Hiring Leaders Equitably and Effectively

It’s well established that subconscious assumptions may affect one’s evaluations of job candidates. For instance, the “halo effect” privileges advisees of a renowned scholar. Rubrics to assess a candidate’s qualifications against pre-established criteria reduce the effects of such assumptions.

Similarly, for leadership hires, people make assumptions regarding what qualities make an effective leader: innate and largely immutable (unchanging) traits, somewhat more mutable (adaptable) personality traits or competencies that can be acquired. Research shows, perhaps not surprisingly, that people subconsciously map these qualities onto a candidate’s visible identity (invisible identity is less studied).

To understand why and what to do about it, the concepts of leader emergence, leader effectiveness and leader prototype are helpful. Leader emergence refers to others viewing someone as a leader based on perceived potential or actual influence. Leader effectiveness speaks to actual performance, which should be the focus of equitable and effective leader hiring. But leader prototypes, which are societally guided (and often subconscious) beliefs about who is leader-like, can challenge efforts to focus on leader effectiveness during hiring.

Specifically, leader prototypes can influence perceptions of who is qualified for an open leadership position. One’s leader prototypes are informed by the leaders they have noticed (who, in higher education, like most sectors, have probably been disproportionately male and white, and likely cisgender, heterosexual, American and of higher socioeconomic status).

Past relevant behaviors are the best predictors of future leader effectiveness, but traits—which have innate roots but manifest differently in different contexts—are important predictors, too. Specifically, the relevance of traits is indirect, in that they influence leader behaviors, and personality intersects differently with leader emergence and leader effectiveness. Of the major personality traits (conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability, openness to experience, extroversion and honesty/humility), extroversion has the strongest effect on leader emergence but weaker (but still positive) effect on leader effectiveness, whereas agreeableness has a smaller effect on leader emergence and a stronger effect on leader effectiveness, and honesty/humility appears unrelated to leader emergence but significantly impacts leader effectiveness.

As for assumptions about how these are linked to identity, men are more likely than women to be perceived by others as leaders, and white people are more likely than people of color. And while gender and race/ethnicity affect leader emergence, men and women do not differ significantly in leader effectiveness across contexts.

So how does all this help us equitably and effectively hire leaders? Broadly, it means we should consider behaviors as well as traits and focus on behavioral competencies. Here’s how to apply these principles at each stage of a search.

Preparation

At least one person—the search chair, hiring official or search firm representative—should take responsibility for equitable search design. (At Oregon State University, we use a trained search advocate to support this goal.) Train the committee in equitable practices; establish norms for respectful, open committee discussion to ensure that diverse viewpoints are considered; and find ways to bring attention to subconscious assumptions by discussing, for example, leader prototypes and key competencies. Consider an exercise describing traits and then name a leader who exemplifies them, or review anonymized résumés to focus on candidates’ perceived behavioral competencies and then discuss the evaluation, highlighting potential biases.

Focus on behavioral competencies for performing key activities. The position description is often part of a broader leadership position profile describing the institution and may include 20 or more expectations; it guides the hiring process, influencing who chooses to apply and how they are evaluated. While valuable for comprehensively describing the role to potential candidates, such lists should distinguish required behavioral competencies from desired tasks in order to both encourage applications and guide committee evaluations based on clear evidence.

The O*NET database provides a validated set of behavioral leader competencies that predict leader effectiveness in higher education. These behavioral competencies should form the foundations of minimum and preferred requirements in leadership position profiles and in candidate evaluation rubrics tailored to the position. Given that search committee members evaluate candidates by applying the candidate evaluation rubrics—derived from the position profile—there are advantages to giving the search committee input into the development of these documents.

Further, search committees that have input into the development of the position profile should discuss additional (perhaps unstated) expectations, such as duration of past leadership experience, time outside academia and academic reputation (e.g., “our next dean must be a member of the National Academy of Sciences”). Such expectations may exclude qualified candidates from underrepresented backgrounds: In many fields, prestigious awards are still conferred using inadvertently biased processes, and in any case, achieving top honors in a field requires a combination of good fortune and skills that may only be tangentially relevant to broader leadership. Similarly, some committee members may be reluctant to count private sector leadership experience. And internal candidates benefit from knowing the institution but may face challenges persuading colleagues who know them as a peer and have a harder time imagining them in certain leadership roles.

