Your Hiring Process Is Costing You Candidates
Finding qualified leadership candidates in higher education is difficult enough. Unfortunately, many institutions make the process even harder by moving too slowly once a strong candidate has been identified.
The position may be urgent. The vacancy may already be affecting enrollment, operations, compliance or employee morale. Yet it can still take a week or more to schedule an initial interview, another week to arrange the next conversation and several additional days to collect feedback.
By the time the institution is ready to make a decision, its strongest candidate may have accepted another opportunity—or simply lost interest.
Strong Candidates Do Not Stop Interviewing
One of the most common hiring mistakes is assuming that an interested candidate will patiently wait while an institution completes its process.
They usually won’t.
Strong candidates are often involved in multiple conversations. Even candidates who are not actively applying may become more receptive to other opportunities once they begin considering a career move.
Until an offer has been accepted, the candidate remains available to the market.
An institution may believe it is carefully evaluating its options. From the candidate’s perspective, however, long periods of silence can suggest indecision, internal dysfunction or a lack of genuine interest.
Urgency Must Be Reflected in the Process
Institutions frequently tell us that a position needs to be filled as quickly as possible. But urgency is not determined by how badly the position is needed. It is demonstrated by how quickly the institution is prepared to act.
A candidate who waits ten days for a first interview, another week for a second interview and several more days for a decision is not experiencing an urgent hiring process—regardless of how urgently the institution needs the position filled.
If a role is truly a priority, the interview process needs to be treated as one.
That means identifying the decision-makers in advance, reserving time on their calendars and establishing a realistic timeline before candidates are introduced.
The Start Date Is Often Less Flexible Than It Appears
Hiring timelines also tend to overlook what happens after the candidate accepts.
Most professionals are expected to provide at least two weeks’ notice. For senior leaders, that transition can easily become three or four weeks as they complete existing responsibilities and prepare their current institution for the departure.
Relocation can extend the timeline further.
If an institution wants a new leader to begin in four weeks but waits two weeks to conduct the first interview, the desired start date may already be unrealistic.
The timeline should be calculated backward from the intended start date and include:
- The full interview process
- Time for reference and background checks
- Offer preparation and negotiation
- The candidate’s notice period
- Any relocation requirements
A desired start date is not a hiring plan. The steps required to reach it must also fit within the available time.
Waiting for More Candidates Can Be Expensive
Another common mistake is delaying a strong candidate because the institution wants to see additional options.
Comparing candidates is reasonable. Continuing a search indefinitely after meeting someone who clearly meets the requirements is not.
There will always be another potential candidate. The question is whether that person will be more qualified, interested, affordable and available than the individual already in front of you.
Keeping a good candidate waiting while searching for a theoretically perfect candidate can result in losing both.
This does not mean institutions should rush into the wrong hire. It means they should evaluate each candidate against the requirements of the position—not against an imaginary person who may never enter the process.
How to Keep the Hiring Process Moving
A more effective process does not require lowering standards. It requires better preparation.
Before interviews begin, institutions should:
- Agree on the position’s essential qualifications.
- Identify everyone who must participate in the decision.
- Reserve interview time in advance.
- Establish who has final hiring authority.
- Confirm the approved compensation range.
- Determine which offer terms may be negotiable.
- Commit to providing feedback quickly after every interview.
Candidates should also know what to expect. A clear explanation of the interview stages and anticipated timeline creates confidence and reduces uncertainty.
When delays are unavoidable, communication matters. A brief and honest update is far better than silence.
Speed and Due Diligence Can Coexist
Moving efficiently does not mean skipping references, eliminating important interviews or making careless decisions.
It means removing unnecessary delays between those steps.
The strongest hiring processes are both thorough and decisive. They allow the institution to evaluate the candidate carefully while maintaining momentum and demonstrating genuine interest.
A well-run interview process also tells candidates something important about the institution itself. It suggests that leaders communicate, decisions can be made and priorities are taken seriously.
A disorganized process sends the opposite message.
The Bottom Line
In today’s market, identifying a strong leadership candidate is only part of the challenge. Institutions must also be prepared to keep that candidate engaged and move toward a decision.
When the hiring process stretches unnecessarily, the institution is not simply risking inconvenience. It is risking the loss of its strongest candidates, extending an expensive vacancy and potentially starting the search all over again.
If the position is truly urgent, the hiring process needs to reflect that urgency.
Ed-Exec, Inc. specializes in identifying and recruiting leadership talent for colleges, universities, career schools and education organizations. To discuss an upcoming leadership search, contact Vincent Scaramuzzo at (860) 781-7641 or visit www.ed-exec.com.