By Jamie Ferrare and Theodore Marchese
Trusteeship, September/October 2010
Few board decisions are more important than selecting a new president or chancellor. Done correctly, the appointment of a new CEO impacts positively on the institution’s health and future success.
Before launching a presidential search, the board and search committee should analyze the institution’s mission and goals, and thoroughly review the institution’s financial health, the relevance and strength of academic program and curriculum offerings, and the quality and strength of its personnel.
A well-run search can be an occasion for community renewal and partnership between the board and campus, as well as an opportunity to elevate expectations about an institution’s future.
As search consultants, both of us have seen boards, confronted with the need to find a new president, veer off in mistaken directions -- sometimes diametrically opposed mistaken directions. We have seen boards that turn the whole matter over to a search committee, only to find at the end that the candidates brought forward weren’t the kind the trustees had in mind. We have also seen boards that retreat into themselves and come up with the presidents they want, only to find their choices frustrated or rejected by important constituencies. Both types of outcomes -- having to start a new search or appointing someone unwanted or likely to fail -- are ones every board wants to avoid. Care and thought beforehand are the remedies.
What is the right amount of board involvement in a presidential search and how much responsibility should the board delegate to a search committee? Can we agree that there are few decisions a board makes that are more important than the selection of a new president or chancellor? And can we also agree that, if done correctly, the appointment of a new chief executive can have a positive impact on the health and future success of the institution? The point of an upcoming search is to found a successful next presidency, and how the search is done can be important to that success.
In academic life (as in law firms, medical practices, engineering, and architec- ture partnerships), the "consent of the led" can be important to a new leader’s effectiveness, which implies consultation and listening by everyone involved. However, unlike other groups of professionals, all parties should know that in higher education, the naming of a president rests entirely with the board.
When a board of trustees assumes the responsibility of launching a presidential search, among the first steps prior to the actual search should be a review of the institution’s mission statement, approved goals, and the current strategic plan. This step is often overlooked, but it can, in fact, provide a great deal of information for the board and search committee and lead to important conversations about direction, priorities, and, ultimately, the attributes sought in the next president. The full board should set aside time for a thoughtful, extended discussion of what the college or university needs from its president over the next three to five years. From that discussion, supplemented by "town meetings" or listening sessions involving a wide range of the institution’s constituencies, should emerge the "preferred qualifications" that will guide the process and assist in the recruitment, screening, and ultimate appointment.
At the same time, the board should decide its role in the search process and answer a few key questions: Will it charge a search committee to conduct the search and, if so, how many board members will sit on the committee and what other stakeholders will serve? Throughout the search, how often will the committee provide the board with updates? How will confidentiality be maintained and guaranteed? And following vetting of the final candidates and the interview process, will the search committee present a ranked or unranked list of candidates to the board?
Answering these questions prior to the beginning of a presidential search will clarify the role of the board for all constituents. It will also ensure that the full board will be engaged in the process as well as in determining the characteristics and attributes sought in the next president and in helping the search committee understand what is expected.
As the search committee begins its work, a great deal of attention is focused on a strategy for recruiting outstanding candidates to the pool. this can be a dangerous time in a search, as the board and search committee may be tempted or "wowed" by the "name candidate" or a candidate from the more highly visible institution down the road. While some of those candidates may be ready to lead, many are not prepared for the institution’s specific challenges or do not fully grasp its distinctive culture.
That is why we recommend, in addition to "town meetings" and the analysis of mission and goals, that the board and search committee commit themselves to a thorough review of the institution’s financial health, the relevance and strength of academic program and curriculum offerings, and the quality and strength of its personnel. Thinking about what the college or university needs next from its president -- and developing a preliminary statement of preferred qualifications -- can provide the search committee, and the search consultant, if one is used, with important information to help focus the search and recruit the most appropriate candidates.
Once drafted and approved by the search committee, this profile or prospectus, outlining the priorities of leadership and preferred attributes for the next president, will be disseminated to a network of potential nominators, prospective candidates, and others who may have interest in the search. Typically, it will also be posted on the college or university Web site and the Web site of the search firm, if one is used. It becomes, in essence, the lead document in the recruitment process and can provide nominators and prospective candidates with an entry-level primer about the institution and its leadership needs. In addition, the profile will guide the committee as it reviews each candidate's application materials and will help identify a short list of applicants for more in-depth screening and interviews.
The board's executive committee should oversee development of a "transition plan" for board-initiated communications and events over the course of the search and into the initial tenure of the new president. The transition plan should address everything from the announcement of the retirement or resignation of the current president to the inauguration of his or her successor. At the point of the current president's announcement, and for his or her remaining time in office, the board might promulgate a "charge" aimed at avoiding "lame duck" status for the sitting president (e.g., conclude current capital campaign and donor cultivation; complete master-plan development, etc.).
The executive committee should next bring to the full board a plan, budget, and timeline for the search; nominations for the search chair, committee membership, and a search secretary; and a formal charge to that committee. The full board is an important constituency of the process; board members should know their composing a presidential search committee can be an art in itself and should be carefully weighed. Some institutions are guided by a collective-bargaining agreement in the selection of the search chair and committee members; others select the chair and committee independent of an agreed-upon process, but can rely on tradition and community expectations. The committee is the public face of the institution before candidates are recruited and will make a string of important decisions before recommending candidates to the board.
Presidential search committees today almost universally engage the assistance of a search firm. Responsibility for selecting the firm typically falls to the executive committee of the board, the search committee, or a subcommittee led by the board chair. The process begins with the issuing of an RFP, followed by interviews with principals from selected search firms and reference checks. Once appointed, the search firm and assigned consultant will work closely with the search-committee chair and the search committee in determining the search timeline, process, and recruitment strategy. An important reminder here: confidentiality is crucial to any presidential search and must be a central theme and reminder for the committee and search firm. Aside from "sunshine states," where full disclosure is mandated by law, the names of candidates should not be shared in public, or anywhere outside of the committee's deliberations, until authorized by the candidates. Responsibilities and how they will participate in the search.
Presidential search can be a lot of work, raise stress levels, and tax relationships. But a well-run search can also be an occasion for community renewal, for board and campus partnership, and for elevating expectations for an institution’s future. The board itself should feel energized by the process and should, at the end, embrace a new president with enthusiasm.
With the assistance of the search consultant, a public announcement of the search (advertising in numerous education-media outlets, with national associations, and at peer institutions) is generally the first step in telling the world that your institution is seeking a president. If done well, in addition to generating a pool of highly competent and interested candidates, the institution can use this public announcement as a positive marketing strategy—informing the greater education community of the quality of your institution, its programs, and its faculty. This is also the time for the search firm to initiate a call for nominations that spans a network of presidents, vice presidents, and deans, as well as a select group of prospective candidates from outside of the academy with skills and experiences that appear to match those identified in the pre-search review. In addition, the search consultant and committee should begin to identify prospective candidates not necessarily seeking a presidency, but whose work and reputation could be a fit for the institution and add significant strength to the pool should they agree to enter the search.
Upon receipt of applications, the committee begins the laborious and confidential task of screening each candidate's letter of interest, vita, and any preliminary reference feedback available at this point. The committee will spend time discussing candidate strengths, perceived weaknesses, and fit with the institution's mission and goals and its leadership needs for the future. A short list of candidates, typically 12–15, will emerge, and following autho- rization from each candidate, more extensive due diligence will be completed by the search consultant and, at times, members of the search committee. After a review of references and additional research (Google is a likely tool, among other electronic-research outlets used by the search firm and committee), six to eight candidates are selected for off-site interviews.
Then following off-site interviews and confidential committee deliberations, a small number of candidates (typically three or four) are selected, and each is invited to visit the campus for the final phase of the search process. This final phase can vary considerably, depending on the culture and expectations of the board, search committee, and the campus community, as well as the tolerance for exposure that each candidate indicates. Many boards prefer an "open" final visit in which candidates are asked to meet with senior administrators, faculty leadership, students, staff, and alumni. This may also include an "open-forum" session for those not scheduled or unable to meet with candidates in smaller group sessions. Often candidates' vitas are posted on the institution's Web site, and open social gatherings are scheduled to allow stakeholders to meet the candidate, and spouse or partner, as appropriate.
While "open" final visits are the norm, some institutions and, in particular, those whose finalists include sitting presidents at other institutions, can opt for a more restricted or "closed" final phase of the process. In this situation, candidates are invited to meet with a limited number of representatives of the campus community, typically off site and with a commitment to maintain complete confidentiality about the identity of the candidates and what was discussed. In both types of circumstances, members of the board of trustees will have an opportunity to meet with individual candidates, and spouses or partners, usually in executive session prior to a final decision and appointment.
Regardless of the format selected for campus interviews, feedback from those involved in the interview process is channeled to the search committee for review, and the search committee prepares a final report with recommendations and sends it to the board. The search committee meets with the board to discuss all the input it has received. Often boards will ask the committee for its feedback on each finalist, but many prefer that no ranking of candidates accompanies this information.
Following this final committee report from the search committee, the board typically moves to an executive session and deliberates, with assistance and counsel from the search consultant. Once the full board determines who will be offered the position, the executive committee, or a designated subcommittee, will offer the position to the chosen candidate, and, if he or she accepts, negotiate a contract and prepare for the public announcement.
This announcement, and the steps planned earlier to help both the old and new presidents' transition, are crucial to the success of a new president and equally important to the board of trustees and campus community. If done well and with proper support, the transition can celebrate the successes of the outgoing president and also provide the president-elect, the board, and the campus with time to establish a working relationship and understand the board's priorities. The president-elect can gain valuable knowledge about fund-raising targets and expectations, academic programs and faculty needs, alumni relations, advancement and development, athletics, and community partnerships.
Boards need to get presidential search right. By charging the search committee appropriately, identifying the attributes and priorities required of new leadership, engaging the college community in discussions about expectations and aspirations, and communicating a united message, the board can help attract a pool of highly qualified candidates and select a candidate with the right leadership qualities needed for the next phase of the institution’s advancement.