A few years ago the president of a large public university in the United States stepped down after two years in the job. The first unusual thing about that was the timing…that is a job that most people keep longer, and he even suggested he had intended to stay in it for at least four years. The second thing about it that caught my attention was that the university president was a retired four-star general from the US military. Going from a highly regimented, intensely bureaucratic organization like the military, to a much more creative, idea-driven place like a university, is quite a challenge, one that a lot of folks simply are not up to.

He sent a letter around explaining his reasons for leaving, but reading between the lines suggests a few more reasons than what he offered.

Now that the smoke has settled, I keep getting asked the question “Why are you leaving”? Nobody asked me to leave; we have arguably had one of the best years in the school’s history, and there’s plenty more to do. One of the main reasons I have chosen to move on is the success we have had over the last two years – and the inevitable and predictable ache that change has caused. I thought it would take four years to get where we wanted to be in most areas. We did it in two years.

What he is saying is that he is leaving because he finished what he set out to do. But I have spoken with some professors from that school and they suggest a different reason. They told me that in many ways he was still acting like he was a general who is surrounded by people that are legally required to follow his orders, instead of like a real leader who had to motivate people but not get in the way of their work. This caused some clashes between the faculty and the school administration, and it is a lot easier to replace one president than to replace a bunch of professors.

But change is hard – and somebody has to initiate it and somebody had to take the heat for it. That’s me. This university needed a hard turn. Now it’s time for somebody else to make the next round of changes and set a new standard.

Yes, change can be hard, but it does not have to be. With a good leader who is open about what he is doing and who communicates that down the line, the difficulty of change can be managed. However, generals do not have to explain what they do, so maybe he’s not used to that.

We needed a process to quantify and define our research goals and the strategy to reach those goals.

Hmmmmm…yes, you need defined goals, but do they HAVE to be quantified? He seems to be focusing specifically on measures of performance you can count, rather than on developing measures of performance that could be either objective or subjective. That is a very military attitude — how far did the troops advance today, how many push ups can you do — that does not necessarily fit a more creative environment where less stringent metrics might be more appropriate.

No doubt there is more to do…But it’s time for someone else to move us forward. It only took two years – vice four – to achieve what I set as goals for myself.

“what I set as goals for MYSELF” Interesting. He seems to be focusing on his own progress, rather than on the university’s. When it comes to moving ahead as an individual — say, working your way up the ranks to general — maybe you need to focus on your own performance, and in a bureaucracy with standardized procedures it is easy enough to measure that progress.

Going from the military to the civilian world is a real shock, so moving from a senior position like he had to one where you actually have to play well with others must be incredibly difficult. This may be why you do not see many retired generals being successful in American politics, given all the compromise and negotiating that must be done there. By the same token, walking into a creative environment like a university without adapting your style based on your new employees simply will not work.

Don’t misunderstand me…I have worked with many senior generals and, as a group, I respect them highly. But when it comes to being civilian leaders, many of them have trouble making the transition. One general I knew in the 1990s retired and went on to be president of a railroad. He left that job in part because he still insisted on being called “General” while the people around him preferred to call him “John.” Another retired four-star went on to run a major non-profit group and finally left because of clashes with the board, based somewhat on his expectation that when he said he wanted something done, it would automatically get done with no questions.

It is important that, when you step in as a leader in a new organization, you get the lay of the land and figure out what leadership style will work there. It needs to be something you are comfortable with AND that is appropriate for the situation. Do not expect that something that worked in your old job will also work here…after all, this is a different place. Going from a rigid, bureaucratic organization to a creative one is going to require some extra effort on your part to fit in. If you cannot do that, if you cannot change your style, then you’re better off not coming over in the first place.