In an era where the terms “diversity, equity, and inclusion” have a political target on them and are ostensibly being tarnished, the research report Equity-Minded Principles for Presidential Searches in Higher Education delivers necessary critique and truth-telling for higher education institutions, search committees, search firms, governing boards, researchers and higher education professionals. The report offers a groundbreaking framework for rethinking the traditional hiring process for college and university presidents. Co-authored by Jorge Burmicky, Ph.D., associate professor of higher education leadership and policy studies in the Howard University School of Education, along with Kevin R. McClure, Jordan Gonzales, and Cameron J. McCoy, this study provides a crucial examination of the biases embedded within presidential search processes. It presents five actionable principles to foster greater equity in recruiting and selecting higher education leaders.

Dr. Burmicky’s Contributions and the Significance of This Study

Dr. Burmicky’s scholarship on higher education leadership is instrumental in shaping the discourse around equitable hiring practices. His research interrogates systemic barriers that disproportionately exclude candidates from traditionally marginalized backgrounds from ascending to the highest levels of leadership across higher education. 

Why does this research matter? Inclusive leadership helps to recognize the needs of campus community members (students, faculty, and staff), especially individuals from traditionally marginalized demographics. The beauty of the changing demographic of this nation is that American college and university populations are increasingly more representative of a range of social, economic, gender, and ethnic backgrounds—to name a few. Reports suggest that higher education has progressed in diversifying the college presidency (Selingo, Chheng, and Clark 2017). However, despite the progress, most college and university presidents remain White and male (Gagliardi et al., 2017). Moreover, presidential search processes maintain inequitable protocols, practices, and norms. Through this study, Dr. Burmicky and his co-authors emphasize the role of search consultants, governing boards, and search committees in perpetuating or dismantling executive hiring inequities.

A distinctive feature of this qualitative research study is its methodological approach, which centers the perspectives of search firm consultants—individuals who play a pivotal yet often overlooked role in shaping presidential searches. By incorporating their insights, the study illuminates how biased norms, such as the preference for candidates with specific institutional affiliations or traditional academic career trajectories, serve as exclusionary mechanisms that limit diversity in leadership roles.

Challenging Traditional Notions of Leadership

This research offers a critical epistemological shift by questioning long-standing assumptions about what constitutes an “ideal candidate” for a university presidency. Simply put, the authors challenge the notion of “executive material,” a term historically coded with white, male, and corporate-oriented leadership traits. They argue that perceptions of competence and experience must be broadened to recognize the diverse pathways through which leaders develop their skills and expertise.

The study’s five equity-minded principles serve as an evidence-based framework for dismantling exclusionary practices. The research findings were derived from interviews with 15 search consultants. Each participant worked full-time at a search firm specializing in higher education executive searches.

Principle # 1– Challenge Perceptions of What Constitutes a Good Candidate

Key findings from the report:

• Equity can be impeded in presidential searches before the first application is submitted based on perceptions of what constitutes a “good candidate” or “executive material,”—including how these concepts are expressed in documents and discussions.
• Vague concepts assess intangible personality characteristics and are often modeled after confident, extroverted, charismatic leaders who command the room.
• Nearly every research participant noted that while more efforts to infuse diversity into governing boards have taken place, boards remain predominantly composed of White men whose understanding of executive searches and leadership often comes from business or industry.
• Research participants also noted that boards are typically inclined toward someone with whom they are “comfortable,” which can lead to a type of [candidate] cloning.

Principle #2 – Do not Expect Minoritized Candidates to be Superheroes and Be Prepared to Support Them

Key findings from the report:

• Search consultants identified a common mechanism of exclusion in which minoritized candidates are held to a more demanding standard than candidates who are White men.
• Often, the achievements of candidates with vastly different opportunity ladders are compared against one another rather than against the job requirements.
• The costs of slipping up can be more severe for minoritized presidents.
• Mounting evidence indicates that women and people of color are overrepresented in precarious leadership positions and are often set up for failure, a phenomenon known as the “glass cliff” (Cook and Glass, 2014; Haslam and Ryan, 2008). In the words of one consultant, “People of color can get a presidency and make a mistake, and then that could be the end of their opportunities. Whereas White men can keep making mistake after mistake after mistake and get presidencies again and again and again.” 

