Unlocking the Why: Understanding Institutional Motivations Behind Leadership Searches

Note: This article is Part 1 of the series Demystifying the Search: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Senior Leadership Higher Ed Searches .

In higher education, when a senior leadership vacancy arises, it signals a pivotal moment driven by specific institutional needs and strategic goals.

Each search is motivated by a unique combination of factors, whether to maintain stability, respond to a crisis, or implement a new vision.

For candidates, understanding these motivations can provide valuable insight into the role’s expectations, the culture of the institution, and the broader priorities influencing the search.

In this article, we refer to the hiring manager as the person to whom the successful candidate will report—such as a president for vice presidents, a provost for deans, or a vice president for AVPs. This individual’s vision, decision-making style, and strategic goals significantly influence the search process and the criteria against which candidates will be evaluated.

The four most common scenarios that lead to a search are described below.

1. Planned Transitions

Some leadership searches are prompted by planned retirements or announced resignations, where an institution has the benefit of a clear transition period. In these cases, the search process typically reflects the institution’s motivation for continuity and stability, allowing it to carefully identify a successor who aligns with the established mission, values, and long-term aspirations.

Planned transitions allow institutions to conduct comprehensive, open searches. This transparency aligns with shared governance principles and gives both internal and external candidates a chance to demonstrate their potential contributions to the institution’s future.

In one role, I transitioned into a position following a 25-year incumbent who had announced their retirement well in advance. The institution wanted continuity but was also open to change, curious to see how the role might evolve to elevate the university’s impact. The stability of the leadership team and the depth of institutional knowledge were significant advantages, making for a structured, seamless transition where we could “hit the ground running.” This kind of environment presents an ideal balance for candidates who bring fresh ideas yet value the institution’s existing strengths.

2. Abrupt Departures

When a leader resigns suddenly or is removed from their position, the institution’s immediate motivation is often to stabilize operations. Appointing an interim in these cases ensures continuity while allowing time to consider the best long-term direction. Institutions often appoint respected interim leaders to reassure stakeholders and uphold campus values during the transition.

Interims are frequently appointed with an understanding that they are not candidates for the permanent role, allowing for a fully open search with flexibility in the final appointment. However, this is not always the case. Some institutions see interim appointments as an opportunity to test an internal candidate’s fit for the role. This approach is common in institutions that prioritize developing internal talent, provided there is a qualified, well-regarded candidate available.

I once stepped into a role where a respected internal interim was serving in the position. The advantage here was that the interim — who had not applied for the position — prepared extensive transition documents and materials, making it easier to understand the current state of affairs, key challenges, and opportunities. However, the internal interim was beloved by the community, leading to an expectation that they would stay on as a mentor or support figure for the new leader. This presented a unique challenge in balancing the community’s respect for the interim with the need to establish myself in the role — even as I very much valued the advice.

3. New Leadership and the Motivation to Reshape a Team

An increasingly common scenario occurs when a newly appointed hiring manager—such as a president, provost, or vice president—decides to bring in new leadership as part of a team-building strategy. This motivation often emerges after the hiring manager’s own interview process, where they learn from campus stakeholders about gaps in skills, fit, or performance within current leadership. New leaders may also bring a vision for change that they believe requires fresh perspectives or specific expertise.

I was once appointed to a new role as part of an incoming administrative team. Having already been part of the organization, I was well-prepared to understand the existing issues. The challenge, however, was in executing an “on-a-dime” transition with minimal lead time, with the announcement made just a week or two before I officially started. While this approach allowed for a quick start, it required adaptability and responsiveness to ensure continuity amidst a fast-paced change and an intense focus on relationship-building.

4. New Strategic Initiatives

Institutions also create new roles to drive strategic initiatives or address emerging needs. These positions often reflect a forward-looking vision and a high level of responsibility for achieving specific goals.

Some roles are established in response to a crisis (e.g., enrollment or financial challenges), while others are proactive moves to support institutional priorities, such as expanding research or strengthening community engagement. Candidates interested in these roles should evaluate their alignment with the position’s specific goals and the readiness for impactful, high-stakes work. It is important to be comfortable with a high-risk, high-reward "start-up" situation with minimal staff, shifting priorities, and yet-to-be-defined budgets.

I once assumed a newly created role at a system level, focused on student affairs, strategic planning, online programming, and several university-wide initiatives. This position was an elevation of an existing office, so there was an established team and budget. However, the expanded role came with an open canvas to define the goals and institutional recognition for this office. My charge was to develop new streams of work, build teams across campuses, and institutionalize the expanded mission in a way that would be recognized by the governing board. This required extensive ideation, structuring, relationship-building, and advocacy to secure the resources needed to get the new lines of work off the ground. For candidates, these roles offer the excitement of charting new directions but require a high degree of initiative, creativity, and collaboration to establish a lasting impact.

Questions for Candidates to Consider

Each of the above transition scenarios highlights how motivations—whether for stability, continuity, or rapid adaptation—inform the search process. These contextual dynamics shape not only the type of candidate an institution seeks but also the culture and expectations the new leader will encounter. As we move into future articles, I’ll refer back to these examples to illustrate how different contexts influence the interview process, onboarding, and long-term success in these roles.

In the meantime, here are some key questions to guide prospective candidates in evaluating whether the role aligns with their strengths, values, and career goals:

1. What is the reason for the vacancy? Is this a planned transition, an abrupt departure, a newly created role, or a result of a leadership change? Knowing this can provide insights into the institution’s stability, expectations, and openness to change.
2. What is the institution’s history with this position? Has the role experienced high turnover or remained stable? This can reveal potential challenges or opportunities for long-term success.
3. Is there an interim leader, and are they a candidate? Knowing if an interim is in place and eligible for the permanent role can help you evaluate the transparency of the search and the likelihood of open competition. In my experience, most if not all searches are truly open. However, it is important to keep in mind that if a hiring manager must choose between an internal and an external finalist, they cannot ignore that the pros (and cons) of appointing an internal candidate given their knowledge of the institution and relationships with stakeholders.
4. Does the institution’s culture favor internal growth or seek new perspectives? Understanding campus culture can help you determine how well your background aligns with the institution’s values, particularly if it prioritizes internal advancement or fresh approaches.
5. What are the hiring manager’s expectations for the role? The hiring manager’s vision often shapes the role’s purpose and priorities and they will have the final say in who will be appointed to the vacant position. Understanding their career trajectory and stated goals can help you gauge whether your strengths align with their strategic vision.

By considering these questions, candidates can gain a more nuanced understanding of the role’s context and the institution’s needs, making them better equipped to assess their fit.

In our next article, we’ll explore the role of the search committee and how it influences the search process from start to finish. Stay tuned as we continue to demystify the higher ed search process, providing insights to help candidates navigate with confidence and clarity.

Post augmented by AI.