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. It’s a move that screams damage control more than strategic realignment.
What makes this particularly fascinating is how neatly it sidesteps accountability. Garrett’s leadership was so contentious that 52 faculty members signed a scathing letter criticizing his tenure. Yet, instead of addressing the root issues, the university has effectively rewarded him with a new position—one that conveniently avoids a looming vote of no confidence. Personally, I think this speaks volumes about the priorities of higher education institutions. Are they more concerned with saving face than fostering genuine leadership and accountability?
One thing that immediately stands out is the tone-deafness of Garrett’s response to the crisis. Holding a town hall to address faculty concerns should have been a step toward reconciliation, but it only deepened the rift. Professors described the meeting as a “waste of time,” with one staffer comparing it to a train wreck that no one could stop. If you take a step back and think about it, this isn’t just about poor communication—it’s about a fundamental disconnect between leadership and the people they’re supposed to serve.
What many people don’t realize is how often this kind of shuffle happens in academia and corporate settings. High-paid executives are rarely fired outright; instead, they’re moved to less visible roles or given golden parachutes. It’s a pattern that raises a deeper question: Why are institutions so reluctant to hold leaders accountable? Is it because admitting failure would undermine their own credibility? Or is it because the system is designed to protect those at the top, regardless of their performance?
From my perspective, Garrett’s new role as Special Advisor to the President for Global Strategy and Engagement feels like a consolation prize. The university’s president, Beong-Soo Kim, praised Garrett’s global thinking and geopolitical insights, but let’s be honest—this move is less about leveraging his strengths and more about avoiding a public relations nightmare. What this really suggests is that the university values optics over substance, a trend that’s all too common in modern institutions.
A detail that I find especially interesting is Garrett’s $1.16 million salary. In an era where higher education is grappling with rising tuition costs and budget cuts, such exorbitant compensation packages are hard to justify. It’s not just about the money itself, though—it’s about what it symbolizes. When leaders are paid handsomely but fail to deliver, it erodes trust and morale among faculty and students alike.
If you take a step back and think about it, this story is about more than just one dean’s missteps. It’s a reflection of broader systemic issues in leadership and accountability. Institutions like USC are not just educational bodies; they’re also businesses, and like any business, they prioritize self-preservation. But at what cost? When leaders fail upward, it sends a message that competence and integrity are secondary to maintaining the status quo.
Personally, I think this saga should serve as a wake-up call. Higher education needs to reevaluate how it selects, evaluates, and holds leaders accountable. The quiet shuffle of Geoffrey Garrett isn’t just a USC problem—it’s a symptom of a larger cultural issue. Until we demand transparency and accountability from our institutions, we’ll continue to see leaders fail upward, leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces.
What this really suggests is that the system is broken. But it also offers an opportunity for change. If we’re willing to ask tough questions and demand better from our leaders, maybe—just maybe—we can create a culture where accountability isn’t just a buzzword, but a reality.
In my opinion, the quiet shuffle of Dean Garrett isn’t the end of the story—it’s just the beginning. The real question is: What are we going to do about it?
