Murphy, J. (2001, March). Enduring effects and persistent questions: A study of Deep Springs College alumni. Unpublished Report. Deep Springs, California. Newell, L.J. (2001). Celebrating the community college: The smallest—Deep Springs College. Community College Journal. (April/May) Newell, L.J. (2000). Deep Springs: Education of the students, by the students, and for the students. In Smith, M.A. The students of Deep Springs College. Revere, Pennsylvania: Lodima Press. Newell, L.J. (1993). Deep Springs: Loyalty to a fault? In Newell, L.J. & Reynolds, K.C. Maverick colleges: Ten notable experiments in American undergraduate education. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Education Policy Center. Newell, L.J. (1982). Among the few at Deep Springs College: Assessing a seven-decade experiment in liberal education. Journal of general education 34 (2), 120-134. Schuman, D. (1981). "Education and solipsism." CoEvolution Quarterly (Spring), 132-139. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27 (2), 4-13. Smallwood, S. (2002). Listening for the voice of the desert. Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at http://chronicle.com. Smith, D. (1972). Deep Springs is far out. Change 4 (8), 20-21. Stark, J.S. and Lattuca, L.R (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Tierney, W.G. (1993). Educational mirrors: The Deep Springs experience. In Giroux, H.A. & Freire, P. Building communities of difference: Higher education in the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Townsend, B.K., Newell, L.J., & Wiese, M.D. (1992). Creating distinctiveness: Lessons from uncommon colleges and universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 6. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University.
32
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
Presidential Search Consultants in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature Marcus Lingenfelter Abstract The American Council on Education (ACE) study on the academic presidency reported that half of four-year college and university presidential searches finalized in 2001 utilized the services of an executive search consultant (Corrigan, 2002). This figure is up from 16 percent for searches conducted prior to 1985 (Ross & Green, 2000; Corrigan, 2002), and represents a continued expansion of the executive search consultant's role in higher education—specifically with regards to presidential searches. Although an estimated annual expense of more than $30 million is no insignificant sum, the cost of a consultant is far less than that of a failed search or a bad selection. An appointment resulting in a poor fit between the president and the institution could result in a short presidential tenure and require a repeat of the process within a few years. The literature reviewed herein is focused on how presidents are selected, and specifically on the involvement of presidential search consultants in the process. This socially significant process conducted more than 300 times a year is an important area of research requiring a greater understanding for the benefit of higher education practitioners and researchers alike.
Marcus Lingenfelter is the executive assistant to the president and director of government relations and economic development at Widener University. He is also a Ph.D. candidate in higher education at The Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include issues of leadership, governance, and public policy.
MARCUS LINGENFELTER
33
Presidential Search Consultants in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature Section I Introduction "One thing is clear: Colleges must have presidents and it makes a great difference who they are." - Harold W. Stoke (1959, p. 20)
The president, chancellor, or chief executive officer (CEO) of a college or university plays a critical role in guiding the direction and development of higher education in the United States. Those ascending to the academic presidency assume the demanding and often misunderstood role of running a complex multi-million dollar organization with varied missions and competing constituencies. Of critical import to the success of the CEO and the institution is the transition of executive leadership. Gilmore (1988, p.6) writes, "transitions are opportunities for organizations to look back and look ahead, to think about their environments and to respond by selecting a leader whose strengths match the new challenges." The transitional process can have either a positive or negative effect on an institution, its constituents, and most importantly on its newly appointed leader, depending upon how the transition is approached and managed. Leadership transitions, when performed properly, offer a time for institutional self-examination, renewal, and even re-birth (Gilmore, 1988; Moore, 2001; Neff & Leondar, 1997; Weary, 1998). Realistically, however, governing boards often move too quickly due to internal and external pressure to act when an unexpected leadership transition occurs (Neff & Leondar, 1997; Stead, 1987). Events such as presidential retirement, unexpected resignation, or death in office can lead to a transition process being rushed, abbreviated, or ignored entirely in the name of expediency. The results of ineffective leadership transitions often wind up on the pages of the Chronicle of Higher Education and other media. Storied presidential resignations occur at institutions of all types, sizes, and forms of control—thus, no one is immune. They are usually the result of incomplete disclosure on the part of the 34
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
newly appointed president or governing board, institutional mismanagement, miscommunication between CEOs and their boards, tyrannical CEOs, manipulating board chairs, or any number of other horror stories that could have been avoided (Bartlett, 2003; Basinger, 2000; Pulley, 2003). Distressing as they are, these stories continually illuminate the necessity of achieving a good "fit" through an effectively facilitated presidential search process (Bornstein, 2003; Moody, 1997; Neff & Leondar, 1997). Many institutions have turned to professional executive search firms to assist them in achieving good president-institution fit. For example, an American Council on Education (ACE) study on the academic presidency states that half of four-year college and university presidential searches finalized in 2001 utilized the services of an executive search consultant (Corrigan, 2002). This figure is up slightly over those reported in the 2000 ACE study, but significantly more than the 16 percent of presidential searches utilizing a consultant prior to 1985 (Corrigan, 2002; Ross & Green, 2000). Therefore, this represents a continued expansion of the executive search consultant's role in higher education, specifically with regards to presidential/CEO searches. While commonplace in the corporate sector of America for the better part of the twentieth century, higher education's formal embrace of executive search consultants began in the mid-1970s with the formation of the Academy of Educational Development (AED) (Marchese, 1984), the Presidential Search Consultation Services (PSCS)—which functioned as a subsidiary of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB)—and Academic Search Consultation Service (ASCS), of which only ASCS still exists (Hartley & Ness, 1981; McLaughlin & Riesman, 1990). Since then, the market has expanded to include at least 13 major for-profit and non-profit executive search firms in addition to a host of individual consultants and smaller boutique firms (ACE, 2004; AGB, 2002). American higher education experiences approximately 300-400 CEO searches annually (McLaughlin & Riesman, 1990; Moore, 2001). Considering the ACE finding that roughly half were assisted by consultants, the annual total of consultant-assisted searches can be as many as 150-200. Moreover, institutions pay fees for the MARCUS LINGENFELTER
