There is a constant re-shuffle of administrators within Canadian universities. Vacancies are filled by qualified candidates, creating vacancies somewhere else in the system. Recruitment is often done externally; sometimes, the internal candidate is triumphant. Rinse and repeat, as my friend said.
I’m critical of the whole process. Because I think it’s deeply flawed. A great deal of time, energy, and money is poured into it. Search consultants are frequently engaged to facilitate a process that often ends up appointing the interim leader. The person already on campus. The figure already in and doing the job.
In essence, tens of thousands of dollars, and hundreds of hours, are invested in keeping things the same.
Is it a waste of money? Yes and no. The search process needs to be rigorous and transparent, hence the need to populate a competitive field of candidates. But I admit, I’m often left wondering what the point of it all was. While the decision is never pre-determined, it often feels otherwise.
I’m speaking from personal experience. I recently interviewed for a position where I knew one of the other three candidates was internal. I suspected they would probably get the job, or at least have a leg up. Because they were a long-standing member of the institution, and currently in the leadership role, albeit on an interim basis, they had clearly reached a level of acceptance among many.
It could be argued that the cards are stacked in such a situation. That the internal candidate has an innate advantage. They certainly know the institution best. They know the people best. They likely have a developed vision and portfolio of relevant experience and skills. They know the internal processes and landscape. And, perhaps most importantly, they are fully aware of the challenges and problems that are not so obvious to anyone looking from the outside. These things all matter, and they all count.
But there are disadvantages too. The old ‘devil we know’ argument can sometimes translate into a different outcome, where the hiring committee is attracted more to a fresh new face. They are tired of the old. There’s always greater risk in this direction, but as someone who has served on many hiring committees over the years, there are many reasons to ‘go external’.
First and foremost, external candidates carry a different level of hope and optimism. Their experience in another institution can be deemed positive, in that they have perspective which might be valuable to the advertised position. Their ideas and vision can be enticing. Their newness is intriguing, captivating, and persuasive.
Hiring committees are searching for someone who can get the job done. The internal candidate is known to them, which I’ve seen manifest into distrust of their abilities and capacity to do just that. The external candidate, on the other hand, is a wild-card. The irony is how much emphasis committees sometimes place on the unknown, hoping that their whims turn out to be true. That by ‘going external’ our problems will somehow be addressed and solved. Depending on the situation, we trust the person more whose experience and ability is unproven in a unique context and work environment.
Back to my experience.
I progressed through the interview process to an on-campus visit. While long and intensive, the whole day was positive. I met several groups of people, learned more about the role and the institution, and ultimately demonstrated who I was as a person and leader. I felt optimistic about my chances.
About one week after returning home, I learned that I wasn’t successful. Not my first time hearing such news. While disappointed, I understand enough about how things work to let it go and move on. You never know the dynamics of a committee, their pressures and ecosystems. With the factors and evidence before them, they need to make decisions that best serve their unit and institutions. While I experienced brief anger and confusion, I couldn’t bring myself to cast any real blame or criticism. It’s not really personal.
One month later I finally saw the public announcement. The interim, internal candidate had accepted the job. Qu’elle surprise.
Does it feel like a waste of time? In some ways, yes. Candidates invest so much in a job application for senior university leadership positions. From beginning to end, the whole experience lasted approximately six months. Initial conversations with the search firm eventually led to my submitting an application. Weeks went by. In this case the intervening weeks between the online, long-list interview and the on-site campus (short-list) interview was brief enough (~2 weeks).
But in the end, I was exactly where I started. I had learned more about another institution. I had gained some valuable interview experience. Yet, ultimately, nothing had changed.
My own distrust in how university hiring operates is grounded in such experiences. I’m not resentful but I am increasingly skeptical and, I like to think, realistic. Because I don’t trust the process. I continue to lose faith in the people propping up a failing system and its outdated policies and procedures. Having been a part of it for so long, with my own attempts to transform it, there are variable factors that can just as easily scuttle the entire operation.
Good people end up being hired. And, if I’m being fair, people are doing their best. These realities, however, don’t make up for the fact that there’s a constant re-shuffle of leaders and leadership experience within Canadian universities. Sustainability and stability are usually two important goals for any organization, especially for senior-level positions. Given these objectives, I can’t help but feel that our approach to recruitment and retention lets us down every time.