Introduction
As institutional leaders consider how to fill mission-critical leadership roles on their campuses, there is often a sense of a clear disadvantage of hiring a search firm—there is a financial cost to be paid as the search unfolds, a cost which might not have been budgeted for in advance. This expense is often weighed against the “free” option of “doing the search ourselves.” Within the institution’s leadership structure, there are team members who have done searches before, who understand the institution’s needs first-hand, who could be given this assignment, and thus save the funds that otherwise would be paid to an external search consultant.
The Hidden Costs of Institutionally Led Searches
Unfortunately, the flaw in this argument is that those same team members, if they were not doing the work of the search, would be doing some other important projects/tasks that cannot be easily outsourced, and could be spending their time on other mission-essential work for the institution. By diverting their attention to something that can be outsourced (the search), the institution’s progress toward its other important goals may be delayed by some amount of time.
This hidden cost of keeping search work in-house is often not easily quantified, but that does not make it less significant. There are other “costs,” as well, such as the challenge of providing a competitive pool of potential candidates that reflect the current nuances of these roles within the higher education landscape, and possible delays to the speed of the search, since it is being run by those who do not normally lead searches as their full- time job.
Ultimately, there can be risks in the outcome, too, if careful screening and due diligence practices are not adequately maintained in order to ensure a bias-free hiring decision. External search consultants typically conduct or facilitate social media checks, on-list and off-list referencing, and extensive background checks, and without all of this due diligence, a candidate might be hired who represents risks to an institution that might not be discovered until after their appointment.
The Hidden Benefits of Working with a Search Firm
Engaging a search firm brings several obvious benefits, such as expertise in filling key leadership roles for a variety of similarly-positioned higher education institutions, and the ability to identify a strong pool of candidates that goes well beyond those that respond to institutional ads. Further, most search firms provide a very sophisticated level of risk management, through both anti-bias training for search committees and hiring authorities, as well as careful background screening of finalist candidates as noted above.
Not as obvious, but just as important, is the time that executive search consultants will be able to spend with individual candidates to better understand their background and interests, support the candidate to be well-prepared for the interview process with the institution, and gather important information about what will make the offer compelling should they emerge as the candidate of choice.
It is of course true that individuals from the institution could develop similar connections with individual candidates during an institutionally-led search, but it is unlikely that they will have the time, energy, and expertise to delve into candidates’ backgrounds, hear their spoken and unspoken strengths and gaps, and develop a nuanced understanding of priorities and interests of both the institution and the candidates themselves.
Conclusion
The costs and benefits of these two approaches will need to be considered for each institution, and the decision will reflect the variety of situations in which hiring authorities find themselves. It is always in everyone’s best interest, however, to consider both the visible and hidden costs of a search before making a decision about how to proceed with a process that will have a significant impact on the institution for years to come.