35
services of consultants ranging from $50,000 to $150,000 (typically one third of the CEO's first year cash compensation) or more plus expenses. While an estimated annual expense of more than $30 million is no insignificant sum, most would agree that the cost of a consultant is far less than that of a failed search or a bad selection. An appointment resulting in a poor fit between the president and the institution could result in a short presidential tenure and require a repeat of the process within a few years. Such incidents are far more expensive than consultant fees as well as potentially harmful to an institution's stability and image over the short- and long-term. In short, the cost of consultants is often considered money well-spent (AGB, 1996; Garrison, 1989; Neff & Leondar, 1997; Rent, 1990). America's colleges and universities are vital to enhancing and improving our global society in the twenty-first century (Greenspan, 2000). Therefore, the issue of who is being selected to lead our colleges and universities becomes vitally important. The literature reviewed herein is more narrowly focused on how those leaders are selected, and specifically on the involvement of presidential search consultants in the search and selection process. Since this is a socially significant process that is conducted more than 300 times a year, it is an important area of research requiring a greater understanding for the benefit of the higher education literature. The following section outlines the existing literature beginning with the issues of presidential leadership and presidential search. It is followed by an examination of executive selection and the everincreasing presence of the search consultant in higher education. The final section draws some conclusions from the literature, and indicates prospective areas of future study. Section II Literature Review "The seeds of presidential failure and success often are sown during the search and selection process." - John W. Moore (2001, p. 44)
The process by which presidents come to office has been and continues to be a subject of interest and research. A 1950 dissertation The Selection of University Presidents in America (Powers) examined how state university presidents came to office 36
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
during the years following World War II. While not reflective of today's presidential selection process, the text demonstrates that the presidency and the process by which men and women come to hold such an office has intrigued higher education scholars for at least a half century. Bennis's (1971) intriguing step-by-step account of his protracted and somewhat bizarre experience in the 1970 Northwestern University presidential search is detailed in the Atlantic Monthly article "Searching for the 'Perfect' University President." He suggests that the search experience "illustrates better than fiction the clash of formal machinery and partisan pressures in which American university presidents are made" (p. 40). Interestingly, Bennis' account provides the first reported use of a search consultant that can be found in the literature. While the consultant was described as "coordinating the search process," it is made clear that a Northwestern University trustee involved in the process owned the consulting firm (p. 41). Nevertheless, the article details the use of a consultant and a selection committee (including students), illustrating a move away from CEO selection decisions made in smoke-filled rooms by university trustees without advertising, formal process, or any involvement of other university constituencies. Such a secretive and non-participatory selection process was commonplace and is recounted in presidential texts such as Stake's (1959) The American College President, Dodd's (1962) The Academic President: Educator or Caretaker, and Bolman's (1965) How College Presidents are Chosen. Today a more open, inclusive, and modern process is pursued each and every year—some with success and some not. And increasingly more often a presidential search consultant is a part of that process. The modern presidential search process is comprised of nine steps originally presented by Nason's (1984) seminal work Presidential Search. Subsequent authors have augmented, re-ordered, and amended Nason's work, but it has remained largely intact. The nine steps are (1) establishing the machinery of search and selection, (2) organizing the committee, (3) formulating the criteria, (4) developing a pool of candidates, (5) screening candidates, (6) interviewing candidates, (7) selecting top candidates, (8) appointing MARCUS LINGENFELTER
37
the president, and (9) winding down and gearing up. While search consultants can be brought in at any stage of a search to provide focused assistance, the literature suggests making the decision to use or not to use a consultant at the very beginning (Neff & Leondar, 1997; Stead, 1987; Weary, 1998). As the presidential search process became increasingly more complex from influences such as affirmative action and representative participation brought on by shared governance, suggestions began to surface regarding the use of professional executive search consultants (Kaplowtiz, 1986; Kauffman, 1974; Mottram, 1983; Touchton, 1989; Rent, 1990). Moreover, new complexities in maintaining confidentiality resulting from openmeeting laws and new technologies further necessitated governing boards' consideration of professional executive search counsel (ACE, 1996; AGB, 1997; Cleveland, 1985; Davis, 1994; Estes, 2000). While a common fixture in the corporate world since post-World War II, the use of executive search consultants did not emerge upon the higher education landscape until the mid-1970s. It was during that time that firms specializing in higher education formed including AED, PSCS, and Perez-Arton Consultants, Inc. (Hartley & Ness, 1981; Marchese, 1984; Marchese, 1989a; Mottram, 1983). The bulk of literature on presidential search consultants in higher education is largely practitioner-oriented. Pamphlets, articles, and a few chapters provide insights into the rationale for hiring a consultant (Kincannon, 1997; Mottram, 1983; Rent, 1990; Touchton, 1989), how to select a consultant (AGB, 1996; Lester, 1993), and the optimal institution-consultant relationship (Academic Search Consultation Service, 1990; Hartley & Ness, 1981; Riesman & McLaughlin, 1984;). Marchese (1989, p. 5) summed it up when he wrote "... at their best, consultants and firms lend speed, expertise, confidentiality, and objectivity to a search process." Judith Touchton, former chair of the ACE Roundtable of Executive Search Firms, provides an illustrative statement summarizing the benefits of using a consultant in the presidential search process. She writes, "a good consultant, wisely chosen, can be enormously 38
