Leadership Succession Risks in Higher Education and Nonprofits: Evaluating the Long-Term Viability of Aging Interim Appointments

The appointment of aging interim leaders in higher education and nonprofit organizations has become a double-edged sword. While these leaders often bring institutional knowledge and experience, their prolonged tenure in interim roles introduces systemic risks that threaten long-term strategic viability. As the average tenure of university presidents drops to 5.9 years (from 8.5 years in 2006) and over half of current leaders plan to step down within five years Phased Leadership Succession in Higher Education, [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/phased-leadership-succession-higher-education-strategic-penn--4pcjc]^[1], the reliance on aging interim executives to bridge gaps is growing. However, this trend exacerbates institutional continuity risks, including stalled initiatives, eroded stakeholder trust, and financial volatility.

The Rise of Aging Interim Leadership

Interim leadership appointments, once intended as short-term solutions, now persist for an average of 12–24 months, with 43% lasting over a year Interim Leadership: Navigating Challenges and Seizing Opportunities in Higher Education, [https://acad.org/resource/interim-leadership-navigating-challenges-and-seizing-opportunities-in-higher-education/]^[2]. Aging leaders, often chosen for their familiarity with institutional dynamics, face dual pressures: managing their primary roles while fulfilling interim responsibilities. This duality leads to burnout and overextension, as noted in a 2024 study by the American Council on Education . For nonprofits, the stakes are higher: only 27% have written succession plans Develop a Nonprofit Leadership Transition Plan, [https://www.nonprofitpro.com/post/develop-a-nonprofit-leadership-transition-plan/]^[4], leaving organizations vulnerable to abrupt transitions that disrupt program delivery and donor confidence.

Institutional Continuity Risks

1. Institutional Inertia and Deferred Decisions
   Aging interim leaders often lack the authority or mandate to drive long-term strategic changes. A 2023 report by the Association of American Universities highlights that 60% of institutions report delayed decision-making during interim transitions, as leaders avoid controversial moves without clear tenure . This inertia stifles innovation and leaves organizations reactive rather than proactive.

2. Loss of Institutional Knowledge
   When interim leaders depart without structured knowledge transfer, critical institutional memory—such as donor relationships and operational nuances—is lost. The cost of unplanned transitions, including search fees and lost productivity, can exceed 200% of a leader's salary Phased Leadership Succession in Higher Education, [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/phased-leadership-succession-higher-education-strategic-penn--4pcjc]^[1]. For nonprofits, where resources are already constrained, this loss can derail mission-critical programs.

3. Stakeholder Confidence Erosion
   Prolonged interim appointments create uncertainty among stakeholders. A 2025 study in the Journal of Higher Education Management found that institutions with frequent leadership changes experience a 15–20% decline in alumni donations and faculty retention Journal of Higher Education Management Volume 40, Number 1 (2025), [https://issuu.com/aaua10/docs/journal_of_higher_education_management_volume_40_]^[6]. Nonprofits face similar challenges, with donor trust plummeting when leadership vacuums persist.

Strategic Mitigation Strategies

To mitigate these risks, organizations must adopt proactive succession strategies:

1. Phased Leadership Transitions
   Overlapping outgoing and incoming leaders ensures knowledge transfer and continuity. The University of Pennsylvania's phased succession model, implemented in 2022, reduced transition costs by 30% and preserved strategic momentum Phased Leadership Succession in Higher Education, [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/phased-leadership-succession-higher-education-strategic-penn--4pcjc]^[7].

2. Shared Leadership Models
   Nonprofits can benefit from decentralized decision-making frameworks. A 2024 case study of the American Red Cross demonstrated that shared leadership improved adaptability during crises, with cross-functional teams maintaining program continuity despite leadership turnover Improving nonprofit succession management for leadership continuity: A shared leadership approach, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359667991_Improving_nonprofit_succession_management_for_leadership_continuity_A_shared_leadership_approach]^[8].

3. Investment in Leadership Development
   Institutions must prioritize leadership academies and mentorship programs. For example, Arizona State University's Leadership Pipeline initiative, launched in 2021, has increased retention of mid-level leaders by 40% and reduced reliance on external hires .

Conclusion

The strategic viability of organizations appointing aging interim leaders hinges on their ability to balance short-term stability with long-term resilience. While these leaders provide continuity during transitions, their prolonged tenure without structured succession planning amplifies institutional risks. By adopting phased transitions, shared leadership models, and robust development programs, higher education and nonprofit institutions can safeguard their missions against the volatility of aging interim appointments.