We just wrapped up interviews for the University Librarian position here at Iowa State. I wanted to take a moment to recognize all the work that goes into these types of searches. I’ve been on three sides of this process: candidate—not this level, but still interviewing for roles important to me and my future; search committee—sometimes leading and sometimes serving in the group; and non-search committee staff—providing feedback after attending open parts of the in-person interview days. No matter the outcome, each time I am blown away by not only the effort put forth by the candidates (recognizing just how much labor the candidates put into submitting materials, preparing for multiple-round, multi-day interviews, and the physical and emotional toll it can have doing the marathon schedule that is interviewing at this level), and all of the effort from staff and faculty on campus that helps get us to this point. There are layers and layers of work that need to happen:
- Communication and developing consensus around expectations for the role: are you making any changes? What things are you wanting to emphasize in the changing educational landscape? What skills do you want to attract to take your institution’s library through the next several years and create a vision for the years beyond that? How does that vision align with the institutional vision, mission, and strategic plan? What culture are they coming into? What culture shifts are they steering the ship toward? All of this consideration happens even before the position description is written and approved, let alone posted.
- Getting the word out: not only do we have standard practices for where these positions are posted (listservs, website, search firms), but there are also so many individual staff members (many not involved with the search committee responsibilities) working to ensure the posting reaches as wide of an audience as possible to build a rich pool of qualified and excited applicants.
- Consideration of the whole pool: Especially with a high-level position such as this, the search committee has intensive work that happens (usually in a tight turnaround) to examine the materials and ensure the best applicants are brought forward for consideration for first-round interviews.
- First-round interviews: Because of the level of this position, the first-round interviews typically involve more applicants than lower-level positions, meaning more complex scheduling work has to be done both between the applicants schedules and the whole search committee’s schedules. Also, depending on university practice, there could be additional time allocated for meeting with university leadership at this stage of the process. The more people involved, the more moving parts to those schedules.
- Background checks, reference checks: with the levels of position searches I’ve participated in, this typically happens as a last step after making the offer – everything’s contingent on the background check; however, with this level, I wonder if this happens before finalists are selected. Either way, at some point, the background check is run and references are contacted to learn as much about the candidates’ history and work performance as possible.
- In-person finalists: if you’re already exhausted just reading up to this point, you’re not alone! Yet the marathon of what in-person interviewing entails hasn’t even begun! For the university librarian search, candidates had two packed days (I’m talking some starting at 7AM and going through dinnertime) of meetings with university leadership; forums/presentations for campus stakeholders; breakfasts, lunches, and dinners where you’re “on” and answering and asking questions; interview sessions with prepared questions as well as in-the-moment questions from groups ranging from the search committee, library staff groups broken down by division-ish areas, advisory board members/faculty, campus student leadership representatives, and I know I’m forgetting some things. Basically, from the moment they leave their hotel room to the moment they return, they’re on and being interviewed. As someone who is very much an introvert but who can put on her extrovert hat when needed (hello 17+ years of being a camp counselor!), I know how exhausting this type of a schedule can be and am grateful for the effort all candidates put forth during those two marathon days!
- Soliciting and considering feedback: after the last interview wrapped, reminders were sent out to all who participated (as well as made available to all who are affiliated with the university) to submit evaluations/impressions of the candidates. For this position, I appreciated that the feedback form included gathering information about the level of exposure/contact you had with the candidates (ranging from: reviewed their materials to attended the forum to all of the above and attended small-group interview sessions), as well as a place to indicate one a scale level of enthusiasm/confidence you had in the candidate’s ability to lead in the role, and room for written feedback for pros/cons.
- Making recommendations to decision makers: after all of the feedback is collected, the search committee then reviews the information from the forms as well as their impressions from the sessions with the candidates. Though not on the search committee for this role, in my previous search committee experience, the group then discusses the feedback and writes out strengths and weaknesses statements for each candidate and provides an overarching recommendation to the higher power that then makes the hiring decision (in my experience it’s the committee making the recommendation to the library dean; in this case I believe it’s the committee making the recommendation to the provost).
- Accepting recommendations: the provost then considers the recommendations and either accepts the recommendation, chooses another of the top candidates, or declares it a failed search.
- Negotiation: if a candidate is chosen, then the negotiation begins. An offer is made and the hope is that they still want the position they’ve interviewed for. But now everyone in the negotiation process can start talking not in theoreticals, but instead in concrete details—usually starting with salary, benefits, work schedules/expectations, travel/fundraising support, moving expenses, support for important initiatives (from both the university and the candidate), and more. If all of that goes well and both parties feel they have reached a good agreement, it’s a go!
- Planning onboarding, timelines, gap-leadership: and then the nitty gritty logistics come into play—when will the new hire start? What does the institution need to do to support staff in the meantime to ensure operations transition smoothly? What does the institution need to do in the meantime to support the candidate’s transition into the role, including their move (connecting with local realtors? Moving companies? More?)? The reality is, someone is changing their life to come to work in this role and there’s a lot that goes along with that—and this is true of any new hire where someone is moving or starting something new to them. And, for this level of a position, the new hire will also change the lives of all of the people working in the library as they bring new ideas and approaches to this role.
All of this is to say – whoa, a lot of labor, consideration, and energy is invested into a process like this. Everyone comes together to participate in one way or another in the hopes that someone capable, considerate, invested, and innovative can come in and lead a large organization and do so in a way that deftly navigates having to answer to a lot of stakeholders from all levels. It’s important that the process be rigorous and intentional to not only ensure the best person for the job is brought to the role, but also because a lot is invested just to get to the interview process. I’m hopeful that all of the effort put forth from all parties will result in careful consideration by decision makers and a successful hire of the library’s next leader!