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
helpful, offering valuable experience and expertise both in guiding the process of a search as it evolves and in providing specific services at appropriate times (1989, p. 6)." Touchton's assertions have been echoed by others who support the ever-expanding role and specific benefits of the use of search consultants in higher education (AGB, 2002; Lester, 1993; McLaughlin & Riesman, 1990; Rent, 1990; Weary, 1998). Fortunately, three empirical studies provide qualitative and quantitative insight into the rationale, roles, and impact of consultants. Those studies include: Goldsmith (1989) A Study of the Perceptions of College Search Committee Chairs Concerning the Use of Paid Consultants in Presidential Searches; McLaughlin & Riesman (1990) Choosing a College President: Opportunities and Constraints; and Tronaas (1991) A Study of the Roles, Impact, and Trustee Satisfaction of the Consultants Hired to Assist with California Community College Chief Executive Officer Searches. They are examined individually below. A Study of the Perceptions of College Search Committee Chairs Concerning the Use of Paid Consultants in Presidential Searches (Goldsmith, 1989) Goldsmith (1989) compared the perceptions of search committee chairs utilizing search consultants with those who did not. He analyzed the extent of consultants' use and the chairs' attitudes about the use of consultants. He also studied the cost of a search and the ideal criteria to be used in a search. The sample included four-year college and university search committee chairpersons who had recently conducted a presidential search with a response rate of 61.4 percent. Goldsmith revealed that nearly 64 percent of the respondents retained a search consultant. This figure is significantly higher than data from the most recent ACE study on the presidency which reports that only 51 percent of four-year college searches utilized a consultant (Corrigan, 2002, p. 43). However, that may have been the result of sample institutions that did not use a search consultant electing not to respond to what would appear as a rather focused survey. Meanwhile, the ACE study of the presidency, the only source of demographic data about college and university MARCUS LINGENFELTER
39
presidents of its kind, reported a four-year college and university response rate of 82.5 percent (Corrigan, 2002, pp. 5-6). Nevertheless, Goldsmith's reported variances between private and public institutional use of search consultants is consistent with ACE's data suggesting that private institutions are procuring search consultant services more often than public institutions. Goldsmith reported 60 percent of private institutions and 40 percent of the public sector used a search consultant, while ACE reported 54 percent and 49 percent, respectively. The closing gap between private and public consultant use is possibly a function of the growing popularity and acceptance of consultants during the last 13 years since Goldsmith's study was first published. Goldsmith further reports that 52 percent of respondents who engaged a consultant preferred that the consultant be used through all phases of the search process. Furthermore, while 61 percent suggested their use during the actual search phase, only 18 percent thought it was appropriate during the final selection phase. These figures were further confirmed with data from all respondents, including those who did not employ a consultant, with 94 percent agreeing to the use of a consultant providing the consultant did not have a vote in the final selection. Goldsmith (1989, p.84) aptly states "respondents clearly prefer that paid consultants consult only, and not vote," echoing sentiment that consultants not be intruders in the process but rather facilitators of it. Seeking differences or similarities between consultant-aided and non-aided searches, Goldsmith discovered that the both groups indicated their preferred candidate attributes in remarkably the same order. They include: (1) developing community links (98%) (2) leadership experience in academia (96%) (3) fiscal and budgeting ability (92%) (4) outgoing personality (92%) (5) seen as innovative (90%) (6) power ofpersuasion (89%) (7) earned doctorate (88%) (8) experience working with elected trustees or board (79%)
40
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
(9) record of vertical promotion (78%) (10) salary in line with anticipated salary (61%). The two groups did not agree, however, upon the importance of teaching. For example, non-aided respondents considered teaching experience more important than consultant-aided respondents at a rate of 71 percent to 54 percent, respectively (p. 88). The differential prompted Goldsmith to question the apparent business-minded orientation of the attribute list developed with the assistance of a consultant versus the academic-minded of the non-assisted searches. Ultimately, it raises further questions about the kind of search culture propagated by executive search consultants. Lastly, Goldsmith presented additional issues of cost, ethics, confidentiality, and efficiency. For example, consultant-aided searches had a mean cost of $46,759 whereas non-aided searches reported a mean cost of $22,154. Such a cost differential prompted Goldsmith to look toward future research by questioning the valueadded by a consultant for the additional cost incurred (p. 91). As reported, the costs of conducting a consultant-aided search have increased significantly since 1989, largely because of larger CEO salaries. Nevertheless, the value-added question posed by Goldsmith warrants further investigation. Consultant-assisted respondents reported that consultants maintain an ethical search, and ensure confidentiality (pp. 94-95), while nonassisted respondents contrasted those responses in the negative. On the other hand, 45 percent of all respondents and 63 percent of consultant-aided respondents reported that consultants increase the efficiency of the search process (p. 97). As the first research study to specifically address issues of presidential search consultants, Goldsmith provides a helpful launching point for future studies. His data suggests that consultants were not well known or understood in 1989, especially among search committees that had no experience with them. Replication of his study today, some 14 years later, would provide interesting answers to the question of how far the use of presidential search consultants has come in the last decade.
