“Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better." - Harry Truman

A lot has been written about the leadership at Penn State through the recent Sandusky scandal. Questions about who knew what and when, as well as how decisions were made will likely be analyzed for years beyond when the verdict is eventually announced in a courtroom.  

Considering group dynamics and, in practical terms, it appears that the person to lead us through the immediacy of this crisis had to be Rodney Erickson.  

On Nov. 9, when the Board of Trustees and Graham Spanier decided that he could no longer perform the duties as president of the university, they were faced with an impossible decision. Who will be the person to lead the university through this crisis? Who can we ask to take the reins as the university has entered into the darkest period in institution history?  

Not just any Tom, Dick or Harry — or Tina, Diane or Heidi — can step into the role of president and leader of a university.

Penn State is a huge machine. Consider the 19 campuses and six special mission sites (such as Hershey Medical Center and Penn Tech). Consider the 96,519 full-time, part-time, undergraduate, graduate and world campus students. Consider the 41,435 full and part-time faculty and staff. Consider the $4.1 billion annual budget.  (PSU Fact Book).     

Students. Faculty. Alumni. Facilities. Strategic planning. Accreditation. Interface with government. Athletics. Student Affairs. The list goes on and on. While each unit within the university can operate independently, it falls on the president to pull it all together.

In the short term, we needed someone who was familiar with the Penn State system but not too closely related to the immediate crisis situation.

We needed someone who understands how a university works and the mission of staff and faculty toward teaching, research and service.

We needed someone who could help us through the transition and until a national search could be conducted.

Who at Penn State could have taken this on?

As a disclaimer, my position as a non-tenured faculty member at Penn State has not put me in the position of having had any interactions or even an introduction to Dr. Erickson. I have never met the man. I also don’t anticipate that my opinion in this article will gain me any leverage, advantage or promotion in my current job. (In other words, sucking up would have very little impact on my position within the university hierarchy).

This is less about Dr. Erickson as a person but rather an analysis about leadership and group dynamics. Even on the battlefield, the second in command takes over when the No. 1 can no longer do his/her duties.  It’s called transition.

In examining leadership theory, one school of thought is called situational leadership. Researchers in situational leadership have examined the factors that come into play when a leader emerges within a group.

According to researchers Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, factors such as the task or purpose of the group, the environment or system in which the person is leading, characteristics of the group members (i.e. maturity level ) as well as the individual traits of the leader come into play in situational leadership theory. Formerly called the life-cycle theory, in summary, leadership defined by situational theory is like a chemical compound. Who will lead is determined by the many different factors, including the tasks and challenges of the particular situation.  

What and who we needed to lead the university on Nov. 1, 2011 was very different than the leader we needed on Nov. 10, 2011. 

In a more practical sense, when we consider all of the factors at play in this situation, the short list of potential candidates was pretty limited.  

Think about the day-to-day challenges that previous PSU presidents have faced versus those tasks that Dr. Erickson has had to address since Nov. 9.

It’s unimaginable.

No other university and no other university president in history have faced a scandal of this nature or this magnitude. Anyone brave enough to take on this role would be stepping in to face serious crisis management tasks in addition to the skills and expertise needed to make sure the university continues to function on a day-to-day basis.   

While the Sandusky issues are playing out in court, Penn State students are still learning, research is ongoing and outreach is continuing.   

Do the naysayers really think that someone outside of PSU could have been brought in overnight to run the place, manage all the Sandusky scandal PR stuff and maintain the standards for education and research that define Penn State? Who, outside of the system, would want to come in right now and take on the incredible task of trying to bring some semblance of normalcy back to this university?   

Consider the alternatives. How would the overall function of the Penn State organization been impacted by a leadership void?

In a system where it takes almost a year for a search and hire of an assistant professor, it makes sense for a short-term leader to be identified until the crisis is managed, a national search can be conducted and a qualified candidate identified.    

Since he agreed to step into the role of president, I have been impressed with Dr. Erickson’s approachability and his interest in meeting with students, faculty and alumni.

My daughter was in the Sociology 119 class that he visited in the days after the news of the scandal erupted.  She was impressed with his offer to “ask me anything.”  His frequent email updates, video statements and even the town-hall meetings, such that they are, have demonstrated at least an effort to open lines of communication. He has talked about wanting to open records and make information more accessible to people who want it. We may not always like his answers, but we have to respect his willingness to hear the questions.

In a public statement made last week, where his salary and benefit package was also announced, Dr. Erickson has indicated he would be leaving after two years. Transition. He has clearly made it his mission to get us through this crisis and then pass the baton on to the next candidate.

The demands of leadership change as the situation changes. Change is difficult. Change causes uncertainty, anxiety and a longing for the comfort of the status quo. Change takes time. Let’s give the guy a chance.