I understand the concept of multiple bosses. I worked for a smaller company (100+ employees) and had, essentially 2 bosses. The first was my direct supervisor and the second was the CEO. In a smaller company, the CEO was more hands on. But, having worked for 3 CEO's, 2 of them delegated and the 3rd directed. We were much more effective under the delegators.
But, quite obviously, ISU is a much different animal. Huge Organization. The CEO has department heads to run things, who in turn have sub-heads to manage the day-to-day operations at the ground-level. Typically, at ISU, the Athletic Department has been a sub-set of one of the Department Heads and the AD was in charge. There was a layer between the AD and the CEO (President). That changed under Geoffrey. In my opinion, he viewed the Athletic Department as at least a co-equal to the Colleges and that the AD was directly responsible to him. I am not sure the "Flow-Chart " changed, but the relationship did and the Athletic Department became more visible as a functioning part of the University as opposed to a relatively outside entity affiliated with the University.
In my opinion, that is good and long overdue. It is the first time, in my memory, that the University became truly vested in the success of the Athletic Department. We are a long ways behind, but for the first time in my life, we are actually running in the race.
Now, under Leath, we see this continued. But we also are seeing a different management style. He has a vision for the University, that some will like and some will question, and sees the Athletic Department as an important unit in the development of that vision. But his style is different from Geoffrey. He is much more visible and is the dominant force among college presidents in Iowa. That has seldom, if ever, happened. But that style is much more visibly hands on. That can lead to problems, specifically in the Athletic Department, which has been used to more autonomy. I see some problems with the approach that need to be ironed out.
But, quite obviously, ISU is a much different animal. Huge Organization. The CEO has department heads to run things, who in turn have sub-heads to manage the day-to-day operations at the ground-level. Typically, at ISU, the Athletic Department has been a sub-set of one of the Department Heads and the AD was in charge. There was a layer between the AD and the CEO (President). That changed under Geoffrey. In my opinion, he viewed the Athletic Department as at least a co-equal to the Colleges and that the AD was directly responsible to him. I am not sure the "Flow-Chart " changed, but the relationship did and the Athletic Department became more visible as a functioning part of the University as opposed to a relatively outside entity affiliated with the University.
In my opinion, that is good and long overdue. It is the first time, in my memory, that the University became truly vested in the success of the Athletic Department. We are a long ways behind, but for the first time in my life, we are actually running in the race.
Now, under Leath, we see this continued. But we also are seeing a different management style. He has a vision for the University, that some will like and some will question, and sees the Athletic Department as an important unit in the development of that vision. But his style is different from Geoffrey. He is much more visible and is the dominant force among college presidents in Iowa. That has seldom, if ever, happened. But that style is much more visibly hands on. That can lead to problems, specifically in the Athletic Department, which has been used to more autonomy. I see some problems with the approach that need to be ironed out.
- His approach to pay (incentive laden) is not the norm among college sports - depending on how much of the compensation package is based on incentives. Fred had a fairly heavy incentive laden package, but still drew 2.2 million in base pay. But if you have a candidate that is drawing 1.5 to 2 million guaranteed, it is going to be harder to draw them away, unless the guaranteed amount is more than they are guaranteed currently. But the biggest issue, for me, is the fact that he chose to comment on it publicly and emphatically.
- Which leads to comment number 2, is he at odds with the Athletic Director? JP said ISU does not comment on searches until there is an announcement of a hire. Leath then comments on the search and emphasizes, among other things, the performance based incentives of any potential compensation package. That creates the image, real or not, that there is at least some disagreement within the University on this coaching search and the process.
- This leads to speculation that Leath is more than a hands-on CEO. He is speculated to be a micro-manager. I don't know about that. It would take someone with real day-to-day insight into the workings of ISU to evaluate that. But it, at a minimum, creates an impression that he is directing the search process. That is different than being a participant. That impression may or may not be fair or accurate, but when you see comments that were made regarding CPR last fall, it gives the appearance that, at a minimum, he is publicly upping the ante on Jamie Pollard.
- One thing to keep in mind is that being the President of a large public University is all about politics. Internal politics with the faculty Senate, internal politics with the BOR, informal politics with the press and public, and real politics with the governing agencies. Geoffrey played those politics in a less public manner. Leath's style is much more public, visible and out in front.