MARCUS LINGENFELTER
41
Choosing a College President: Opportunities and Constraints (McLaughlin & Riesman, 1990) Judith McLaughlin and David Riesman have distinguished themselves as the foremost researchers on presidential search. They have produced a host of articles about presidential search (McLaughlin, 1985a), including specific issues of confidentiality and the conduct of searches in the age of open-meeting laws (McLauglin, 1983; McLaughlin, 1985b; McLaughlin & Riesman, 1989), and the use of consultants (Riesman & McLaughlin, 1984). However, what sets them apart is their Carnegie Foundation-funded study which is the result of a decade of collaboration including casestudy research, document analysis, and hundreds of interviews with trustees, faculty members, administrators, students, journalists, and consultants. Their study addresses lingering questions of whether presidents matter and, consequently, whether presidential searches matter. They acknowledge the arguments of key opponents to the importance of presidential leadership such as Robert Birnbaum's (1989, p. 132) declaration that "while most presidents will properly fulfill the requirements of their roles.... they do not leave a distinctive mark on their institution." Similarly, Michael Cohen and James March (1986, p. 2) in their controversial Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President state that "the presidency is an illusion" and that "the president's role [is] more commonly sporadic and symbolic than significant." However, McLaughlin and Riesman advocate that indeed presidents do matter, stating that "we believe that there is a significant number of presidents who do change the course of the college or universities they head... .and many more presidents affect, for better or for worse, the lives of the individuals with whom they have worked" (p. 4). Citing the work of Clark Kerr (1984) Presidents Make a Difference, and Kerr in collaboration with Marian Gade (1986) The Many Lives of the Academic President, McLaughlin and Riesman argue that presidents do matter; similarly, the process by which they come to office matters to the success or failure of their presidency. For example:
42
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
The best searches serve to legitimate the final choice of the search committee and trustees so that a new president can have a smooth entree to the presidency. Many searches, however, are fraught with missteps that leave constituents on the campus enraged about the search and hostile to its outcome. The search ends up an abysmal failure, not because the wrong person has been chosen, but because someone who might have been right for the institution is rendered ineffective by the traumas connected with his or her succession to the presidency (p. 21). Illustrating the individualistic nature of each presidential search process, they guide us through five case studies of searches at differing types of institutions. A narrative of each institution's experience, the case studies read more like fiction than reality. The infamous 1983 University of Florida search, heralded as an extreme example of conducting a presidential search with open-meeting laws, seems so implausible but yet was nearly replicated in recent years following the resignation of John Lombardi in 1999 (Basigner, 2001; Schmidt, 1999). While some campuses debate whether to release any information about finalists or perhaps bring them to campus, the Florida case study explains how every step of the process—including interviews—was conducted with news media present and cameras rolling. McLaughlin and Riesman devote a chapter to the use of presidential search consultants developed from their extensive research of the process in a time when consultants were still the exception rather than the rule. Citing similar arguments about the rationale for using consultants, McLauglin and Riesman (pp. 226-227) suggest that consultants "are believed to be helpful in providing a realistic sense of who is 'out there' to be discovered, scrutinized, courted, and persuaded," and that using a consultant for a search provides a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval' to a process about which people are prone to cynicism." More importantly, McLaughlin and Riesman address the issue of different types of consultants and the nuances inherent to those types. The universe of presidential search consultants is described as "not-for-profit search firms, corporate firms with sidelines in not-for-profit work, smaller specialty firms, and individuals who MARCUS LINGENFELTER
43
regularly or occasionally take on search consulting in addition to their own administrative or faculty responsibilities (p. 227). Listing some of the prominent firms or entities of the time, the authors express concerns over the growing list of consultants engaged in presidential search practices. They suggested that not all consultants have the same level of commitment or even competence and expressed fear that "an inexperienced competitor may behave in an unprofessional manner and give the entire industry a bad reputation" (p. 228). McLaughlin and Riesman also take issue with corporate consulting firms opening practices in higher education. Specifically, they question why corporate firms would engage in a search process that is at least twice as long, involves far more constituents, and yet yields far less compensation for the consultants (pp. 228-299). Since consultant fees are based upon the first year CEO compensation and higher education presidents are paid a fraction of what their corporate counterparts earn, the cost-benefit differential is significant. McLaughlin and Riesman dismiss the corporate response of "their very intricacy that makes these searches inviting" and instead assert that "these searches have come to provide significant institutional advertising, prestige, and contacts" and even more importantly that "many of the trustees serving on college or university boards also serve on corporate boards, and they may remember the consultants used in the higher education search when they are thinking about a consultant for a corporate search" (pp. 228-229). This is probably the most significant aspect of McLaughlin & Riesman's research regarding presidential search consultants. No where else in the literature can a comparative analysis of consultant types, i.e., not-for-profit versus for-profit, be found. The only other differences that are cited regard an academic versus corporate culture when choosing between not-for-profit and for-profit consultant firms (Goldsmith, 1989). Beyond motivations, McLaughlin and Riesman address the practical and philosophical differences of consultants. For example, they explain that while one consultant may "manage the process tightly" yet another consultant may "see its role primarily as guiding the 44
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
process and insisting that the search committee take responsibility for every step along the way" (pp. 234-235). While difference exists regarding involvement and direction of the process, there is universal agreement about the need for confidentiality. The authors explain why the risks are as great for the consultants as for the candidates: [TJhe reputations of the consultants depend on their not harming or not exposing prospects or sources to whom they might want to turn again. Correspondingly, some consultants refuse to take part in a sunshine search in which all of their records must be publicly available (p. 236). While outlining the different tasks performed by consultants in the search process is necessary for the comprehensive nature of the text, there is nothing significant about the authors' findings in that area. However, they do outline potential hazards of using consultants, and utilize the results of their extensive research to help avoid missteps in search process. Some hazards of using presidential search consultants are the individual consultant's background, attitude, biases, conflicts of interest, and issues of internal competition. The consultant's background—academic or corporate—can weight heavily in both their approach to the search process, and also how they are perceived and received by members of the search committee and institutional community. As McLaughlin and Riesman (p. 252) state "faculty members often view corporate search firms as belonging to the trustees' world rather than their own." Similarly, the consultant's attitude and patience with the shared governance process, which is very different than corporate searches, can quickly derail what would otherwise be a successful search process. McLaughlin and Riesman (pp. 252-53) illustrate the point by suggesting "the best consultants act almost like anthropologists, quickly sizing up a place, its values and mores, and then using this same perspective and judgment in evaluating candidates." Presidential search consultants network for a living as they must maintain an understanding and "realistic sense of who is 'out there'
MARCUS LINGENFELTER
45
