The Career Ceiling: Why Higher Education Marketing Leaders Lack a Path to the Presidency
In the ecosystem of higher education, the role of the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) or Vice President of Marketing and Communications has undergone a seismic shift. Once viewed as a tactical function focused on brochures and press releases, the position has ballooned into a cabinet-level powerhouse responsible for digital strategy, constituent engagement, and institutional branding. Yet, despite this expansion, a troubling phenomenon persists: when these leaders reach the pinnacle of their departments, they often find themselves at a dead end.
After an extensive review of nearly 100 higher education organizational charts this year, it has become clear that while the scope of marketing leadership is growing, the professional trajectory for these individuals remains stagnant. Unlike their counterparts in the corporate sector, who frequently transition into enterprise-wide roles like Chief Operating Officer (COO) or Chief Executive Officer (CEO), higher education marketing leaders are often confined to a "circular" career path, moving laterally from one institution to another rather than vertically into the presidency.
The State of the Industry: A Crisis of Pipeline, Not Just Turnover
Leadership turnover in higher education is no longer an anomaly; it is a defining characteristic of the modern academic landscape. Data from the American Council on Education (ACE) confirms a steady decline in the average tenure of college presidents, a trend that invariably sends shockwaves through the cabinet. When a president departs, the marketing and communications team—often the most visible arm of the administration—is frequently the first to experience the ripple effects of restructuring.
However, viewing this as a simple retention problem is a mistake. The real issue lies in the absence of a viable leadership pipeline. In the corporate world, the S&P 500 CMO is often viewed as a successor to the CEO. A recent analysis by Spencer Stuart, a global executive search firm, reveals that while corporate CMOs move with similar frequency to their academic counterparts—averaging roughly 4.1 years in a role—these transitions are frequently upwardly mobile. These leaders are being groomed for enterprise leadership, turning tenure into a metric of a healthy, functioning pipeline.
In higher education, the turnover exists, but the pipeline does not. When a VP of marketing leaves an institution, they rarely step into an Executive Vice President (EVP) or presidential role. Instead, they typically jump to a similar vice presidency at another university, pivot into private sector consulting, or exit the higher education industry entirely.
Anatomy of the Role: Why "Portfolio Breadth" Is Not Enough
To understand why this ceiling exists, we must examine how institutions design their leadership roles. Over the past decade, there has been an aggressive push to consolidate functions under the marketing umbrella. It is now common to find marketing leaders overseeing licensing, events, digital transformation, and even donor constituent experience.
This expansion has certainly strengthened the department’s influence. Marketing leaders today contribute more meaningfully to institutional strategy than ever before. Yet, there is a fundamental misunderstanding at play: Portfolio breadth is not synonymous with a leadership pathway.
While a broader portfolio makes a leader more effective in their current role, it does not inherently prepare them for the holistic demands of a presidency. Many institutions mistakenly believe that by giving a marketing leader more "things" to manage, they are developing them for the next level. In reality, they are merely increasing the operational load of the existing role. True leadership development requires the acquisition of experiences that touch on finance, academic affairs, governance, and complex labor relations—areas that are often siloed away from the marketing department.
Organizational Design as Leadership Design
The root of the problem is that organization design in higher education is rarely viewed through the lens of leadership development. It is almost exclusively viewed through the lens of operational efficiency.
When a search committee or a president designs a role, they are asking, "What tasks need to be completed?" They should be asking, "What kind of leader is this role designed to develop?"
Every senior leadership role is inherently developmental. Whether by design or by default, the daily responsibilities of a position will shape the skills and perspectives of the person holding it. If a role is designed solely to execute marketing campaigns and manage reputation, the occupant will become a master of execution. If, however, the role is designed to include cross-functional oversight, enterprise-wide committee leadership, and direct engagement with the board of trustees, the occupant is being groomed for the next stage of institutional leadership.
The Case for Intentionality
To bridge the gap between the marketing office and the president’s office, institutions must pivot toward "Intentional Design." This involves three key pillars:
- Cross-Divisional Exposure: Marketing leaders should be mandated to lead initiatives that involve academic affairs or student success, moving beyond their typical departmental silos.
- Mentorship and Governance Experience: Senior leadership should provide marketing VPs with exposure to board meetings and strategic financial planning, ensuring they understand the "business" of the university beyond the brand.
- Strategic Rotation: Rather than expecting a leader to stay in one lane, institutions should create pathways that allow for "stretch assignments" that build the specific competencies required for a presidency.
Implications for the Future of Higher Education
The implications of this "default" design approach are significant. If higher education continues to treat the marketing leadership role as a terminal position, it will continue to lose top-tier talent to the corporate sector. Universities cannot afford to lose the very people who best understand the institution’s brand, its market, and its constituents, simply because they have nowhere left to grow.
Furthermore, the presidency of the future will require a skill set that looks increasingly like that of a modern CMO. With declining enrollments, the need for sophisticated revenue-generation models, and a hyper-competitive landscape, the traditional academic-pathway president (often coming from the provost’s office) may benefit from a partnership with—or indeed, experience as—a strategic marketing leader.
If institutions want to foster a new generation of versatile, market-aware presidents, they must stop viewing marketing as a silo. They must start viewing the CMO role as a vital training ground for the executive suite.
Conclusion: By Design or By Default?
The question for every board of trustees and institutional president today is simple: Are you developing your leaders by design, or by default?
If you are not actively crafting your senior roles to prepare the next generation of institutional leaders, you are effectively choosing to limit the potential of your own organization. We are currently witnessing a cycle where marketing leaders are squeezed into a narrow box, and the institution is the worse for it.
The next evolution in higher education leadership is not just about expanding the scope of the marketing department; it is about expanding the horizons of the individuals who lead it. By rethinking organization design as a tool for leadership development, we can turn the "turnover" of today into the "leadership pipeline" of tomorrow.
Rob Zinkan is the founder and principal of Navigate Gray, an organization-design firm dedicated to higher education marketing and communications, and a faculty fellow in the Center for Higher Education Leadership and Innovative Practice at Bay Path University.
