bureaucracy. Vice presidents, vice provosts, and directors can become focal points for faculty disgruntlement about the centralization of decision making, the prioritization of the market, and a focus on revenue generation. Neoliberalism, corporatization, and bureaucratization of the academy all represent, for some, a threat to academic freedom and disciplinary integrity. The increased administrative and regulatory burden put on institutions may even appear to conflict with, or crowd out, the core educational missions of teaching and research.

A coach can help surface the tension between their client's values and the perceived values of the institution. Providing the opportunity, in session, for the client to delineate where their adherence to their personal and professional values becomes strained allows them to begin to differentiate between discomfort due to change and discomfort due to profound misalignment. Once the client gains clarity on their values, the conversation can turn towards capability:

‘What skills, mindset shifts, or strategies might help you navigate this evolving environment?’

‘What's within your control or influence and what lies outside it?’

Encouraging the client to focus on acting within their circles of control and influence can liberate them to behave and engage in ways that are empowering, reserving their energy for the work that moves their career forward and brings them joy.

MYTH 6: Job Security Versus Insecurity

Within higher education the concept of tenure can be a challenge to navigate in the coaching context. Tenure is a privilege afforded to some (but not all) professors and some senior academic leaders. In essence, it is a form of job security designed to safeguard academic freedom, allowing faculty to pursue research and teaching without fear of reprisal for unpopular, controversial, or marginal views. While there are growing challenges to tenure (Quinn, 2024), those with it essentially have a job for life. As well as creating something akin to a hierarchy in higher education – with non-tenured faculty and adjuncts paid by the hour or by courses delivered, protection of those with tenure from dismissal (except for just cause or under extraordinary circumstances like financial exigency) can mean it is hard to use the ‘carrot and stick’ approach to behavioural change.

Ostensibly, with an almost zero risk of being fired, professors who are in senior administrative roles (such as Deans or Provosts) may be reluctant to rock the boat as change agents given they will likely return to the professoriate after a period in their leadership role. While helpful to understanding the constituencies they lead in such roles, a leader's unwillingness to grapple with strategic issues that may create disruption to the faculty can diminish their effectiveness. Coaches can encourage their clients in such circumstances to be courageous, far-sighted, and focus on wider institutional value creation. Inviting them to reflect on relationship capital as currency for change projects, leveraging power from stakeholder networks that include students, alumni, and donors, can release fuel for change that honours their own journey as well as the heritage of the faculty community.

Reflective prompts can help elevate the conversation:

Exploring options: ‘What might happen if you don’t act?’

Clarifying outcomes: ‘How will you know when you’ve achieved it?’

Integrating meaning: ‘How do you explain this decision to yourself?’

In the end, the coach can support the leader to gain clarity on the impact they wish to make while in their leadership role, and trade-offs or opportunity costs they are willing to accept in pursuit of that vision.

MYTH 7: Institutional Versus Solo-preneur

A professor's working conditions bears little resemblance to those of a similarly situated professional in the corporate world. While a professor may have to submit annual activity reports and indicate projects in progress, the corporate measures of key performance indicators (KPIs), objectives and key results (OKRs), quotas and deliverables may be rather alien in a university workplace other than for the most senior leaders. The measurable timeline for a faculty member's success (often 3–5 years) is far greater than that of a corporate employee (monthly or annually). Additionally, faculty, especially those with tenure, are free to pursue the research agenda of their choosing, design the courses they teach, and choose the pedagogical methods they will use. And, in the post-COVID academy, they may rarely appear in their office. This can lead to faculty members approaching their work similar to an independent contractor, ultimately accountable only to themselves with just a passing nod to student evaluations.