to be discovered, scrutinized, courted and persuaded" (p. 226). They meet candidates at national higher education meetings, as candidates in other search processes, or simply through the recommendation of others. During the course of these consultant-candidate interactions, the consultants develop opinions and attitudes toward the candidates—in a sense it is part of their job. However, when consultants' personal opinions toward candidates become professional biases, the consultant becomes a hazard. McLaughlin and Riesman (p. 254) tell the story of a candidate not treated as other candidates because the consultant already knew him from a previous search and had made judgments about the candidate without considerations of the candidate's fit with a different type of institution. As the authors point out, if the consultant was not involved at all, or the searches were being handled by different consultants, the institutions and the candidates would make these important selection decisions instead of the consultant who is maneuvering to avoid a conflict of interest (pp. 255-56). Related is the "keep away policy" to which consultants must adhere (p. 255). Such policies simply define the allowable time frame for which a consultant is not permitted to engage a candidate for another search. Finally, there is the hazard of consultants' relaying inaccurate information about institutions to candidates from search committee or governing board members. McLaughlin and Riesman (pp. 253) assert that search consultants must not rely solely upon select groups for the institutional profile, but rather "acquire a fairly complete view of the institution." Failure to do so could result in the consultant pursuing the wrong agenda and therefore, the wrong leadership candidates. One final note about the work of McLaughlin and Riesman: They are stated advocates of the use of consultants (pp. 261-262), but acknowledge circumstances that do not require the use of a consultant, most notably institutions selecting leaders from within religious circles. However, they do not concur with the typical reason institutions cite for not using consultants—increased cost. In response McLaughlin and Riesman suggest that "nothing is more expensive than a failed search, where the institution must pay the 46
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
price of poor leadership and the board must again pay for a new round of advertisements, telephone calls, and visits to candidates" (p. 261). A Study of the Roles, Impact, and Trustee Satisfaction of the Consultants Hired to Assist with California Community College Chief Executive Officer Searches (Tronaas, 1991) Tronaas (1991) studied the use of consultants for fifteen California community colleges involved in CEO searches between 19881990. Utilizing case study methodology, Tronaas sought to answer research questions pertaining to the roles and impact of consultants as well as trustee satisfaction with the consultants' services. Highlighting the importance of such research, Tronaas writes "the quality of the outcome of a given search process is in part dependent upon the quality of the process, this study offers the prospect of providing new information to community college trustees in order that they might make some informed decisions relative to their search process" (p. 14). Specifically, Tronaas examined: (1) The roles that consultants were hired to perform, and the roles that consultants indicated are ideal; (2) the impact of perceptions held by the consultants and trustees; and (3) the level of satisfaction with the performance of the consultants indicated by the trustees (p. 11). His study is the first to address concerns expressed by Goldsmith regarding value-added or effectiveness of consultants, using perceptions of satisfaction as the measure. Consistent with non-research based literature on presidential search, Tronaas (p. 5) cites four reasons for hiring a consultant as (a) knows the search steps, (b) has recruiting knowledge and experience, (c) can access a wide network of contacts, and (d) is aware of many search and selection pitfalls. Furthermore, he proposes six reasons for the increased use of consultants ( p.4) (1) increased number of CEO turnovers, (2) recognized importance of the search process, (3) perception that search process skills are important, (4) lack of experience on the part of many search committee members, (5) CEO search issues related to shared governance, and (6) the fact
MARCUS LINGENFELTER
47
that a CEO search takes a lot more time than most of the involved parties (trustees and other staff) have to give. After reviewing the literature and consulting with community college presidents and search consultants, Tronaas (pp. 19-20) introduces his five roles of a consultant as: (1) Educator—provides information and educational training for participants before they embark on a particular step, affording them better preparation for the task at hand; (2) Advisor—participates in a particular step of the process, acting as an ex-officio advisor. As such, he or she is a nonparticipant providing assistance and/or information only when it is requested; (3) Facilitator—group leader dedicated to facilitating the group process. He provides no input into group decisions; (4) Chairperson—group leader who chairs the process and shares in decision making; and (5) Equal participant—participates fully and equally in a designated step and has approximately the same power and authority as other members. These roles were tested by the study as to a consultants' usual role and ideal roles. With six consultants responding each time in the process a usual role was performed, the role of educator was reported the most at 38 with facilitator receiving the second highest number of responses at 34. Advisor had 29 responses while chair and participant had 12 and 9, respectively. Similarly, the consultant's ideal roles were reported as facilitator (35), educator (24), and advisor (21). In this instance, chair and participant had only 7 and 5 responses, respectively. Thus, the data appears to support the belief about a consultant's role which is to serve the committee and its process rather than direct or fully participate in the search process. The first to address the issue of consultant impact, Tronaas offers five areas of impact regarding (1) the search process, (2) the quantity of applicants, (3) the quality of candidates, (4) the candidate pool diversity, and (5) the campus climate (pp. 7-8). Each is expanded upon below: Search Process—An highlighted earlier, the search process is an expected area of consultant impact as consultants are to provide expertise in the theory and practice of executive search and
48
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
selection. In this case, Tronaas found that 86 percent of respondents cited consultant impact on the process to be "significant" with a representative statement of "helped to avoid pitfalls" (p. 104). Quantity of Applicants—Similarly, consultant impact on candidate pool quantity was found to be a positive impact area by 83 percent of respondents. One interesting note was the assertion of a consultant regarding trustee over-emphasis of candidate pool quantity versus quality. Since candidate pool quantity can be achieved through mere advertising and without the assistance of a consultant, it is understandable that consultants would not regard candidate pool quantity as a major impact. Quality of Applicants—According to 81 percent of respondents, consultants delivered a higher quality applicant pool. However, the means by which this was accomplished was unknown to trustee respondents as they could offer no specifics. Meanwhile, consultant respondents provided examples of "specific techniques" such as "recruiting, contacts, sourcing, networking," and "contacting those that need to be convinced" (p. 99). Candidate Pool Diversity—Similar to consultant impact on quality of applicants, the diversity of a candidate pool is largely the result of pro-active search techniques conducted by consultants. A majority of respondents (76 percent) reported that consultants positively impacted the candidate pool diversity. However, in this case those respondents' not affirming the consultant's impact were slightly more critical. For example, trustee respondents were cited making statements of "the consultant did help with the pool diversity, particularly the number of female candidates; however, the minority pool was weak" and "no impact on candidate pool diversity" (pp. 102-103). Campus Climate—Consultants have the advantage of objectivity that may be instrumental if a campus community is in conflict over the CEO search process. Tronaas (p. 6) aptly states "a consultant may be in a position to reduce campus tension, bring the various constituents to consensus regarding college goals, and facilitate the change in CEO leadership." This appeared to be the consensus among trustee and consultant respondents. While only 77 percent MARCUS LINGENFELTER
49
reported a positive impact by consultants, the remaining 23 percent of respondents reported that campus climate was not an issue and therefore such effect would go unnoticed (p. 106). While Tronaas's work is valuable research in a field of higher education where very little exists, [it also has its weaknesses] it is appropriate to offer criticisms of study. For example, the small sample which is not representative of the larger higher education community makes the results subject to question. Furthermore, studying only 2-year public colleges from a single state limits applicability to the larger higher education environment. Perhaps replication of the study including a larger sample of institutions, both public and private two- and four-year, would be useful to validate Tronaas's findings.
