How new deans build momentum in the first year 

Many new deans begin with decisions already in motion.

They step into budget questions, program reviews, faculty trust concerns, advancement expectations, AI debates, leadership vacancies, and pressure from central administration, state policy, or both.

That reality shaped much of the conversation at EAB’s recent New Deans Intensive. Across cohort discussions and program feedback, participants returned to practical application: how to prioritize live issues, define transparency, learn from sitting deans, and leave with usable next steps.

Taken together, the discussions pointed to a critical first-year question:

What should I move first, and how do I move it without spending trust faster than I can build it?

That question looked different across the group. Some deans were serving with interim authority. Some had arrived from outside the institution and were learning the culture in real time. Some had been promoted from within and were adjusting to how faculty relationships change once a colleague becomes the final decision-maker. Others were leading through mergers, budget reductions, state policy shifts, or program decisions that had been waiting for years.

A first-year agenda becomes more manageable when it starts with a shorter list. Here are five places to begin.

1. Make transparency concrete

Transparency came up often, and for good reason. In conversations about budget, hiring, program changes, shared governance, and advancement, ambiguity about process can create as much frustration as a lack of information.

A dean can share frequent updates and still leave people unclear about what happens next. Faculty may hear “we are listening” and assume the decision is still open. Chairs may hear “we need input” and assume the timeline is flexible. Staff may hear “we are reviewing options” and assume no decision has been made.

Transparency is most useful when people understand what kind of decision is actually in front of them.

What is open for input? What has already been constrained by budget, policy, accreditation, timing, or central administration? Who needs to be involved? When does the college need to move? Where will the final decision sit?

That level of clarity matters most when the dean is navigating pressures that did not originate inside the college. A visible process helps faculty, chairs, staff, and students understand how the work will move from conversation to action.

2. Choose one early proof point

First-year deans often feel pressure to prove themselves quickly, especially when they are interim, external, or stepping into a college with visible challenges. The strongest early moves are often the ones that show the college the dean is paying attention.

That might mean clarifying a process that has been confusing for years. It might mean giving chairs a better way to raise concerns. It might mean addressing a faculty support issue that is small in cost but meaningful in signal. It might mean moving one delayed decision forward instead of trying to tackle the full portfolio at once.

The goal is to choose an issue that can teach the college something about how decisions will work under new leadership.

In the first year, people are watching for patterns. Does the dean listen? Does the dean follow through? Does the dean name constraints clearly? Does the dean bring people in at the right moment? Does the dean know when a conversation has gone as far as it can go? One clear move can answer those questions better than a long strategic memo.

3. Put structure around portfolio review before it becomes a cuts conversation

Program and portfolio questions are showing up quickly in many first-year agendas. Some deans are seeing enrollment concentrate in fewer programs. Some are responding to state-level scrutiny. Some are working through budget reductions or mergers. Others are trying to grow in areas where student demand, workforce need, and institutional mission align.

Portfolio review can turn political quickly when it opens with the language of cuts. Faculty hear threat before they hear purpose, and the conversation hardens.

Deans can lower the temperature by making clear that review comes before any conclusion.

Which programs are growing? Which are strategically important but vulnerable? Which need revitalization? Which have unclear demand, unclear outcomes, or unclear fit? Which may no longer be sustainable in their current form?

For many programs, the first useful question is what it would take to make the program stronger and more competitive. That might mean clearer positioning, updated curriculum, stronger career pathways, more applied learning, better student-facing language, or deeper employer connection.

Other reviews may lead to consolidation, restructuring, or a more difficult decision. Even then, the process matters. Faculty need to see that decisions are grounded in evidence. Chairs need enough structure to participate productively. Students need clarity about what changes mean for them.

The portfolio a dean inherits may look very different from the portfolio the college needs five years from now. Getting from one to the other requires a process people can understand, even when the conclusion is hard.

4. Make the college’s value easier to explain

First-year deans also inherit the college’s story.

That story matters to students and families trying to understand the connection between academic programs, skills, experiences, and future opportunities. It matters to donors who want to know what their investment will make possible. It matters to employers and community partners looking for clearer points of connection. It also matters internally, where colleges are being asked to show how their work advances the larger institutional mission.

In many colleges, the evidence exists before the story does.

Programs often describe what they teach instead of what students gain. Colleges talk about mission without always making the impact concrete. Advancement conversations can move faster than the dean’s own clarity about what the college is ready to fundraise around.

That can make advancement feel especially murky for new deans. What belongs to the dean? What belongs to central advancement? How much time should be spent with donors? Which ideas are ready to share externally? How does the college move beyond scholarships and annual giving toward larger, more strategic investments?

That work starts with translation.

What problems are faculty solving? What do students experience? Where do graduates go? What would new investment actually change?

A stronger value story usually comes from translating the college’s existing work, rather than inventing a new identity. The work already happening inside the college has to be understandable to the people being asked to support it.

5. Bring AI into the dean’s leadership agenda

AI surfaced throughout New Deans Intensive as a leadership and faculty-culture issue.

Faculty are in different places. Some want to keep AI out of the classroom. Others see avoidance as a disservice to students. Some deans are also fielding questions about how their colleges are preparing students for an AI-influenced world.

That puts the dean in a difficult position. Waiting for full consensus can mean waiting too long. Moving too quickly can create resistance or confusion.

The better move is to give the conversation structure.

What does responsible AI use look like in this discipline? How should assessment change? Where does AI strengthen learning, and where does it weaken it? What should every student understand? What belongs at the department level, and what needs a college-wide approach?

Deans can create a productive starting point even without having every answer. They can bring the right faculty into the conversation, name the questions that need resolution, and help the college move from anxiety to practical experimentation.

AI is already touching curriculum, assessment, research, student readiness, and public trust. Leaving it to informal side conversations will leave too much to chance.

Focus the first 90 days

The first 90 days are more productive when the priority list is short.

For a new dean, that may mean:

• Name one delayed decision and define the process.
• Choose one program or program cluster for deeper review.
• Clarify one advancement priority the college is ready to own.
• Convene one structured conversation on AI.
• Make one visible investment that signals how faculty and chairs will be supported through change.

Those moves will not resolve every inherited issue. They can establish a pattern.

The first year will always involve listening, learning, and relationship-building. It also has to create movement. New deans build credibility when they show the college how priorities will be set, how tradeoffs will be handled, and how decisions will move from discussion to action.

Most deans will have a long list. The useful one is shorter.

How can we help?

For many new deans, the challenge is not identifying priorities—it’s building the structure, alignment, and momentum to move them forward. EAB’s Deans Advisory Services supports academic leaders through that work.

Laura Ladi

Senior Director, Partner Development

Read Bio

• Laura Ladi's LinkedIn page