Higher education is navigating its most turbulent era in decades. Since 2019, more than 60 U.S. colleges and universities have closed permanently, merged, or consolidated. Another 200 private institutions face significant financial vulnerability. Undergraduate enrollment has declined by 8% over the past decade, while public confidence in higher education has dropped from 57% to 36% since 2015.
In this landscape of crisis, a pattern has emerged: institutions increasingly turn to women leaders to guide them through transformation. But these appointments come with a catch. Research shows that women are often selected to lead institutions in precarious positions, a phenomenon known as the “glass cliff.” When institutions in crisis falter or fail, blame falls on the woman at the helm, obscuring the systemic challenges she inherited.
Yet despite these odds, women presidents are demonstrating a distinct approach to crisis leadership—one that combines financial discipline with cultural transformation, stakeholder engagement with strategic vision. This case study examines how three women leaders have driven institutional transformation through some of higher education’s most challenging moments.
The Context: When Crisis Becomes Opportunity
The higher education sector faces converging pressures that demand not just reactive management but proactive transformation. Institutions must simultaneously address:
- Financial sustainability amid declining enrollment and reduced state support
- Changing demographics requiring new program offerings and delivery models
- Political scrutiny challenging academic freedom and institutional autonomy
- Technology disruption forcing rapid digital transformation
- Equity demands from increasingly diverse student populations
- Public skepticism about the value proposition of higher education
Traditional leadership models, such as hierarchical, risk-averse, focused on incremental change, prove insufficient for this moment. The institutions that survive and thrive are those willing to fundamentally reimagine their operations, their offerings, and their relationship with stakeholders.
[INFOGRAPHIC POINTER: Visual showing the convergence
Crisis factors facing higher education:
Financial pressure, Enrollment decline, Political scrutiny, Technology disruption, Equity demands, Declining public trust]
Case 1: Neeli Bendapudi at Penn State University
The Challenge
When Neeli Bendapudi became Penn State’s 19th president in May 2022, she inherited an institution facing significant financial headwinds. As the first woman and first person of color to lead Penn State, she took the helm of a sprawling system serving over 100,000 students across 24 campuses—an organization requiring both strategic vision and operational excellence.
Penn State needed more than budget cuts. It needed a comprehensive reimagining of how resources were allocated, how academic programs were evaluated, and how the institution positioned itself for long-term sustainability.
The Transformation
Bendapudi moved quickly and decisively. Within her first two years, she implemented:
Budget Transformation: Penn State balanced its budget one year ahead of schedule through a new budget allocation model that tied resources to institutional priorities rather than historical patterns. This wasn’t simply cost-cutting—it was strategic reallocation.
Academic Portfolio Review: She launched the Academic Portfolio and Program Review (APPR), a comprehensive evaluation of every academic program based on quality, demand, and alignment with Penn State’s mission. This data-driven approach allowed difficult decisions to be made transparently.
Research Enhancement: The Research Support and Transformation Project streamlined administrative processes, reducing bureaucracy that slowed faculty research while strengthening support for grant applications and interdisciplinary collaboration.
Compensation Modernization: Recognizing that talent retention required competitive compensation, she implemented a Compensation Modernization Initiative addressing salary compression and equity issues across the institution.
The Results
The numbers tell the story. Penn State’s 2024-25 fiscal year saw record fundraising of over $560 million—evidence that donors respond to clear vision and disciplined execution. The budget model created transparency and accountability, making resource allocation a strategic tool rather than a political process.
But perhaps more significant than the financial metrics was the cultural shift. Bendapudi demonstrated that transformation doesn’t require choosing between fiscal responsibility and institutional values—it requires aligning them.
Case 2: Tania Tetlow at Fordham University
The Challenge
When Tania Tetlow became Fordham University’s 33rd president in July 2022, she was the first woman and first layperson to lead the 181-year-old Jesuit institution. She arrived from Loyola University New Orleans, where she had successfully guided that institution through both a financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fordham faced the challenges common to urban private universities: maintaining enrollment in a competitive market, balancing affordability with financial sustainability, and navigating intense political pressures around campus issues from free speech to social justice.
The Transformation
Tetlow brought hard-won crisis management experience and a clear philosophy: transformation requires listening before acting, transparency over politics, and values-driven decision-making even when, especially when, it’s difficult.
Strategic Planning Through Engagement: Rather than imposing a vision from above, Tetlow launched a comprehensive strategic planning process involving dozens of listening sessions and surveys engaging hundreds of faculty, staff, students, and alumni over two years. In September 2025, this culminated in “Delivering on the Promise of Fordham,” a five-year strategic plan built on three pillars: centering students, advancing research excellence, and forging community.
Financial Transformation: Under her leadership, Fordham completed its $350 million Cura Personalis Campaign, surpassing the goal and raising over $370 million to enhance student experience. In 2025, she secured a $100 million gift—the largest in Fordham’s history—demonstrating that mission-driven leadership attracts transformative philanthropy.