Part III Conclusions "In the final analysis, the search must belong to the institution." - Madeleine F. Green (1988a, pp. 197) The three studies reviewed suggest there are both advantages and concerns surrounding the use of presidential search consultants. The advantages of consultant-assisted searches could be summarized in four categories of (1) expertise and experience, (2) objectivity, (3) networks, and (4) confidentiality. The particular advantages are expanded upon in greater detail below.
avoid them (Tronaas, 1991). Clearly, the nature of this advantage is procuring the services of an experienced professional rather than rely upon a governing board chair or a faculty search committee member who may have limited or no experience in the search process. Objectivity In addition to the advantage of experience, objectivity is also characterized as an benifit. Having a "realistic sense of who is 'out there" is just one example of how an objective view on the search process provides an advantage (McLaughlin & Riesman, 1990, p. 226). Moreover, if an institution is suffering from internal strife, the objectivity of a neutral third-party can help mitigate the strife and provide focus to the search (Marchese, 1989b; Tronass, 1991). Also, the presence of a consultant signals to the university and larger higher education communities that the search is ethical, genuine, and legitimate (Goldsmith, 1989; McLaughlin & Riesman, 1990). Networks One of the principal advantages of using a search consultant is his or her ability and capacity to conduct a proactive versus reactive search (McLaughlin & Riesman, 1990). This appears to be further supported by the consultant impact on candidate pool quantity, quality, and diversity reported by Tronaas (1991). Confidentiality
Expertise and Experience Someone who knows the mechanics of the search process and also has the appropriate time to devote to it are two stated advantages of using a search consultant (Tronaas, 1991). The time element, from Goldsmith's (1989) standpoint, provides efficiency in the search process not achieved without the use of a consultant. Like any other professional endeavor, being a search consultant also requires the development of different approaches to their trade depending upon the needs of the client (McLaughlin & Riesman, 1990), as well as having the experience to know where the pitfalls exist and how to
50
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
Goldsmith (1989, p. 95) reported that 76 percent of those who employed a consultant agreed that confidentiality could be maintained as contrasted with only 27 percent of those who did not use a consultant. In other words, those who have used a consultant recognize the advantage of a more confidential environment. McLaughlin and Riesman (1990, p.236) explicitly state "we have yet to meet a consultant who does not believe in the central importance of confidentiality in the search... indeed, of the major reasons why some boards of trustees turn to a consultant is in the hope that this will help assure confidentiality." The loss of
MARCUS LINGENFELTER
51
confidentiality results in the not only the loss of candidates, but for some candidates the loss of their existing jobs as well (McLaughlin &Riesman, 1990). The concerns expressed regarding the use of presidential search consultants can be summarized within (1) cost, (2) culture, and (3) conflict of interest. Cost Goldsmith (1989) addressed the issue of cost directly determining that there was a significant difference associated with the use of a consultant. Considering that Goldsmith's study is 15 years old and that presidential compensation, and thus at least for-profit consultant compensation, has risen to new heights (Basinger, 2003). While McLaughlin and Riesman (1990) believe that the cost of a consultant is justified and far less expensive than that of a failed search, the issue of cost is legitimate and in need of further examination.
Conflict of Interest One of the unintended circumstances of the growing use of consultants illustrated by McLaughlin & Riesman's extensive research (1990) was the conflict of interest between candidates and consultants. Personal bias against a candidate by a consultant is one example as McLaughlin and Riesman (p. 254) state "the familiarity with candidates is both a possible advantage and a potential hazard." McLaughlin and Riesman go on to recount the story of a candidate who, although considered by the search committee to be a top candidate, was dismissed by the consultant because of a prior interaction and negative bias. Furthermore, the simple fact that consultants work for the hiring institutions and not for the candidates presents complications. McLaughlin and Riesman (pp. 254-256) again illustrate such troubles when keep away policies are invoked, or when consultants conduct two or more presidential searches at one time, restricting the options of candidates for the sake of their client institutions [not sure about the meaning of the last clause].
Culture
Future Research
Goldsmith (1989) suggested a corporate versus academic culture existed depending upon the presence of a consultant. Going one step further, McLaughlin and Riesman (1990) identified corporate versus academic cultures among consultants themselves. They questioned whether differences existed between the non-profit and for-profit consultants, especially as it pertains to the culture of a search process they assist. For example, the for-profit versus non-profit culture of the consultant can influence the motives of the consultants for engaging in the search, the manner in which they conduct it, and the resulting selection (McLaughlin & Riesman, 1990).
Two areas of prospective research emerged as most needed: (1) consultant effectiveness; and (2) differences among consultant types. For example, examining the ideal and actual roles performed by consultants in the search process, Tronaas's (date) work sets the stage for an examination of consultant effectiveness. Additionally, questioning whether consultant-assisted searches produce better results than non-assisted searches, Tronaas calls on future researchers to examine the relationship between CEO tenure and consultant involvement in the presidential search process (1991, p. 134). Similarly, Goldsmith (1989, p. 110) recommended that a follow-up study be conducted to examine "how successful the search experience was, in terms of the success of the chosen candidate." While he recommended examining the same research sample, the intent of his call for further study suggests looking at variables such as candidate satisfaction, successful candidate length of tenure in office, and the institutional community's satisfaction with the search process.
