The Quiet Shuffle: When Leadership Fails, Who Pays the Price?
There’s something deeply unsettling about the way institutions handle leadership failures, especially when those failures come with seven-figure salaries. The recent saga at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business is a case in point. Dean Geoffrey Garrett, after facing a faculty revolt over declining enrollment and program cuts, has been quietly shuffled into a new advisory role in the president’s office. On the surface, it’s a classic bureaucratic maneuver—a way to save face while avoiding accountability. But if you take a step back and think about it, this isn’t just about one dean’s missteps. It’s a symptom of a larger problem in academia: the disconnect between leadership and the people they’re supposed to serve.
The Anatomy of a Revolt
What makes this particularly fascinating is the way the faculty revolt unfolded. Fifty-two professors signed a scathing letter criticizing Garrett’s leadership, and a town hall meeting intended to address their concerns only deepened the rift. One professor called it ‘incredibly tone-deaf,’ while another described it as ‘a waste of time.’ Personally, I think this highlights a common issue in leadership: the inability to listen. When leaders are so out of touch that they can’t even recognize the frustration in the room, it’s not just a failure of communication—it’s a failure of empathy. And in academia, where collaboration and trust are the bedrock of success, that’s a fatal flaw.
The Seven-Figure Question
A detail that I find especially interesting is Garrett’s salary: $1.16 million in fiscal year 2023. In a sector where adjuncts struggle to make ends meet and students drown in debt, such figures are jarring. What this really suggests is a misalignment of priorities. Are these high salaries justified when the institution itself is struggling? Or is it a reflection of a system that rewards administrative bloat over educational quality? From my perspective, this isn’t just about Garrett—it’s about the broader culture of overcompensated leadership in higher education.
The Strategic Shuffle
The decision to move Garrett into a newly created role as Special Advisor to the President for Global Strategy and Engagement feels like a calculated escape. By avoiding a vote of no confidence, the university is sidestepping accountability rather than addressing the root issues. What many people don’t realize is that this kind of shuffle is common in corporate and academic settings. It’s a way to protect reputations and maintain the status quo. But it also raises a deeper question: If leaders aren’t held accountable for their failures, what incentive do they have to improve?
The Broader Implications
This story isn’t just about USC or even higher education—it’s about leadership in any institution. When those at the top fail, the people below pay the price. Students face program cuts, faculty lose trust in their administration, and the institution’s reputation suffers. What’s more, this kind of quiet shuffle erodes transparency and trust. If you’re a student, faculty member, or donor, how can you have confidence in an institution that prioritizes optics over accountability?
A Thoughtful Takeaway
In my opinion, the Garrett saga is a wake-up call. It forces us to ask: What do we expect from our leaders, and how do we hold them accountable? Personally, I think the answer lies in rethinking the structures that enable these failures. Higher salaries don’t guarantee better leadership, and shuffling people around doesn’t solve systemic issues. What we need is a culture of accountability, transparency, and empathy—values that seem increasingly rare in today’s institutions.
As I reflect on this story, I’m reminded of a quote by Peter Drucker: ‘Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.’ In this case, it’s clear that doing the right thing wasn’t the priority. And until that changes, we’ll keep seeing the same patterns repeat—quiet shuffles, frustrated faculty, and institutions that fall short of their potential.
