Giving a Fair Shake to Internal Candidates for College Presidencies
By Robert H. Perry and Allen E. Koenig

As consultants who help colleges and universities find new presidents, we have observed one serious flaw in the search process: the treatment of internal candidates. Throughout higher education, senior administrators who are candidates for the presidency of their own institution are often treated in an unprofessional, thoughtless, even cruel, manner.

For instance, a well-respected administrator at a prestigious private college told us recently: "Last year, when the president announced her retirement, she asked a colleague and me if we wanted to be candidates to replace her. Both of us said Yes. Several months later, the search committee was appointed and an executive search firm brought in. Neither of us was ever even granted an interview."

In another case, the chief academic officer of a major public university, clearly the heir apparent to the departing president, was told by a member of the university's board of trustees that he had been passed over because "the board felt that it had to go out- side; the trustees were sorry, because I was certainly well qualified; and that I shouldn't take it personally."

Unfortunately, these are not isolated examples. We are not suggesting that governing boards should automatically promote from within when appointing new presidents. Boards should always make such choices based on the merits of the candidates. But we do want to point out the risks of ignoring or mistreating internal candidates: The experience humiliates them, and some may decide to leave the institution as a result. The morale of faculty and staff members may decline, because they perceive that their own options for promotion are limited.

What went wrong in the two examples mentioned above? In the first case, the president probably considered both of her two subordinates well qualified to succeed her. She let them know this, perhaps in part because she wanted to make them feel good about themselves. What she did not realize was that, having announced her retirement, she would have little say in the search process. Outgoing presidents, no matter how revered, are more likely to be lame ducks than key players in choosing their own replacements.

In the second case, an influential board member, the chief executive officer of a Fortune 500 corporation, persuaded the university to retain a search firm that he recommended. The employees of such companies typically assume that they can find a superstar at another institution who will surpass any internal candidate. After all, it is in a search firm's best interest to demonstrate that it will earn its substantial fees by producing a candidate that the board didn't know about. Thus, when a search company does interview internal candidates, the inter- views often are perfunctory, done merely as courtesies.

Besides the bias of headhunting companies against insiders, internal candidates must overcome other obstacles. Sometimes an institution is determined to find "fresh blood," especially when it faces a crisis concerning finances, leadership, or ethical issues. Further, members of search companies often feel that an internal candidate has made enemies and thus carries too much unwanted "baggage," such as responsibility for unpopular decisions. External candidates may have just as many enemies and equally heavy baggage, but search committees often are less. aware of those problems, because they arose at other institutions. Or the committees and the executives at search firms may believe that an external candidate can leave enemies and baggage behind when moving to a new campus.

Corporate America typically does not share higher education's preference for external candidates. In business, "growing your own" candidates is a time-honored practice that most top managers believe is a highly efficient way to insure smooth transitions from one executive to another - unless the company is in particularly dire straits, in which case companies, too, may turn to headhunters. This philosophy is diametrically opposed to that of the academy, where sitting presidents routinely nominate ).heir best subordinates for the presidencies of other institutions.

The use of executive search companies spread from industry to higher education in the 1970s, when more and more trustees from business became trustees of colleges and universities. But many businesses still do not routinely use professional search consultants in selecting their chief executives, as many higher-education institutions have come to do so.

When internal candidates at universities are mistreated, the problem is almost always that members of the institution's governing board have acted pre- maturely. When a president resigns unexpectedly, trustees may feel that they have to find a replacement right away, and that they do not have time to do a thorough search themselves. Or they may have named the best-qualified administrator on campus as acting president, which then can lead to sub- sequent conflict-of-interest problems for that person. If the acting president seeks the post permanently, he or she cannot be totally objective either in performing the job or in lending assistance to the search committee. Further, the best external candidates, assuming that the acting president has the inside track to the job, may decide not to enter the search process.

One possible solution is to appoint an acting president from outside the campus when a presidency opens up. At least one organization has been set up to provide such candidates. Some recently retired presidents, calling themselves the Registry for Interim College and University Presidents, are avail- able for service for periods ranging from a few months to two years. They sign contracts stating that they cannot be candidates for the permanent position.

Trustees also need to realize that planning ahead for the possible departure of a president is a good way to insure the success of the selection process. One institution recently demonstrated that long-range planning can help in a presidential transition.

In October 1994, the Board of Trustees of Boston University, at the suggestion of President John Silber, established the Task Force on Continuity to determine, in the words of the task force's final report, how best to insure the university's "academic transformation -and financial stability - after President Silber's eventual retirement." The panel subsequently recommended appointing Jon Westling, the university's executive vice-president and provost, as Dr. Silber's eventual successor. In January 1995, the board announced its decision to make the appointment, which became effective on June 1, 1996, when Dr. Silber assumed the title of chancellor of the institution.

Governing boards in every sector of higher education should study Boston University's example. At least a year before the trustees expect a president to resign or retire, they should initiate an in-depth institutional self-study to help them determine what different skills or characteristics they may need in a new president. When even the best-laid plans are thwarted by a president's leaving office unexpectedly or becoming disabled, such a study should be conducted during the tenure of the interim president.

Armed with an in-depth study of the institution's needs, a governing board can embark on a thoughtful search for a new president. This should increase the odds that the board's final choice will strengthen the institution, and that the selection process will have treated both internal and external candidates fairly.

Robert H. Perry is president of the executive search company R.H. Perry & Associates. Allen E. Koenig is a senior consultant to the company and co-founder of the Registry for Interim College and University Presidents.