Tronaas (1991) illustrated that hiring a consultant to address specific campus climate issue can sometimes be a motive of trustees. However, it would appear that the cautions of Goldsmith and McLaughlin & Riesman suggest that the consultant culture itself is an issue also to be seriously considered in such deliberations.
52
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
MARCUS LINGENFELTER
53
McLaughlin and Riesman (1990) presented a very enlightening rationale for the strong presence of for-profit firms engaged in presidential search for higher education. No empirical research has ever been conducted to compare for-profit and not-for-profit search firms so there is no evidence to support or contradict the findings of McLaughlin and Riesman. Rather, it is suggested that search committees and governing boards conduct a shoot out, whereby they interview numerous search firms on the same day. This process allows institutions to retain the services of a particular firm "according to [their] specific needs and wishes" and with whom "[their] board or search committee has the right 'chemistry" (AGB, 1998, p. 2). Perhaps formal research would eliminate the need for such endeavors, instead providing empirical evidence of the benefits of one type of consultant over another. Indeed, this entire subject of presidential search consultants is ripe for continued and more extensive research. These two areas of consultant effectiveness and difference of consultant type are but two starting points. Regardless, influential entities such as search consultants involved in this important social process deserve greater attention and further scrutiny. References Academic Search Consultation Services. (1990). The Services of ASCS [Brochure]. Washington, DC: Author. American Council on Education. (2004). Roundtable of Executive Search Firms Members. Retrieved February 1, 2004, from American Council on Education Web site: http: //www.acenet.edu/resources/roundtable/members.cfm Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (1996). Guidelines on selecting a presidential search consultant and a directory of presidential search consultants. Washington, DC: Author. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (1998). Presidential search guidelines and directory^ Washington, DC: Author. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2002). Presidential search guidelines and directory. Washington, DC: Author. 54 HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW 2004
Bartlett, T. (2003, November 14). How not to choose a president: What went wrong with Boston U.'s presidential search. Chronicle of Higher Education, A1. Basinger, J. (2000, August 4). A 17-month presidency leaves U. of Toledo in a state of unusual disarray. Chronicle of Higher Education, A33. Basinger, J. (2001, March 9). No long-term president and no prospects: How politics on and off campus scuttled the search for a leader at the U. of Florida. Chronicle of Higher Education, A35. Basinger, J. (2003, November 14). Closing in on $l-miilion. Chronicle of Higher Education, S1. Bennis, W. (1971). Searching for the "perfect" university president. Atlantic, 227, (4) 39-44,47-53. Birnbaum, R. (1989a). Presidential succession and institutional functioning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 60, (2) 123-135. Bolman, F.W. (1965). How college presidents are chosen. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Bornstein, R. (2003, November 14). Why college presidents don't last. Chronicle of Higher Education, B20. Cleveland, H. (1985). The costs and benefits of openness: Sunshine laws and higher education. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Cohen, M.D. & March, J.G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president (2nd ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Corrigan, M.E. (2002). The American college president: 2002 edition. Washington: American Council on Education. Davis, C.N. (1994). Scaling the ivory tower: State public records laws and university presidential searches. Journal of College and University Law, 21, (2) 353-368. Dodds, HW. (1962). The academic president: Educator or caretaker. New York: McGraw-Hill. Estes, N. (2000). State university presidential searches: Law and practice. Journal of College and University Law, 26, (3) 485-509. Garrison, S.A. (1989). Institutional search: A practical guide to executive recruitment in nonprofit organizations. New York: Praeger. MARCUS LINGENFELTER
55
Gilmore, T.N. (1988). Making a leadership change: How organizations and leaders can handle transitions successfully. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goldsmith, J.W. (1989). A study of perceptions of college search committee chairs concerning the use of paid consultants in presidential searches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada-Las Vegas. Green, M.F. (1988a). Leaders for a new era. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Green, M.F. (1988b). The American college president: A contemporary profile. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Greenspan, A. (2000). Structural change in the new economy. Presentation to the 92 nd annual meeting of the National Governor's Association, State College, PA. Hartley, J.F. & Ness, F.W. (1981). The presidential search service. AGB Reports, 23,(1) 37-39. Kaplowitz, R. (1986). Selecting college and university personnel: The quest and the questions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Kauffman, J.F. (1974). The selection of college and university presidents. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges. Kerr, C. (1984). Presidents make a difference: Strengthening leadership in colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Kerr, C. & Gade, M.L. (1986). The many lives of academic presidents: Time, place, & character. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Kincannon, K. (1997). Using the boardroom search consultant. Corporate Board: Journal of Corporate Governance, 18, (105), 15-20. Lester, V.L. (1993). How to hire a search consultant: energy, enthusiasm, and style are important. Trusteeship, 1, (6) 25-29. Marchese, T.J. (1984). Searching for talent: An interview with Ruth G. Weintraub. AAHE Bulletin, 36, (8) 3-6. Marchese, T.J. (1989a). Search from the candidate's perspective: An interview with Maria M. Perez. AAHE Bulletin, 42, (4) 3-5, 11-13. 56
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
Marchese, T.J. (1989b). The search committee handbook: A guide to recruiting administrators. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. McLaughlin, J.B. (1983). Confidentiality and disclosure in the presidential search process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. McLaughlin, J.B. (1985a). From secrecy to sunshine: An overview of presidential search practice. Research in Higher Education, 22, (2) 195-208. McLaughlin, J.B. (1985b). Plugging search committee leaks. AGB Reports, 27, (3) 24-30. McLaughlin, J.B. & Riesman, D. (1985). The vicissitudes of the search process. Review of Higher Education, 8, (4) 341-355. McLaughlin, J.B. & Riesman, D. (1989). The shady side of sunshine: The press and presidential searches. Change, 21, (1) 44-57. McLaughlin, J.B. & Riesman, D. (1990). Choosing a college president: Opportunities and constraints. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Moody, B.C. (1997). The question of fit: How candidates assess individual-institutional fit before accepting a college or university presidency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, M.A. Moore, J.W. (2001). Presidential succession and transitions: Beginnings, ending, and beginning again. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. More Confidentiality Allowed in Michigan President Searches. (1997). Trusteeship, 5 (1) 33. Mottram, R.A. (1983). Executive search firms as an alternative to search committees. Educational Record, 64,(1) 38-40. Nason, J.W. (1984). Presidential search: A guide to the process of selecting and appointing college and university presidents. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities & Colleges. Neff, C.B. & Leondar, B. (1997). Presidential search: A guide to the process of selecting and appointing college and university presidents. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities. MARCUS LINGENFELTER
