> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Advice
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Sorry, Headhunters, but the Healthiest Presidential Searches Are Open

By  Sam Glick and 
Kevin Dettmar
July 2, 2019
Sorry-Headhunters
Getty Images

A decade ago, members of a campus search committee pretty well knew the game plan for picking a president. Hire a search firm to help develop the applicant pool. Screen the applications and conduct a round of off-campus, “airport” interviews with promising candidates. Invite a shortlist of three or four finalists to the campus for daylong interviews. And finally, recommend someone (or present a ranking) to the full Board of Trustees.

But at some point in the last decade — in the time since 2003, when our institution, Pomona College, hired its ninth president, and 2016, when we began a search for his successor — an important step in that process had changed radically across higher education. So radically, in fact, that it’s just gone.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

A decade ago, members of a campus search committee pretty well knew the game plan for picking a president. Hire a search firm to help develop the applicant pool. Screen the applications and conduct a round of off-campus, “airport” interviews with promising candidates. Invite a shortlist of three or four finalists to the campus for daylong interviews. And finally, recommend someone (or present a ranking) to the full Board of Trustees.

But at some point in the last decade — in the time since 2003, when our institution, Pomona College, hired its ninth president, and 2016, when we began a search for his successor — an important step in that process had changed radically across higher education. So radically, in fact, that it’s just gone.

Increasingly, institutions of higher education select a president without the candidates ever having met with any faculty members, students, and staff members beyond the few who sit on the search committee. In 2003 it would have flown in the face of convention to argue that the identities of finalists should be kept confidential. Today, however, the default setting of most presidential searches seems to be “closed.”

And while a closed process conveys obvious benefits for finalists — and, arguably, collateral benefits for search firms — we believe it’s a very bad way to hire leaders for colleges and universities.

ADVERTISEMENT

In his recent commentary, “Sorry, Professors, but Presidential Searches Should Be Secret,” Matthew Tzuker goes to great lengths to defend a foregone conclusion. He “revisits” all of his arguments against open searches only to discover … that he was right all along. But his arguments miss the point. By focusing on his own professional process, Tzuker loses sight of what presidential searches really represent.

Tzuker insists that the choice of an open or closed search rests with boards (or more properly, the search committees empaneled by boards), yet he goes on to blame faculty members for insisting on open searches, accusing them of mistrusting their colleagues on the search committee and holding an antiquated view of how academic institutions should be run.

In positioning the choice of open versus closed as one of risky public spectacle versus sensible hiring process, Tzuker reduces a presidential search to nothing more than a series of job interviews. Yet it is much, much more.

Undoubtedly, closed searches are easier, and seemingly lower risk:

  • The search committee doesn’t risk losing candidates.
  • The candidates don’t risk reputational damage.
  • And the search firm doesn’t risk an uncontrolled process, or damaging its relationships with candidates by repeatedly exposing them as “on the market.” The risk mitigation in all of those instances, however, is illusory. In the end, the biggest risk to the campus, the candidate, and the search firm is not a breach of confidentiality, but rather, a failed presidency owing to a bad fit.

Our recent leadership search at Pomona turned into a hybrid. While our previous presidential searches had been entirely public, at the outset of this endeavor we agreed on a different approach: Candidates would be told that (1) the initial stages of the search would be conducted in confidence and (2) the committee had not yet decided whether or not the final campus interviews would be open to faculty, students, staff, and alumni. If a candidate had concerns about confidentiality, they could drop out at any stage of the process.

ADVERTISEMENT

By the time we had to make a decision, the search committee agreed that an open process was the only mechanism consistent with the values of our institution. It was a conclusion that emerged quite organically. Three highly qualified finalists came to the campus, and met in town-hall meetings that were open to all interested faculty members, trustees, staff employees, alumni, and even students but closed to the news media (to protect the candidates from blowback at their home institutions).

The conversations that ensued — substantive, existential conversations about what a liberal-arts education should be — both reflected and subsequently helped to shape our culture. We asked everyone to respect the risk these candidates were taking by not publicizing their visits via email or social media, and to refrain from conducting their own “reference checks.” And despite literally hundreds of people meeting our three candidates, we heard not a single report of a leak. We respected our community, and they respected our candidates in turn.

We write this having worked with a terrific search firm, Spencer Stuart. Without pushing too hard, and without scaremongering, our consultants did raise the concern that an open search might put off some desirable candidates. And maybe it did — we will never know. But as a result of the open town halls, our final candidates proved that they thought the opportunity to lead our college was worth the risk of their interest in the job becoming public. They had good-enough relationships with their current boards and presidents to share that they were being considered for a college presidency.

Once informed of our decision to hold open town-hall meetings, none of the finalists chose to leave the search. We didn’t “lose” our best candidate: Reader, we hired her.

ADVERTISEMENT

In asking presidential finalists to participate in open meetings, we were certainly asking them to risk something — it was a big request. But they weren’t the only ones making sacrifices. If we were asking for something out of the ordinary from our candidates, we were willing to give of ourselves in return: Before inviting any finalists to campus, we flew out small groups of search-committee members for individual conversations with a long list of nearly two dozen candidates. We invested time not only in getting to know them, but in helping them get to know our institution in the comfort of their own homes and offices.

We did our best to help them experience our values from their very first interactions with us. As a result, when we extended invitations to the campus, they already understood why.

At the end of his essay, Tzuker suggests that closed searches — which he insists on calling “confidential” searches, even as he acknowledges that such legerdemain is essentially “just marketing” — build confidence in the candidate selected. While he’s got the etymology right, we think he’s got the psychology completely wrong.

Presidential searches constitute a moment in the life of an institution in which confidence is at a premium. Whether the departing president is leaving after a long and successful tenure or a short and tempestuous one, the institution — its students, faculty, staff, administration, alumni, and yes, trustees — are anxious about what the future will hold. And true confidence is restored by an open search.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rather than insisting on “transparency,” Tzuker argues, professors should “have some degree of confidence in parties other than themselves to make a good choice.” We can’t speak to whether the entire campus community had confidence in us as their representatives on the search committee (though the members were all elected by their peers). But they would have had every right to question our decision-making if we had dared to make an appointment as important as president without gathering plenty of data on how they felt about their interactions with the candidates.

We concede that this is perhaps more important in a small liberal-arts college like ours than it might be at a large research university: Professors here prize their close working relationship with the president (whereas I, Kevin, literally never met the presidents of the two research institutions where I taught previously for 17 years).

Maybe our presidential-search process won’t work for every institution. Yet there are lessons in it that we believe are broadly applicable. Search committees must design processes that reflect their values, put their shoulders to the wheel in vetting candidates, and resist the urge just to do what’s “industry standard.” They must acknowledge the hard reality that one-on-one or small-group interviews are poor indicators of a candidate’s future performance, and create opportunities to see the candidates in action — including, yes, in unstructured interactions with various campus groups.

With increasingly fractured campus cultures and declining presidential tenures, clearly colleges can do better in picking leaders — including by embracing a search process that is at least partially open.

Kevin Dettmar is a professor of English at Pomona College. Sam Glick is chair of the college’s Board of Trustees.

ADVERTISEMENT

A version of this article appeared in the August 2, 2019, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Leadership & Governance
Kevin Dettmar
Kevin Dettmar is W.M. Keck professor of English and director of the Humanities Studio at Pomona College. His latest book, published in September 2022, is How to Chair a Department. He also writes The Chronicle’s Ask the Chair advice column. More information about chairing is available at his website, kdettmar.com. Send your questions on any aspect of becoming or serving as chair to his email, Facebook, or Twitter.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin