The search for a new university president is a complex and often contentious process. While the stakes are high – impacting the institution’s future for years to come – the process itself can be riddled with pitfalls, leading to poor decisions, damaged reputations, and lingering resentment.

Here are some problematic practices that should be avoided in order to ensure a more transparent, inclusive, and ultimately successful search:

1. The “Secret Search”: Too often, searches are shrouded in secrecy, with a select few individuals privy to the process and its details. This fosters distrust and breeds rumors, undermining the legitimacy of the final choice. Openness, transparency, and a clear understanding of the search criteria are essential for building confidence and trust within the university community.

2. “The Chosen One”: A pre-determined outcome, where the search committee acts as a rubber stamp for a pre-selected candidate, is a recipe for disaster. This practice is not only unethical but also defeats the purpose of a search committee. Instead, a diverse and representative committee should rigorously evaluate each candidate based on merit and alignment with the university’s vision and needs.

3. Ignoring Diversity and Inclusion: A diverse candidate pool is crucial for ensuring a vibrant and representative leadership. Failing to actively recruit from underrepresented groups, both in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, and professional background, can result in a limited pool of qualified candidates, limiting the university’s ability to choose the best leader for the future.

4. Focusing Solely on Prestige: While experience and qualifications are important, the search should not be solely driven by a desire for a “big name.” A candidate’s ability to inspire, collaborate, and lead with empathy and vision are equally critical to long-term success.

5. Lack of Transparency and Communication: Keeping the university community in the dark about the search process, including the candidate pool, selection criteria, and timeline, breeds suspicion and frustration. Regular, open communication, even when challenging, is vital for maintaining trust and transparency.

6. The “Lone Wolf” Approach: The search committee must function as a collaborative body, not as a group of individuals working in silos. Open dialogue, respectful debate, and a shared commitment to finding the best possible candidate are essential for effective decision-making.

Moving Forward:

While a perfect search is unlikely, these pitfalls can be avoided by actively fostering a culture of transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration. Engaging the broader university community, including faculty, staff, students, and alumni, in the process can lead to a more robust and representative search, ultimately resulting in a more qualified and effective leader for the future.

By taking these steps, universities can ensure that the search process is not just a formality, but a vital step in finding the leader who will guide the institution to new heights.