Values Under Pressure: Tetlow has faced intense scrutiny, particularly around campus protests. In May 2024, when protesters occupied a campus building, she made the difficult decision to call law enforcement—a choice that drew criticism but reflected her conviction that safety and institutional integrity couldn’t be compromised. She followed with community communication explaining her reasoning, modeling transparent leadership.
The Results
Tetlow’s approach demonstrates that crisis leadership is about making principled decisions and explaining them clearly. Fordham’s record fundraising and successful strategic planning process show that stakeholders respond to leaders who combine mission clarity with operational competence.
Her background as a federal prosecutor and domestic violence advocate prepared her for the pressure that comes with university leadership. As she put it in her inaugural address, the Jesuit tradition fuels “action rooted in faith,” asserting that “the point of God’s gift of free will is that all of us must fight for justice, serve the poor, and welcome
Case 3: Linda G. Mills at New York University
The Challenge
Linda G. Mills became NYU’s president in January 2023, inheriting one of the world’s largest private universities with a $6.9 billion budget, over 60,000 students, and a complex global network. While NYU’s financial position was stronger than many peers, Mills faced the challenge of maintaining excellence while improving accessibility in an era of intense scrutiny about college costs.
Her 24-year career at NYU before the presidency gave her deep institutional knowledge, but the president’s role requires different skills—particularly in navigating external pressures and making politically fraught decisions.
The Transformation
Access and Affordability: Mills implemented a groundbreaking tuition policy: families earning under $100,000 annually would have tuition fully covered. This wasn’t just financial aid repackaging—it was a philosophical statement about NYU’s commitment to socioeconomic diversity.
Global Campus Evolution: Drawing on her previous role in global programs, Mills continued expanding NYU’s international presence while ensuring these campuses weren’t just satellite operations but integrated parts of a global university.
Trauma-Informed Leadership: Mills’ academic expertise in trauma and restorative justice informed her approach to campus challenges. She understood that institutional transformation requires addressing not just structures but the human experiences within them.
The Results
Mills’ presidency is still young, but early indicators suggest her approach is working. NYU’s applications remain strong, suggesting the access initiatives enhance rather than diminish the institution’s appeal. Her focus on combining excellence with equity positions NYU as a model for large research universities grappling with similar tensions.
[INFOGRAPHIC POINTER: NYU’s access initiative impact—number of students benefiting, demographic shifts in incoming classes, retention rates]
The Glass Cliff Reality
The pattern is clear but troubling. Research shows women are disproportionately appointed to lead institutions in crisis—and then blamed when those crises prove intractable. Between 2023 and 2024, four of six women Ivy League presidents stepped down amid intense scrutiny, reducing women’s representation in those elite roles.
This isn’t coincidence. It’s the “glass cliff” phenomenon: women get opportunities to lead precisely when those opportunities come with the highest risk of failure. Claudine Gay’s brief tenure at Harvard and Liz Magill’s departure from Penn after Congressional testimony on campus antisemitism illustrate how women leaders face different standards and less institutional protection than their male counterparts.
Yet women continue stepping into these roles. Why? Because they believe in higher education’s mission and recognize that transformation requires leaders willing to make hard choices.
What Distinguishes Women’s Crisis Leadership
Research on women university presidents during COVID-19 and other crises reveals consistent patterns:
Stakeholder Engagement: Women leaders emphasize listening and relationship-building, bringing diverse voices to decision-making. This isn’t soft leadership; it’s strategic. Complex problems require input from multiple perspectives.
Values Clarity: Women presidents tend to articulate clear values and make decisions aligned with those values, even under pressure. This creates institutional coherence during chaos.
Equity Focus: Women leaders consistently prioritize equity—not as a separate initiative but as embedded in institutional operations. This includes everything from faculty compensation to student support to program development.
Transparency: Women presidents communicate more frequently and openly with stakeholders during crisis, building trust even when delivering difficult messages.
Collaborative Problem-Solving: Rather than top-down mandates, women leaders create task forces, listening sessions, and collaborative processes that generate better solutions and stronger buy-in.
These aren’t exclusively “feminine” traits—they’re effective leadership practices that women are more likely to employ and that institutions desperately need during transformation.
The Business Case for Women’s Crisis Leadership
The evidence is mounting: institutions led by women during crisis often emerge stronger. They innovate faster, retain talent better, and maintain stakeholder trust through turbulence.
But the real question isn’t whether women can lead effectively through crisis. The question is whether institutions will have the courage to support them fully, rather than setting them up on glass cliffs and then expressing surprise when they fall.
Bendapudi at Penn State, Tetlow at Fordham, and Mills at NYU demonstrate what’s possible when women leaders receive the resources, authority, and institutional support to drive real transformation. Their successes aren’t despite the crises they face; they’re because these leaders understood that crisis creates the conditions for necessary change.
Higher education’s future depends on leaders who can navigate complexity, build coalitions, make tough decisions, and communicate clearly. Women are proving they possess these capabilities in abundance.
The question is whether the sector will continue giving them opportunities only when institutions are in crisis or whether it will recognize that the leadership styles women bring are exactly what all institutions need, regardless of their current circumstances.
