Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    University Transformation
Sign In
Advice

Shared Governance Works in Executive Hiring, if We Let It

By Dennis M. Barden June 10, 2018
Shared Governance
Brian Taylor

Consider the following two scenarios: Scenario No. 1: Having sat through the entirety of a search committee’s deliberations, a trustee on the panel seeks to invalidate its work — accusing two other committee members of having a conflict of interest because they are colleagues of an internal candidate who has become one of the two finalists. Those relationships had been discussed openly within the committee but conveyed to the full governing board only after the finalists had been named. The mere accusation compels the board to reject the finalist pool and restart the search from the beginning. The result: considerable disruption and delay, not to mention the damage done to the institution’s reputation in the hiring market.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Consider the following two scenarios: Scenario No. 1: Having sat through the entirety of a search committee’s deliberations, a trustee on the panel seeks to invalidate its work — accusing two other committee members of having a conflict of interest because they are colleagues of an internal candidate who has become one of the two finalists. Those relationships had been discussed openly within the committee but conveyed to the full governing board only after the finalists had been named. The mere accusation compels the board to reject the finalist pool and restart the search from the beginning. The result: considerable disruption and delay, not to mention the damage done to the institution’s reputation in the hiring market.

Scenario No. 2: A search committee chooses four finalists for a senior academic position. Before the final interviews, some faculty members learn that a candidate from their professional circle has not been chosen as a finalist. Multiple members of the faculty threaten to make their displeasure publicly known by disrupting the interviews. When informed about the possibility of protests, the finalists all withdraw, and the favorite of those dissenting faculty members is given the job.

If you’re wondering whether either of those actually happened, the answer is yes. Both did. Unfortunately, such scenarios seem increasingly commonplace today in the hiring of presidents, provosts, and other senior administrators.

Both scenarios represent a breakdown of shared governance: A key constituency has overstepped its role and undermined a widely embraced social contract. In both, the hard work of an officially sanctioned search committee was disrespected and disregarded. And in both the institution did not have the opportunity even to evaluate the abilities and potential of the final candidates.

Executive Search
The Executive Hiring Process
In a series of columns, search consultants write about the ins and outs of administrative recruiting in higher education.
  • Is It Crossing a Line for a Search Consultant to Counsel a Job Candidate?
  • Reputation Management in an Era of Too Much Information
  • Off the Team and Out of a Job

Assuming we all agree (a big assumption, I know, in these days of division and derision) that a search committee is empowered to act on behalf of all of an institution’s constituents, either of those scenarios is pretty shocking.

Seldom do my fellow search consultants and I support a search in which there isn’t some person or constituency unhappy with the composition of the hiring committee. However, it is even rarer for a committee’s work to be summarily discarded by one or more of those constituencies.

Search committees are usually constructed to enfranchise all of the campus groups with a central stake in the hiring decision. Virtually every committee that I have served has worked hard to accommodate the diversity of voices and perspectives on the campus. People on a campus have a social contract with the search committee, assuming that it will perform its work on behalf of the whole as well as the many parts.

As I noted in a column this spring (“Candidacies Killed by a Typo”), faculty members and trustees approach the executive-hiring process from vastly different perspectives. Professors are accustomed to hiring someone who does what they do — i.e., scholarship and teaching — in a buyers’ market. Particularly at the assistant-professor level, this is not so much search as it is selection, and search committees have the dual luxuries of superior knowledge of the job responsibilities on the one hand and a robust candidate pool on the other.

Trustees are generally well accustomed to hiring executive leadership, but they almost never have a frame of reference on building consensus around a hire, particularly from such a diverse group of constituencies, all of which have a significant stake in the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Trust the process” is a mantra for me and my fellow search consultants. It is easier said than done.

H. Thomas Watkins — a former pharmaceutical executive, alumnus, and board member who chaired the presidential search committee at the College of William & Mary in 2017 — is, in many ways, typical of the trustees who lead such efforts. “I had not served on the search committee the last time the university looked for a president, so when this process was explained to me, I really thought it was crazy,” he recalled. “The businesses that I have served in various capacities hire senior executives all the time, and I can tell you that it doesn’t take a committee of 20 and six months of discussion and deliberation. I really couldn’t believe that it would work.

“I kept on hearing, ‘Trust the process. Trust the process,’ but the whole thing just took so long. Decisions that we make in business in a matter of hours or even minutes literally took weeks. Every decision the committee made, and every action we took, received the deepest scrutiny. So I trusted the process. I sat still and listened to the lengthy discussions. I learned to anticipate how the different constituencies in the room were relating to the candidates.”

As the search progressed, Watkins said, “Opinions and attitudes shifted, coalitions changed, and constituent groups expressed opinions not as blocs but as individual contributors to the whole. As the candidate pool narrowed, consensus started to build. By the time our board elected our next president, she had the support of all the constituencies in the room. We didn’t have to come up with a strategy to build buy-in for our choice; it was built during the search process. Most important, the university community could trust in the outcome because the process had been robust and everyone involved performed according to their charge.”

ADVERTISEMENT

And that is how things work when the shared-governance environment has integrity and is honored by all concerned.

That doesn’t always happen, unfortunately. It didn’t happen in the scenarios noted above. In one case a trustee and in the other a faction of the faculty did not respect the integrity of the shared-governance environment as it applies to search committees. As the old saying goes, they took the law into their own hands. As with most examples of vigilante justice, the outcome was compromised, at least in the short term and with at least some of those institutions’ key constituencies.

Shared governance is hard under the best of circumstances. If we agree it’s the optimal way for colleges and universities to be run, however, it is during these dangerous times that shared governance must be most actively defended and most vigorously exercised.

In the context of executive search, communication — and in particular the open sharing of opinions and ideas — is absolutely critical. When search-committee members trust one another, listen to alternate views, and use their input productively, better hiring decisions are made. More important, the outcome of such a search has credibility and support.

ADVERTISEMENT

Even in these challenging times — perhaps especially now — our institutions are best served when all key parties work hard to enfranchise one another in governance. Ray Kroc, who built McDonald’s into one of the world’s most recognizable brands, famously opined that “None of us is as good as all of us.” Even notwithstanding the self-confidence of trustees, faculty members, students, administrators, alumni, and all the other sectors that have a stake in our colleges and universities, that statement proves itself true in every search that we do.

Dennis M. Barden is a senior partner with the executive search firm Witt/Kieffer. He works extensively with boards, senior institutional leaders, and search committees at both public and private institutions and has written extensively on the administrative search process in higher education.

Read other items in The Executive Hiring Process.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Dennis M. Barden
Dennis M. Barden is a senior partner with the executive-search firm WittKieffer. He works extensively with boards, senior institutional leaders, and search committees at both public and private institutions, and contributes to The Chronicle’s series on the executive-hiring process.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Black and white photo of the Morrill Hall building on the University of Minnesota campus with red covering one side.
Finance & operations
U. of Minnesota Tries to Soften the Blow of Tuition Hikes, Budget Cuts With Faculty Benefits
Photo illustration showing a figurine of a football player with a large price tag on it.
Athletics
Loans, Fees, and TV Money: Where Colleges Are Finding the Funds to Pay Athletes
Photo illustration of a donation jar turned on it's side, with coins spilling out.
Access & Affordability
Congressional Republicans Want to End Grad PLUS Loans. How Might It Affect Your Campus?
Florida Commissioner of Education Manny Diaz, Jr. delivers remarks during the State Board of Education meeting at Winter Park High School, Wednesday, March 27, 2024.
Executive Privilege
In Florida, University Presidents’ Pay Goes Up. Is Politics to Blame?

From The Review

Photo-based illustration of a tentacle holding a microscope
The Review | Essay
In Defense of ‘Silly’ Science
By Carly Anne York
Illustration showing a graduate's hand holding a college diploma and another hand but a vote into a ballot box
The Review | Essay
Civics Education Is Back. It Shouldn’t Belong to Conservatives.
By Timothy Messer-Kruse
Photo-based illustration of a hedges shaped like dollar signs in various degrees of having been over-trimmed by a shadowed Donald Trump figure carrying hedge trimmers.
The Review | Essay
What Will Be Left of Higher Ed in Four Years?
By Brendan Cantwell

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: A Global Leadership Perspective
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin