A bill introduced
in the Illinois State Senate by State Rep. Chapin Rose would ban public
universities from using search firms and external search consultants to fill
senior administrative positions. Although the stated goal of the legislation is
to curtail the high costs of external search consultants, underlying the legislation
is the university’s unfortunate experience with Michael J. Hogan, who resigned
from his presidency after only two years. The search for Mr. Hogan mirrored the
practice at most universities; it entailed a 19 member search committee and the
use of an outside search firm.
In October
2009 I wrote a piece in this blog critical of the presidential search process
at the University
of Illinois (http://www.savingalmamater.com/2009/10/u-of-illinois-presidential-search-off.html). Today, the dismal but increasingly common
outcome of that search should serve as further evidence that procedures for
hiring senior administrators in higher education are deeply flawed. At a time
when tuition is unaffordable and university budgets are being decimated, it is
inexcusable that the appointment, say, of a dean can take up to a year, cost a
hundred thousand dollars, and involve hundreds of hours of committee time.
However, it is
an oversimplification to blame search firms for the failures. True, the worst
firms (which include some of the largest, in my opinion) trade mostly in gossip
about who is “on the market,” collecting exorbitant fees without probing deeply
to evaluate candidate credentials, looking for troublesome personality traits,
and assessing the “fit” of candidates to the institution. But I have also seen
search consultants who are insightful, think carefully about the institution
and its needs, and are excellent judges of character and ability.
The biggest
problem, in my opinion, is the search process itself. Huge clumsy search
committees, chosen primarily to satisfy constituency demands for inclusiveness are
endemic in higher education. Representatives from the faculty senate, alumni
organizations, local politicians, the student body, classified civil service
staff, senior and junior professors, humanists and scientists, all carefully
balanced to reflect racial and gender parity may send a reassuring message
about participatory democracy but are seldom qualified properly to evaluate
candidates. Lacking sophistication about
the nature of the position (presidential search committees typically have
members who may never even have met a university president) and having little
in common with each other, such groups often overemphasize qualities of
demeanor, physical appearance, the ability to remember names, and other
superficial candidate traits. Questions often probe generic, issues (Does the
candidate support diversity? Shared governance” Believe in consensus-building?
Have an open door policy for students? Respect faculty values?), which are
easily rehearsed by candidates.
In this context, the best search firms can provide
enormously valuable advice, cutting through the clutter, zeroing in on the
skills which are truly germane to the position, and inquiring deeply about past
performance. While I agree that the use of search firms may have gotten out
hand at some institutions, the “fix” is to reform the deeply flawed search process
itself rather than forcing campuses to go it alone.
