Building a Search Committee
Building a Search Committee
By Holly Jackson
Managing Director, Storbeck Search
I have the most interesting job in the world. As a search consultant primarily serving education and nonprofit clients, my work acquaints me with fascinating people and charges me to help clients overcome the ever-evolving hurdles in finding, attracting, and hiring exceptional leadership talent. The majority of my clients’ searches are committee-based, and these committees play a central role in what I enjoy most in my work. The value committees bring to a hiring process is manyfold, but essentially, they leverage group discernment in evaluating potential candidates. More than ever, it feels like leadership decisions are under highly unforgiving scrutiny. Thus, committees bring hiring managers peace of mind…except when they don’t.
As with any instance when you bring a group of adult humans together, sometimes committees can be, well, a hot mess (feel free to use that clinical term). The only time I consider a hot mess to be a good thing is if I’m wearing a black shirt while eating funnel cake. In helping to avoid hot messiness, I’d like to share some guidance gleaned from years of search experience, as well as an innate, cavernous understanding of interpersonal dynamics derived from being a middle child, yet the family favorite.
The Right Chair is (almost) Everything
I say this without exception: not all search committee chairs are created equally. An exceptional chair has little to do with things you might find on a CV, such as renowned scholarship or a lengthy list of accolades. It has everything to do with people skills. First, a hiring manager needs to feel confident in the chair’s commitment to that manager’s vision for the role and charge issued to the committee. Once that criterion is met, it’s about having someone who can herd the proverbial cats. The chair’s respect within the institutional community can be tremendously helpful. Are they known for collaboration? Conflict resolution? Wisdom beyond their years? Do they get things done? Even more, do they inspire others –who don’t report to them — to roll up their sleeves and pitch in? These are all great signs. I’ll add that little to no reputation within the institution is far better than a mixed or bad one. If prospects don’t immediately come to mind, consulting with people who know the hiring manager, their work styles, their goals for the hire, and the institution very well is a solid approach to identifying some.
The next secret ingredient to chair excellence is that person can masterfully navigate undesired behavior. I once had a search where one committee human was generally disruptive. Just couldn’t help themselves. Humans. When it did, the chair did a fantastic job of wrangling the other humans back to the mission at hand. Later, the same disruptive committee human behaved in a way that compromised the integrity of the search. The chair removed that person so swiftly – all while instilling complete confidence in the remaining humans – that the act felt like a cooling breeze on a humid day. Another memorable chair was quiet, and small in stature, but had that “thing” that made you feel like you should sit up straight in your chair. You know it when you experience it. I’ll also add that a great chair needn’t have previous search committee experience, especially if working with a search consultant. Lastly, the best chair probably isn’t clamoring to be chair. They are busy; so much that you might opt for a co-chair situation to make their participation possible. Someone enthusiastically raising their hand to chair a search? They could be a great choice…but I’d ask a lot of questions. Once you’ve identified a great chair, your chances of a hot mess committee have significantly diminished.
Keep them Closer
Next, it’s time to think about the rest of the humans comprising the committee, and I want to start with an important consideration: the critics. I won’t call them enemies, even though they might at times feel adversarial. No one in education leadership, especially in higher education, has critics, right? All the nonprofit folks sit around holding hands, singing lullabies? Of course. No sharp elbows in these sectors. Nothing but supple ‘bows allowed. Once you’ve finished laughing, let’s think about whether it might make sense to have a highly critical voice at the committee table.
I’ve worked with many hiring managers (often institutional presidents or the equivalent) who strategically place their most active critics on search committees. It gives that person an opportunity to voice criticism (which can be very valuable), but it’s not directly in the hiring manager’s ear. It also can help with buy-in for the selected appointee. There is only one crystal clear rule for engaging a critic within the search committee: that person cannot be chair. That’s a one-way ticket to hot mess land. My other advice for hiring managers employing this strategy is to arm the search consultant with any pertinent information about the relationship with the critic. Confiding in the chair might put them in an awkward position; however, your search consultant does not have the same conflicts of interest. We’ve seen these dynamics before, and we can help when we are well-informed.
The Ideal Committee Composition
Next, it’s time to figure out the rest of the humans comprising the committee. I’ll start with the simplest part: choose an odd number. Much of what a committee achieves is left to votes. Make everyone’s life easier by avoiding tie breakers. Whenever possible, I also suggest keeping a committee small. Seven to eleven members is usually my sweet spot, even for a large institution. Most committee members will have many standing commitments; a smaller committee increases the chances that everyone will be available to contribute their input in a collective environment.
Who is on the committee is more art than science. For the same reason it’s ill-advised to ask just anybody, “Does this look good on me?” you want to be selective about who is entrusted with a confidential search. Ideally, a committee reflects the range of constituencies who will be most closely impacted by the hire. I’ll say this three times for impact: diversity, diversity, diversity. Try to avoid a heavier hand than warranted among any one constituency. Opt for a mix of humans who have been at the institution a long time with those who are newer. The committee will often be a candidate’s first introduction to the institution. Understanding that interviews are an exercise in human nature, consider the experience a candidate will have based on the committee composition.
This is more nuanced, but the interpersonal dynamics of the group are critical. If a committee includes people who are highly vocal, there should also be people who actively seek out input from those who aren’t. Many things can influence the dynamics of the group such as a person’s title/rank within the institution, marginalization, and institutional knowledge. I often see this when students are part of the committee, for example. A great committee has a culture where everyone understands they’ve been asked to contribute for a reason. Stating as much in the charge can help set the stage for this.
Lastly, select those who can be trusted with the critical task of confidentiality. Nothing undermines the integrity of a search faster than a confidentiality breach. If there are any concerns at all about a person’s ability to honor confidentiality until the end of time, look elsewhere.
In closing, the reason I use the term “humans” throughout is because that’s what we all are. Mistakes will be made. Nothing will be perfect. We all have to keep doing the best we can. If I can be helpful, I’d love to hear from you.