Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Presidential Searches topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant outlines best practices, timeline and risks for presidential searches at Regents meeting
Summary
An AGB Search consultant briefed the Iowa Board of Regents on presidential-search best practices — including timelines, confidentiality, due diligence and how to evaluate nontraditional and internal candidates — during a wide-ranging presentation and Q&A.
An AGB Search consultant told the Iowa Board of Regents that presidential searches have shifted to a year-round cadence and that boards should set clear timelines, maintain confidentiality and conduct layered due diligence to avoid surprises.
Dr. Davis, a senior search consultant with AGB Search, told the board that “best practice says it takes 5 to 6 months to do a presidential search the right way,” while acknowledging some institutions compress that timeline to three or four months when they need to move faster. He said modern searches increasingly use virtual tools for committee meetings and semifinal interviews, with in-person meetings reserved for finalists.
The consultant said confidentiality remains important when recruiting sitting presidents or senior executives outside academe, because “there’s more of a probability for us to get, sitting presidents, to apply” in confidential searches. He described a two-stage due-diligence approach: initial vetting of semifinalists using Google and social-media checks and reference calls, followed by a deeper ‘‘finalist’’ check that includes off‑list references and formal background checks performed by a third‑party vendor (the consultant named the vendor used in his firm’s process).
Why this matters: presidential hires shape campus leadership and community relationships, and poorly run searches can produce reputational and operational problems. The consultant emphasized that the governing board, the search committee and the search firm must agree on a leadership profile at the start and stay aligned throughout the process.
During Q&A, Regents pressed on how to evaluate nontraditional candidates and protect internal applicants. The consultant said nontraditional candidates from the military, government or business can be successful if they match the leadership-profile qualities the committee has agreed upon, recounting a nontraditional hire that later became a university president as an example. He also said internal candidates should be treated with the same confidentiality and fairness as external candidates.
On the risks that can derail searches, the consultant cited three recurring problems: (1) changing selection criteria late in the process, (2) political interference, and (3) candidates who have not resolved personal logistics (for example, a partner’s willingness to relocate) before a campus visit. He advised inviting finalists’ spouses or partners to campus visits so boards can surface relocation or employment issues before making public announcements.
Dr. Davis described a typical staged process used by his firm: listening sessions and development of a leadership profile (the ‘‘North Star’’), active national recruiting, semifinal interviews (a typical semifinal pool of 8–10), finalist interviews with the board and a one‑year transition engagement after hire. He said the firm provides transition support for the first year to help the new president and the board build a working relationship.
Quotes and attribution are drawn from the board meeting transcript. The presentation included references to prior work AGB has done in Iowa, and AGB consultant Sally Mason was named as part of the consulting team. The remarks were followed by a broad regents’ Q&A on nontraditional candidates, due diligence timing and internal candidates.