Recruitment

Best practices in equitable searches underscore the significance of embedding values of diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging throughout recruitment, beginning with the more specific position description or broader position profile. Non-prototypical candidates are less likely to see themselves in a leadership position description or profile and are less likely to be referred as candidates by those who know them, which can unnecessarily narrow the initial candidate pool. To address this, carefully tailor a position description or profile to describe clear and measurable job-relevant requirements rather than an ambiguous and generic requirement such as “demonstrated leadership skills,” or phrasing that may discourage underrepresented candidates. For some positions, seeking deep experience creating institutional change for equity, or scholarship focused on DEIB, may be appropriate and can also attract a diverse pool of applicants.

Further, searches should cast a wide net in generating interest among potential candidates, including by proactively disseminating position descriptions through discipline- and identity-specific advertising resources (e.g., Latinos in Higher Ed, VetCentral). When partnering with a search firm, universities should ensure the firm’s mission, goals and values are aligned with those of the university. Ideally, equitable recruitment includes active outreach, seeking out candidates based on leader competencies and alignment with institutional mission, goals and values, rather than defaulting to leader prototypes.

Evaluate candidates systematically at each stage. With a short list of job-relevant required leadership competencies identified, the search committee chair and some or all of the committee members should develop assessment rubrics that can be completed by each committee member, ensuring consistent evaluations. Assessment rubrics developed for each stage of the hiring process (e.g., initial screening, first-round interviews, campus visits) will best translate the position description or position profile to serve selection processes as they naturally unfold.

As mentioned above, a position profile that prioritizes competencies that are directly job-relevant—and measurable using validated instruments—will enable systematic evaluation of candidates. Such criteria-based evaluations can help combat preferences for leader prototypes and ensure that the focus is on leader effectiveness. Each committee member should have the opportunity to apply evaluation criteria individually first to avoid biasing evaluations vis-à-vis social dynamics within the search committee. Combining the evaluations should follow a weighting scheme established in advance. For example, the evaluations of the major clusters of leader behavioral competencies (e.g., making decisions and solving problems) may be assigned equal weights, or some may be given higher and others lower weights. Additionally, to combat groupthink, search committee members may also consider revisiting group consensus or designating a strategic dissenter (or devil’s advocate) in their discussions.

Selecting Interviewees

To prepare for situations when, for instance, the committee struggles to agree on candidates to advance to the next stage, it can be helpful to have a prior discussion on (a) strategies and actions for resolving disagreements, (b) when to be flexible or revisit criteria and (c) the relationship between each evaluation criterion and leader effectiveness. Then, if disagreements arise, committee members can focus their discussions on whether clear evidence supports a candidate’s effectiveness regarding specific evaluation criteria. Or a university human resources partner can help make short-list decisions based on search committee evaluations. Another strategy supported by research is to coach decision-makers (e.g., search committee members) to lengthen their initial short lists, a practice that may yield a more diverse list.

Interview

Interview questions should assess the job-relevant required competencies. Structured interviews, in which the same questions are asked of all candidates and assessed using the same rubric by each evaluator, are the best interviews for minimizing biased evaluations. Committees can develop a combination of behavioral (e.g., prompting for concrete past behavior) and situational (e.g., case study to anticipate future behavior) questions.

Guidelines for follow-up questions should also be developed to support interviewers to neutralize assumptions factoring into their assessments. For example, a candidate may, for cultural reasons, use “we” to describe their own accomplishments (remember, humility predicts leader effectiveness but not emergence); to evaluate their behavioral competencies, a committee member could then ask, “What were your specific actions contributing to this accomplishment?”

Behavioral and situational questions (see this list of sample interview questions) can help assess the candidate’s related practical experience in and commitment to equity and inclusion. Such questions also allow the committee to learn about candidates’ diverse experiences or nontraditional career pathways that may have contributed to their perspectives and potential for success in the role.

During the final on-campus interview, opportunities for broad input from stakeholders (typically via an anonymous online instrument) should direct respondents to evaluate key job-relevant competencies rather than offer free-form responses, to minimize comments on less relevant personality traits. The focus on relevant behavioral competencies should be maintained when considering this broader input and factoring it into the ultimate selection decision.

The evidence-based recommendations we have described here can lead, and have led, to hiring more diverse, qualified leaders—not by focusing on or avoiding naming visible identity, but by using promising practices that overcome both subconscious and structural biases. These recommendations are robust across a range of ideological and political contexts.