Leadership in higher education today unfolds within a landscape marked by sustained uncertainty. Declining enrollment, constrained budgets, shifting public expectations, and policy volatility have become persistent features of the sector rather than temporary disruptions (Grawe, 2018; Hillman, 2020). For many leaders, the work is no longer about guiding institutions from one stable moment to the next, but about maintaining purpose, mission, momentum, and care amid ongoing change.
As I write, I am marking a professional milestone completing my second year as an associate vice president for student affairs at a regional public university. I do so with deep appreciation for the experiences that have shaped my leadership. My first year in this role was underscored by significant leadership transition, significant budget deficits, and the compounding realities of declining enrollment and retention, all within a broader context of federal and state policy pressures shaping institutional decision-making. During that year, the institution experienced three presidential leadership configurations: a permanent president when I began, followed by an acting president, and then an interim president charged with navigating fiscal constraint and organizational restructuring. As I begin my third year, I am preparing to welcome a new permanent president while continuing to lead teams through the ongoing work of addressing enrollment and retention challenges, managing budgetary constraints, and supporting academic and co-curricular realignment in an increasingly complex policy and funding environment.
I do not frame these experiences as obstacles to overcome or crises to survive. Instead, I view them as formative opportunities that clarified my values, strengthened my leadership practice, and deepened my understanding of what it means to lead during prolonged uncertainty. This reflection centers on what I have learned about sustaining institutional mission, staff morale, and student support while responding to mounting pressures that increasingly define contemporary higher education leadership.
Learning to Lead Without the Promise of Stability
Early in my role as associate vice president for student affairs, the pace of leadership transition challenged my assumptions about what effective leadership looks like. Experiencing three presidential configurations in a single year underscored that leadership cannot depend on positional continuity to create coherence. Instead, leadership is shaped by how leaders show up consistently, communicate transparently, and ground their decisions in shared values (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017).
Research on organizational sensemaking suggests that during periods of ambiguity, individuals are often less concerned with certainty of outcomes and more attuned to consistency of behavior, values, and meaning-making, as well as reassurance that people, not just budgets or metrics, remain central to decision-making (Weick et al., 2005; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010).These experiences reshaped my understanding of leadership responsibility. In the absence of stable executive direction, middle and senior leaders become critical anchors for institutional culture. Our work shifts toward sustaining continuity of care for students, maintaining trust with staff and faculty, and reinforcing the mission even as strategies evolve. This aligns with contemporary leadership scholarship emphasizing relational and distributed leadership as essential in complex organizations (Bolden et al., 2015).
This understanding shaped how I approached leadership during periods of transition. Rather than relying on clarity from above or certainty about what would come next, I focused on maintaining consistency in how I showed up for staff and students. While staff understandably sought definitive answers amid leadership change, what became most apparent was their deeper need to feel heard, understood, and taken seriously in the midst of uncertainty. My role increasingly centered on being a visible and reliable presence, communicating what was known, naming uncertainty honestly, and reinforcing shared commitments to students and one another. Instead of attempting to resolve ambiguity prematurely, I prioritized consistency in decision-making processes and in how people were treated. This approach reflects the literature on sensemaking and relational leadership, demonstrating that when stability cannot be promised, coherence must be intentionally cultivated through trust, transparency, and care.
Responding to Pressures With Intention
Sustained enrollment decline and budget constraints formed the backdrop of much of my early leadership experience in this role. These pressures required difficult decisions, including program restructures, staffing reductions, and the discontinuation of certain academic and co-curricular programming. Such actions are not abstract; they affect people’s identities, livelihoods, and sense of belonging. Research on institutional sustainability suggests that leaders who delay difficult decisions often compound harm, facing steeper cuts and fewer options later (Martin et al., 2020). At the same time, research also cautions that how decisions are made and communicated significantly influences morale, trust, and organizational resilience (Maslach & Leiter, 2016).
In my role, responding to these pressures meant holding two truths simultaneously: financial realities could not be ignored, and people could not be treated as collateral damage. I learned that values-based leadership is not about preserving all existing structures, but about making choices that protect the institution’s long-term ability to serve students while attending to the human impact of change. This required clarity of purpose, transparent communication, and an explicit commitment to supporting those affected by difficult decisions.
Sustaining Mission Amid Change
One of the most important lessons from this period was recognizing that mission is not self-sustaining. During times of restructuring and constraint, institutional mission can easily become overshadowed by urgency, compliance, and crisis management. Sustaining the institutional mission requires deliberate attention and repeated articulation. For university leaders, this means consistently framing decisions and priorities in terms of student learning, belonging, and success. Research consistently demonstrates that institutions that maintain a clear focus on student-centered outcomes are better positioned to navigate periods of constraint without eroding trust or engagement (Kuh et al., 2015).
In practice, sustaining institutional mission required aligning daily decisions with core commitments, even when resources were limited. It meant asking not only what was financially feasible, but what was educationally responsible. It also meant ensuring that student support remained visible, accessible, and prioritized, particularly for students most vulnerable to disruption during periods of institutional change.
