The conversation around interim presidents is gaining traction again. In a recent column for Inside Higher Education, Doug Lederman argues that more institutions should consider interim leadership, not just as a stopgap, but as a tool for stability and even progress.

Many colleges and universities are operating under sustained pressure: enrollment uncertainty, financial constraints, leadership turnover, and rising expectations from stakeholders. In that environment, the instinct to install a steady hand while searching for a permanent leader feels both logical and responsible, but that instinct often masks a deeper issue.

Too many institutions approach interim leadership as a default move, something you do when there’s a gap to fill. The focus becomes the person: who can step in quickly, who has credibility, who can “hold things together.” Focusing on the specific candidate, however, overlooks the harder, more important question: what is this moment actually asking of leadership? Without a clear answer, constraints on progress or deferred decision-making hem in the most capable of leaders, and the institution stays in limbo longer than it should.

The real shift isn’t about whether to use interim leadership. It’s about why, and what outcome you expect it to drive.

Interim leadership has outgrown its original definition.

For decades, institutions viewed interims as caretakers. They expected the interim to maintain continuity, avoid disruption, and preserve optionality for the incoming permanent leader. In a more stable era, that worked. That stable era, however, is over.

Today’s leadership challenges are layered and immediate. Institutions are navigating financial resets, program realignment, governance friction, and external scrutiny all at once. These are not conditions that reward passivity; they demand direction.

As Jim Martin, Senior Consultant at ZRG The Registry, puts it:

“Success doesn’t come from placing more leaders. It comes from asking why that leader is needed in the first place and aligning the role to that answer.”

That shift from filling roles to defining purpose isn’t theoretical. It reflects a broader reality Martin points to; the complexity of leading modern institutions has outpaced what traditional leadership structures were designed to handle. Presidents and provosts are navigating overlapping pressures that require intentional intervention, not just continuity.  

Without that clarity, interim leadership defaults to a familiar but flawed pattern in which expectations remain vague leading interims to play it safe. That means major decisions get postponed, internal alignment weakens, and by the time a permanent leader arrives, the same challenges, often more entrenched, are waiting for them.

In that context, simply “filling the seat” is a major risk, not a neutral act.  

The institutions making real progress are approaching interim leadership differently. They start with outcomes, not optics. Instead of asking, “Who can fill this role?” they define what success looks like over the next 6, 9, or 12 months. Do they need to stabilize enrollment, realign the cabinet, reset financial assumptions, repair board–administration trust, or clarify institutional strategy? Only once they have a priority determined do they identify the leader equipped to deliver against that mandate.  

The shift from role to mandate changes how interims operate. With clear expectations, interim leaders can move decisively. They can make the hard calls that a permanent candidate might avoid during a search process. They can create space for better long-term decisions by addressing what’s been deferred, and they can leave the institution in a materially stronger position for the next leader.

As Bob Smith, Senior Consultant at ZRG The Registry, notes:

“An interim leader, when used intentionally, isn’t just maintaining continuity—they’re helping define what the institution needs next.”

That distinction matters. While much of what’s being discussed today—independent interims, defined mandates, structured transitions—has long been part of effective interim leadership, the expectation has shifted. Institutions are no longer satisfied with stability alone. They are looking for measurable progress.

That’s where the model expands further. Interim leadership is increasingly part of a broader solution set, not a standalone intervention. As Martin observes, success will not come from simply increasing the number of interim or permanent placements, but from asking the right question before any appointment is made, and supporting that leader before, during, and after the transition.

This includes strategic mentoring, coaching, and advisory support that ensure leadership decisions translate into sustained outcomes. Without that continuity, transitions become fragmented. The interim stabilizes one version of the institution, but the permanent leader inherits another, meaning that momentum is lost in the handoff.

With it, however, leadership becomes a throughline. The interim period informs the search which now reflects the institution’s real needs, and the incoming leader steps into clarity, not ambiguity. That’s the difference between managing transition and using it.

Not every situation calls for a mandate-driven interim. In moments of acute crisis—legal exposure, leadership scandal, or sudden departure—stability and reassurance may need to come first. There are times when preserving continuity is the right immediate goal.

Even in those scenarios, the window for passive leadership is short. Institutions that stop at stabilization often find themselves stuck there. The conditions that created the crisis don’t resolve on their own. Without a shift toward defined outcomes, and the support structures to achieve them, the interim period becomes an extended pause rather than a path forward.

The debate about interim presidents is pointing in the right direction, but often it’s focused on the wrong question.

The question can no longer be about whether interim leadership works. Instead, it needs to be about whether institutions are clear on what they need it to do.

When interim roles are defined by urgency alone, they deliver continuity at best and drift at worst. When they are defined by outcomes, they become a strategic lever that can stabilize, align, and move an institution forward at a critical moment.

Before you decide who to appoint, decide what success looks like, because the effectiveness of any leader, interim or permanent, starts there.

‍