Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | S | SAM Advanced Management Journal

Managing confidentiality in an academic presidential search.

Article Excerpt
Introduction

A year-long university presidential search effort is bound to generate a number of ideas and suggestions for future search committees. Trying to share practical management lessons in a concise manner has proven to be yet another challenge. Many well-proven management theories and practices from the entire spectrum of the discipline were used in the course of the search. This paper, based on an actual search and augmented by a review of related literature, approaches just one of the myriad issues that must be dealt with by a search committee, namely confidentiality. Search procedures and policies with varying degrees of confidentiality are essential (McLaughlin and Riesman, 1985), yet a newly formed committee will likely find itself in unfamiliar territory with unanticipated, if not threatening, confidentiality issues at the forefront. The fledgling group is further confronted with serious legal issues (Davis, 1994). Although extensive guidelines and checklists do exist, e.g., Nason (1984), Unglaube (1983), McLaughlin (1985, A), and Poston (1997), time pressure can preclude their dissemination and utilization.

The paper presents the general background and management challenge of the illustrative case, then furnishes a brief overview of what transpired. Three confidentiality vantage points are proposed as a framework, followed by related management lessons or recommendations and conclusions.

Background and Management Challenge Perspective

When his institution's president declared an intention to retire midway through a fall semester, the author, a professor of management, was tapped by the chancellor of the state university system to chair a presidential search committee.

The leadership challenge began with little warning: Selected committee members (1) received notification from the state university system chancellor with instructions to convene on campus in four days. The charge was given personally by the chancellor, with open press coverage, to develop an unranked list of qualified individuals, any of whom would be capable of taking over the top leadership position of the 9,000-student regional university. A four-month deadline was announced, although nine months to a year for presidential searches is considered normal (Unglaube, 1983). Some committee members were strangers to one another, none had experience in what turned out to be a clandestine world of executive head-hunting, and all were more than fully occupied with their own careers. Considerable responsibility for confidentiality rests on the shoulders of any search committee chairperson, who also may be charged with being the only one officially allowed by the governing board to answer questions or speak about the committee's workings and progress (McLaughlin, 1985, B). This was the situation in the case at hand. The paper will provide newly appointed chairpersons a glimpse into the unique and stressful role of being a quasi manager in a set of circumstances which will "require a thick skin .... enough to take a little battering while.., guiding the committee through the morass of debate and discussion" (Holloway, 1997). The committee leader's handling of multiple issues including confidentiality may be viewed from a management theory and practice perspective.

Overview of the Example Search Process

Upon receiving the charge, which included the requirement to use a professional search firm, (2) open forums were held to collaboratively develop and publish a position vacancy announcement and a specification document. Representatives of the search firm fielded questions about the process. An administrative assistant was hired, a secure office was set up, and a Web site was designed for...