Academic leadership presents a unique conundrum. In the premiere episode of Coaching in Higher Education, I spoke with my friend and colleague, Dr. Kavita Pandit, about this very issue and dove deep into the complex world of the “faculty-leader,” a journey that often begins not with a desire for management, but with a deep-seated allegiance to a specific discipline—something Kavita poignantly likens to being a member of a “guild“.
For many of our coaching clients, their identity is inextricably tied to their research, their publications, and their standing within a global community of scholars. When they step into the role of a department chair or dean, they don’t just gain a title; they enter a state of dueling identities. They are suddenly caught between being a peer in a disciplinary community and a supervisor within an institutional hierarchy.
The Analytical Trap
One of the most thought-provoking points Kavita raised is what she called the analytical trap: Faculty are trained to be hyper-critical and data-driven – traits that are indispensable for research but can be limiting in leadership. Kavita noted that many leaders operate almost exclusively out of their prefrontal cortex, treating every decision like a spreadsheet of pros and cons.
In doing so, they often neglect their innate intelligence, i.e., their gut, their heart, and their instinct. Kavita shared a striking example of a client struggling between two job offers: While the client’s objective data favored one role, her face lit up with animated energy when discussing the other. As coaches, our job is to point out these physical sensations and somatic cues that the client has been trained to stamp down in favor of cold objectivity.
Mirrors, Not Maps
Another crucial takeaway for those of us serving the higher ed sector is the distinction between mentoring and coaching. Academia has a long, storied history of mentoring, where a senior “guild” member shares their map of the world with a junior colleague. While valuable, mentoring assumes that the mentor’s past experiences remain valid in today’s rapidly shifting, post-COVID regulatory and social environment.
Professional coaching, by contrast, is about holding up a mirror. Instead of providing the answers, we help leaders recognize their own wisdom and discover their potential. Although professional coaching in higher education is still work in progress, it is essential as leadership becomes increasingly complex.
Nudging the System
Whether you are an internal change agent or an external advisor, the goal remains the same: to help leaders move from viewing employees as replaceable cogs in a machine to human-centered stewards of a complex ecosystem. We must invite our academic leaders to draw on all the data available – not just the spreadsheets, but the emotional and physical intelligence – to create a fertile environment where compassionate leadership can thrive.
If we want to build what Dr. Kevin McClure has coined a “Caring University,” we must start by supporting the leaders who are often the most overlooked – the ones standing at the margins or entry points of the administration – and trying to remember who they are as human beings while empowering them to bring impact full and sustainable human-centric change to our campuses.
You can find this and all other Coaching in Higher Education podcast episodes on:
| 
| 
| 
|
Are you ready to shift your leadership mindset or transform your organization’s developmental culture? I invite you to explore my professional coaching and advisory services to see how we can nudge your system toward excellence.
Frequently Asked Questions About Changing Academic Leadership Identity
What is the “guild” idea in academic leadership?
The guild idea refers to the deep connections faculty have to their specific academic discipline and their community of scholars, much like a professional guild does. Faculty who move into leadership positions such as department chair or dean often struggle to give up this guild identity as they take on new institutional responsibilities.
What are “dueling identities” for faculty who become leaders?
Dueling identities are the internal struggles faculty experience in taking on administrative roles. They must navigate their role as a peer in their disciplinary community and supervisor in an institutional hierarchy, often without any training in the leadership aspect of that equation.
What is the “analytical trap” in higher education leadership?
The analytical trap is that highly trained academics tend to think almost exclusively in hyper-critical, data-driven ways, treating leadership decisions like a spreadsheet of pros and cons. This analytical way of thinking is good for research, but it can cause leaders to ignore their instincts and other types of intelligence that are equally important for effective leadership.
How do coaching and mentoring differ for academic leaders?
The mentoring model usually involves a more senior colleague sharing his or her experience and worldview with a junior colleague, assuming that past experience is still relevant to the present. Coaching, on the other hand, is like holding up a mirror, helping leaders tap into their own wisdom and find their own answers, rather than just inheriting someone Elsie’s map.
What does it mean to build a “Caring University”?
Dr. Kevin McClure has developed the Caring University concept that describes an institution that supports its leaders holistically, especially those who are often unseen at the periphery and entry points of administration. This means helping academic leaders remain human-centered so they can deliver compassionate, sustainable change to their campuses.