57
Powers, D.G. (1950). The selection of university presidents in America: Comparative analysis of the expressed judgments of the chairmen of the boards, the presidents, and the professors in American universities during 1946-47. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University. Pulley, J.L. (2003, September 26). How a 'textbook search' went awry: The U. of Tennessee thought its newest president would lead it to new heights, but two years later he resigned in disgrace. Chronicle of'Higher Education, A44. Rent, G.S. (1990). A case for the search consultant. Educational Record, 71, (I) 15-18. Riesman, D. & McLaughlin, J. (1984). A primer on the use of consultants in presidential recruitment. Change, 16, (6) 12-23. Ross, M. & Green, M.F. (2000). The American college president: 2000 edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Schmidt, P. (1999, September 3). U. of Florida's president resigns after tenure marked by successes and blunders. Chronicle of Higher Education, A70. Stead, R.S. (1987). Presidential search: Ensuring a good start. AGB Reports, 29, (5) 14-18. Stoke, H.W. (1959). The American college president. New York: Harper & Brothers. Technology's Impact on the Presidential Search Process. (1996). Educational Record, 77, (2-3) 25. Touchton, J.G. (1989). Maybe we need a search firm? Questions to ask yourself, and your consultant. AAHE Bulletin, 42, (4) 6-9. Tronaas, E.M. (1991). A study of the roles, impact, and trustee Satisfaction of the consultants hired to assist with California community college chief executive officer searches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, CA. U. of Florida makes interim president permanent. (2001, January 5). Chronicle of Higher Education, A24. Weary, W.A. (1998). Board basics: Essentials of presidential search. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
58
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
Exploring Information Technology-Related Organizational Change within Higher Education Michelle Stine Abstract Information Technology (IT) has revolutionized many aspects of American higher education. It touches every office on campus and provides the foundation upon which many university-wide services run. IT's increasing importance within the last fifteen years has contributed to changes in the various formal and informal ways that units and individuals within colleges and universities interact. Visible examples of this include increased information technology staffing, the local "expert" and the growing importance of network security. This paper draws on organizational theory to provide new insights into how information technology is changing institutional dynamics. Changes are examined through economics-based rational perspective and transaction cost theory, power dynamicsbased resource dependency theory, and cultural assumptions and beliefs-based institutional theory. By explaining how each theory relates to events within information technology and the institution at large, the paper provides information technology managers, information technology staff, administrators, and researchers with four frameworks useful for understanding formal and informal interactions and for determining the effects and causes of technology strategies.
Michelle Stine is apart-time Masters student. She manages the Information Technology unit within Penn State's College of Arts & Architecture. Before this, she served in various information technology support positions within academic departments and at the central level. She received a BA in English from Penn State.
MICHELLE STINE
59
Exploring Information Technology Related Organizational Change within Higher Education Jane, a Professor of Music, was annoyed. "Listen," she snapped at John, a technical support staff member, "all I want is an IP address so I can bring in my own computer and use it in my office. This will save the department money and my computer is newer than the department's. I don't understand what the big deal is." John was annoyed as well. "Your home computer is a Windows 2000 machine. Do you know how many viruses are out there for Windows? This is a university network. Every machine plugging into the network should be administered by information technology. It's our responsibility to make sure things are kept patched and up to date on virus definitions. "Go ahead and patch my machine, then." "But it's apersonal machine. I'm not responsible for people's personal machines. That's not my job." This hypothetical situation contains several elements of change introduced into higher education by the spread of information technology. It may sound familiar to faculty and staff who work in American universities. Although an information technology manager might consider the situation as a sign that John needs to improve his customer service skills, such a reading would fail to recognize the underlying forces contributing to the issue at hand. These forces are connected with the way that information technology is changing the organizational structures of colleges and universities. Information technology managers, information technology staff, administrators, faculty and other campus employees can benefit from improved understanding about how these changes affect them, their relationships, and their communities. Within the last ten years, information technology has altered the way higher education does business. Although several schools experienced information technology budget cuts in 2003, respondents to a Campus Computing Project survey reported that information technology still comprised 7.3% of total campus 60
HIGHER EDUCATION IN REVIEW
2004
spending (Tully, 2004). Information technology continues to link researchers across the world and provide the vehicle by which online education has reached out to thousands of new learners. Campus leaders have access to more information about student statistics and trends, and alumni and development officers easily share donor information and coordinate activities. Moreover, information technology has created new areas of study like Entertainment Technology at Carnegie Mellon University or Information Sciences and Technology at The Pennsylvania State University. Information technology pervades today's university functions (McCord, 2002). Admissions, athletics, public relations and police services units all rely on information technology devices, systems or people to accomplish their goals, including the creation and maintenance of student records, ticket and memorabilia sales, the posting of web pages or building security systems. Information technology is also changing workflow, jobs, organizational structure, and productivity—affecting the various formal and informal ways that institutional units and employees interact with each other. Understanding the organizational foundations of the Jane/John confrontation will help information technology managers lead their staff through often confusing and sometimes painful organizational change. Conversely, understanding how information technology is changing higher education organizations will help higher education scholars learn more about changes in organizational interactions and processes. This paper explores how several information technology-induced formal and informal changes in higher education may be better understood through the perspectives of four organizational lenses: rational perspective, transaction cost theory, resource dependency theory and institutional theory. What is Information
Technology?
Information technology, for the purposes of this paper, is defined as the hardware and software existing on desktops as well as the networking and server infrastructure necessary to share, store and distribute information as an organization. Information technology MICHELLE STINE
61
