The issue of openness in the presidential-search process has perhaps never had a higher profile than during this past academic year. In two fully public searches under way (as of this writing) at universities in Florida and Nebraska, powerful political figures have made known their candidacies. In at least one of those cases, that may well have compromised the institution’s ability to attract other highly qualified candidates. Elsewhere, search committees and boards, in an effort to attract top candidates, have closely guarded the confidentiality of finalists—a practice considered by many to be contrary to academic tradition.
As search consultants, we face this issue repeatedly with our clients. In a presidential search we supported last year, two of the three finalists were sitting college presidents, and more than 10 other sitting presidents had been in the initial candidate pool. We cannot tell you their names because the search committee kept them private. The sitting presidents told us candidly and from the outset that they would never agree to be in the pool unless they could do so without risk of public exposure. That search committee was very pleased to have such an experienced pool of candidates to choose from, and one of the two sitting presidents won the job.
Whenever we and our fellow consultants start a presidential-search process these days, we confront this question early on: How will the finalists be interviewed, publicly or privately?
With either choice, we always tell the search committee that it must be as transparent as possible about the process itself—giving regular updates, stating clearly how the process will proceed, clarifying what the institution is seeking in a candidate. There are many aspects of a search that make it “public” or “private.” In this column we are focused solely on how the finalists will be interviewed and whether or not their names will be revealed, because those two matters are such a point of contention. Faculty members on the search committee, in particular, will ask, “What would lead us to contemplate a private process that seems so contrary to our culture of shared governance and full transparency?”
Our advice to search committees is that they conduct a careful cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to interview the finalists on the campus, and thus make their identities known, or to keep their names confidential. There are significant advantages and disadvantages to both approaches that should be laid out for the committee’s consideration. Once a decision is made—and it should be done early on in the search—the committee should be open about the approach it’s taking and the reasoning behind it.
So first, the case for a traditional public search: Because virtually all faculty and many administrative searches employ a very public process for interviewing finalists on the campus, the natural expectation is that presidential searches will follow that model. A public process is more in keeping with campus expectations. Constituent satisfaction that the search has been consonant with the culture of the institution leads to buy-in with the result—and that buy-in can be very important to the success of a new president.
For candidates, too, there are advantages to a public search. Rather than meet in some generic hotel room, they can interact on the campus with key stakeholders and gauge whether they are a good fit with the institution’s culture and people.
There are, however, costs to openness, and, increasingly, institutions that may legally do so (generally, private colleges and universities) are deciding not to vet their presidential finalists in a fully public way. What are those costs?
Imagine being a sitting president with a successful track record. You feel ready for another challenge and wish to explore a presidency elsewhere. But if you become a finalist in a public search, you would be exposed as someone looking to move, risking long-nurtured relationships on your home campus with your board, faculty, donors, alumni, and others. You may or may not get the job. Either way, people back home will question your commitment and loyalty. In fact, we’ve seen sitting presidents lose their positions because they were discovered to have been a finalist in another presidential search.
The main advantage of an entirely private search is that the committee has an easier time creating a large pool of top-quality candidates—not only more of them but more of the very senior and sought-after people who are not necessarily looking to move but are willing to participate—quietly. The key disadvantage is the risk of widespread distrust on the campus of the process and, thus, of the newly selected leader.
In these disruptive and challenging times for higher education, institutions are increasingly seeking experienced leaders. At least in part for that reason, the average age of a college president has risen to 61. To recruit sitting presidents or other senior leaders (particularly those in finance) who are successful and satisfied in their current positions, a search committee will almost certainly need to guarantee confidentiality. Sitting presidents especially will almost never agree to participate in a search if the finalist interviews will be public.
So what is the best practice?
As usual, it depends. In our role supporting search committees charged with making these difficult calls, we regularly hear it said that any candidates who want the institution’s presidency should be willing to show up publicly and make their case. Indeed, every search has some participants willing to do just that. If those candidates are the best of the lot, holding a public final vetting is an easy choice. A search committee should hold open interviews if it has excellent finalists who are willing and able to participate in public interviews without jeopardizing their careers.
But what if they are not the best of the lot? What if one or more of the best candidates would rather withdraw than jeopardize the trust of their home institution?
In that increasingly common scenario, search committees and trustees are choosing to accommodate the candidates, and thereby keep them in the process.
And that is why we are seeing more and more institutions turn to a “hybrid” search process. The hybrid model is a confidential process that nonetheless expands the number of people involved. Additional representatives of the faculty, student body, administration, and board of trustees interact with the finalists, with commitments from all involved to keep the candidates’ identities confidential during—and after—the search. Sometimes, candidates will even make a private, under-the-radar campus tour to experience the place.
On each campus, the cost-benefit analysis will add up differently. But it’s a fact that more and more search committees have decided to conduct private or hybrid processes in the last few years. The allure of attracting successful, experienced leaders to the pool, given the daunting challenges facing higher education, seems to tip the scale. Whatever the board’s and the search committee’s decision, being open and clear about their chosen path is critical for the success of the search and central to the reception the new president will receive upon arrival.