Principle #3 – Examine Implicit Bias and Participate in Meaningful Bias Training

Key findings from the report:

• Implicit bias is widespread and difficult to change, and organizations must do more than one-size-fits-all training (Onyeador, Hudson, and Lewis 2021).
• Implicit bias training can sometimes be broad and generic and may not always address issues that are likely to occur specifically in presidential searches.
• Presidential application materials look entirely different from other higher education searches. If search committee members are not thoughtful about their review time, it can jeopardize their consideration process and embed more mechanisms of exclusion. Skimming application materials tends to lead to the exclusion rather than the advancement of candidates.
• For example, as one of the research participants shared, “women, especially women of color applicants, tend to get skimmed” because of the makeup of many board and search committees. In other words, since all individuals have biases and governing boards tend to have a majority of White men, this participant had seen many women candidates—especially women of color—be overlooked by presidential search processes.

Principle #4: Shape an Intentional and Inclusive Presidential Leadership Prospectus

Key findings from the report:

• The prospectus should be inviting and inclusive as the initial communication from a search firm and institution to candidates (Hartman, 2021).
• Potential candidates review the institution’s imagery, language, and data within the prospectus as an interpretive tool (Markell, 2020). However, as perhaps the only public document in the search, it also serves as a message to the broader higher education marketplace.
• Search committees should understand the complexities of the prospectus so that it does not become a primary mechanism of exclusion. These complexities range from legal intricacies to the specificity and breadth of the document’s stated requirements.
• One equity-driven framing mechanism is to offer a clear leadership agenda within the prospectus. That way, candidates can respond with their equivalent leadership experience in addition to the position’s specific requirements.

Principle #5: Be Mindful in the Selection of Search Firms

Key findings from the report:

• Governing boards and search committees should consider each firm’s distinctive characteristics, mission, and services and determine whether its values align with the institution’s needs.
• One important question that search committees should ask is how diverse and equity-minded the search firm is.
• Search committees and board members should also inquire about a search firm’s record of incorporating equity-minded principles and practices into their work.
• A common exercise that governing boards and search committees conduct includes asking firms to define their search experience, detail their recruitment strategies, share specific search consultants’ experiences, provide pricing information, and share a proposed timeline for the search (AGB, 2012). The researchers recommend asking additional equity-minded questions listed in the report.

These principles underscore the need for institutions to move beyond performative diversity efforts and adopt substantive changes in their hiring processes.

 

 “I urge all higher education stakeholders – students, faculty, board of trustees – to pay close attention to their hiring practices, said Dr. Burmicky. At a time when so much is in question, it is important for organizations to have leaders who are willing to advocate for those who are at the margins. This is the essence of these equity-minded principles.”

Did you know? TM2 Executive Search specializes in providing exemplary executive talent acquisition consultation for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs), and other organizations looking to attract highly qualified, motivated, accomplished, diverse candidates at all levels of administration.

Broader Societal Implications

While this study’s findings apply to all higher education institutions, they hold particular significance for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). HBCUs have a storied history of fostering Black excellence in leadership, yet they, too, face challenges in ensuring that their search processes remain equitable and inclusive. Since HBCUs often serve as incubators for Black leadership in academia and beyond, implementing these equity-minded principles can further cement their role as transformative institutions that challenge traditional power structures.

Beyond HBCUs, this research has broad societal implications in addressing racial and gender disparities in leadership across all sectors. The persistence of the “glass cliff” phenomenon—where women and people of color are disproportionately placed in precarious leadership roles with higher expectations and fewer support systems—underscores the urgency of rethinking hiring processes. This study provides a roadmap for institutions seeking to disrupt cycles of exclusion and create pathways for sustainable, diverse leadership.

A Call to Action for Higher Education Leaders

The insights presented in Equity-Minded Principles for Presidential Searches in Higher Education challenge institutions to confront biases in their hiring practices and take concrete steps toward inclusive leadership. While higher education is an institution that at its onset was riddled with patriarchal, racist, classist, and sexist practices, that archaic approach to leadership hiring practices does not align with the college and university students, faculty, and staff of today who deserve to be represented. By adopting these equity-minded principles, colleges and universities can move beyond rhetoric and make meaningful strides in diversifying the presidency.