Attending to Staff Morale as Leadership Work
Perhaps the most enduring leadership challenge I encountered was supporting staff through prolonged uncertainty. Years of enrollment and retention decline, budget reductions, organizational restructuring, and leadership transitions created conditions ripe for fatigue, anxiety, and disengagement, patterns well documented in research on burnout and organizational stress (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). Leading in this environment required intentional attention to morale as a core leadership responsibility, not a secondary concern. I found that sustaining morale depended less on offering certainty and more on demonstrating respect, honesty, and care. Staff wanted to know that their work mattered, that their voices were heard, and that leaders recognized the emotional labor required to continue serving students during instability.
Adaptive leadership theory emphasizes the importance of helping people make meaning of loss while remaining engaged with change (Heifetz et al., 2009). In practice, this meant creating space for reflection, acknowledging grief and frustration, and modeling steadiness without minimizing the challenges staff faced. These practices did not eliminate stress, but they fostered resilience and trust.
Collaboration as a Leadership Practice
The pressures described here heavily revealed the limits of siloed leadership. Enrollment decline, financial sustainability, and student success are deeply interconnected, and decisions made in one area reverberate across the institution. Scholarship underscores that cross-divisional collaboration is essential for institutional resilience, particularly during periods of constraint (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). In my experience, sustained collaboration among student affairs, academic affairs, enrollment management, advancement, finance and human resources was critical to maintaining coherence. Alignment reduces confusion, strengthens communication, and enables more holistic decision-making. Collaboration also distributes leadership responsibility, reducing isolation for leaders and creating shared ownership of institutional challenges.
This approach reinforces that leadership in contemporary higher education is rarely individual. It is collective, relational, and iterative, shaped through ongoing dialogue rather than singular decisions.
Supporting Students Through Uncertainty
While much leadership attention focused on budget and structure, students experienced institutional change in immediate and personal ways. Uncertainty about programs, services, and campus identity influences enrollment decisions, persistence, and sense of belonging. Research indicates that students are more likely to persist when they perceive institutional commitment to their success and well-being, particularly during times of disruption (Kuh et al., 2015).
As a student affairs leader, my responsibility during this time and always is to ensure that student support remains a priority, not an afterthought. This meant advocating for advising, basic needs support, and engagement opportunities even amid budget realities and institutional restructuring. It also meant communicating clearly with students about what would remain stable, what would change, and how they would be supported through transitions. These efforts reinforced a central lesson: sustaining student support during uncertainty is not only a moral obligation, it is a strategic imperative for institutional resilience.
Reflection on Leadership Growth
As I reflect on my first two years as an associate vice president, I recognize how profoundly these experiences shaped my leadership. Leading during prolonged uncertainty has enhanced my approach to relationship building, sharpened my ability to make informed decisions without complete information, to communicate with care, and to remain grounded in values amid pressure.
I’ve learned that leadership is less about controlling outcomes and more about creating conditions in which people can continue to do meaningful work. It is about sustaining purpose when clarity is elusive and demonstrating commitment to mission, staff, and students even when resources are constrained. These lessons are not unique to my institution. They reflect broader realities facing higher education leaders across the country. By centering reflection on lived experience, I hope to contribute to a growing body of practice-informed scholarship that supports leaders navigating similar challenges.
Looking Ahead
Contemporary higher education leadership demands resilience, reflection, and relational skill. As institutions face enrollment decline, budgetary pressure, and organizational change, leaders are called to respond in ways that preserve their institutional mission, sustain staff morale, and support students through uncertainty.
Discussion Questions
- How can higher education leaders sustain institutional mission during prolonged periods of uncertainty?
- What practices help maintain staff morale when stability cannot be promised?
- How can student affairs leaders advocate effectively for student support amid competing fiscal priorities?
- How can graduate students and new professionals cultivate a sense of leadership purpose when stability and certainty are not guaranteed?
My experience as an associate vice president for student affairs during a period of significant transition has reinforced that while leaders cannot control external pressures, they retain agency in how they lead people through them. By grounding decisions in values, prioritizing collaboration, and attending intentionally to morale and student support, leaders can navigate uncertainty with integrity and purpose.
This reflection is offered as an invitation for continued dialogue among higher education leaders committed to sustaining the human core of our institutions even as conditions around us continue to evolve.
About the Author
Sarah Ellison, Ed.D. (she, her, hers) is an associate vice president for student affairs at Sonoma State University, where she provides executive leadership across student support and success initiatives. With experience spanning student affairs, academic affairs, enrollment and retention, and cross-divisional collaboration, her work focuses on sustaining student-centered practice amid organizational change, fiscal constraint, and enrollment volatility. Dr. Ellison’s professional interests include leadership development, institutional resilience, governance and decision-making in higher education, and the integration of mission, care, and accountability during periods of uncertainty. They are committed to reflective, practice-informed leadership that centers student success and staff well-being.
References
Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2015). Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 195–214.
Grawe, N. D. (2018). Demographics and the demand for higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership. Harvard Business Press.
Hillman, N. W. (2020). Why performance-based college funding doesn’t work. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(174).
Kezar, A., & Holcombe, E. (2017). Shared leadership in higher education. American Council on Education.
Kuh, G. D., Jankowski, N., Ikenberry, S. O., & Kinzie, J. (2015). Knowing what students know and can do. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
Martin, J., Samels, J. E., & Associates. (2020). The financially sustainable university. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111.
Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00908.x
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.