When a faculty member thinks of themselves as an independent contractor rather than as an employee of the institution, it can be the source of workplace friction as well as their sense of self. As a result, when coaching a faculty member, coaches need to keep in mind that they are likely overly invested in the notion of not reporting to a boss, not clocking in, and having academic freedom. Thus, they may well overlook the personal and interpersonal contributions required of anyone who works in a collaborative environment. And, as colleges and universities face new challenges from government oversight, funding cuts and a looming demographic cliff (Marcus, 2025), individual professors are being confronted with accountability related to service, being on campus, and a focus on organizational priorities that go beyond their own scholarship agenda.

In coaching a faculty member such as this, coaches can invite the client to examine the constellation of collegial relationships at their institution that support their success and encourage gratitude exercises to help them focus on what the college or university offers them. Many faculty see their academic work as their calling or purpose in life. Inviting the client to explore their work in the context of service and mutual benefit can therefore be useful. A coach can help them connect opportunities to engage more at their institution and build networks of influence and collegiality to their purpose, asking:

‘What do you need in order to be successful?’

‘What is in it for you to work in a thriving department?’

‘What can you contribute to the success of others?’

MYTH 8: Cerebral Versus Emotional

Problem solving for higher education professionals is often approached as a tactical exercise in rational thinking, rather than as an opportunity to deepen their understanding through emotional exploration and growing self-awareness. The mere presence of emotions in academic work may be seen by many as antithetical to rigorous research and proper discernment. Many academics believe their emotions as researchers should have no bearing on the validity of an argument or course of events. This perspective on scholarly work often results in academics living solely ‘in their heads’, rather than as holistic beings in touch with their emotions.

Academic training prioritizes the ability of students to spot the flaw in an argument, discover a weak point in an experiment, and defend their own position and results in the face of inevitable, often harsh criticism. Having compassion and empathy for people on the ‘wrong’ side of a debate and the emotions involved can be seen as a weakness that makes one unsuitable for the harsh world of academic research and publishing. The bias towards knowledge work as an intellectual pursuit also permeates much of the structural and administrative work of higher education (Fitzpatrick, 2019). Thus, working with an academic client to discover the knowledge and data that resides in their emotions can be a challenge.

Coaches can use their own emotional vocabulary to provide steppingstones for a client who may be reluctant to jump into heavy emotional waters. Simple practices, such as having the client observe and name the emotion they are feeling, can be a powerful way to start. Having the client tell their own story of becoming an academic through the lens of their emotional journey can also contribute to growing their emotional self-awareness. Having them notice their emotions through somatic data can also be effective – such as asking:

‘What do you notice in your neck, jaw, gut, or hands as you talk about this issue’?

Coaches can also provide data on the effectiveness of Emotional Intelligence (EI) in the workplace (Goleman, 2000) and collaborate with the client to identify where their own leadership could use a boost in emotional agility and fluency. Assessments such as the EQi-2.0 (EITC, n.d.) have much to offer here.

MYTH 9: Short-Termism Versus Institutional Sustainability

There is a clear tension for higher education leaders to act sagely as well as wisely for the enduring health of their institution. Coaches need to be aware that in guiding clients to solutions for the moment, they can also help them consider possible impacts over the long term. Understanding both the heritage of their institution as well as the new horizons ahead can invite clients to reflect on ‘What caused it?’ and ‘What do you want?’ as ‘both/and’ questions. Academic leaders can easily be drawn into managing the crisis of the moment, losing sight of the long game. A coach can help bring the client to a perspective of seeing both by asking questions such as:

‘What is the moment calling for from you as leader?’

‘Five years from now when the institution looks back on this moment and the impact it had, what would you like people to say about you and your decisions?’

Conclusions

Higher education is a sector filled with generous, purpose-driven leaders, many of whom are struggling to continue to deliver on ambitious missions of societal betterment in the face of significant local and global disruptions. Helping higher education leaders succeed is a noble calling for a coach. Armed with a deeper understanding of the myths versus the reality, coaches can support leaders in higher education to better navigate the personal and professional challenges of this moment and support their role in sustaining institutional health. In this way, coaches who work, or plan to work, in this important sector can extend their practice impact.