Howard E. Gardner ’65 submitted this op-ed on January 29, 2007. He appended Faust’s name and the final paragraph after today’s news reporting.

With the nomination of Drew Gilpin Faust as the 28th president of Harvard University, the lengthy, largely secretive process has come to at an end. Whatever one thought of the Summers era and its ending, those who love Harvard are grateful to interim President Derek C. Bok for his calm, steady, and productive stewardship. Now that the Faust era will shortly begin, it is timely to reflect on the opportunities and challenges that confront our new president. As a student of leadership, who has had the opportunity to observe universities, and especially Harvard, over the decades, I would like to offer my thoughts from three, increasingly focused perspectives.

First, in considering any newly designated executive, it helps to consider leadership in general. A leader is a person, usually in an assigned role, who is expected to provide direction for an organization or polity. At a minimum, a leader must be able to manage her institution, making sure that its constituent entities function well and synergistically; if management is not the leader’s strong card, she must be able to select strong managers, work with them, and give them considerable autonomy.

However, certain responsibilities cannot be delegated, such as the formulation of the mission (or, at times, the missions) of the organization, its clear articulation, strategies needed to realize the mission, and the continuing monitoring of progress. In my studies, I have been impressed by those leaders—ranging from Martin Luther King Jr. to Margaret Thatcher—who create a powerful story about their organization, engage members through that evocative vision, help members find meaning in pursuit of its achievement, and guide the realization of that master narrative. The most effective leaders personally embody these narratives. In the current lingo, they “walk the talk.”

Second, because universities are a special kind of organization, they require distinctive forms of leadership. Above all, universities are—or should be—devoted to educational goals, and their success should be judged particularly in terms of the achievement of those goals: the education of students, the productivity of faculty, the contribution of research to the broader society. Other apparent goals—raising huge sums of money, having successful athletic teams, and moving up in the U.S. News and World Report rankings—should never be allowed to trump the fundamental educational mission.

A university leader faces the additional challenges that accompany the not-for-profit, voluntary nature of a university. The central members of such an institution—the senior faculty—are tenured for life. In the long run, their job security insulates them from motivation by fear, fiat, fist, or fury, and they remain free to move should they become dissatisfied with their leader. A shrewd observer once quipped that the president of the university must be able to “listen charismatically.” This does not mean that the president must always say yes, nor is she precluded from taking strong and even controversial stands. But she must maintain the support of her major constituencies—faculty, students, alumni, governing boards—and this challenge requires confidence, patience, humility, and wisdom.

Finally, the third perspective, leadership for Harvard in the 21st century: Harvard stands out among other major American universities because it is the oldest, wealthiest, and most decentralized. I once remarked to a new Harvard president, “You have only two powers—the ability to select deans, and the bully pulpit. And you have the bully pulpit because Harvard may or may not be the greatest university in America, but it is certainly the greatest in the world. And the world will be watching what you say and do.”

For 30 years, the leadership of Harvard has created a narrative of greater integration among the disparate faculties, and for a decade, the move to Allston has been a privileged vehicle for realizing this trend. But the devil remains in the details, and the new president will have to maintain and celebrate Harvard’s traditional strengths while still continuing and even accelerating these integrating presses. More so than any other university’s president, Harvard’s president must serve as both a trust officer and an agent of constructive change.

At this moment in Harvard’s history, the recent past remains on people’s minds. The new president cannot dwell on the Summers regime nor can she afford to ignore its lessons—manifold and controversial as they may be. President-designate Faust must build on her impressive achievements in her earlier roles and on her reputation as a person who is civil, fair-minded, and of unquestioned integrity. At the same time, she must constantly keep in mind that Harvard University is neither The University of Pennsylvania nor Radcliffe and that serving as President is not the same as serving as professor, department chair, or dean.

And this brings me to the final lesson leadership: Leaders cannot achieve success alone. As a famous general once said, “Ah, I am their leader, I really had to follow them.” All of us who care about the institution should make their contribution to the Faust presidency, and, in that sense, members and followers can join the leadership team.

Howard E. Gardner ’65 is Hobbs Professor of Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He has been at Harvard as a student, researcher, and faculty member for 46 years.